Senate
18 September 1980

31st Parliament · 1st Session



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

page 1255

PETITIONS

Family Allowance

Senator HARRADINE:
TASMANIA · IND

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

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

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

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

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. Petition received and read.

Social Security Benefits

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 20 citizens of Australia:

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

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

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

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

Taxation relief for pensioners and others on low incomes by:

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

A substantial reduction in indirect taxation on consumer goods.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. Petition received and read

Life Insurance and Superannuation Contributions: Tax Deductibility

Senator ROCHER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– On behalf of Senator MacGibbon, I present the following petition from 20 citizens of Australia:

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

That the proportion of pensionable people within our community is increasing at a significant rate. The number of people of 65 years old will rise from approximately 8.5 per cent of the population as it was in 1970 to over 10 per cent by 1 990 and about 1 6 per cent by the year 2020.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Anti-discrimination Legislation

Senator GIETZELT:

– I present the following petition from 39 citizens of Australia:

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

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

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

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

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

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

National Women’s Advisory Council

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

– On behalf of my colleague, Senator Martin, I present the following petition from 32 citizens of Australia:

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

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

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

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

Your petitioners therefore 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.

Petition received and read.

Life Insurance and Superannuation Contributions: Tax Deductibility

Senator BONNER:

– I present the following petition from 40 citizens of Australia:

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

That the proportion of pensionable people within our community is increasing at a significant rate. The number of people of 65 years old will rise from approximately 8.5 per cent of the population as it was in 1970 to over 10 per cent by 1 990 and about 1 6 per cent by the year 2020.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

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

Health Insurance Contributions: Tax Deductibility

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

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

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Senator Jessop. Petition received.

Metric System

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Senator Chipp. Petition received.

National Women’s Advisory Council

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

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

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

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

Your petitioners therefore pray:

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Senator Jessop. 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 and Senator Jessop. Petitions received.

Social Security Benefits

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

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

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

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Senator Jessop. Petition received.

Education Funding

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 Federal Government did not make increased funding available for government school programs such as:

  1. . General recurrent
  2. Migrant education
  3. Disadvantaged schools
  4. Special education
  5. Capital grants
  6. Multicultural education
  7. Disadvantaged country areas
  8. Children in institutions
  9. Services and Development
  10. Education Centres
  11. 1 . Special projects but increased the money available to the non-government school sector by 5.9%.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should restore and increase substantially, in real terms, the allocation of funds for government school programs.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Senator Jessop. Petition received.

Family Allowance

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

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

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

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

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

Petition received.

Plant Breeders’ Rights

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

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

    1. Virtual monopoly control of seed production has passed into the hands of a few large international corporations seeking to profit from the exclusive rights over plant genetic materials created by such legislation.
    2. The varieties of seeds available have been restricted mainly to hybrids which will not reproduce truly and will not grow without the aid of artificial fertilizers and pesticides, thus maximising corporate profits without regard for the interests of growers and consumers.
    3. The genetic diversity of crops has been eroded, rendering them vulnerable to disease and other environmental threats.
  2. Recognize that maintenance of the genetic diversity of plant varieties is crucial to the continued well-being of the Australian Nation, and take all necessary steps to preserve and promote such genetic diversity as a public resource and to prevent exclusive control over plant genetic materials from falling into private hands.
  3. Defend the vital interests of Australian farmers and gardeners, independent Australian seed companies and their employees, and consumers of Australian farm and garden produce, by rejecting any proposal to legislate for the establishment of plant breeders’ rights in Australia.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Senator Jessop. Petition received.

Aboriginal Rights Treaty

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

Whereas before Europeans settled in Australia, the Aboriginal peoples of Australia had lived on their traditional lands from time immemorial and had in Aboriginal law and customs a clear title to those lands; and whereas Europeans and other non-Aboriginal people have occupied and used most of the traditional lands of the Aboriginal peoples against their will and without negotiation, compensation or treaty, and whereas it has been the practice of nations established in territories previously occupied by indigenous inhabitants to reach a negotiated settlement with those inhabitants; and whereas that occupation has seriously damaged the traditional way of life of Aboriginal Australians and has caused poverty and hardship to be the fate of the great majority of their surviving descendants; and whereas the surviving descendants of the Aboriginal peoples have expressed a wish to have their rights to land acknowledged, to preserve their link with their Aboriginal ancestors and to maintain their distinctive identity with its own cultural heritage; and whereas the people of Australia in 1 967 voted overwhelmingly that the Commonwealth Parliament should have responsibility for laws relating to Aboriginal Australians; and whereas it is accepted internationally by the United Nations organisation, that each country should work to establish the rights of indigenous peoples to selfdetermination, non-discrimination and the enjoyment of their own culture; and whereas the Woodward Commission in 1974 established principles by which Aboriginal rights to land should be acknowledged and realised; and whereas the Senate of the Commonwealth Parliament in February 1 97S resolved that Aboriginal Australians should be compensated for the loss of their traditional lands and for the damage to their way of life; and whereas the National Aboriginal Conference unanimously resolved in April 1 979 in Canberra to ask the Commonwealth Government to negotiate a Treaty with Aboriginal Australians.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government should invite the Aboriginal people of Australia to negotiate a Treaty with the Commonwealth of Australia, and any Treaty should contain provisions relating to the following matters: (i) The protection of Aboriginal identity, languages, law and culture, (ii) The recognition and restoration of rights to land by applying, throughout Australia, the recommendations of the Woodward Commission, (iii) The conditions governing mining and exploitation of other natural resources on Aboriginal land, (iv) Compensation to Aboriginal Australians for the loss of traditional lands and for damage to those lands and to their traditional way of life, (v) The right of Aboriginal Australians to control their own affairs and to establish their own associations for this purpose.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Senator Jessop. Petition received.

page 1258

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1258

QUESTION

TELEVISION

Senator RYAN:
ACT

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. After the self-regulation report of 1976 of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, which recommended government regulation of television in the areas of advertising, Australian content and children’s television, and after repeated assurances by the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, Tony Staley, of the Government’s acceptance of these recommendations, can the Minister explain why the Government has failed to take any legislative steps to implement these recommendations and, in particular, has failed to improve the regulation of children’s television?

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

– The matter of the regulation of children’s television has been before the Senate on a number of occasions, always in the context of the excellent report brought down by Senator Davidson, which is nearly as good as the excellent report, as Senator Ryan described it, which he brought down on a more recent Bill. There are provisions relating to children’s television with respect to the sorts of programs which are shown in certain viewing hours and so on. Obviously the honourable senator would like to have a more detailed and more authoritative reply. I will ask Mr Staley to provide it as a farewell gesture to her.

page 1258

QUESTION

UNITED STATES AIRCRAFT: ACCESS TO AUSTRALIAN BASES

Senator TEAGUE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. What stage have negotiations reached with the United States Government for B52 bombers to have access to Australian bases? In the light of these negotiations, is there any credibility at all in the Opposition’s claim that the United States Ambassador is not fussed by the Hayden-Hartley view on this important matter of the defence of Australia?

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

– The United States request for Australian Government agreement for the staging through Australia of extended nights into the Indian Ocean by B52 aircraft is under consideration. It must be seen against the background of the common American-Australian objective of deterrence of Soviet expansionism. Whilst the main burden must fall on the United

States, countries dedicated to freedom have a responsibility to do what they can, singly or collectively, to deny the Soviet Union any further opportunity for military expansion, lt is important that Australia should lend America what assistance it can.

The aircraft operations involve sea surveillance over the Indian Ocean. These missions are already being conducted by America. The proposed use of an Australian staging facility would considerably reduce the crews’ continuous flying time on these surveillance missions. It would enable aircraft to stay on station longer and would reduce requirements for in-flight refuelling. The Australian Government has given agreement in principle to the United States proposal, subject to the outcome of negotiations now taking place between Australian and United States defence authorities. Consultation with and prior consent of the Australian Government would be needed for any proposed use of staging facilities in Australia for operations of a different kind.

The Australian Government would have to be in agreement with the tactical and strategic objectives of any United States operation mounted from Australian soil. Against that background of prior consent, the Australian Government would have to be consulted if it were proposed that aircraft carrying nuclear weapons fly over Australia. However, the Government accepts the general practice of not announcing whether a military vessel or aircraft is armed with nuclear or other weapons.

I have no knowledge of the Ambassador’s reaction. I simply say that the Labor Party is in conflict on this matter, with two spokesmen saying entirely different things. Mr Scholes has said that it would be all right and the Deputy Leader of the Labor Party has said the contrary; that it must be of grave concern. He is reported as follows:

But the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Mr Lionel Bowen, said on July 1 1 that people should be ‘alarmed’ at the proposal.

He said there would be very few people who would agree Australians would be ‘delighted’ to have American armed forces in their country.

That could not be more out of step with the memory of the Australian people. In the 1940s only the existence of the American armed forces on Australian soil allowed Australia to survive and remain free.

Senator McLaren:

Mr President, under Standing Order 363 I ask that the Minister table the documents from which he quoted.

Senator Carrick:

– I am happy to table the document. I also read from a newspaper article. If that needs to be tabled, I am happy to do it.

page 1259

QUESTION

PAYMENTS TO TASMANIA

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

– Is the Minister representing the Treasurer aware that according to the Federal Treasurer, Mr Howard, total payments to Tasmania in the three years of the Labor Government increased by 127.3 per cent and in the first three years of the present Government increased by 1 8.6 per cent? Is he also aware that, according to Mr Howard, the average yearly consumer price index increase in the three years of the Labor Government was 13.2 per cent and in the first three years of the Fraser Government it was 1 1 .2 per cent? Do not Mr Howard’s figures show two things: Firstly, that Tasmania received a much more generous deal under the previous Government than it has received under this Government, and, secondly, that total payments to Tasmania in the three years of this Government have not kept up with inflation?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I am not aware of the statements attributed to Mr Howard. Therefore, I cannot comment on either of the two sets of figures. I believe that any reasonable review would show that Tasmania must have had a generous supply of funds from the tax sharing arrangements, otherwise in previous Budgets it could not have done the things it did, including cutting taxes. I notice that Tasmania is now complaining that it must bring in a so-called horror Budget. The test of that is very simple. If Tasmania felt that it was not getting a fair deal it could go to the Grants Commission to seek further funds. It has not done so. Therefore, it must feel that it cannot sustain that claim. I am not aware of the figures referred to by Senator Wriedt. I believe that any careful analysis will show that the Tasmanian Government, along with other governments, has had a very fair deal over recent years.

Senator WRIEDT:

– I ask a supplementary question. The Minister’s argument is not with me or the Opposition. Obviously, it is with the Treasurer. Is the Minister challenging the accuracy of Mr Howard’s figures? I will seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard the figures which I have quoted from a letter from Mr Howard to me on 1 4 January this year and from his answer to my question No. 2210. Does the Minister not concede that, according to Mr Howard, the Commonwealth’s total payments to Tasmania increased by 18.6 per cent in the first three years of the Fraser Government - very similar figures apply to the other States of the Commonwealth- and that the rate of inflation was 33.6 per cent? Will the Minister stop this charade in which he has been engaging for the past four years, that the State governments have been getting a better deal under this Government than they were under the previous Government?

Senator CARRICK:

– I am bound to say that the supplementary question was identical to the original question; it was simply a mirror image of that question. I said that I had not seen the figures, so obviously I was not challenging them, accepting them or denying them. I am perfectly happy to have the figures incorporated in Hansard. Let me respond to the question by saying that under the Whitlam Labor Government all States had to increase their taxes very heavily and to go into a deficit situation. The Labor Premier of South Australia stated that he was forced into unprecedented tax rises and that he and South Australia were getting a very bad deal from the Whitlam Government. He said that the solution would be tax sharing - that is, a percentage of personal income tax. That was the picture under Labor. In fact, Labor kept its centralist funding policy.

This Government has given a percentage share of personal income tax. In the first of the four years of this Government, States were able to cut taxes and to achieve either a no deficit situation or a surplus. There has been a complete reversal of the previous situation. Indeed the States and local government have had a very fair deal indeed from this Government. As I have said, they have been able to increase their numbers of public servants by tens of thousands, thereby showing their ability to spend hundreds of millions of dollars more. On the other hand, the Commonwealth, in order to be frugal and to get a good anti-inflationary position, has maintained staff levels in the Public Service; indeed, it has lowered them. All the evidence points to the fact that the States have had a better deal. That could not be better evidenced than by the fact that the former Labor Premier of South Australia, Mr Dunstan, condemned the Labor Party and the Whitlam Government in which Senator Wriedt was a Minister.

The PRESIDENT:

– Is leave granted for the tables to be incorporated in Hansard, as sought by Senator Wriedt?

Leave granted.

page 1260

QUESTION

NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT STRATEGY FOR ABORIGINALS

Senator BONNER:

– I draw the attention of the Minister for Aboriginal Affiairs to a report on AM this morning that an application by a Western Australian State parliamentarian, Mr Peter Dowding, M.L.C., to employ an Aboriginal girl in his electorate office under the national employment strategy for Aboriginals has been refused by the Deputy Premier, Mr O’Connor, his reason being that there is not sufficient scope for training in a member’s office. Does the Minister not agree that this reason is rather weak and perhaps political, as a number of Federal members and senators, including myself, are employing Aboriginal girls under this scheme, with some success for the girls?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I did hear the broadcast this morning which dealt with this matter. It is true, as Senator Bonner has said, that there are a number of precedents in the Federal area for the use of this scheme to place young Aboriginal office workers for job experience. Mr Michael Baume was the first member to take advantage of this scheme in his office on the south coast. Senator Peter Baume, I understand, has someone working for him. Senator Bonner also has such an employee.

Senator Colston:

– And me.

Senator CHANEY:

– And Senator Colston.

Senator Coleman:

– And Senator Melzer.

Senator CHANEY:

– Apparently there is a bevy of senators and members who have taken advantage of the scheme, no doubt to the advantage of the Aboriginal employees concerned. The matter is administered by the Department of Employment and Youth Affairs. I understand that that Department has the responsibility for determining whether or not the placement would be one which provided a satisfactory training environment. That is the point which has been raised by the State Government in challenging the suggestion by Mr Dowding that he should employ somebody. I will ask Mr Viner to have his Department examine the position to see whether the scheme can be usefully extended to Western Australia in this way.

I should make clear, I think, that in the broadcast I heard Mr O’Connor made it clear that the State Government was in favour of providing this work experience. He suggested that it might be obtained in government departments, and I would acknowledge that the State Office of the North West does co-operate with my own Department in providing training for Aboriginals in the Kimberley area. But it is the concern of the Government that the maximum number of Aboriginal people should get out of the situation in which so many of them are in which they do not have work experience and they are unable, therefore, to get jobs on the labour market. We are anxious to promote this scheme, and I will see that the point raised by Senator Bonner is followed up.

page 1261

QUESTION

MINING PROJECTS: EMPLOYMENT

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for National Development and Energy. Before asking my question, may I preface it in this way: In the current discussions about relief of the record level of unemployment in Australia there has been a lot of talk by Government spokesmen about how relief will be obtained by the development of mining projects. I refer the Minister to a question I asked him on 28 April about the multiplier effect on employment of the development of mining projects. In the answer to that question the Minister said:

A series of estimates on a number of mining projects is made by the Department of Employment and Youth Affairs. Similar estimates are made by my Department.

The Minister went on to say:

I have some estimates of the foreshadowed Rundle project . . .

He referred to the employment of families, the creation of societies and neighbourhoods and the multiplier effect. The Minister said:

It might be desirable if I were to get some examples of projected developments and let Senator Button have them.

I was then told that I would be given those projections as soon as possible. I refer to the fact that that question was asked on 28 April and that I have twice since asked the Minister for the figures which he says he has, and the study results which he says he has. They have not been provided to me. I ask him what is the reason for that.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I apologise to Senator Button that an answer has not been given to him. It is not that we would not happily supply it. The picture of the developmental expansion of Australia in the years ahead under a Liberal philosophy government emerges more strongly every day. Senator Button cannot have failed to note, particularly from the reports in the Australian Financial Review, that authoritative reports are placing the developmental investments far higher than this Government had projected. This is so not only in mining but also in manufacturing and other developments. I regret very much that the question has not been answered. I will look into the matter immediately and see what can be done quickly.

page 1261

QUESTION

COAL LIQUEFACTION

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for National Development and Energy whether he has seen reports of the study recently completed by the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd on the feasibility of a $2,000m coal to oil conversion plant which would produce more than 100,000 barrels of petroleum products? Is it a fact that the company believes that the economics of proceeding with such a project are approaching acceptable limits? If this is so, can the Minister say whether the Government’s import parity pricing policy has helped to bring this project to commencement?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I am aware of the work being undertaken and of the projections by companies, including the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd, in regard to coal liquefaction. I am aware of the very heavy projected capital investments that are necessary for it. I had generally taken as a rule that if one wanted to produce 100,000 barrels of synthetic crude oil a day, whether from shale or from coal, capital investment all up in present prices would be higher than that, and probably would be about $4m, but it would be a very happy state of affairs if that could be lower.

The fact is that not only BHP but also a series of other companies, including Japanese and West German interests, are interested in coal liquefaction, including brown coal liquefaction. All these interests have said emphatically that the costs of undertaking these huge projects are very high indeed, but they are willing to proceed with the investment on one ground; that is, that the price of oil in this country continue to be at the scarcity international price and that we continue to implement the policy that the International Energy Agency says is fundamental to all energy programs in the world. These companies, including Rundle, have all said that they are willing to invest and to go ahead if import parity prevails, but if anything less were to prevail their costs would be too high and they could not proceed. Of course, that is why, if Australia wants synthetic oil for the future, it is imperative that import parity prevail.

1988 OLYMPIC GAMES

Senator CHIPP:
VICTORIA

– 1 ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate a question concerning the bid by the city of Melbourne to stage the 1988 Olympic Games. Provided the city of Melbourne and the State of Victoria can present a reasonable financial proposition to the Commonwealth Government, will the Government give every encouragement to them to bring Australia its second Olympic Games?

Senator CARRICK:

– 1 am sure that the Commonwealth Government would want the Olympic Games staged in Australia, if that were possible. I am sure, therefore, that it will look sympathetically at any reasonable approach which should come before it in regard to future Olympic Games.

1988 OLYMPIC GAMES

Senator KNIGHT:
ACT

– I direct a question on the same subject as that just raised by Senator Chipp to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs. 1 refer to a statement that that Minister issued on 1 6 September in which he said:

The Federal Government has established an Interdepartmental Committee to consider the Olympic Games for Melbourne Committee’s submission on the holding of the 1988 Olympic Games in Melbourne.

Since 1988 will be a year of great significance to Australia as a whole, and particularly to Sydney as the site of the first European settlement in Australia and to Canberra as the national capital, will the Government give some consideration to a variation of the proposal which has been put to it; for example, that the Olympic Games, if they are to be hosted in Australia, might be shared? Melbourne has already hosted one Olympic Games, and has done it very well. Could consideration be given to the possibility of proposing a shared Olympic Games between Sydney as the site of the first European settlement in Australia, Canberra as the national capital, and Melbourne as the city which has hosted and is now proposing that it should again host the Olympic Games? Will the

Minister ensure that the interdepartmental committee which has been established will consult with the Melbourne committee, with the Australian Olympic Federation and, if necessary, with the International Olympic Federation on this proposal?

Honourable senators:

Honourable senators interjecting

Senator DURACK:
Attorney-General · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– It is really quite strange to hear the objections that seem to be emanating from the Opposition in relation to Senator Knight’s question to me. It seemed to me to be a very reasonable and sensible question to submit. Senator Chipp has already raised the matter and the Leader of the Government in the Senate has indicated the Government’s sympathy with the question of the Olympic Games being held in Australia in 1988. The proposal is that the Games be held in Melbourne where they were held in 1956. Senator Knight raises the question of whether the Games should be considered in a somewhat different form. Quite rightly he raises a question concerning Canberra, which would have the facilities, I believe, without any additional expenditure having to be made, to conduct some of the events, particularly in the athletics field. It seems to me to be a very sensible and reasonable proposition. The honourable senator simply asks whether the Minister for the Capital Territory would consider a variation of the proposal and put it to study by the interdepartmental committee. That is all he is asking. If there is any greater protagonist for the Australian Capital Territory than Senator Knight it would be the Minister for the Capital Territory. I am sure that he will accept very sympathetically the suggestion put by Senator Knight and I will submit it to him promptly.

page 1262

QUESTION

INTEREST RATES

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I remind the Senate of Mr Fraser’s statement in December 1977 in which he said:

  1. . once the election is over, we will start to move to the consummation of a two per cent reduction in interest rates and that means about $500 a year for someone on an average home loan.

I ask whether it is not a fact that housing finance interest rates have risen by about 1 1 per cent since December 1977, so the person on the ‘average home loan’, whom Mr Fraser mentioned, is now almost $400 worse off than in 1977 or about $900 worse off than the Prime Minister promised.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The Prime Minister did indicate an intention to lower interest rates. In fact, in the ensuing year or year and a half interest rates did fall. They fell to the extent of about H per cent.

Opposition senators interjecting -

Senator CARRICK:

– I repeat that in the ensuing period–

Senator Grimes:

– And today is Monday!

Senator Walsh:

– Say it three times.

Senator Button:

– Tell us again.

The PRESIDENT:

– Honourable senators are all anxious to ask questions. I know that from the disappointment expressed to me that the call to ask a question is not given them. If honourable senators would cease interjecting and listen to the answers to questions submitted, we would get through more questions and get more information.

Senator CARRICK:

– In the ensuing period, in fact, interest rates fell to the extent of about 1J per cent. The fact of the matter is that overseas quite unprecedented rises occurred both in inflation rates and in interest rates, to the point that interest rates in the United States of America and the United Kingdom reached unprecedented heights. This caused pressure upon Australian interest rates. It is true that if there is an increase in interest rates home owners are affected but the important thing for home owners has been that we have been able to lower the inflation rate from the rate prevailing in 1975 so that the pressure of inflation on the total cost of a home, which is the imperative question - that is, the rate of increase in the total capital cost of a home - is much less today than it was in the past. Our thrust is to help the home buyer by beating inflation and, therefore, lowering the overall impact of the cost of a home.

Senator PRIMMER:

– I ask a supplementary question. In view of the long list of broken promises on this and other matters, what credibility does the Leader of the Government in the Senate expect the Prime Minister to have in this election?

Senator CARRICK:

– I do not think that this matter is within my portfolio. Just as in 1975 and 1977 the Australian electors accepted the credibility of Mr Fraser and rejected that of the Labor Government, so a similar thing will happen on 1 8 October, and indeed in a more resounding fashion.

page 1263

QUESTION

URANIUM

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I direct a question to the Minister for National Development and Energy concerning the future of uranium mining in the Northern Territory. Is the Minister aware of media reports recently that Mr Cliff Dolan, President-elect of the Australian Council of

Trade Unions, travelled to Darwin and called a meeting seeking support for the ACTU policy of resisting the mining and development of uranium? It was reported that that meeting was attended by only two people out of a population of some 55,000. Is this an indication that employees involved in uranium mining also wish to dissociate themselves from this move for possible strike action and seek not to be implicated in disrupting uranium mining, which would inevitably cause considerable unemployment, industrial chaos, and consequently lower standards of living?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I have seen Press reports that Mr Dolan, whether in his Australian Council of Trade Unions capacity or in his Electrical Trades Union capacity, went to the Northern Territory. It is known that Mr Dolan is opposed to any form of uranium mining in Australia. I understand that he received virtually a total rejection by the people of the Northern Territory, and that the employees of the uranium province there made it very clear that they wanted to be left alone and not interfered with in the development of uranium and of their work. Nothing could be clearer than that message. It is true that if this approach by Mr Dolan were to continue it would threaten employment.

I want to put it in relation to a more major situation. The whole world outside is in a critical state of energy hunger. The whole world outside urgently needs energy which it has not got. The attempt by the Australian Labor Party to deny to the world outside vital energy which it needs to maintain its living standards is, in my strongest view, a most destructive thing. In other words, it is the duty and obligation of the Australian people to look at the world outside, to see the perilous state of the countries outside in their acute shortage of energy, and to extend a helping hand to give them that energy. There is no way in which coal on its own can be got in quick enough time or in large enough volume to help. The great danger is that unless energy is given to the countries outside in the right proportions, and quickly, the world will become both politically and economically destabilised. The Labor Party, by the action it is taking, is threatening the economic and political stability of the world in its energy crisis.

page 1263

QUESTION

ELECTION CAMPAIGN: BROADCASTING TIME

Senator HARRADINE:
TASMANIA

– I raise a question with the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. I do so because of the relatively large viewing audience the Australian Broadcasting Commission has in my State.

Is the Minister aware that the ABC has allotted four and a half hours to both the Liberal Party and the Australian Labor Party for their election campaigns in Tasmania, one hour to the Australian Democrats, and nothing to Tasmania’s only independent senator?

Senator Mulvihill:

– How much for the Labor Party?

Senator HARRADINE:

– The Labor Party has been allocated four and a half hours. In view of the Mackerras forecast of a tight Senate next year, is the Minister aware of the concentration on the Senate campaign in my State by his party machine? Is he aware that, therefore, the ABC guidelines will give unfair advantage to the Liberal Party’s third team member, who is not a member of this Parliament, and that, similarly, it will give unfair advantage to all the Australian Labor Party Senate candidates, none of whom is a member of this Parliament? Is the Minister aware that in 1975 my vote was 21 times greater than that received by the Australian Democrats in 1977 and that the Australian Democrats Senate candidate on this occasion stands to gain unfair advantage because of the ABC guidelines? Does the Minister consider that in all those circumstances the ABC guidelines are fair? Does he consider that the guidelines are in accordance with the Constitution, which does not stipulate that party names should be indicated on the ballot paper? Does he not consider that the guidelines discriminate against sitting members of the Parliament who are not members of political parties and who come from the smaller States? If so, will the Minister raise the matter with the ABC?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– 1 am in the luxurious position of being able to say yes to the question because it does not directly impinge upon my party. So I think I can agree with the honourable senator that, on the facts he has outlined to the Senate, it does not sound as though he is getting a fair deal. My understanding is that the guidelines are in the hands of the ABC, but of course that does not prevent our having an opinion on the matters the honourable senator raised. I will make some inquiries to see whether it is in fact as I believe it to be; that is, a matter solely within the discretion of the ABC. I certainly will draw to the attention of the Australian Broadcasting Commission the facts to which the honourable senator has drawn our attention and ask it to look at the matter in the light of those facts.

Although it always is very difficult for all of us to judge matters of fairness when those matters affect our electoral fortune, I think we would all subscribe to the very broad general principle that we do think that the system should be fair. I thoroughly disagree with Senator Harradine in one respect. I do not believe that the rules as he outlined them are unfair to sitting members of the Parliament who are not members of a political party. The fact of the matter can be only that the rules are unfair to a sitting member of the Parliament who is not a member of a political party, he being a unique animal in this place.

page 1264

QUESTION

PHOTO-DRIVER LICENCES

Senator WATSON:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs. In view of a recent McNairAnderson survey which found that 85 per cent of Australians favoured the introduction of photodriver licences, can the Minister say whether the Government is contemplating the introduction of photo-driver licences in the Australian Capital Territory? Does the Minister agree that a photograph on a driver’s licence not only would be a convenient and sure form of identification generally but also would lead to increased road safety as disqualified drivers would not be able to use other people’s licences. Does the Minister agree that photo-driver licences would also provide a positive identification at the time of an accident? Does the Minister agree that ordinary law-abiding motorists have nothing to fear from such an identity card?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I am not aware of the survey to which Senator Watson referred but it certainly is an interesting one. I will refer the question to the Minister for the Capital Territory who has responsibility for this matter.

page 1264

QUESTION

ABORIGINALS: NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING SYSTEM

Senator COLEMAN:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs. It follows on from the question asked of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs by Senator Bonner earlier regarding the national employment strategy for Aboriginals. In the publicity sheet which was sent out on 20 May 1 980 by the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs under the section headed ‘What is involved in getting an Aboriginal NEAT trainee?’, the Minister stated:

Selection of candidates for training as NEAT Trainees involves officers of the Department of Employment and Youth Affairs (normally the Vocational Officers of the Aboriginal Employment and Training Branch). These officers will be responsible for assessing the training needs of each applicant and drawing up a statement of training requirements.

In view of that statement by the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, does the Minister agree that the comments made by Mr O’Connor are a serious reflection on the capacity of the officers of the Department of Employment and Youth Affairs in Western Australia adequately to assess the needs for the training of those people who are successful applicants under the National Employment and Training system for employment in offices of members of parliament?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I will refer that question to the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs.

page 1265

QUESTION

BUNDA GAME PROCESSORS LTD

Senator PUPLICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs received representations on behalf of and seen reports connected with the problems affecting the Aboriginal enterprise, Bunda Game Processors Ltd of Nyngan in New South Wales? Has this company invested a large amount of money in the development of a kangaroo meat processing works? If fully operational would Bunda be the largest Aboriginal private enterprise business in Australia? Is the success of the business dependent upon the grant to Bunda of a Fauna Dealer (Kangaroo) Wholesalers Licence and has the State Government reneged on a promise made by one of Mr Wran’s Ministers on 14 January that such a licence would be forthcoming?

Finally, has the managing director of the company, Mr Keith Saunders, been reported in the newspapers as saying that while the Labor Party was compaigning for the Castlereagh byelection, it promised that if Bunda helped to deliver the Labor vote among Aborigines the Labor Party would in fact look after Bunda in this and other matters; but that it has now been told that the licence in question, the only one left in New South Wales, is to be put out to tender and that there are 60 tenderers including much bigger financial operators than Bunda? Can the Minister act to help this worthwhile Aboriginal enterprise in my State which has been clearly sold down the river by Mr Wran?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I am not able to say whether Bunda Game Processors Ltd, has made large investments to date. That is not information which is within my knowledge or, on my last inquiry, within the knowledge of my Department. It may be potentially the largest employer of Aboriginal labour but I have no information which would suggest that that is its present status. What information I have suggests that there is a proposal that this company should become active in the area mentioned by the honourable senator in his question.

There was, of course, some publicity about this matter some time ago. I heard Senator Puplick in, I think, an adjournment debate or a first reading debate a few days ago setting out some of the facts which he has raised again in his question. As a result, I made some inquiries and it does appear that there was some suggestion from the New South Wales Government that Bunda would be able to get the necessary licence to operate in this field and it does appear that at the moment there is considerable doubt about its being able to get that licence. I am not in a position to confirm or deny whether promises or suggestions were made that by delivery of the Aboriginal vote the licence would be assured. Mr Saunders is apparently claiming that the condition was satisfied on the Aboriginal side and the Aboriginal vote was delivered. I am not in a position to confirm or deny that either. The fact is that my Department and, as far as I know, the Aboriginal Development Commission, have not received a formal request for assistance from this group and hence we do not have a deal of the specific information which the honourable senator has requested.

Again, we are approaching the silly season in politics and all of us, I suppose, are concerned about our electoral prospects. But I think that all honourable senators at least ought to acknowledge publicly that the suggestion that there ought to be some direct relationship between voting and this sort of provision of a licence is something that we would wish to see avoided. I hope that if there is a real possibility of providing substantial employment in part of western New South Wales, an area where there are serious employment difficulties among Aboriginal people, the New South Government will look to what was apparently its earlier promise to allow these people to have the appropriate licence and that the New South Wales Government will do something to put both its licence and its money where its mouth was and will do something to ensure that this Aboriginal enterprise can get under way. But as I understand it, at this stage the matter is at the proposal level. It does appear that if the licence is not available the operation will be aborted and as, I have said, in an area where there are substantial problems for Aboriginal employment that would be a pity.

page 1265

QUESTION

CRUDE OIL PRICES

Senator TATE:
TASMANIA

– Has the Minister for National Development and Energy seen or heard reports that the Saudis have agreed to raise the price of their crude oil by $2 a barrel? Did the Prime Minister state this morning that this will have only ‘a marginal effect’ on Australian prices? Given the

Government’s current policy whereby every petrol pump is used to extract revenue from the average Australian motorist, I ask: Does the Government intend to increase the burden on the motorist before or after 1 8 October? Would the increase be in the region of lc to 1.5c a litre? Would such an increase raise some $250m for the Government’s coffers?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– No official report has yet been received from the meeting of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries, but I did hear that it is unofficially reported that Saudi Arabia intends to increase its price by $US2 a barrel to SUS30 a barrel. If that is so, there will be an increase of $ A 1.08 a barrel, because of currency differences, and the price of oil in Australia will be $28.58 a barrel at current exchange and freight rates. We will be making adjustments in January and July in our normal course, although that arrangement is flexible. That means that in January there would be an increase in the price of Australian petrol of between about 0.7c and 0.8c a litre.

So, the answer is: No, the OPEC increase will not result in an increase of lc to 1.5c a litre. I remind honourable senators of the predictions of the Australian Labor Party. Mr Keating said last year that this year there would be an increase of 7c. In fact, there was an increase of about 1 .5c. He foreshadowed the other day that there would be an increase of 3c or 4c by January. There will be an increase of less than a cent. That is the fact that is before us at this moment. There will not be an increase before the beginning of January. It will be a very marginal increase. I ask the Australian people to take no notice of wild rumours about prices. All such predictions have proved to be very wrong indeed.

Senator TATE:

– I ask a supplementary question. I ask the Minister to deal with the last part of my question. He might like to correct me on my prediction of how much revenue would be raised by the Government. Would he, on the basis of the figures that he has had his Department provide, tell the Senate how many tens or hundreds of millions of dollars extra in government revenue would be generated by the 0.8c a litre increase?

Senator CARRICK:

– I am very sorry. It was an oversight on my part. In a half year, probably about $60m, and in a full year about $120m, of extra revenue would be generated. Those figures need refining, give or take a little. It is suggested by Labor interjection that this would be the Government taxing the people at the petrol pump. I remind the Senate of Mr Keating’s reported statement that the resources tax of

Labor would, indeed, be a taxing of the people at the petrol pump.

page 1266

QUESTION

COAL LIQUEFACTION

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for National Development and Energy, follows a question about coal liquefaction which was asked earlier by Senator Young, ls the Minister in a position to report on the progress being made by the Government with respect to consultations with the West German consortium on this technology? Is he aware that in South Africa SASOL has been operating commercial plants for converting coal to oil since 1945 and that within two years it will be processing 28 million tonnes of ore? As the technique employed in those plants is an adaptation of the German Fischer-Tropsch flash pyrolysis process and as South Africa is the only country operating this sort of process commercially, has the Government sought any advice from the South African Government with respect to this process? Does the Minister know whether all Australian coals, particularly the types found in South Australia, could be processed in this way? Finally, can he also say what the position is with respect to research and development into shale oil technology, particularly in relation to the Government’s import parity pricing policy?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

Senator Jessop asked a series of detailed and important questions. There has been continuous discussion between Australia and West Germany, and other countries, as to coal liquefaction processes. Samples of Australian coal of various kinds have been exported to West Germany. Research is continuing. Discussions are going on at the moment. I am hopeful that in the immediate weeks ahead they can be brought to specific fulfilment in regard to certain projects that might be contemplated. I am aware and the Government is aware of the South African SASOL process and the fact that it has apparently been successful. The Government has that technology available to it because it is also used elsewhere. There are a number of ways of extracting oil from coal, including hydrogenation and pyrolysis. We have knowledge of the SASOL process and we are in the process of bringing to fulfilment discussions not only with West Germany but also with other countries.

I am not aware of whether all South Australian coal can be the subject of liquefaction. Obviously there is a question of economic viability in that regard. Some coals yield considerably more oil than others. I think that oil can be obtained from all coal, but the amount can vary very greatly. In fact, in experimentation in America at the moment, through the hydrogenation process as much as three to 31 barrels of oil is being obtained from a tonne of coal. I have heard figures of two barrels or even less from other processes. We are closely in touch with developments. A very great deal of research and development is being done on shale. The techniques of getting oil from shale are not new. For example, Hitler’s Germany largely used shale oil for its war effort. Other countries are producing oil from shale now.

page 1267

QUESTION

COAL EXPORTS

Senator EVANS:
VICTORIA

– Has the Minister for National Development and Energy seen various reported comments over the last month, most recently in yesterday’s Australian Financial Review, from Mr John Menadue, Australia’s retiring Ambassador to Japan, to the effect that the Utah company has been acting manifestly against Australia’s interests in its pricing of coal exports to Japan? It has written contracts for steaming coal at around SIS a tonne less than the price that the market could easily bear, it has seriously depressed the Australian coking coal export market and while doing all this, in common with other foreign companies exploiting Australia’s resources, it has refused to give, as Mr Menadue said, the Australian Government the time of day. Does the Minister accept the validity of these criticisms? Do they not confirm the lunacy of the Commonwealth’s capitulation to Court and Bjelke-Petersen last year on the setting of minimum prices? What, if anything, has the Government done to counter the country’s being ripped off in this way by companies like Utah?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I have not seen the report but I will certainly make it my business to see it. Therefore, I cannot confirm or deny what Mr Menadue said. Nor can I confirm that the substance, in part or whole, is accurate. The matter comes within the portfolio of the Minister for Trade and Resources whom I represent in this chamber. I can only say that the policy of the Commonwealth Government is to ensure the maximum price benefit possible for all Australian exports, including minerals and energy exports. Since the matter has been brought to my attention I will refer it to the Minister in another place for study.

page 1267

QUESTION

PETROL PRICES

Senator NEAL:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for National Development and Energy. In view of the considerable interest in country areas of Australia in the issue of petrol prices, can the Minister comment on the abolition of the differential between city and country retail petrol prices as proposed by the Opposition?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The question of deciding what would be the cost of abolishing the differential depends upon a number of factors. If it can be taken that the normal gap- that is, the retail mark-up gap between city and country prices - is of the order of 6c to 7c a litre, that is a basis on which we can comment. That would have to be accepted or rejected. Secondly, we would have to make another assumption, and that is whether we were referring to all country sales of motor spirit or to sales through retail outlets only. We must bear in mind that in the country motor spirit is sold in bulk as well as through retail outlets. The best calculation that can be made is that, if we take the assumption that the differential between the two is 7c, and assuming we were able in some way to equalise that retail differential, then, taking all country sales into account, that would cost the taxpayers of Australia something in the order of $475m a year. If the calculation were made in relation to sales made through retail outlets only - I take it that is not the policy- then the figure would be in the order of $220m a year. I can only say that it depends upon an analysis of the nature of the policy. Either way, it would cost some hundreds of millions of dollars and would add to the long string of policy promises whose cost goes well beyond the $2,000m.

page 1267

QUESTION

NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT SCHEME FOR ABORIGINALS

Senator ROBERTSON:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– Does the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs agree with his Western Australian colleagues that an electorate office is an inappropriate place for an Aboriginal youth to gain work experience? Does he suggest that those of us who are providing this opportunity cease doing so?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I have already answered a question on this matter today. I indicated that a large number of members and senators do employ Aboriginal people in their electorate offices. Obviously this practice follows an assessment by the Department of Employment and Youth Affairs that those offices are satisfactory for that purpose. In my earlier answer I undertook to refer the matter to the Department, pointing out that the statement which I had heard of the State Minister concerned was that the Western Australian Ministers were happy to be involved in these sorts of training programs. Their challenge was to the suitability of the particular office. That is a matter which I think needs to be examined. There was nothing implicit or explicit in my reply which suggested that I want to cease the experiments which are at present under way in members’ offices. Indeed I would be very happy to join the group. I think it is a very worthwhile activity.

page 1268

QUESTION

HOUSING LOANS INSURANCE CORPORATION

Senator MacGIBBON:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction. As it is now over 12 months since the Treasurer and the Minister for Housing and Construction announced that the assets and business of the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation would be sold, I ask: What progress has been made? Does the Government still propose to go ahead with the sale?

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLEThe question raises a matter on which I have no information. I will refer it to the Minister and obtain a reply.

page 1268

QUESTION

AGE PENSIONS

Senator SIBRAA:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Minister for Social Security, in correspondence to the Secretary of the Australasian Society of Engineers, Mr Terry Addison, raised the possibility that the Government is considering raising from 60 to 65 years the qualifying age for the age pension for women? If so, what is the result of these considerations?

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE:

Raising the age of eligibility for age pensions for women is not a matter that is under consideration by the Government at all. Letters come in from time to time which refer to the disparity between the ages at which women and men are eligible for age pensions, but it is certainly not a matter which is under consideration by the Government; nor is there any intention by the Government to change the age from 60 to 65 years.

page 1268

QUESTION

HEALTH CARE EMPLOYEES: 35-HOUR WORKING WEEK

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Health whether the Minister has been approached by the National Standing Committee of Nursing Homes on the question of a 35-hour working week in the health care field. Has there been any calculation as to the additional cost that this may create? Can the Minister suggest the sort of figure that would be involved if the Federal Government were called upon to meet this cost?

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLEA will need to refer the matter to the Minister for Health for his consideration and reply.

page 1268

QUESTION

FOOD INSPECTION STANDARDS

Senator ELSTOB:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Recently there was a report of imported contaminated food on sale in Australia. As our food processing firms are inspected by representatives of an importer to make sure that quality and hygiene are up to the required standards, I ask the Minister whether Australia has similar arrangements in foreign countries exporting food products to Australia, especially countries in the Asian region. I also ask: What are the procedures in testing food products once they arrive in Australia?

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLEI will refer that somewhat detailed question to the Minister for Health for his response.

page 1268

QUESTION

PORTRAIT OF PREVIOUS GOVERNOR-GENERAL

Senator McLAREN:

- Mr President, I have a question to ask you. Can you inform the Senate whether a second portrait of the previous Governor-General has been commissioned for the Parliament? If the answer is yes, can you inform the Senate as to the reason, and whether the portrait has yet been delivered to Parliament House?

The PRESIDENT:

– Yes, I must advise the honourable senator that I have seen a painting of the honourable gentleman. The usual procedures adopted by the committee which looks at paintings which have been commissioned are being gone through at present. Beyond that I cannot provide any information.

Senator McLAREN:

– I ask a supplementary question. Was the same artist commissioned for both portraits, and what is the cost of each portrait?

The PRESIDENT:

– I do not know the cost of the commissioning. That is not within my province. I think the artist was not the one who painted the previous portrait of the honourable gentleman.

page 1268

QUESTION

SOUTH KOREA

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– Yesterday Senator Grimes asked me a question concerning the trial of Mr Kim Dae Jung, a leading Opposition figure in the Republic of Korea. By way of answer to Senator Grimes and for the information of all honourable senators, I should like to reiterate the answer given yesterday by the Minister for Foreign Affairs to a similar question in another place. He said:

A decision has been reached in that trial. The Government utterly deplores the imposition today of the death sentence on the Korean Opposition Leader, Mr Kim Dae Jung, following a trial in which political considerations appears regrettably, to have played a prominent role. It will be recalled that, following civil unrest in May this year, Kim Dae Jung was arrested and charged with sedition and violation of laws relating to national security and foreign exchange control as well as violation of martial law decrees. To the best of my knowledge and recall, 23 others were arrested on that occasion or were arrested on associated charges and were tried with Kim. The Australian Embassy in Seoul has been monitoring and observing the trial. The Government’s concern about the trial was made clear by Senator Carrick in the Senate on two occasions, last month and this month. The Government’s concern has been made clear to the Government of the Republic of Korea since June. I know, through letters written to me on the subject, that this concern is shared by many Australians.

In reiterating the Government’s strong concern about the fate of Kim Dae Jung and his co-defendants, I note that there is provision under the Constitution of the Republic of Korea for the President to alter Mr Kim Dae Jung’s sentence. There are provisions also for judicial review. We certainly hope that the decision of the court will be changed. Our relationship with the Republic of Korea has grown rapidly in recent years. Our relations have continued to be based on a warmth of personal contact which began 30 years ago when Australians went to the defence of the Republic of Korea as a free and independent society. It is our earnest wish that this basis of warmth should continue. It could be eroded if the death sentence were carried out.

page 1269

AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY: PROGRAMS

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– Yesterday, I think in response to Senator Walsh, arising out of figures used by me and quoted from a speech of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) I undertook to get the sources of the figures used. I now advise the Senate that in Mr Hayden’s Budget reply, in the Hansard of 26 August 1980 at page 736, in regard to jobs he has placed a figure of $180m on his promises. In Mr Hayden’s Budget reply of the same day on the same page of Hansard, relating to housing there was a figure of $ 150m. From the same source, on the same page, for health there was a figure of $ 1 30m, for family allowances there was a figure of $275m, for education there was a figure of $ 1 00m, and a figure for tax cuts for half a year of $300m, and therefore, for a full year, $600m. Those figures add up to $ 1,435m. They do not take into account the amended figures of Mr Hayden’s further development in March of job programs and community service corps, costing approximately $200m, a work program costing $110m, private sector training costing $20m and do not take into account his promises of social security pensions at 25 per cent. They do not take into account the costings of the petrol subsidies. Taken all together, they are far in excess of the $2,000m mentioned in my speech.

page 1269

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN AIRLINES SYSTEM

Senator CHANEY:
LP

- Senator Wriedt asked me yesterday whether I would give him an answer before Parliament rose to a matter relating to airlines. I undertook to try to do so, and I have just received a message that due to a Voca-Dex breakdown the answer I hoped to give at Question Time is not available in Canberra. I will endeavour to insert it during the day in order to meet the request of the Leader of the Opposition.

page 1269

PARLIAMENT HOUSE: CLEANING SERVICES

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– by leave - I am sure all honourable senators appreciate that when a service is withdrawn we are made starkly aware of the value of that service. For that reason I wish to ask you, Mr President, what progress has been made to settle the dispute involving cleaners in Parliament House. The quality of the work which these people carry out is fairly obvious to us all now. It must also be very obvious to us that these patient people would not have taken action and withdrawn their labour unless they felt seriously aggrieved. The matter has dragged on for a couple of days. Surely, we in this place should understand what the problem is and give these people some consideration for the worth of their efforts. Perhaps some progress has been made. Perhaps, Mr President, you could advise us. Concern has been expressed by many honourable senators that the matter be resolved as quickly as possible.

The PRESIDENT:

– It is true, honourable senators, and in response to you, Senator Georges, that all cleaning services within Parliament House were withdrawn by cleaners employed by the Joint House Department who are members of the Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union of Australia, from midday last Tuesday until midnight tonight. That is the advice I have. This action has been taken by the union without consultation with either the Presiding Officers or parliamentary officials. It is understood that the strike is an extension of earlier black bans placed on selected areas of Parliament House in support of the union’s claim that work value pay increases of $8 to $9.30 a week offered by the Public Service Board on 2 September 1980 were discriminatory and inadequate with increases in other sections of the Public Service and in private enterprise. The Public Service Arbitrator has been notified that an industrial situation exists.

Senator GEORGES (Queensland)- by leave - Mr President, I wish to make a further comment. Surely the matter is in the hands of the Presiding Officers in spite of the existence of a union. Surely the Presiding Officers could have been able to judge the worth of the claim which, on the very brief information given to us, is an extremely valid one. It seems to me that this matter has been allowed to get to this stage quite unnecessarily. No matter what may happen outside the Parliament, surely the Presiding Officers can make a decision in favour of the people concerned.

The PRESIDENT:

– I have just received up to the moment advice in this matter from the Secretary of the Joint House Department, Mr Jorgensen. The 48-hour strike by Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union of Australia cleaners in Parliament House and other Commonwealth establishments in the Australian Capital Territory was the subject of a hearing today before Deputy Public Service Arbitrator Booth. The parties concerned included the Public Service Board and the Departments of Administrative Services and Health.

After hearing submissions from the parties the Arbitrator issued the strongest recommendation to the FMWU that at its mass meeting of members to be held on Friday, 19 September - that is tomorrow - it should recommend that all bans and strikes should cease so that discussions can commence with the Public Service Board regarding the wage increase offered by the Board on 2 September 1980. The Arbitrator directed that the Board and the union, as soon as bans cease, enter into discussions. If no agreement is reached discussions should continue with a view to expediting resolution of the problem before the Public Service Arbitrator. Cleaners have indicated that they will resume work at 6.30 a.m. tomorrow, Friday, 19 September but a stop work meeting is to be held at 10.30 a.m. to enable the union to give a report on the hearing before the Arbitrator.

page 1270

QUESTION

ATTENDANCE AT SENATE VOTES

The PRESIDENT:

– At Question Time yesterday Senator Baume asked me a question relating to the voting record of two honourable senators. I indicated that it was not within the established departmental practice to have such information prepared and issued by officers of the Senate. A subsequent examination of Hansard shows that Senator Baume, when using the words ‘voting record’, was restricting his inquiry to the matter of attendance during divisions. I now advise the Senate that those statistics are noted and ultimately published in the bound volumes of the Journals of the Senate. I have therefore arranged for an answer to be provided to Senator Baume ‘s question. Similarly, the information requested by Senator Chipp appears to come within the same category and, accordingly, to that extent an answer will be provided to Senator Chipp’s question.

page 1270

PRESENTATION OF PAPERS

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

– With regard to presentation of papers, as this is the last sitting day of this parliamentary period we want to table all available papers before we rise. Therefore, we have delayed the tabling of papers by Ministers to enable departments to put forward as many reports as possible, including some Government responses to committee reports. I will be circulating a list as soon as I can. Therefore, I expect that the papers will be tabled at a later hour.

page 1270

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Report on Pollution of the River Murray

Senator JESSOP:

– (South Australia)- On behalf of the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment I present a progress report on the Committee’s continuing scrutiny of pollution of the River Murray.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator JESSOP:

– by leave- The Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment is charged by the Senate with maintaining a continuing scrutiny of the problems of pollution. Within this general reference the Committee resolved in March 1979 to examine action being taken to control pollution of River Murray water and to manage the adjacent environment. The Committee tabled its progress report on 7 June 1979. The progress report expressed the Committee’s concern at the delay in amending the River Murray Waters Agreement to expand the powers of the River Murray Commission. The Committee also pointed to the need for coordinated action to solve the salinity and drainage problems of the Murray Valley.

In the Government’s response to the progress report, Senator Carrick, the Minister for National Development and Energy, stated that good progress was being made in the process of amending the four-government River Murray Waters Agreement to expand the powers of the River Murray Commission in respect of water quality responsibility. The Committee understands that the new agreement has still to be endorsed by the four governments, although the changes proposed were agreed upon in late 1976. The Committee again stresses the need for urgent action in this matter. It regards it as unfortunate that the four governments seem unwilling to recognise that the current decision-making provisions of the River

Murray Commission, particularly those relating to the unanimity of decisions, inhibit the effectiveness of the Commission’s work. The Committee points to the inordinate delay in expanding the Commission’s water quality responsibilities as ample evidence of this. It regrets that the Government did not comment on the need for public participation in the deliberations and decisionmaking processes of the River Murray Commission. There is great need for a central focus for the expression of views when faced with a plethora of public authorities with responsibilities affecting the river.

The Committee has also commented on the Maunsell report, which recommended a works program costing some $75m to overcome the more urgent salinity and drainage problems of the Murray Valley. The Maunsell report recommends a comprehensive and co-ordinated approach, and this Committee strongly supports that concept. However, the Committee also regards a coordinated approach as vital to such matters as water quality, irrigation procedures, flood mitigation, flood plain management, environmental and conservation matters, reafforestation and recreation. It believes that the River Murray Commission should be provided with the appropriate powers to co-ordinate the action necessary to deal with these matters.

It is pleasing that the works proposed by reducing the area of water-logged land and improving water quality will have beneficial environmental effects. The Committee has also commented on a recent report by the River Murray Commission reviewing problems of forest and water management along the River Murray between Tocumwal and Echuca associated with the unique BarmahMillewa red gum forests. It is hoped that the Commonwealth and the States adopt a cooperative approach in this matter.

In conclusion, the Committee is convinced that the long term solutions to the problems of the River Murray can be solved only by an urgent and practical strategy. The Committee recommends that appropriate action be taken by the four governments to empower the River Murray Commission to undertake this strategy. I acknowledge the support of the Committee’s secretariat under our new secretary, Mr Peter Roberts, in enabling the presentation of this report to the Senate today.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– by leave - It is unfortunate that copies of the Chairman’s remarks were not circulated to people who have a vital interest in the salinity of the River Murray.

Senator Peter Baume:

– It would have been a breach of privilege.

Senator McLAREN:

– Surely it would not be a breach of privilege to circulate a copy of the Chairman’s remarks in the chamber? I listened very closely to the Chairman’s remarks, and nothing was said in that report which would substantiate the Press release put out by the Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment on 20 June. The Committee recommended to the Government an expenditure of $75m over five years for salinity control in the River Murray. Honourable senators will recall that I raised this matter in the Senate some weeks ago. When Senator Jessop replied he said that he had been misrepresented, and that what he had said was that the Committee was recommending to the Government that it implement the Maunsell report. In the Chairman’s remarks today, no mention was made of the fact that the Committee has recommended to the Government that it implement the recommendations of the Maunsell report, which, according to my memory of it refers to the expenditure of $75m.

I express great disappointment on behalf of many River Murray water users in South Australia in particular. On their reading that Press statement in the Adelaide Advertiser of 20 June they were under the belief that that Committee in fact was recommending to the Government an expenditure of $75m on salinity control over a period of five years. Now it is quite apparent that the Committee did not do that. In fact, on listening to the remarks of the Chairman of that Committee today, I find that in the report which has just been tabled in the Parliament no mention was made of a request to the Government to implement the Maunsell recommendations. I think it is very regrettable that the Chairman of the Committee saw fit on 20 June to put out a statement indicating what he did indicate when no such matter was before the Committee; if it had been before the Committee, it would have been mentioned in the report.

1980 GENERAL ELECTION

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

– by leave - When I informed the Senate that the Government proposed that the next House of Representatives and half-Senate election should be held on Saturday, 18 October 1980, I undertook to confirm details when replies had been received from the States. I am now able to say that all States are in agreement with the timetable, which is as follows:

Issue of writs - 1 9 September 1 980

Close of nominations - 27 September 1 980

Polling day- 18 October 1980

Return of writs- on or before 17 December 1980.

page 1272

PARLIAMENTARY TRIANGLE

Motion (by Senator Carrick) agreed to:

That, in accordance with section5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the Senate approves the following proposals:

Erection of official entrance for the Department of Foreign Affairs at the Administrative Building.

Upgrading of external lighting at the National Library of Australia.

page 1272

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator Carrick) - by leave - agreed to:

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till a day and hour to be fixed by the President, or, in the event of the President being unavailable, by the Chairman of Committees, and that the day and hour of meeting so determined be notified to each senator by telegram or letter.

page 1272

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Senator Carrick) - by leave - agreed to:

That leave of absence be granted to every member of the Senate from the termination of the sitting this day to the day on which the Senate next meets.

page 1272

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1980.

Railway Agreement (Adelaide to Crystal Brook Railway) Bill 1980.

Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1 980.

Income Tax (Individuals) Bill 1980.

Income Tax (Companies and Superannuation Funds) Bill 1980.

Income Tax (International Agreements) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1980.

page 1272

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1980-81

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 16 September.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Maunsell:
QUEENSLAND

– The question now is:

That the votes contained in Group D be now passed without requests.

GROUP D

Department of Aboriginal Affairs

Proposed expenditure, $ 1 1 7,2 1 0,000

Department of Industry and Commerce

Proposed expenditure, $20,599,000

Department of Transport

Proposed expenditure, $372,253,000

Department of Productivity

Proposed expenditure, $172,659,000

Department of Science and the Environment

Proposed expenditure, $28 1 , 634,000

The CHAIRMAN:

– We will commence with the estimates of expenditure for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, which total $ 1 1 7,2 1 0,000.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I do not wish to make any remarks–

Senator Carrick:

- Mr Chairman, I briefly say that Senator Chaney will be in the chamber in a moment or two. It is not his intention not to be here for the consideration of all of the matters for which he is responsible, so if significant questions are to be raised can they be delayed until Senator Chaney is in the chamber?

The CHAIRMAN:

– I suggest that we deal instead with the estimates of expenditure for the Department of Industry and Commerce.

Senator McLAREN:

– It was not my intention to make any remarks about the absence of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Senator Chaney. I confine my remarks to lodging a protest at the way in which departmental officers were kept sitting around the corridors of this Parliament until about a quarter to twelve last night. I think last year I expressed the view that the Government brings departmental officers here when those officers could well be at home. The Government cannot manage its program and get on with the business at hand. It knew that a long list of senators wished to speak on the petroleum Bills, yet departmental officers were kept sitting in the corridors when they could well have been at home with their wives and families. I again request that, if the Government parties are still in office after the election on 18 October 1980, they give due consideration to the procedure relating to appropriation Bills when the Parliament resumes, so that we can get some order into running the place and departmental officers do not have to lounge about in the corridors and not know whether they will be able to go home and have a meal or will have to make last minute arrangements. I think for that to happen shows very poor management and the Government stands condemned for it.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– Before I raise specific matters, I associate myself with what Senator McLaren said, but on slightly different grounds. Senator McLaren mentioned departmental officers being kept in the wings until the early hours of the morning. Whilst I agree with what Senator McLaren said, I have a reverse complaint. When we were debating the estimates relating to industrial relations and I wanted to find out something about the Industrial Relations Bureau, I was told that the appropriate departmental officers were not here. To compound that parliamentary felony - I give that word ‘felony’ its full impact - this morning when I picked up copies of the Sydney Press 1 found reported an alarming case of breaches of an industrial award. However, I am not permitted to discuss that issue at this stage in the debate on the Estimates, so I will be forced to raise the matter on the motion for the adjournment of the Senate. I simply say that time is precious to us and 1 would not have to raise that matter in the adjournment debate this evening if departmental officers dealing with industrial relations had been here and I could have pursued it in Committee.

I agree in principle with what Senator McLaren said, but I think the situation I have just outlined was an insult to honourable senators. We spend hours considering the matter of industrial relations. But when some of us who can lay claim to having a fair knowledge of industrial relations matters wanted to get to the jugular vein of the Department of Industrial Relations we found that personnel from the IRB were not here. If it was good enough to keep other officers here last night on a fruitless expedition, it was good enough to have officers of the IRB here, given the massive expenditure by the IRB. To me those officers are not a special breed of people. They should have had to endure the long hours that we and other departmental officers had to endure last night. I do not believe in playing favourites. I will have more to say about Mr Linehan and his team in the adjournment debate.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Are there any questions?

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I have a question on the estimates for the Department of Industry and Commerce. Perhaps I am not allowed to raise it at this stage. But, as it deals with industry and commerce as well as employment, I express my concern at an advertisement which is appearing in overseas journals. The June 1980 issue of the East West Journal, which is published in the United States of America and is circulated to primary producers, ran the following advertisement:

AUSTRALIA - NEW ZEALAND WANT YOU!

60,000 Jobs. Big pay. Free transportation.

Terriffic opportunities.

It invites readers to obtain the latest employer listings for $2. I think this matter would fall within the responsibility of the Department of Productivity because–

The CHAIRMAN:

– We are dealing with the Department of Industry and Commerce.

Senator McLAREN:

– It could even come within the responsibility of the Department of Industry and Commerce. It could fall within the responsibility of either of those departments because industry is the greatest employer of labour in this country. I express my concern that the Government has not taken action to stop such false advertisements appearing in overseas papers. Surely officers in the libraries of the various departments run by the Government vet these types of journals. I am amazed that a statement has not been made in this Parliament to the effect that the jobs offered are not available. Some people are being hoodwinked into sending away $US2 to get a copy of the listings. There are just no jobs available. I think the Government should take some remedial action. I will give the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) a copy of the advertisement to see whether something can be done about it.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– 1 would be happy to receive a copy of the advertisement. I will have the matter examined.

Mr Chairman, with your indulgence and that of Senator Mulvihill and the Committee I wish to place on record information on a transport matter. Yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Wriedt) asked me a question about the creation of a privately operated international airline and I indicated that I had no knowledge of any such proposal being before the Government. I have now received advice from the Minister for Transport (Mr Hunt). The Government is not aware of any proposal that would involve the creation of a privately operated international airline. The Government has already announced that it will be reviewing next year the policy that Qantas Airways Ltd is the sole Australian carrier authorised to operate overseas air services in its own right. The Minister for Transport is today making a statement on domestic aviation policy in introducing the Australian National Airlines Amendment Bill (No. 2). Having undertaken to try to give an answer during this session, Mr Chairman, I have provided that information for the Leader of the Opposition.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I direct my remarks firstly to the policy of the Government in combating oil pollution. I have given the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) a copy of a letter I received from the then Minister for Transport, Mr Nixon, in November 1979.I think three aspects of the letter have to be updated. The first relates to the famous or infamous Oceanic Grandeur oil spillage disaster when, probably by divine providence, the currents took the oil in the direction of Papua New Guinea rather than Australia and we got out of it lightly. The Minister would be aware that there was a bit of a dispute between the marine operations authority in Queensland and the Federal Government as to whether we had the well integrated plan we thought we had to deal with such disasters. We were then told: ‘Yes, we have a better national plan to deal with a massive oil pollution disaster’. Fortunately, we have not had such a disaster yet.

We were told in the letter - the Minister has a copy of it - that there was a regional plan concept. I think that is laudable. It would involve Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, New Zealand and one or two others, probably Malaysia. The letter implied that this regional authority concept was not working as well as we thought it would. New Zealand was playing ball with us but nobody else was. If we were to have a major tanker disaster in the Cape York region our success in combating the pollution problem would depend on an effective meshing in by the Government of Australia with the Government of Papua New Guinea. I am not really worried about whether Queensland would get the job of policing the pollution problem on our side of the maritime borders. I would like to know how we are going on this matter at present.

The second matter 1 wish to raise is equally important. In the concluding paragraph of this letter of 1979, as I interpret it, and I am certainly not a lawyer - probably a man like Senator Evans would be better able to elucidate the matter than I–

Senator Primmer:

– Or Senator Cavanagh.

Senator MULVIHILL:

– Yes, that is a point. I agree. I would bracket them together. I am indebted to Senator Ed Muskie, one time Senator for Maine, a coastal State in the United States. In a letter, he told me that, whilst the TOVALOP agreement among oil companies concerning liability for oil pollution is supposed to cover damage to small craft as well as losses incurred by State governments, the authorities had to bear down on the oil companies to ensure that the provisions of the agreement kept up with the modern day costs of a major spillage. I go back to the days of another illustrious Minister for Transport, the Honourable Charles Jones. I remember his bringing in legislation after the Oceanic Grandeur disaster to give more teeth to the existing legislation and to upgrade the powers of the Navigation Act. But as I understand it, TOVALOP, as well as providing for compensation to a government, would enable a private small craft owner to apply for some compensation if he felt that his craft had been affected by oil pollution. But, as I understand it, under the Navigation Act a private small craft owner is not covered for such damage. So I am wondering whether my understanding is correct and whether, as this letter of November 1 979 said, the Federal Government is to amend the Act so that we have a consolidated Act, thereby ensuring that if there were an oil spillage on, say, the South Coast of New South Wales, fishing craft owners involved could claim compensation from an oil company. It would not just be a case of the New South Wales Government claiming compensation for damage to government vessels; everybody would be covered. I think that is very important and I would like to get an updated answer.

This next matter is also in the realm of the Minister for Transport. From time to time there have been disputes involving fire fighting organisations at some of our airports. I would like to know whether we have got all the bugs out of the new fire fighting equipment installed at airports. I do not know whether the next matter I wish to raise is in the province of the Minister for Transport or whether it more an industrial matter. It concerns concessions at the various airports. I am just curious whether it would be the Minister for Transport or some other Minister who would deal with the final determination of tenders.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– My remarks on the estimates for the Department of Transport will be brief. I particularly refer the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) to the item relating to the Bureau of Transport Economics. As a member of Estimates Committee D, I asked Dr Gannon, an officer from the Bureau of Transport Economics, what work, if any, had been done by the Bureau in regard to the shift in use in Australia between rail, road, air and sea as a result of the oil import parity pricing policy of the Government. The Minister may remember that Dr Gannon replied that the Bureau had not been able to progress to a comprehensive examination of the rather important question as much as it wished because it had not had very much cooperation from the various transport operators about providing information about traffic and costs, et cetera. As recorded at page 328 of the Senate Estimates Hansard of 1 September 1980, Dr Gannon went on to say:

The closest published material would be a paper that we did about a year ago on the long distance road haulage industry … I would be happy to put together an overview of the situation to where we have reached, but I do not hold out an expectation of some definitive answers because we have not been able to get the necessary data.

The Chairman of the Committee, Senator Townley, then said: ‘Will you do what you can for us?’ Dr Gannon replied: ‘Yes’. I am raising this matter to indicate to the Minister that in the supplementary replies that have been tendered by the Department to the Senate there does not appear to me to be a reply to the question I asked. Whilst I appreciate that it is not stated in the record with any definite attitude that this reply would be forthcoming immediately, I had nonetheless assumed that it would be. I would like some indication as to when the information will be made available, because, as Dr Gannon agreed, it is a question of quite considerable importance.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– I will have to refer the first couple of matters raised by Senator Mulvihill to the Minister for Transport (Mr Hunt) and seek information for the honourable senator. With respect to the second point he raised, I might say, incidentally, that I agree with his interpretation of the letter of 15 November from Mr Nixon, a copy of which he very kindly provided to me. It would appear that at the moment under the Navigation Act private craft cannot get any recompense and the new proposal called TOVALOP would involve a situation whereby they could. But the question of substance is one which I will refer to the Minister.

With respect to the difficulties involving fire fighting equipment, my advice is that those difficulties have now been overcome. At the Estimates Committee hearing evidence was given of an exercise being conducted at the various airports around Australia. This is probably relevant to the point which the honourable senator raised. My advice with respect to the concessions which are granted at the various airports is that it is a condition of those concessions that award wages be paid. The point is, I think, adequately covered. I think that matter is supervised by the Department of Employment and Youth Affairs.

Material has been made available in relation to the matters raised by Senator Douglas McClelland. I am not quite sure whether it has been presented to the Senate. I suggest that the information which I have, which is about a quarto page or a little more, be incorporated in Hansard. It contains a table but it should present no difficulties for incorporation. I seek leave to have that information incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows -

  1. Senator McClelland asked what work had been done by BTE with regard to the shift in use in Australia between rail, road, air and sea as a result of the import parity pricing policy of the Government.

The BTE is not currently undertaking any study specifically aimed at the effects of mode choice of oil prices. However, the Bureau can make some comment as a result of studies current underway on intermodal energy use comparisons and road/rail competition.

Most domestic freight movements are of bulk commodities (approximately 80 per cent of tonne-km in 1975-76) and these movements are predominantly by rail and sea.

For general (ie non bulk) movements all indications from the industry are that freight rates are only one of several factors taken into account when choosing mode. Other factors relate to reliability, speed, flexibility, etc.

In general, fuel costs represent only a modest proportion of total costs (and, hence, charges) as shown in the following table.

Wages are in fact a far larger component of transport costs than are fuel prices. Relative to wages, the real price of road transport fuel to the user fell by 60 per cent from 1955 to 1978. It has since risen sharply to the equivalent of 1969 real values in 1979-80.

Road Freight fuel costs are a larger cost component than for the other two modes, but the crude oil price accounts for only about half the price to the user. The remainder goes in production costs, producer and dealer margins, and taxes.

Rail Freight has very low fuel cost components.

Sea Freight is the mode most sensitive to crude oil prices since fuel costs are a higher proportion of total costs.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I listened to what Senator Chaney said. I did read the Hansard record of the Estimates Committee hearings. I think that with the various State authorities and the Commonwealth authority we have a fairly effective machine. Senator Chaney did not refer to this matter specifically, but the Torrey Canyon disaster and the subsequent pollution problems in the English Channel resulted in friction and differences of emphasis between the British and French authorities. I am just curious to know what would be the situation if Papua New Guinea and Australia were substituted for France and England respectively. I do not pre-judge anybody, but have we had any dry runs with Papua New Guinea, with its maritime services, such as they may be, on such a pollution plan?

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– I understood that to be the import of the first point made by the honourable senator in his remarks to the Committee. As I said, I will have to seek information on that matter from the Minister for

Transport (Mr Hunt). I do not have an officer with me at the moment who can provide the answer, but I will endeavour to get the information to the honourable senator as soon as possible.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I wish to raise two more matters. I received an answer from Senator Chaney on behalf of Mr Nixon. When I raised the question I quoted the report of the London Economist on the royal commission that was created by the Government of the Republic of Ireland to inquire into the Bantry Bay oil disaster. In response the Minister indicated that our surveyors and everyone else were fairly diligent in their inspections of tanker structure. The only point that I would make, again without pre-judging anybody, is that the report of the royal commissioner who inquired into the Bantry Bay disaster stated that it was the Total oil company which was mainly to blame. The tanker involved was over seven years old. The company was going to sell it, but some structural changes were needed that might have cost some $1 30,000, which the company did not think was worth spending. Of course, what happened, as we know, is that IS people were killed and millions of dollars worth of damage was done. The Minister, in his reply, said that the Government was having a close look at the matter. I thought he might have fleshed it out and told me that the Government would be taking an extra hard look at the Total organisation. It was the Total oil company, not other oil companies, which was at fault.

The second point I make relates to an act that takes place every year at the Sydney (KingsfordSmith) Airport. A gentleman with a falcon tried to control the various birds that trespassed on the runways. I think he got his money very easily. 1 do not know whom he conned. He did not succeed in solving the problem. What is the state of play at our major airports? I am not one who advocates carnage of our bird life, but I just wonder whether we have in hand the situation at our major airports concerning birds that interfere with the flight paths of planes.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– With respect to the first point, the fleshing out will be done. Again, I do not have that information to hand. I am advised that the Department of Transport employs a full time ornithologist. That relates to the second point that was raised. Again, I will get a more detailed response for the honourable senator.

Senator ELSTOB:
South Australia

– During the Estimates Committee hearings I asked several questions on the Tarcoola-Alice Springs railway line. One of the questions that I asked was:

What length of lighter rail was used on the Tarcoola-Alice Springs railway?

A written answer was supplied to that question. The reply that I received was that rail lighter than 53 kilograms had been used for 596 kilometres of the 831 -kilometre railway. There were 141 kilometres of 40-kilogram rail, 12 kilometres of 41- kilogram rail and 443 kilometres of 47-kilogram rail. I also asked whether the use of lighter rail would result in speed or load restrictions on the railway. The answer I received was that the maximum speeds would be as follows: For AL and CL type locomotives on a 53-kilogram line, 100 kilometres an hour; for AL and CL type locomotives on 40-kilogram rail, 70 kilometres an hour; for AL type locomotives running on 47-kilogram line, 80 kilometres an hour; and for CL type locomotives running on the same 47-kilogram rail, 90 kilometres an hour. Another question I asked was what cost saving was achieved by using the lighter rail on the Tarcoola-Alice Springs line. The answer that I received was that the Australian National Railways Commission had estimated $ 1 .35m was saved by the use of rail lighter than 53 kilograms. I ask the Minister: Was this planned? Why was the lighter gauge rail used on this new line? Is it a fact that the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd could not keep up the supply of the heavy 53- kilogram line? I understand that some secondhand line was also used on this railway. Why was the lighter gauge rail used? I suspect that it was a result of bad planning. To build a new railway line on which locomotives pulling heavy loads are restricted to a maximum speed of 70 kilometres an hour, I think is absolutely ridiculous at this time. I would like to have some answers from the Minister.

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

– I will seek information on those matters from the Australian National Railways Commission.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– It appears that we do not have any officers from the Australian National Railways Commission present. That is most unfortunate when we are dealing with the matter of the transAustralia railway. Great play is being made of the matter now. I received a brochure in my office only yesterday from Senator Kilgariff. It is a very elaborate brochure setting out the pleas that have been made by Mr Everingham of the Northern Territory for a continuation of the line about which Senator Elstob has complained. In view of the fact that Senator Elstob asked several questions and received some answers, knowing that we would like to pursue this matter further, and in view of the fact that there is an appropriation in the Bill of $180,000 for a survey of the Alice Springs-Darwin railway, surely ANR officials could have been here today. I wish to know the intention of the ANR as to the type of line that will be constructed, if it is to be constructed. Of course, we have been waiting since 1910 for that line to be constructed under the provisions of the Northern Territory Acceptance Act 1910. 1 think it is most important that we get this information. I wish to know particularly, further to what Senator Elstob asked: Was it a decision of the ANR to use this lighter rail or was it an instruction from the Government to save funds that the lighter rail had to be used? If Mr Everingham ‘s argument that we need this upgraded line to be Constructed between South Australia and the Northern Territory is valid, surely we need to have a line of the highest possible quality.

There is some controversy as to whether the Government will announce, prior to the election date, that a large amount of money will be available for the construction of the Alice SpringsDarwin link. I think it was expected that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) would make that announcement when he declared open the present line from Tarcoola to Alice Springs. I see in the Press today that he will not attend the opening and there is some speculation that no announcement will now be made on the construction of that line. If the line is to be constructed at a future date, in my view, having read the submission of Mr Everingham, it will need to be of the highest quality possible. We could then possibly be faced with the extra expense of upgrading that portion of the line which the ANR now admits is using lighter rail. I would also like the Minister to find out from the ANR officials whether sufficient ballast is being laid on the track where the light rail is being used to enable heavy rail to be substituted if required at a later date.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– I will, as Senator McLaren requested, seek that information from the Australian National Railways Commission. In respect of his earlier comments about the presence of officials, I draw attention to his own comments and those of his colleague, Senator Mulvihill, which taken together illustrate the difficulty of managing to satisfy the requirements of all senators. We have either not enough or too many officials or they are present at the wrong time. During the considerations of the

Estimates committees when all the officers are present obviously it is possible to get answers on matters of detail immediately or before the debate takes place in the Committee of the Whole. I do not believe it is possible to arrange meetings so that answers in the detail sought by Senator Elstob are immediately available. That would be seeking to reproduce the Estimates committee procedure in this chamber. All I can say to both honourable senators is that we will, in the normal course, seek replies to the matters on which they have expressed an interest.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– I have a few comments on the remarks just made by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) . I appreciate the difficulties of having all the officials here during proceedings of the Committee of the Whole. Nevertheless, I take it that the departments are represented by officials at a high level so that they can give most of the information sought if not all of it. I ask honourable senators to cast their minds back to the time when we did not have Estimates committees. The Minister was responsible for giving all the answers with the assistance of one or two, perhaps even four, officials from the department. The brunt was carried by the Minister. He was supplied with answers by high level officials. It seems to me that that procedure should still prevail. Representatives from departments should be at such a level as to be able to give the Minister all the assistance he requires.

The Estimates committees have gone from the ridiculous position of not having people represented at a suitable level to having practically everybody from the department in attendance. The Minister passes a question to the departmental representative alongside him who flicks it across to someone sitting at the back of the chamber or the committee room. I recall that during the consideration of the estimates for the Department of Defence the whole of this chamber was practically filled with people from that Department. It was quite inhibiting to be surrounded by so much brass. That is taking it to the extreme. I am not suggesting that that always happens. But in the Committee of the Whole the Minister should be supported by an official from the department at the highest possible level. That official should have within his knowledge sufficient of the information being asked for by honourable senators to provide the Minister with the answer which he can then transmit.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I take cognisance of what the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) said in answer to my question, that it is very difficult to have all the officers here and we do not want a re-run of Estimates committees. I point out to the Minister that on the day the Department of Transport was before Estimates Committee D 1 was attending the meeting of Estimates Committee A, of which I am a member. It is physically impossible to be at two meetings, to do justice to the committee of which one is a member and attend another in which one has a great interest. Perhaps in the future these things can be overcome. I think they could be overcome largely if the Senate were given sufficient research staff to staff the Estimates committees.

Senator Robertson:

– And time.

Senator McLAREN:

– I will not get into an argument with the Minister on this matter and break my friendship with him but, as Senator Robertson pointed out, we need sufficient time when the Estimates are put down in the Parliament to carry out thorough research on them. That would be greatly helped if sufficient staff were attached to the Parliament. This is a matter that my own Committee raised.

I cannot see anything in the appropriations for the Department of Transport for the Stuart Highway. I am concerned about the funding for the highway in view of the fact that Press reports have been issued by the South Australian Premier stating that an agreement has been reached between him and the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) to the effect that the road will be constructed in, I think, about seven or eight years. I can see no appropriation - I stand to be corrected - for work to be carried out on that road.

Another matter about which I am concerned is the aerodrome local ownership plan. An amount of $2,200,000 is appropriated for this year but there are no details as to whether any consideration has been given to the request by the honourable member for Grey, Mr Wallis, and me in questions on notice for the sealing of the airstrips at Coober Pedy and Marree. The Government has practically made a decision to spend about $6.4m on upgrading the airport at Norfolk Island - the Public Works Committee has been to Norfolk Island - when, in fact, the local residents do not require it. I think that all members of parliament have received correspondence objecting to the upgrading of that airport because Norfolk Island does not have the facilities to cope with the extra people who would arrive if the airstrip were upgraded. I have no doubt that other airports as well as the two I have mentioned need upgrading. The two airstrips about which Mr Wallis and I are concerned are at Coober Pedy which has a very large population and Marree which is used by the flying doctor to service the outlying stations. In inclement weather those strips become very dangerous and sometimes unusable. Aircraft cannot get in. 1 ask the Minister whether there is any proposal to make money available in the near future to seal those two airstrips. If there is not, will he take some cognisance of the objections that have been lodged by the residents of Norfolk Island who do not want $6.4m spent there? If the money is in the pipeline for that job can it be transferred to the two airports I have mentioned? No doubt other States have similar claims that all-weather strips be laid down at outback airports.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– In respect of Senator Georges’ comments, the officer advising me at the moment is, 1 think, on his 22nd such exercise. He has been through all the stages to which Senator Georges referred. The comments made by a number of honourable senators again illustrate the difficulty of striking the acceptable mean. Senator McLaren referred to the Stuart Highway. The appropriations for the Stuart Highway come under specific roads legislation which is separate from the Appropriation Bills. That legislation has been dealt with in the Senate and there are appropriations relating to the Stuart Highway. I understand that expenditure this year will be about $9.6m. That amount is not appropriated under this legislation. I note the honourable senator’s comments about the apparently non-competing demands of Norfolk Island and the two airstrips which he has mentioned. I will refer his suggestion to the Minister and his Department.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I wish to ask some questions in relation to the Department of Productivity. I received a fairly comprehensive letter from the Minister for Productivity (Mr Newman) about the role of the Australian Government and the Department of Productivity on the safe operation of overhead cranes. In line with industrial trends we have been getting more modern cranes from West Germany, particularly for use on the waterfront and in the containerisation industry which deals with much heavier tonnages. I syndicated that letter which defined the Government’s attitude to the federal offices of the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia, the Federated Engine Drivers and Firemen’s Association of Australasia, the Australian Workers Union, the Australian Railways Union and I think the Federated Storemen and Packers Union of Australia which are the unions which cover crane operators. I have received an acknowledgment from two of those unions. I wonder whether the Minister could ascertain whether those unions have made a direct response to the Minister for Productivity.

The second point I wish to raise deals with safety generally. My question probably overlaps into the area of the Department of Industrial Relations. It is about safe working procedures and the introduction of different safety techniques. I have raised this matter with other Ministers before. It concerns temperatures in the Northern Territory, the use of certain lubricants and the incidence of dermatitis. I take it the Department of Health and not the Department of Productivity would work with the Northern Territory authorities in relation to this matter, notwithstanding that Department’s responsibility in relation to certain industrial safeguards.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– I will endeavour to find out whether any direct representations have been made to the Minister for Productivity (Mr Newman) following the forwarding of this letter to the unions by Senator Mulvihill. If there have been any direct responses I will ask the Minister to let Senator Mulvihill have a copy of them. With respect to the matter of safety, I will make inquiries about it. The position probably is as he has outlined, but I will need to confirm that.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– For their assistance, I inform the officers of the Department of Science and the Environment that I will be dealing extensively with the 1979-80 report on the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service. I will then refer to the Whales and Whaling report. In relation to the first report, I ask: What progress has been made in the last 12 months in the overall ratification of the migratory bird treaty with Japan? Honourable senators will recall that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) went to Japan. I know that supplementary action had to be taken by State governments. I would like to know whether the State governments have met their responsibilities.

I wish to raise a matter in relation to page 3 of the report, and I do so in a very careful manner. Honourable senators will recall there was an incident in the Northern Territory involving the loss of a baby. The question arose whether a dingo was the predator. I know there has been some doubt in that regard. I ask whether a coroner’s inquest has been held to ascertain whether a dingo was actually guilty of the attack. What is the position in relation to that matter? I would like to say a lot more but, as a coroner’s inquest may not yet have been held, I do not want to pervert the course of justice.

I raise a third and fundamental matter. I know of the broad and sometimes uneasy alliance between the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service and the Northern Territory Government. I take it that things have cooled off and the Minister is no longer slanging Professor Ovington in the Press. While I am on that subject I would like a matter to be cleared up in relation to the Kakadu National Park. Certain areas of the Kakadu Park are excluded from uranium mining. Is the position that anyone in Australia can seek mining rights to prospect in the Kakadu Park under the terms of the second Fox report? If a person seeks mining rights to wander into the Coburg wetlands area do we automatically say: ‘No, it is protected’. Is that person entitled to become extremely difficult and seek such rights? I wish to raise further questions but I ask whether the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) wishes to answer those matters first.

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

– Most of these questions are matters on which I will have to seek answers. I think probably the most sensible thing to do is for the honourable senator to continue posing his questions. I will answer those of which I have knowledge now and I will have to seek replies for the rest.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– From time to time we receive requests from constituents. A gentleman called John Sutherland of 473 Annerley Road, Brisbane, Queensland, has been persistent by way of letter and reverse charge telephone calls.

Senator Chaney:

– You can soon stop that, Senator.

Senator GEORGES:

– I do not doubt that. I am always open to communication, as I think most honourable senators are. Mr Sutherland raised a question concerning quarantine. He spoke about a recommendation by the joint States and Australian Fisheries Council. This may not be within the province of the Department of Science and the Environment. Nevertheless, what must concern the Department of Science and the Environment is the introduction into Australia of species of exotic fish. I think we have had lengthy dissertations by the former Minister for Science and the Environment, Senator Webster, on the presence of carp in Lake Burley Griffin. I do not doubt that the Department would be concerned at the introduction of exotic fish and possible diseases associated with such fish. A 42 day quarantine period has been proposed for exotic fish which may be carrying diseases and parasites. 1 ask: What view has the Department formed and what action has it taken in support of this recommendation concerning quarantine?

The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) will have noticed that I did not ask about turtles in the Torres Strait, which matter comes within his responsibility. I almost made a pavlovian reflex, but I resisted the temptation. I would have thought the Minister would take the opportunity to indicate what has happened to that program.

I now turn to the matter which is before us now, namely, the estimates for the Department of Science and the Environment. I refer to the starfish infestation on the Great Barrier Reef. We have been told on a number of occasions - this matter has been raised over a number of years - that the infestation was of a cyclical nature. We were given the impression that the cycle took several hundreds of years, but now we have discovered that there is a reinfestation and a new burst of activity by starfish around Green Island and other places. The question which now arises is whether the Department of Science and the Environment has any information which reassesses this grave problem to the Great Barrier Reef. What amount of money is being expended in this and associated areas? What hopes has the Department that an answer will be found for this infestation which has seriously diminished the status of the Great Barrier Reef? Those are the only questions I wish to ask.

I do not know whether I should at this stage incorporate in Hansard the letter sent to me by Mr John Sutherland. It is a lengthy letter and raises other points. It may be better if I make the letter available to the Minister who can send it to the Minister for Science and the Environment (Mr Thomson) to consider the matter and give me a reply.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I want to deal with kangaroo conservation. I think it is significant that I should raise this matter now because of the dialogue which ensued between Senator Puplick and you, Mr Chairman. I received a letter advising me that, notwithstanding the United States attitude towards kangaroo imports, Australia has virtually filled its quotas for the current year and would adhere to them. If people want to sponsor another company to process kangaroos, whether it be in New South Wales or anywhere else, how do we relate that to the decision of the Australian Government that we have a ceiling on kangaroo products? I have been assured by Ministers and by departmental officers that we will not go haywire, even if the United States, against my personal view, decides to take more kangaroo exports. Whatever Senator Puplick may argue about the need for a kangaroo abattoir - and I know he is arguing on a different basis - so far as I am concerned, whether it be operated by Aboriginals or whites, it will seriously affect our conservation measures. What is the state of play with the United States decision? If the United States does lower its barriers, do we have any upper limit on the export of kangaroo products? Will there be a bonanza and a host of fly-by-night kangaroo abatttoirs in New South Wales and elsewhere?

My second point again deals with wildlife conservation. I refer to the decision to permit the export of koalas to selected zoos and national parks overseas. In view of the lesson that we have learned from the exposure of bad habitation of kangaroos and wallabies in Hong Kong, Vancouver, British Colombia and another zoo which escapes me, will we vet an establishment before we permit a koala to be sent there?

My next point is equally important. Senator Jessop, Senator Melzer and I have heard extensive evidence from that outstanding Australian in the field of wildlife conservation, Dr Harry Frith. He has stated, in relation to koalas in the main but also in relation to other wildlife, that we need well over $100,000 a year for research into the eradication of disease. If the Government has made a decision to allow koalas to be exported, even a few - and it is generally conceded that koalas are much more fragile and have a higher mortality rate in captivity than kangaroos and wallabies - I suggest that we should proceed with the export of koalas on a limited basis. I also suggest that the Government should place a levy on exporters or, better still, on the people who make money out of forest products. This could be a means of raising the $ 1 00,000 a year suggested by Dr Frith for a research program into the eradication of diseases which create a tremendous wildlife mortality rate, particularly among koalas.

I turn now to the whaling report that the Minister was kind enough to supply me with. I want to raise a number of questions about it. I notice that in this well-documented report that there is reference to China and Taiwan. Can we find out whether those countries are simply eaters or catchers of whales, or both? On page 6 of the report there is reference to a crucial vote. It reads:

The motion failed by one vote to obtain the necessary threequarters majority. Canada attracted criticism for voting against, had it even abstained the motion would have been carried.

That paragraph appears under the heading Moratorium on the Taking of Sperm Whales’. Can we have an amplification of Canada’s motive in this instance? On one occasion I led a delegation to the Canadians in regard to the slaughter of baby seals. They claimed that in other areas of conservation they were in the top league. I think we are entitled to know something about that.

As a flow-on from the whaling report, there is a suggestion that a working party be set up by the Australian delegation to the International Whaling Commission. I am just wondering who will be the members of that working party and what their functions will be.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– I may be in a position to give answers to a number of these matters when the Committee resumes after the suspension of the sitting for lunch. I will endeavour to do that. I have no comment to make at this stage.

Senator PUPLICK:
New South Wales

– I also have a few matters to raise concerning the Department of Science and the Environment about which similarly the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) might be able to obtain some information. The first of them relates to a series of questions I placed on the Notice Paper earlier this month regarding the collection by the Department of statistics relating to the use of live animals in experiments. A large number of people in Australia are becoming increasingly concerned with the code of behaviour of people involved in live animal experimentation. Increasingly, and I think properly, they are concerned about the fact that reliable information does not appear to be available in Australia on this particular subject. One is aware that in the United Kingdom the Home Office prepares detailed statistics which are available on an annual basis on the use of live animals in research, the nature of the research work that is being carried out on them, the extent to which operations are performed without an anaesthetic on animals, the extent to which animals are subjected to fairly gruesome experimentation not only in some universities but also by pharmaceutical companies and perhaps, most appallingly of all, by cosmetic companies. One is able to obtain and monitor on a fairly regular basis exactly what is happening in the United Kingdom.

I have been told repeatedly that statistics of this sort are not available almost anywhere in Australia. I find it extremely hard to believe that, given the resources that are available in terms of drawing together the material that we know is available from the National Health and Medical Research Council, the material that must be is available from the Commonwealth Department of Education, the material that must be available through the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs about the importation of animals, it is simply not possible to provide people in Australia with effective data on these particular matters.

I have been informed by the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Garland) simply on the import side, how many primates, for instance, have been imported into Australia in the course of the last couple of years, and the specific purpose those primate imports. I wonder whether the officers of the Department of Science and the Environment, through the Minister, might be able to let me and the Senate know whether any specific work is being undertaken by the Department to gather these statistics and in a form which would consolidate the information available from other departments, and whether in particular the Department would liaise with the NHMRC and the universities about the provision of this data. If not, frankly, why not? Bodies such as the Australian Association for Humane Research where Mrs Ahlston has been active and the Australian Federation of Animal Welfare Societies of which Mrs Townend is secretary, I think, are absolutely right in saying that they entitled to have this information provided to them.

The second point to which I should like to ask the Department to respond: Is what progress has been made to date on the preparation of an endangered species Act in Australia in order to replace the currently unsatisfactory situation of relying on the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations to control the traffic in protected species in and out of Australia?

The third point I would raise is whether the Department has adopted any general policy in favour of the representation of non-government organisations at international conferences? To date it has been very successful to have representatives from Project Jonah such as Mrs Kaye and Mr Gregory at meetings of the International Whaling Commission. Mr Michael Kennedy from the Friends of the Earth was also one of the Australian delegates to the International Convention on Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources meeting. I understand that nongovernment organisation observers will be financed to attend the next meeting of the parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna, to be held in February in New Delhi. I wonder whether the

Department is in fact adopting a deliberate policy of trying to encourage these organisations, as I strongly believe it should, or whether it is simply responding to these organisations on an ad hoc basis as it goes along.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– Before the suspension of the sitting a series of questions was posed by Senator Mulvihill, Senator Georges and Senator Puplick, and I undertook to get what answers I could during the suspension. The officers have been extremely busy. I now have answers to a good number of those questions. Answers to the balance I will provide as soon as possible. To conserve the time of the Committee, I seek leave to incorporate these responses in Hansard, and I will provide the relevant senators with copies of them this afternoon.

Leave granted.

The documents read as follows -

  1. . To take Senator Mulvihills questions first:

    1. He has asked, firstly, about the ratification of the Migratory Birds Agreement with Japan. I am pleased to inform the Senate that on the basis of advice from the States and Territories, legislative action is completed or in hand to effect formal ratification of the Treaty.
    2. I am informed that a Coroner’s inquest on the death of a child at Ayers Rock is yet to be held.
    3. As the Coburg Wetlands come under the responsibility of the Northern Territory Government, I am unable to say under what conditions prospecting rights would be granted in relation to that area.
    4. I can assure the honourable senator kangaroo quotas for the current year are settled. Recent media reports concerning the harvesting of kangaroos in New South Wales simply reflect that Government’s wish to streamline administrative procedures in relation to the issue of licences for kangaroo harvesting.
    5. Senator Mulvihill may be assured that permits for the export of koalas will not be granted unless the zoo assessed meets high standards in respect of animal care. I provided the Senate with full details of the conditions for the export of koalas on 12 September 1980 in answer to a Question Without Notice from Senator Bonner (Hansard page 900).

Any export of koalas will be strictly limited with the numbers involved so small as not to have any effect on the conservation of koalas. Any export of koalas will be restricted to approved zoos and scientific institutions. Strict conditions, as detailed in Hansard on 1 2 September 1 980, will be applied.

It is recognised that wild populations of koalas are more susceptible to fluctuations through diseases that populations of some other native species. However, it has to be appreciated that koalas are increasing in numbers and are no longer seen as endangered.

That koalas are subject to respiratory and eye diseases is not in question but it is doubtful that the eradication of all of these diseases in wild populations is achievable. In allocating research funds it is necessary to assess research priorities bearing in mind the whole diversity of animal and plant species native to Australia.

The Goverment has supported, and will continue to support research to protect Australia’s rich and unique heritage of wildlife.

  1. . Are the Chinese and Taiwanese eaters and catchers of whales?

Whales are caught by both the Chinese and Taiwanese and it is believed that in both cases part of that catch is eaten.

  1. Motives of Canada in opposing moratorium on sperm whaling?

The motives of the Canadian Commissioner in voting against the moratorium is unknown, it seemed that at least one senior member of the Canadian Commission did not agree at Brighton, and it is also understood in Canada, there was some criticism of the voting record of the Canadian Commissioner.

  1. The working group to consider and develop management principles and guidelines for Aboriginal subsistance whaling is to report to the next meeting of the International Whaling Commission. The reason for this working group is that Aboriginal subsistance whaling issues particularly in relation to the Eskimo take of bowhead whales has raised matters which differ from those where commercial whaling is taking place. For example, problems of Aboriginal nutrition and preservation of culture. The working group is needed to look at these matters in detail and assist in arriving at conclusions in relation to particular situations.
  2. In relation to Senator Georges questions:

    1. He will be pleased to know, given concerns over the introduction of harmful species of fish and other organisms to Australia, that the Commonwealth Department of Health is developing a quarantine system for imported aquarium fish which will greatly reduce the health risks to which he has drawn attention. The Australian Fisheries Council has yet to reach agreement on a list of species of aquarium fish to be allowed importation in future.
    2. In relation to the Crown of Thorns starfish, the Minister issued a press release on 12 September, 1980 (attached). 12 September 1980

Minister for Science and the Environment

Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 Telephone: 72 6050

GREEN ISLAND CROWN OF THORNS CONTROL PROGRAM

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority will contribute $5,000 to a program to control a fresh outbreak of crown of thorns starfish on coral reefs around Green Island, off Cairns.

This was announced today by the Minister for Science and the Environment, Mr David Thomson.

He said officers of the Authority had carried out a survey of the extent and intensity of the infestation today.

They had concentrated the survey on the south western end of the Green Island Reef, including the tourist coral-viewing area.

Mr Thomson said a control program would be drawn up in conjunction with the Queensland Fisheries Service.

This would involve hand injection of starfish with toxic copper sulphate solution.

The program would protect those areas or the Green Island Reef of most importance to visitors, particularly areas where visitors viewed coral from glass-bottom boats.

Results of the program would be used to determine the practicality and cost of controlling crown of thorns infestations in future, and for developing contingency plans.

Mr Thomson said a committee was established several months ago to advise the Authority on crown of thorns research. It was expected to submit its report this month.

Decisions would then be made on what further research should be undertaken.

Major questions to be answered were whether starfish plagues are natural phenomena or caused by human activities, and whether plagues can be controlled.

The problem on Green Island illustrates the fragility of some elements of the Great Barrier Reef ecosystem and the importance of learning more about the way the ecosystem operates’, Mr Thomson said.

It demonstrates that a system of management of the Reef region, which follows marine park declarations, is essential’.

Senator Puplick will be aware that his very complex question on notice with regard of the use of living animals for research will require detailed investigation. He may be assured that the matters raised by him are receiving full consideration.

In relation to the control of the export of endangered species, Senator Puplick will be aware that the Convention on International Trade on Endangered Species of wild fauna and flora (CITES) has been examined by the ANPWS and that Services report is currently being examined by the Government. The need for an endangered species Act is being considered in this context.

I thank Senator Puplick for his suggestion that some formal arrangement be made for the support of representatives of non-government organisations at international conferences. At the moment, the Government responds to approaches, and as the Senator has indicated, has supported representation of such bodies on a number of occasions where matters of environmental concern were being considered.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I wonder what stage the joint working party of the Australian Environment Council and the National Health and Medical Research Council has reached dealing with the implications of fluorocarbon use. I note that the United States Environment Protection Agency imposed a freeze in that respect. Perhaps we could find out the Australian attitude. It is rather fitting that the Minister is from the West. He would know that the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment gave approval two years ago to wood chip operations within a certain ambit. The Committee has not had a chance to meet again, but I notice that the Australian Conservation Foundation backs additional jarrah reserves. What role is the Minister for Science and the Environment (Mr Thomson) playing in the negotiations with the Western Australian Government? I understand that the number of acreages has been enlarged as far as wood chip operations are concerned. Some may be waste products. The Minister should have a watchful eye on the continued ravages of dieback. What action is the Australian Government through the Minister for Science and the Environment taking in regard to the unknown factor about the diminishing of native forests due to dieback? What role are we now playing on the holding action, and of course, research? The final matter is the National Parks and Wildlife Service report refers to a further updated survey on dingoes. I trust that in due course we will get a copy of it.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– I refer to the same matter of dieback. I must express my concern. I have asked questions before and have not been able to get answers. Satisfactory answers may not be available. It seems to me to be a great pity that when one goes overseas one sees forests of Australian gums flourishing without any setbacks at all, apparently free of the insect infestations that exist here. I find it tragic that this should be so. If one goes to Sri Lanka, to Greece or to California one sees that the gums seem to flourish tremendously. Yet in Australia our forests are beginning to die back. For some reason that is not properly explained, this phenonemon persists. If we are prepared to spend large sums of money on the control of insects which damage our commercial crops, surely we should spend substantial sums of money on the investigation of and the protection of our native forests. I support Senator Mulvihill in the query which he has rightly raised.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– I do not intend to respond in any detail on that matter. The problem of dieback is acknowledged and is a problem to which I think as yet the relevant authorities have not found an absolute answer. A great deal of work is being done, and I will ask the Minister for Science and the Environment (Mr Thomson) to make information available to the honourable senators. It is not unique to Australia that these problems occur. I make that comment in the light of Senator Georges’s comments. Things such as Dutch Elm disease, for example, have attacked very substantial numbers of trees in other parts of the world without there being any ready scientific answer to the problem. I simply acknowledge the fact that it is a considerable problem and one which needs and is receiving attention.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I wish to raise a question under division 565, and that is the appropriation for the protection of the environment in the Alligator Rivers Region from the effects of uranium mining. I notice that the total appropriation amounts to $5,883,000, made up of $2,583,000 for administrative expenses of the Supervising Scientist including the Alligator Rivers Region Research Institute for the expenditure for the purpose of environment protection in the Alligator Rivers Region, and a further $3,300,000 is appropriated for reimbursement to the Northern Territory Government for provision of environmental regulatory services. I would like some information as to whether that $3,300,000 which is being reimbursed to the Northern Territory Government is an on-going cost for endeavouring to re-establish the Finniss River in the Rum Jungle area which was the scene of uranium mining many years ago, around the present township of Batchelor. Is there to be any reimbursement of the $2,583,000 from the companies engaged in uranium mining in the Alligator Rivers area, or is the Federal Government charged with the responsibility of funding all the rehabilitation?

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– I am advised that the reimbursement of the money will be a charge on the royalties which are collected, but I will have the matter more closely examined and let the honourable senator have a full reply.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– When the Minister gets the reply, could he also let me know whether that expenditure is just to deal with the rehabilitation of the area which is mined for uranium, or whether there is any expenditure to endeavour to institute proper safeguard measures? Senator Carrick repeatedly tells us in the Parliament that there is no danger from yellowcake. We refer quite often to the yellowcake which was illegally taken from Mary Kathleen and which found its way into Sydney. In answer to many questions, Senator Carrick tells us that there is no danger from yellowcake. I am interested to know whether there is any danger in the yellowcake that is being mined at Ranger and whether the Commonwealth Government is charged with the responsibility of rendering that yellowcake safe so that nobody will suffer from the mining of it.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– I will ask the officers to give some attention to that. Yellowcake does not require to be rendered safe. It is not a matter which is likely to be harmful to anybody. In any event I will see that the request is complied with.

Senator Georges:

– Safe from theft.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– In response to Senator Georges’ interjection, I am not concerned about safety from theft; I am concerned about the safety to the health of human beings. My great concern, when I see an amount of nearly $6m appropriated for this year, is whether it is to be entirely used in restoring the mining area to its natural state or whether it includes safeguard measures of which we probably have not been told yet. I think the latest safety measures that we were told about, so far as uranium mining is concerned, would be some years old now, and were mentioned in a statement put down by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). That is the area 1 am concerned about.

Proposed expenditures agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The question now is:

That the votes contained in Group E be now passed without requests.

GROUP E

Department of the Special Trade Representative

Proposed expenditure, $406,000

Department of Primary Industry

Proposed expenditure, $102,946,000

Department of Home Affairs

Proposed expenditure, $98,01 8,000

Department of the Capital Territory

Proposed expenditure, $84,344,000

Department of Housing and Construction

Proposed expenditure, $236,099,000

Building and Works (Defence)

Proposed expenditure, $ 1 0 1 ,200,000

Repairs and Maintenance (Defence)

Proposed expenditure, $72,600,000

Housing for Servicemen - Advances to States (Defence)

Proposed expenditure, $ 1 ,820,000

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– I wish to raise the question I raised before under the Department of Science and the Environment. It concerns quarantine. I take it that quarantine comes under–

The CHAIRMAN:

– It comes under the Department of Health.

Senator GEORGES:

– Does it?

The CHAIRMAN:

– Yes, it does. Quarantine comes under the Department of Health.

Senator GEORGES:

– I would have thought that quarantine of animals comes under the Department of Primary Industry. I will ask the question now because it concerns primary industries. The importation of exotic fish would come under the Department of Primary Industry. I take it that the Division of Fisheries is included in the Department of Primary Industry. If it is correct, let me proceed with asking my questions.

The CHAIRMAN:

– It depends on whether the question concerns the quarantine part of it, Senator Georges.

Senator Peter Baume:

– Under the Bureau of Animal Health perhaps?

Senator GEORGES:

– We set up a couple of bureaus yesterday under the recommendations of the Joint Statutory Committee of Public Accounts.

The CHAIRMAN:

- Senator Georges, if you are waiting for somebody to come in to speak on the Department of Primary Industry we could move on to the Department of Home Affairs because the Committee decided earlier that we could deal with any part of this Group.

Senator GEORGES:

– No, I am concerned with the Department of Primary Industry. I just want to know–

Senator Chaney:

– This aspect of the matter is, in fact, dealt with by the Department of Health. I will seek response to that inquiry from the Department of Health.

Senator GEORGES:

– How can the Department of Health concern itself with the importation of exotic fish, diseases which may be carried by those exotic fish and any problems they may cause to our waterways? I would have thought that the matter would come under the Division of Fisheries in the Department of Primary Industry.

The CHAIRMAN:

– May I explain something. The matter comes under the Department of Health but the State departments of primary industry exercise management of quarantine services. That is how the problem arises. The Federal Department of Primary Industry does not have anything to do with the matter.

Senator GEORGES:

– Then it is about time it did. Quarantine on the importation of these fish, about which Mr Sutherland was concerned, is a very important matter. He suggested that legislation enacted in, say, New Zealand, prevents the importation of exotic fish likely to carry a variety of diseases unless those fish are quarantined for some 45 days. There is a recommendation. Surely that recommendation that exotic fish ought to be quarantined is a matter for the Federal Government to determine. It surely should not be left to the six individual States to come to some sort of arrangement to provide regulation or legislation to prevent diseases entering Australia. If one State does not enact such legislation or impose such quarantine, the problem which Mr Sutherland has posed and which I have put to the Committee is a very real one indeed. I notice that the Minister for Social Security (Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) who represents the Minister for Health, is in the chamber. I do not know whether she has come in to respond to my erratic questioning but if she has and if she has an answer to my question, of course we would be grateful for it.

Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:

– No, I just came on duty in the chamber.

Senator GEORGES:

– Well, will the Minister take it on notice and give me some information on the quarantine measures which are imposed on exotic fish. I am not raising this matter because I am looking for Peter Walsh who should have an interest in primary industry; I am really interested in the subject myself.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– I have been given a copy of Mr Sutherland’s letter by Senator Georges. I will ensure that that letter is given an adequate response.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– Firstly, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a list of recoveries of overpayments under the Beef Incentive Payments Scheme of 1977.

Leave granted.

The list read as follows -

Senator WALSH:

– That list was supplied on request to Senator Primmer and perhaps also to other members of the Committee. I would like to ask a few questions. Firstly, can the Minister tell the Committee whether there is a comprehensive record in existence of the people to whom payments were made?

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

(2.31) - I understand that there is a computer record of it and we could have that supplied.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– Following from that question, expecially if it is computerised, would it be correct to assume that any particular name could be recovered in probably a matter of minutes but certainly within a day or two?

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE (Victoria - Minister for Social Security) (2.33) - We will undertake to provide the information that is sought. It will be provided as soon as it is possible to do so. I cannot give an undertaking without knowing what information is required or whether it is available readily, but Senator Walsh will be advised.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– My reason for asking the question is that on 6 March, more than six months ago, six questions were put on notice asking whether payments were made under the Beef Incentive Payments Scheme to the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), to the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Nixon, to the Minister for Transport, Mr Hunt, to the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, Mr Adermann, to the Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr Street, to the Minister for Trade and Resources, Mr Anthony, and to Senator Scott, all of whom were Ministers at that time. It is now on record that names can be retrieved very quickly. An identical question was placed on the Notice Paper on 4 March pertaining to the then former Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Sinclair. That question was answered within 1 5 days. That suggested to me even at the time that it is quite a simple matter to retrieve this information if there is a will to do so.

That has now been confirmed. We know that if there is a will to retrieve this information it can be done; probably in a matter of minutes, certainly in a matter of a couple of days. The only logical conclusions which can be reached from the fact that these questions have not been answered more than six months later is that some of all of those Ministers named received payments under the Beef Incentive Payments Scheme and that the information is being deliberately suppressed, not in the bureaucracy but at a ministerial level. The Government would find it highly embarrassing if the fact were disclosed that some or all of these senior Ministers who made the decision to make these payments were shown to be direct beneficiaries from that decision. I ask the Minister for Social Security (Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) whether she will give an undertaking to supply the answers.

Senator Walters:

– Do you agree with the benefit being given?

Senator WALSH:

– Certainly not. I criticised the scheme at the time and I have criticised it consistently since. It is typical of the type of halfbaked ad hoc electorally expedient scheme produced by this Government, rationalised on the grounds of poverty relief because of the beef industry–

Senator Watson:

– What would you have done?

Senator WALSH:

– I should have thought that even Senator Watson was sufficiently numerate to comprehend this point. If payments are rationalised on the grounds that they are payments to people on low incomes, one ties them to income, one does not tie them to the number of cattle people have. I should have thought that even someone with Senator Watson’s tenuous grasp of numbers would have been able to comprehend that. This scheme was a political response, a panic measure, set up immediately preceding the 1 977 election as a direct response to the irrational politicking of Mr Cassell and the Cattlemen’s Union of Australia. It was an electoral bribe, which ultimately cost almost $120m, ostensibly to provide relief to beef producers who were suffering because of low incomes during the beef industry recession. The qualification for payment had obsolutely nothing to do with the level of income, as any rational low income relief scheme would have had. It was tied to the number of cattle and some farcial procedures which ostensibly were to be complied with before an individual qualified for the grant. In fact, all an individual had to do to qualify for the grant was to say that he had put a couple of hundred cattle through the yards to drench them or to test them for tuberculosis and bruceleosis of a number of other management procedures. It is obviously impossible to police the conditions of the scheme. However, it is not the conditions I am complaining about in particular; it is the existence of the scheme itself.

The apparent fact that at least some of the senior Ministers in this Government, who themselves made the decision, were direct beneficiaries of it emphasises the fundamental irrationality of the scheme itself. It was supposed to provide relief to low income beef producers badly affected by the beef industry recession, and, of course, it was paid to some of the millionaires in this country. Apparently it was paid to the Prime Minister, and/or the Deputy Prime Minister and/or the then Minister for Transport, the present Minister for Primary Industry, and/or the present Minister for Transport, then the Minister for Health, and to the Minister for Industrial Relations - I think, that is what he is called, or is it Labour these days? - Mr Fraser’s friend from the adjoining electorate of Corangamite. It appears that this payment was made to one or all of these Ministers, which I repeat, for Senator Watson’s benefit, emphasises the fundamental irrationality of the scheme.

Senator Peter Baume:

– Do you know it was paid to them or are you just speculating?

Senator WALSH:

– I have been asking the Minister for six months to provide an answer to it. We have just heard from the Department of Primary Industry that it is possible to retrieve this information, certainly in a matter of hours. We know, from what is already on the public record, that with respect to the former Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Sinclair, the information was retrieved and put into Hansard within 16 days of the question being asked. But more than six months later the information has not been supplied for these other six Ministers, who were apparently direct beneficiaries of decisions made by them. Unless this information is provided prior to the rising of the Senate, it would not be unfair to describe this as a scandal, as the misuse of power by senior Ministers in this Government to suppress the fact that they themselves are the beneficiaries of decisions made by them.

Senator Peter Baume:

Mr Temporary Chairman, I have listened carefully to what the honourable senator has had to say. At this stage he is making imputations against senior Ministers. He has named the Ministers he is talking about. I ask that his statement be withdrawn. I believe it is outside the provisions of Standing Order 41 8.

Senator McLaren:

– All he is asking–

Senator Peter Baume:

– No, he has said it would be a scandal involving those Ministers.

Senator McLaren:

– Surely it is yes or no?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Bonner:
QUEENSLAND

– Order! Senator Walsh, you have gone very close to making imputations against Ministers of this Government. I ask you to be more moderate and temperate in your remarks.

Senator WALSH:

– Certainly, Mr Temporary Chairman. I invite the Minister to provide the information requested more than six months ago which would demonstrate either that these Ministers were recipients or that they were not beneficiaries of decisions made by them. I invite the Minister to give an undertaking that that information will be provided to the Senate prior to its rising this evening.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

- Mr Temporary Chairman, in view of Senator Walsh’s remarks it might be appropriate if consideration of the estimates for the Department of Primary Industry is deferred until such time as the answers come in later today. I understood the Minister to say that it is a matter of pressing a few keys on the computer and the answer should be available within a few moments. The information could then be transmitted across to the Senate. I suggest that, until we get these answers, we postpone further consideration of the estimates for the Department of Primary Industry and go on to another department.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Are you moving in that way?

Senator McLAREN:

– I am suggesting that course. If the Minister does not want to do it, I will so move.

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE (Victoria - Minister for Social Security) (2.43) - That course of action is not acceptable to the Government. Senator Walsh has detailed some questions which he has on the Notice Paper. These will be dealt with as questions on the Notice Paper and answers will be provided to them. We are dealing with the Appropriation Bills before the Parliament. The matters to which Senator McLaren refers are not in these Appropriation Bills and the course of action suggested by him is not acceptable to the Government.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– In view of the reply given by the Minister, I will formally move for the postponement of consideration of estimates for the Department of Primary Industry to enable the Minister to get the answers, which she said would be on the computer and should be available within a few moments. I formally move for the postponement of consideration of the estimates for the Department of Primary Industry.

Senator Peter Baume:

Mr Temporary Chairman, what is the motion before the Chair? Is it in writing? Has it been appropriately moved?

Senator McLAREN:

– I do not think you need it in writing. I will give it in writing if the honourable senator wants to hold up the Senate. (Quorum formed).

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

- Senator McLaren, would you put your motion again?

Senator McLAREN:

– I thought I put it in fairly concise terms. I move:

Question put.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator C. R. Maunsell)

AYES: 25

NOES: 32

Majority……. 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Senator PRIMMER:
Victoria

– With regard to the item that was being questioned by both Senator Walsh and Senator McLaren, it was I who raised this mattter at Senate Estimates Committee E hearings. In connection with the Beef Incentive Payments Scheme I asked:

Is it possible to obtain a list of all overpayments that have been subject to repayment, the names of people and companies which have paid back money, and the dates of such payments?

That list, which I understand Senator Walsh sought to have incorporated in Hansard, is now freely available. The first question that comes to mind is: How did these overpayments come about? Did they come about as a result of problems of dual payments within the Department? Given the thousands of applications made, I suggest that any reasonable person could accept that any department could make an overpayment in relation to some of them. Alternatively, did the overpayments come about because people made multiple claims? If we go through the list of those claims, we find that in some areas there are what appear to be cases of multiple claims. For example, the following are listed: Cameron, A. M., Cameron, B. A., and Cameron, L. A., all from Buchan in Victoria. I might add that each and every one of those persons has repaid the overpayment. One wonders whether those three people named are three brothers, three sisters or three brothers and sisters, living in that area and each with individual farms or whether one of the Camerons has put his wife and sons or daughters on the list.

Those of us who seek to find the answer are confronted with similar instances throughout the whole document. For example, on page 5 we find listed: Hannaford, A. V., Hannaford, B. B., Hannaford, D. B. and Hannaford, R. L., all from Braidwood in New South Wales, all of whom were overpaid the sum of $2,000 and all of whom have repaid that $2,000. That sort of evidence is throughout the document before us. In fact, if we count the number of names on page 1 and multiply that number by 12- there being 12 pages of names - we have a total of 528 persons. According to my count 53 of those persons and /or companies have paid back their overpayment only in part or have made no attempt to pay. Those 53 represent roughly 10 per cent of the total. Can the Minister give us an indication of the reasons for those overpayments.

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE (Victoria - Minister for Social Security) (2.53) - I am advised that there were difficulties in the correct application of the legislation, which gave rise to an opinion being sought from the Attorney-General’s Department. Many of the overpayments occurred as a result of special reviews of amounts originally paid. Those reviews were undertaken following the receipt of that legal advice.

Senator PRIMMER:
Victoria

– During the hearings of Estimates Committee E, I asked a couple of questions in relation to Division 494, concerning the Bureau of Animal Health, including export inspection services for meats. The first question related to item 02. 1 asked:

I am concerned about the company Countryside Meats. I understand that the abattoir at Donald is now out of business. Does this company owe the Department any funds by way of non-payment of slaughter levies?

Mr Cleary in reply to that question said:

We will have to take that question on notice and ask our regional office.

I then said:

Will you ask also about any other company which might be a defaulter in the same regard - which has not paid its slaughter levies- for the last 12 months? Will you give the amount owing by each one.

The Department has supplied that information in answers to various questions. On pages 36 and 37 of the answers to questions is set out the number of companies which have been defaulters by way of not paying their slaughter levies. On page 37 are set out the amounts that the Commonwealth is owed by some of these companies. We notice that R.C.I, and E. Hinton owes the Commonwealth Government the sum of $19,187.51. A company by the name of Countryside Meats owes the Commonwealth, by way of non-payment of slaughter levies, the sum of $141,367.07. Earlier this year, in company with some other members of my party, I was in Donald at the time when Countryside Meats in Donald was in financial difficulties. I suppose that one can only say that Countryside Meats is an example of what has been happening in Victoria for the last 25 years, to my knowledge, as a result of the State Government’s establishing decentralisation funds in trying to get business enterprises to set up in rural areas. Without any figures one would never know the percentage of organisations that go bust, but go bust they do and the people who are left to pick up the tab are perhaps, firstly, the State government, secondly, local government and, thirdly, any local person who has been, I suppose one could say, silly enough or unwise enough to put funds into that company.

According to the information I have, Countryside Meats - and it is only part of the long history of graft and corruption within the meat industry in Australia- was established in Donald with the imprimatur of the Donald Shire Council, which I understand was able to raise some funds to assist the company on its way. But what the company did, of course, was to establish its mother company in Donald and set up several subsidiary companies through which it marketed various parts of the animals it killed. By, I suggest, manipulation of the books- because undoubtedly the man is a crook- it was made sure that the subsidiary companies made a profit while the mother company made a loss. The end result was that the company in Donald closed down. It laid off its workers, leaving debts of about $300,000 by way of unpaid funds to its workers for long service leave, severance pay and accumulated sick leave, a debt of $106,000 or thereabouts to the Victorian State Government and debts to the shire of Donald by way of rates and other matters, the amount of which I have been unable to ascertain. The Victorian State Government has had to move in and make quite substantial grants to the shire of Donald to keep employed in the district those personnel who were laid off. The Victorian Housing Commission moved into Donald when that organisation set up its works there and started to build houses. It opened up new estates. I am not aware of the cost to the Victorian State Housing Commission but, as I said, it is typical of what all too often happens under the decentralisation Act in Victoria when smart operators move in and fleece the government, the ratepayers and the local people in general. There are rumours at the moment that some other company is about to reopen the works, but at the moment they are only rumours.

If one is to be fair, I think it may also be wise to mention a couple of other factors in relation to this company and to meat processing companies in rural areas generally. First, there is the effect of the live sheep export market on the viability of these companies. The situation is that last year Australia exported some 5 million sheep on the hoof. As a result there has been a massive downturn in our processing work. One of the side effects of that is typified by the situation at Donald. That company had bought, or had bought for it, quite large numbers of feral goats and at the end of an afternoon when the sheep run was finished the feral goats would be brought in and processed. As anybody involved with the meat industry knows, meat workers who are put in a position where they must slaughter feral goats are prone to diseases. 1 do not think there is one meatworks in Victoria where feral goats have been processed wherein a number of meat workers have not been stricken with illness. As a result workers compensation premiums for the company involved rise rather sharply. This in turn imposes a financial burden that the company may not be able to bear. So that is just one side effect, as I see it, of the problems with live sheep exports from Victoria at present.

The facts are that the ‘entrepreneurs’ who are involved in this trade are, in my view, part and parcel of the racketeers within the meat industry in this country at present. There is evidence to show that farmers are being paid $18 to $25 a head for what is alleged to be cast for age wethers. In fact many of these alleged cast for age wethers are ewes, lambs and wethers two to three years old. As I say, the farmers are paid only $1 8 to $25 a head. There is evidence to show that some of those animals sell for $500 a head in the Middle East. If that is not a racket, I do not know what is. Unfortunately, we have members of this Government- the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Nixon) in particular - running around the countryside proclaiming to all and sundry who are prepared to listen that this is the greatest thing since canned peaches. Again, unfortunately, a number of farmers accept that point of view. Bluntly, the position is that we are exporting the jobs of thousands of meat workers throughout the country. When those people go on strike, as they have done and will continue to do, for example, in Portland in south-west Victoria, the scorn of the Government and the entrepreneurs is poured upon them. Quite frankly, in my view, all that those men and women are doing is seeking to retain their jobs in an industry that they have grown up in.

The other unfortunate aspect of this live sheep export trade from Australia at present is that the processors - the Borthwicks and all the others in the game - are just as concerned as the workers because they are suffering a downturn in throughput in their works. But, unfortunately, the processors, while privately saying that they are not concerned about the situation, are not prepared to go public and to do the right thing by themselves and their workers; for what reason I have yet to ascertain. It is a crying shame when organisations which have processed meat in this country since this country established a meat export trade are hiding somehow or other, are not prepared to be frank and honest and are prepared to allow the Minister for Primary Industry and other members of this Government verbally to thrash the workers all over the place and not defend them.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– In view of the motion that was moved a while ago, has the Minister for Social Security (Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) put anything in train in an endeavour to get the information that Senator Walsh has requested before we conclude dealing with the estimates for the Department of Primary Industry?

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE (Victoria - Minister for Social Security) (3.5)- As I stated earlier, the matters raised by Senator Walsh are the subject of questions on notice. They will be dealt with in the manner in which questions on notice are dealt with. The matters raised by him do not relate to the Bill which is before the Committee.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– The Minister for Social Security (Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) has just stated that these matters pertain to questions on notice. Of course, what the Minister does not seem to comprehend is that the Parliament will be dissolved tomorrow and those questions that Senator Walsh has on notice will disappear from the Notice Paper. Whether the Parliament resumes prior to the Christmas festivities or whether it resumes in January next year, we will not be provided with those answers. Once the Parliament is dissolved there will be no government until after the 18 October election. All that Senator Walsh was seeking was the answers to these questions that he put on notice six months ago. It is quite obvious that the Government has something to hide or it would have answered yes or no. As Senator Walsh pointed out, he received an answer within 16 days ;o the question he put on notice pertaining to Mr Sinclair. Yet these other questions have remained on the Notice Paper for six months.

I suggest to the Minister that there are many matters relating to the Department of Primary Industry which we who are concerned with primary industry can discuss for two or three hours. That will give the Minister plenty of time to get that information from the computer. She should be able to obtain it within a few moments, as she said a while ago in answer to an earlier question. There is a telephone line between here and the Department of Primary Industry. I suggest that the Minister put something in motion to get that answer for Senator Walsh. If she does not do that it will be quite obvious that the people referred to by Senator Walsh have been beneficiaries under this scheme and that the Government does not want to disclose that fact prior to the election. That is something about which we are concerned. So are primary producers. When this scheme was first discussed in the Parliament, I believed it was to be implemented as some sort of assistance to primary producers in need, not to primary producers who in their own right are millionaires. That is why we want the answers.

The questions, which are recorded on page 7929 of the Senate Notice Paper of 1 5 September 1980, have been on the Notice Paper since 6 March 1 980. Now this Parliament is in its dying days and the answers have still not been provided. I am not prepared to say that the fault for those answers not having been provided lies with the people who work in the Department of Primary Industry. I am laying the blame squarely at the feet of the Government. Some instruction must have gone to DPI to the effect that those answers are not to be provided. Senator Walsh’s concern and my concern is to get those answers. We will just have to go on, discussing other matters, until we get the answers. I am prepared to stay here all night, as I have said before, until we get the answers.

Senator Peter Baume:

– No, are you really?

Senator McLAREN:

- Senator Baume laughs and says he is too. He might have to stay here. We are dealing with an expenditure of public money. That is what parliament is all about. Members are elected to parliament to carry out their duties as custodians of the taxpayers’ money. If the Government is not prepared to disclose whether the people mentioned by Senator Walsh are recipients of public money, what is the use of having a parliament? I have been pursuing for three or four years now the question of whether the Government is providing the previous GovernorGeneral with a free telephone. I cannot get an answer. Just a simple yes or no is required, but the Government will not tell us.

Senator Walsh:

– Are they providing him with free booze?

Senator McLAREN:

– I do not know about that. That might be so, but I am interested in his free telephone. The other matter which I am concerned about is a matter of public money which this Government does not appear to be doing anything to recover. I refer to page 36 of the written replies that were given to questions asked by Estimates Committee B. I refer to page 36, which records that at page 449 of the Hansard record of the Estimates committees hearings of 3 September, Senator Primmer stated in relation to the Department of Primary Industry:

I am concerned about the company Countryside Meats . . Does this company owe the Department any funds by way of non-payment of slaughter levies?

Will you also ask about any other company which might be a defaulter in the same regard - which has not paid its slaughter levies - for the last 12 months? Will you give the amount owing by each one?

The answer reads:

Live-stock Slaughter Levies

Returns outstanding longer than 1 2 months -

Bacchus Marsh Meats Pty Ltd

Westons Meats

Colonial Meat Co.

McCartney

Matthews (Seymour Abattoir)

Balharrie

Hillstock

Rich River Meat Co.

Baralaba Butcher

Elbourne Bros

Gordons Butchery

H. Sawyer & D. V. McAuliffe

Ahwing.

What intrigues me is that the name of C. Ahwing is on that list, but the amount that he owes is listed as $3. 1 3. Let us look at some of the other amounts that are owing by these companies to the Federal Government. The Illawarra Meat Co. Pty Ltd has had a receiver appointed. It owes the Federal Government $19,949. That is an enormous amount. D. and M. A. Morrison owes $13,814; Hillstock Pty Ltd, $21,449; Countryside Meats, the one about which Senator Primmer was concerned, $141,367; Yarra Junction Meatworks, $12,876; Mitchell Valley Meatworks, $13,715; R.C.I, and E. Hinton, $19,187. They are enormous amounts of money. I ask the Minister: What steps has the Government taken to recover that money, which in some cases has been owing since as long ago as 1 978 and May 1 979? C. Ahwing has been owing a small amount since November 1978. Morrisons is listed as $13,814 from May 1978 to July 1980. I ask the Minister, before I go any further: What steps has the Government taken to recover those moneys?

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE (Victoria - Minister for Social Security) (3.10) - Action is taken to recover outstanding amounts of this nature through the Deputy Crown Solicitor and, if necessary, through the courts.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard pages 36 and 37 of the written replies given to Estimates Committee E.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

Attachment ‘M’

SENATE ESTIMATES COMMITTEE ‘E’ DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRY HEARING OF 3 SEPTEMBER 1980

The following questions were asked, at p. 449:

Senator PRIMMER:

– I am concerned about the company Countryside Meats………………………… Does this company owe the Department any funds by way of nonpayment of slaughter levies?

Will you also ask about any other company which might be a defaulter in the same regard - which has not paid its slaughter levies - for the last 12 months? Will you give the amount owing by each one?’

The answer follows:

LIVE-STOCK SLAUGHTER LEVIES

Returns outstanding longer than 12 months

Bacchus Marsh Meats Pty Ltd

Westons Meats

Colonial Meat Co.

McCartney

Matthews (Seymour Abattoir)

  1. Balharrie

Hillstock

Rich River Meat Co.

Baralaba Butcher

Elbourne Bros.

Gordons Butchery

  1. H. Sawyer & D. V. McAuliffe
  2. Ahwing
Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– It is now quite clear that this Government has no intention of coming clean, of disclosing to the Parliament the names of those Ministers who have been double dipping, once through their–

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Bonner:

– Order! Senator Walsh will withdraw that remark. It is a reflection on the Ministers.

Senator WALSH:

– It certainly is. It is one that is justified by this Government’s refusal to provide information.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

- Senator Walsh will withdraw that remark without qualification.

Senator WALSH:

– Which remark?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– The remark that the Ministers are double dipping.

Senator WALSH:

– I will withdraw, noting that the test of acceptability in this chamber is not truth but the Standing Orders.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

- Senator Walsh will withdraw without qualification.

Senator WALSH:

– I withdraw, noting that the test of acceptability is the Standing Orders and not truth.

Senator Peter Baume:

Mr Temporary Chairman, that last remark clearly qualifies the withdrawal. I urge the honourable senator to withdraw.

Senator Georges:

– The words ‘double dipping’ are the words to which offence has been taken. I do not know why we should be so sensitive.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Order! Senator Georges, are you seeking leave to speak?

Senator Georges:

– I notice that the Government Whip has something to say. I am speaking to the point of order which I thought he raised. I know he did not cite any Standing Order, but he had something to say, to which I will add. I am endeavouring to show that no offence should be taken to the words ‘double dipping’. The use of those words means that a person has benefited twice.

Senator Peter Baume:

– He said that they were guilty of double dipping.

Senator Georges:

– We could say that they are guilty of benefiting. I do not know why adding those words together makes them offensive. I am merely saying that the Ministers have benefited twice, according to what Senator Walsh has said. Surely that cannot really be offensive. After all, Senator Baume and I have used terms like that freely, without taking offence, in the presence of others who perhaps on these occasions should have taken offence. If we are to take offence at simple terms like that we will fill the book containing unparliamentary terms not once but several times over.

Senator WALSH:

– I will expedite the resolution of this matter and withdraw. I want to comment on the spurious excuse put up by the Minister for refusing to provide the information which she has admitted could be obtained in a matter of minutes if the Government had the will to do so. She said that these matters were the subject of questions on notice and they could be answered in the normal way. She knows very well, of course, that as from tonight or, at the most, tomorrow those questions on notice will become irrelevant. They will disappear from the Senate Notice Paper just as Question No. 3381 disappeared in 1975. Perhaps I should put to the Minister the proposition that providing she will come clean on these questions on notice I will not talk about Question No. 3381. Perhaps the Government would prefer that I discuss the subject matter of Question No. 3381 and the answer to it which is fairly well known. I doubt that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) would want me to discuss that. I again invite the Minister to come clean on this issue as a more acceptable alternative to the Government than having the subject matter of Question No. 3381 of 1975 discussed in the Senate, if not now then on the adjournment debate or during the debate on the first reading of a Bill.

Another point I want to make is that it is now perfectly clear - we cannot be certain which Ministers are involved - that some of the six Ministers to whom those questions on notice refer have received money under this scheme. No other explanation can be reconciled with the facts. At least some of them have received payments. The Government refuses to disclose those payments. Some of the Ministers concerned are millionaires. They all receive salaries in excess of $40,000 a year. I am not sure precisely what the salary and the tax-free allowances of the Prime Minister amount to but I think it is about $86,000 a year. They are picking up under the table an extra couple of thousand bucks and not even disclosing it. They have the audacity to chastise other groups in the community who are using industrial muscle or any weapon available to them in an attempt to increase their incomes. Ministers in this Government who have parliamentary incomes of between $40,000 and $80,000 a year are picking up an extra couple of thousand bucks under the table from the public bin. They have the audacity to chastise other people for being greedy. On numerous grounds, one of which is their double standards on this issue, these Ministers have not moral authority to preach social responsibility to unionists or anyone else.

I want to ask another question. I hope to have more luck getting an answer to it that I did with the other questions I have asked. In statutory corporations under the control of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Nixon), upon whom does the responsibility rest to ensure that Government guidelines and ministerial directives pertaining to the use and misuse of motor vehicles are enforced?

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE (Victoria - Minister for Social Security) (3.19) - I do not know what the general nature of the question is with regard to statutory corporations and the use of motor cars. If specific matters need reference to the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Nixon) I will be happy to convey them to him and seek a response.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– I would be surprised if some of the officers present could not provide an answer to my question. It seems that the Government does not want to come clean on this question either. The particular case to which I refer - there are probably other cases on record - is the answer to a question on notice given by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Nixon) during the parliamentary recess in about mid-July, I am not sure of the exact date, in which he stated that he had issued instructions that the Chairman, Deputy Chairman and other officers of the Australian Dairy Corporation were not entitled to use Dairy Corporation vehicles unless they were used as pool vehicles. In other words, they were not entitled to take personal control of those vehicles and treat them as though they themselves owned them. That information was supplied to me by the Minister in the middle of July. It appeared as an answer to a question on notice in the Hansard of 1 9 August. Yet, at least one week after that, I was told - I know this to be correct - that the present Deputy Chairman of the Dairy Corporation still had the vehicle in question garaged at his private home in Gippsland. The question I have just asked is: Upon whom does the responsibility rest to see that the guidelines and instructions issued by the Minister are abided by? Does it rest with the Minister himself, an official of the Department of Primary Industry, the Chairman of the Dairy Corporation - or some other corporation if similar instances have occurred elsewhere - or the General Manager of the Corporation? If it does not rest with any of those people, with whom does it rest?

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE (Victoria - Minister for Social Security) (3.22) - I have nothing to add to the comments that have been made on this matter by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Nixon). I will refer the further inquiry raised by Senator Walsh to him to see whether he wishes to give any further information.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– I put it on the record that the Minister for Social Security (Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) was given some advice by the officer sitting alongside her. It is quite clear that she has made a political decision to suppress that advice just as the Government has decided to suppress the information about which Ministers were double dipping.

Senator Peter Baume:

Mr Temporary Chairman, I raise a point of order. Senator Walsh, as he always does, is contravening Standing Order 418. He has no way of knowing what information passed between the officer and the Minister. For all he knows it was an indication that the information was not forthcoming. It is quite improper for Senator Walsh to attribute motives to the Minister in this way. I ask that he withdraw.

Senator WALSH:

– It is not improper. It is a conclusion which is logically inescapable having observed this Minister and other Government Ministers over a very long period. If I am wrong I invite the Minister to tell us what advice she was given by the office.

Senator Peter Baume:

– I have asked for a withdrawal.

Senator WALSH:

– Withdraw what?

Senator Peter Baume:

– I will not repeat it. It is on the record.

Senator Georges:

– I raise a point of order. It is necessary for the Government Whip to spell out the words to which he takes objection. Is he taking objection to the word ‘suppress’? If he is, again I say that he is over-sensitive. Senator Walsh has a turn of phrase which is peculiar to him. Perhaps it bites a little deeper than most. Nevertheless, I do not think that we should take offence, otherwise whenever Senator Walsh speaks we will be here twice as long as we normally would be. The word suppress’ does not mean anything more than the word ‘withhold’. Surely the word ‘withhold’ is not offensive? I can see no reason why Senator Walsh should withdraw.

Senator Peter Baume:

– Standing Order 418 also refers to the imputation of motives. It was the imputation of motives contained in what Senator Walsh said that I found offensive.

Senator WALSH:

– The remark was so nebulous that Senator Baume cannot articulate it.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Bonner:

– Order! An objection has been raised and a withdrawal asked for because of the imputation that the Minister has deliberately suppressed information. Senator Walsh, I ask you to withdraw out of due respect to the Chair.

Senator WALSH:

– On that basis I withdraw. I appreciate the hypersensitivity of supporters of this Government. I notice that Senator Maunsell is no longer in the chair. I congratulate him for getting his ticket out very early. The National Country Party has been known to stand truth on its head before, but Senator Maunsell has stood the National Country Party ticket on its head. He has turned it upside down so that Maunsell is No. 1 and Bjelke-Petersen is No. 3.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– I ask Senator Walsh to confine his remarks to the issue before the Committee. Have you finished speaking, Senator Walsh?

Senator WALSH:

– I have finished speaking on that matter. It is now perfectly clear that the Government will not tell the Senate who has the responsibility for enforcing government guidelines and ministerial directives on the use of motor vehicles in statutory corporations. The Government has absolutely no intention of informing the Committee which Ministers receive payments under the beef incentives payments scheme. In other words, the Government has just put on record that these whole proceedings are a farce, that the Senate is not a House of review, but that it is a

House which automatically rubber stamps the directives given by the present Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in the House of Representatives. These proceedings are a complete farce. The Minister has the information in both cases and has made a decision to withhold it. I invite the Minister once more to tell the Senate whether she would like to provide the information requested or whether she would like to have, as an alternative, the subject matter of question on notice No. 3381 discussed in a first reading debate or in the adjournment debate.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– It is quite apparent that we are not going to get answers to the questions which both Senator Walsh and I have posed. This situation takes my mind back some years to an occasion when I sought to have incorporated in Hansard a list of people receiving the superphosphate bounty quite legally under the Customs and Excise Act. The people who sat opposite used every endeavour - I think it was for a period of three days - to try to suppress being revealed to the public the names of the persons who were in receipt of the superphosphate bounty. By persisting for three days I finally managed to get the names recorded in Hansard-then Senator Cotton gave me permission - and we now have on record that the present Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) was in receipt of a superphosphate bounty of at least $5,000 in that year.

It is quite evident that wherever members of the Government are recipients of public moneys every endeavour will be made by the people who sit opposite - I do not know whether it is at the behest of the Prime Minister or anyone else - to suppress from public information the names of any of the members of the Cabinet who are in receipt of such moneys. The salaries of members of this Parliament and the salaries of all the judges of the country are public knowledge. Everyone knows what we are paid every week of the year, as well as the amount of benefit we are entitled to receive. Where Ministers of the Liberal-National Country Party Government are recipients of taxpayers’ money, that information is to be hidden and nobody is to know anything about it. I think it is a great shame.

I have a lot of sympathy for the officers of the Department of Primary Industry who are presently sitting behind the Minister for Social Security (Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle). I hope that neither Senator Walsh nor I have embarrassed those officers by pursuing these questions. The questions are not directed at the officers of the Department of Primary Industry. The officers are here only to provide answers. It is up to the Minister at the table to decide whether those answers are given to members of parliament. I hope that the officers do not think we are pursuing them in any way. They have a job to do and they do it to the best of their ability. I have no complaint against the officers.

Once again I place on record my disgust at the way in which this Government has endeavoured in the last five years to cover up the misuse of taxpayers’ money. I would not say that that money is misused when it is distributed by way of superphosphate bounty or by way of the matter now under discussion. There are many other ways about which I cannot speak under this item. However, I have done so on other occasions.

It is time the people in the far flung areas of this country knew just what sort of Government we have in office. It is prepared to do everything possible to maintain lower living standards for people in need. The Minister for Social Security, who is at the table, tried to take away the $40 funeral benefit from pensioners. We now find that she is not prepared to reveal the amount of money which the Prime Minister and all of his other Cabinet Ministers who are primary producers are getting. If they are not getting anything it is a simple matter for the Minister to say: ‘No, they are not recipients of any money’. If they are recipients of money we are entitled to know about it. It is quite obvious that we will not receive that information. We will have to talk about some other matters under this item.

Under the appropriation for the Department of Primary Industry for this financial year we see an amount of $ 1 47,900 is allocated for wine research. Those of us who listened to the news this morning will know that Mr Anthony is at present talking to the people in the European Economic Community. He is making noises about how he will not allow imports of wine into this country unless the EEC comes to the party and agrees with his proposal that the EEC take more sheep meat. I have argued in this Parliament for many years that some restrictions ought to be placed upon the import of wine and brandy because such imports are having a very detrimental effect on the wine grape growers in the State in which I live. Some of the grape growers are in very necessitous circumstances because of these imports.

I noticed in a newspaper this morning a Press release which has caused Mr Anthony very great concern. Customs officers in Australia now intend to carry out an examination for quality of some of the imports of wine and brandy. That is something that should have been in operation for many years. Under our Australian legislation no brandy producer is allowed to offer brandy for resale unless it has been stored in wood for two years. Yet we are allowing, under the Customs legislation of this country, imports of wine and brandy - particularly brandy imports- when we have no way of ascertaining how long it has been on wood, whether it has come from the grape one day, is loaded on an aircraft or a ship the next and then landed on the shores of Australia. Those imports are sold in competition with our own product.

I remind the Committee that some years ago when former Senator Murphy was the Minister for Customs and Excise he worked very hard to find a formula under which we could bring about these measures which are now being talked about by this Government, to ensure that any imports of brandy or spirits into this country comply with our own laws.

Of course, the argument has always been put forward that if we are going to impose certain restrictions we will fall foul of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which might offend some of our neighbours or people who buy products from us. Mr Anthony is not worried about that now because there is an election in the offing. He is visiting the EEC countries, waving his hands about and making great threats that if he cannot find a market in the EEC for more sheep meat he will impose restrictions on those countries exporting wines and spirits to our country. It is nothing more than an election ploy. The Government could have done it many years ago.

Senator Sibraa:

– Stop the Airbus.

Senator McLAREN:

– The sale of the Airbus may be stopped, as my colleague Senator Sibraa points out. An amount of $147,900 is allocated for wine research. That should be the case. What will happen to all the good work that has been done in wine research if we intend to allow these imports? I received a telegram some time ago from Mr Nixon when he was first appointed as Minister for Primary Industry. He put out a statement similar to the one we saw in the newspaper today, that there were to be some restrictions. I asked for some details. An enormous amount of wine and brandy in money values is being imported into this country to the detriment of our own producers.

I wish to raise a matter concerning the appropriation of $20m for wool promotion. I would like to receive some answers to the questions which I will now pose. How much of that amount of $20m is involved in trying to devise a new method of shearing sheep? I know that for a long time the industry has been endeavouring to find some mechanical means of shearing sheep. As an ex-shearer who earned his living as a shearer for about 21 years, I venture to say that we will never come up with a device which will satisfactorily remove the wool from sheep unless a man or a woman guides the machine. There are women shearers now. I would like to know how much of this $20m, if any, the Government is expending on trying to invent these machines. In my view - I will say it here and now; I have said it before - it is an absolute waste of money.

At present this country is experiencing a great shortage of shearers. There is only one way to overcome that, and that is to make the working conditions better for shearers and provide them with up to date shearing machines and good living conditions and give some incentive to young people to take on the job. Australian shearers are renowned for their proficiency and their speed. I think the suggested invention is a waste of the woolgrowers’ money. Even if a new machine were to be invented, it would be of benefit only to the large pastoralists in this country. It would be of no benefit at all to a small mixed farmer who runs, say, from 1,000 to 2,000 sheep. It would not pay him to install that sophisticated machinery in his shed. If some miracle happens and this machine is invented we will find ourselves in the situation in which if there is no work in the large pastoral areas for a multitude of shearers there will be no shearers available to shear the sheep in the agricultural areas, and we will run into a grave problem. I should like to ask the Minister how much of this $20m- it has been increased by $6m this year - is being expended in trying to invent a new shearing machine.

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE (Victoria - Minister for Social Security) (3.36) - I understand that on page 187 of the notes for this Committee there is a breakdown of expenditure under the special appropriation for promotion and research under the Wool Industry Act. In that breakdown it will be found that $7.1m for wool research will come from the wool tax and the Commonwealth will contribute another $7.1m. I am advised that it is from that appropriation the research into shearing methods and other research will come. I do not have any information and my officers do not have any information which would relate directly to the new shearing method which has been referred to by Senator McLaren. We would need to seek that information for him.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I refer to correspondence which I showed to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) from the Slovene Society of the Australian Capital Territory known as Karantania

Inc. No.A.428. This Society has made a submission to the secretary to the Department of the Capital Territory seeking assistance with regard to the acquisition of a certain area for a sports centre. The Society is also involved with one or two other requests. I would ask that I be given a reply. I notice that the letter was lodged with the secretary on 6 June 1980. I think by now there should be some progress. I seek leave to incorporate the letter in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows -

SLOVENE SOCIETY-SLOVENSKO DRUSTVO

Karantania Inc. No.A.428

P.O. Box 189 Woden, A.C.T. 2606

The Secretary, Department of the Capital Territory P.O. Box 158, Canberra City, 2601

Attention Mr Rick Rand, Room 1 85 First Floor, North Building

Dear Sir,

On behalf of our Society I wish to apply for a capital grant of about 30.000 for the purpose of building a Slovenian Sports and Recreational Centre in the suburb of Weston, on block 6 of Section 67 (See attached documentation).

Our Committee composed of myself and Mr A. Grmek (883082), Mr Frank Secko (971892), Stefan Secko (973582), Vladimir Skrbinsek (581 184) and Ciril Setnicar (886330) has been unanimous in applying for this grant and prior to that to the land allocation in Weston.

We have an active membership of about 50 people, but we do attract up to 1 20 people to our functions. We are certain that when our premises will be built, we shall attract even more people.

Whilst our Society has a general type community leaning, our foremost ideal is to play bocce or boules, games which do not exist in Canberra as yet, or rather poorly. We have contacted already the Bocce Federation of Australia, from whom we received some instructions regarding the development of bocce in the A.C.T. We have also contacted already the Marco Polo Club in Queanbeyan who have some courts already established and we have been in constant touch with the Istrian-Australian Association. This association is also keen on the game of bocce and some of its members are also our members.

In our plans to the NCDC we have indicated also that we would like to build a tennis court for our younger people and the hall will be used for table tennis and pool. Upstairs we intend to have a small library room and a chess room.

The Committee does not intend to apply for a full licence or for poker machines. We would like to build the premises on a sober sporting and other family activities ground.

I shall be pleased, if you would like more information from us, to be of service to you.

Yours sincerely Bert Pribae 6.6.80 (President)

Senator MELZER:
Victoria

– I am concerned about problems which have arisen in several Commonwealth departments because of the Government’s direction that they move to Canberra. In the last two or three weeks it has been brought to my attention in sitting on a committee that departments are indicating very strongly that they cannot operate efficiently because of the move. It is being indicated that reports cannot be made available, and works have been delayed because of the movement of staff to Canberra or because of the loss of staff. Departments are pointing out that loss of contact with private enterprise, with trade unions and other organisations means that they have lost contact with areas from which they can get policy advice. I ask whether the Department of Housing and Construction has had occasion to delay reports in any way because of the movement of personnel to Canberra. I should like to know how many members of the Department have moved to Canberra to date, how many members of the Department have resigned because of the decision to move them to Canberra and how many areas of skill have been depleted by the move to Canberra.

I am also interested to know what expenses are covered for members of the various departments, in this instance the Department of Housing and Construction, following the decision of the Government to move the departments to Canberra. It has been indicated to me that the compulsory transferees receive pre-transfer travel, travel allowances, removal and insurance expenses, disturbance allowance, rental assistance, grants to cover solicitors or agents fees, education costs allowances and low interest housing loans. These are all additional to the costs involved in providing new office accommodation and equipment for the people who have their place of work moved from another capital city to Canberra.

I am interested to know whether all these things are covered because last week I raised in the Senate the problems that members of the defence forces have in moving their families from State to State, the very great expense to which they are put, and the very meagre allowances which are made to them to cover their cost of moving their families from State to State. I would be obliged if I could be told whether in the varying instances I have mentioned assistance was in fact given. It has been indicated to me, for instance, that the Department of Employment and Youth Affairs has had costs in the region of $ 10m in moving its staff from other capital cities, in particular Melbourne, to Canberra. I should like an indication of how much it has cost the Department of Housing and Construction to date to move its staff to Canberra, and how much extra expense is expected.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

- Senator Melzer has asked a whole series of questions. There are so many of them that it would have been quite impossible to note them as they were asked, much less provide answers to them all. They are the sorts of questions which I would have thought would have been asked and had answers provided in the course of the Estimate Committee hearings rather than in the Committee of the Whole. We will endeavour, of course, to obtain the answers to the questions in detail after having read them in Hansard, and get them to the honourable senator as quickly as possible.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– In view of what the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) has just said, I think it should be placed on record once again that every time a Minister gets up after members on this side have asked questions in the Committee of the Whole the Minister tries to read us a lesson that all the questions we are pursuing should have been asked in the Estimates Committee hearings. The Minister must surely know of the complaints that we lodged and the haste with which the Estimates committees were called on to sit. It was not in a sitting week. Many of the members of those committees had other commitments which they could not forgo. Some of us came back to Canberra and spent days here. It was not possible to cover many of the items which are now coming before the Parliament in these Estimates debates.

As I have said on many occasions, honourable senators attend only one Estimates committee. We cannot be running from one to another. Of course, there are members in the Parliament who do not agree that we should have Estimates committees, and they do not attend them. But I do not think that any senator, whether he be on this side or the Government side, should be prevented from pursuing matters which interest him as an elected member of parliament when we come into the Committee of the Whole.

I express the wish that in future Ministers do not keep saying when members on this side of the chamber are seeking information that they should have sought it during the hearings of the Estimates committees. It is physically impossible for all members to attend those hearings. Senator Melzer has asked some questions today in the Committee of the Whole. The Minister suggested that she should have pursued them during the Estimates committee hearings. I know for a fact that when the Estimate committees were sitting Senator Melzer, as part of her other duties as a member of the Public Works Committee had to go to Norfolk Island. She cannot be on Norfolk Island serving on a parliamentary committee and attend the Estimates committees here. Let us not have the argument that we should seek all the information that we want during the hearings of Estimates committees. We do not get the information on many occasions and we have to wait to get written replies. Many of those things we are pursuing here now.

Senator MELZER:
Victoria

– May I add to the list that I have already presented to the Minister? I apologise for having put the Department of Housing and Construction to so much work, but as the officers are to get the information that I have asked for, I ask whether those members of the Department who did not move to Canberra, as directed by the Government, were compensated in any way for having their careers brought to a halt.

Proposed expenditures agreed to.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Bonner:

– The question now is:

That the votes contained in Group F be now passed without request.

GROUP F

Department of Trade and Resources

Proposed expenditure, $325,5 1 7,000

Department of Foreign Affairs

Proposed expenditure, $647,434,000

Department of Defence

Proposed expenditure, $3,194,287,000

Postal and Telecommunications Department

Proposed expenditure, $230,874,000

Department of Administrative Services

Proposed expenditure, $392,960,000

Rent (Department of Defence)

Proposed expenditure, $42,200,000

Acquisition of Sites and Buildings (Defence)

Proposed expenditure, $ 1 6,904,000

Furniture and Fittings (Department of Defence)

Proposed expenditure, $6,600,000

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

– I wish to raise a matter relating to the estimates of the Department of Foreign Affairs because I think this is the only place at which I can raise it. It is generally about the conduct of foreign affairs in this place which I think should be of concern to us all. We recently have had much discussion in this place on matters such as the treatment of dissidents in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. People on both sides have expressed their concern about the treatment of dissidents in the USSR, and so they should, and so we should. We have also had considerable discussion, particularly by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), about the troubles in Poland, about the formation of free trade unions in Poland and about the activities of the workers in Gdansk. We have had long public discussion, we have had speeches in the United States, where the Prime Minister went to receive a medal from the anti-discrimination group, B’nai Brith, about the lack of freedom of action of trade unions and the lack of freedom of action of dissidents in countries such as the Soviet Union and Poland. People on both sides have expressed concern about this, but particularly the Prime Minister has made a great noise in this country about these problems.

We have had in recent months and weeks in a country close to us a situation which I think is disturbing; a situation in a country which has no free trade unions, which is under a military dictatorship, in which none of the normal freedoms of speech operate that we consider right, in which an internationally and nationally distinguished politician, Kim Dae Jung, has been subject to a trial by a military tribunal and has now been sentenced to death.

Senator Puplick:

– It was not even a trial.

Senator GRIMES:

– I agree with you; it was not even a trial. What concerns me is that because of our trade with this nation and our relationships with this nation we have certainly had what could be described only as a demur from the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock). We have had silence from the Prime Minister. I think that is not the sensible way, the fair way or the just way for a country such as this which desires to preserve its freedom and to see freedom preserved around the world, to carry on. We should not modify our responses to the extent that they have been modified in this case because we have trade relations with this country which we consider to be important.

Kim Dae Jung is a distinguished international politician. He has been a member of the Socialist International for a long time. He is respected by people as far afield as Willy Brandt, Olof Palme, and other distinguished democratic socialists. He has been active in politics in his own country since 1946. He has been a member of the National Assembly of that country on and off since 1960. He was the leader and the President of the new democratic party of South Korea from 1960 until relatively recent times. In the presidential election in 1971 which elected to power General Park Chung Hee, he was narrowly beaten. He got 47 per cent of the vote. Park quickly demonstrated that he was to be a dictator. Kim Dae Jung went overseas, in exile, to Japan. In 1973 he was kidnapped by the Korean Central Intelligence

Agency and taken back to Korea. That kidnapping was a result of what must be one of the most cowardly international agreements ever arrived at. The Korean and Japanese governments agreed that the Japanese would not kick up a fuss about it, provided the Koreans continued the myth that it was not their intelligence agents who in fact kidnapped, over international boundaries, Kim Dae Jung.

He was eventually, after two years, found guilty of electoral irregularities in 1971. Part of the agreement with the Japanese was that he would not be charged with anything he did overseas. He was gaoled for a year. He then joined again with the group of people, the Han Min Tong, who opposed the military regime in South Korea and who wished to see a fully democratic order restored in that country. He was still a member of this group in 1976 when he was arrested and gaoled for a term of five years, later to be released in 1978. In 1979 he was again placed under house arrest. He was then a sick man who had spent much of period in gaol in the prison hospital. He was subsequently released. As a result of the student unrest in the southern part of South Korea, he was arrested in May this year, with 23 others, and charged with sedition. We have sinee seen a trial before a military tribunal which, in any circumstances, would be considered an absolute farce.

Most of the evidence which has been presented in that trial in fact has resulted from Mr Kim’s activities overseas, in contravention of that unfortunate agreement which was arrived at between the Japanes and the Korean governments. The trial was reported in the Korean Press in a manner in which we are used to trials being reported in other totalitarian regimes when all the prosecution evidence is presented as fact. An editorial in the Korean Herald in recent weeks quite clearly, from its wording, stated that Kim Dae Jung and his colleagues were guilty and that the prosecution was doing the country a great service by bringing them before this military tribunal. One device which was used in the trial was to delay Kim Dae Jung’s defence evidence so that it would be presented on a Saturday because newspapers are not printed in Korea on a Sunday. Therefore there would be no report of the trial.

The trial was a farce. The trial is recognised as a farce around the world. When President Carter made what one would consider very mild remarks concerning the apparent injustice being done to Kim and his colleagues, the response in South Korea was quite violent. Carter was accused of using intemperate language and attacking the Korean people. Kim Dae Jung, as I have said, is an internationally recognised and respected politician. He spent much of his adult life fighting for democratic processes in South Korea. He has suffered because of this both in exile and in his own country in gaol. He is a sick man. Anyone who has known him over the years and has seen photographs of him at his trial cannot but be depressed by the manner in which his physical health has obviously deteriorated since May when he was arrested on what most people would consider to be a phoney charge of sedition. His only crime can have been to oppose the regime of General Park and his successors in the country which he obviously loves and in which he has struggled to achieve democracy over so many years.

My complaint about the conduct of our foreign affairs is that we should, at all times, express our concern and distress about injustice, lack of freedom, arrest without trial, phoney trials and military trials wherever they occur throughout the world. Suppression of human rights such as occurred in this case should be condemned whether it is performed by the Left or the Right and whether it is performed in so-called totalitarian regimes or regimes which claim to be democratic. The response we have had in this Parliament to Kim Dae Jung’s trial was, as I have said, a relatively mild response from the Minister for Foreign Affairs who certainly condemned the death sentence and certainly made no mistake about his view that the trial was injust and unfair.

The Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Carrick, in this place also expressed concern but said that we wanted to keep our relations with South Korea at a proper level because we had important trade relations with it. In fact, he said that he was looking with interest at the democratisation of South Korea. How one can see any sense of democracy in a country in which to be in the Parliament one must be part of the military establishment or closely associated with it, I do not know. I think the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has done this country a disservice by not strongly condemning the actions in South Korea especially against Kim Dae Jung, who has been sentenced to death, against the Reverend Moon and against the others who have been charged as they have.

I think that if we stand in this Parliament, in public and on the international stage to condemn the undoubted injustices which are done in the Soviet Union, which have been done in the past in Nicaragua and which are still being done in Chile, we should equally do so concerning a country such as South Korea with which we have such close relationships. We should not allow our trading relationships with that country to prevent us from expressing our objection in strong terms. The only way a country on the international stage can express objection in strong terms is, in fact, for the leader of the country to express his disgust and disturbance about what is going on. I know that many people think that this is a naive approach to foreign affairs, that we should condemn injustices only when it occurs in those countries which we see as our enemies and that we should leave those countries we see as our friends, such as South Korea, alone.

South Korea in many ways is in danger of great turmoil. The lid has been kept on South Korea by General Park and his successors for a long time. We do no good service to the people of South Korea, to the people of the region or to the people of the world if, for reasons of trade, we ignore the injustices that occur in that country and if we do not raise our voice with other international voices in strongly condemning what has happened there. I merely request that in future our foreign affairs be conducted in such a way that we are seen to be against injustice, that we are seen to be against military trials of this type and that we are seen to be against what will be judicial murder if the sentence on Kim is carried out. I make a plea as an individual senator in this place that in future our response be more related to the seriousness of the situation than it is in this case.

Senator MELZER:
Victoria

– While we are on the subject of Korea, I would like to raise with the Minister responsible the fact that a few weeks ago - on 31 August - a conference was held in Melbourne on the question of reunification of Korea. Three visitors from North Korea had sought visas to attend the conference to put a point of view about the North Korean position on the reunification of Korea, how matters were proceeding as far as they were concerned and what the problems were. The request for visas was put forward in the usual way. It was put to our embassy in Indonesia but the visas were refused. The three people who wanted to come here were not people who had never been to Australia before. One of them had been here some five times. The interpreter had been here two or three times before and the other member of the delegation was well known to Australians because he works in the Korean Embassy in Indonesia. But the Government refused to give those people visas. It not only refused to give them visas but also it waited until the last possible moment to advise that the visas would not be issued, making it practically impossible for any protest or appeal to be made at the time.

This matter was of concern to the people who organised the conference, lt is hard enough even to bring Korea to the attention of the Australian people let alone get them along to any sort of conference, meeting or discussion to talk about how they feel about Korea being reunified or how the reunification of Korea might affect the Australian people. Despite the fact that some hundreds of Australians lie buried in Korea as a result of the war, many people who have grown up in Australia completely forget that Australia was ever involved in a war in that area. The majority of Australians refuse to face up to the fact that with a very large number of American forces and arms in South Korea we are not so very far removed from nuclear weapons which might involve Australia. Thus people were concerned that Australians should sit down and consult with others about the problems of Korean reunification.

One could not help wondering whether the fact that a trade delegation from South Korea was in Australia at the time somehow played some part in the Government’s refusal to allow three North Koreans to come into Australia for a very short period to discuss the matter. One cannot help wondering whether a new cold war is developing in the area and whether this is being extended now into Australia so that we are prevented from even talking to people from North Korea about the problems. This matter was of great concern to people who wanted to develop closer and friendlier relations with North Korea and to people who felt that North Korea was at last reaching out wanting to re-establish closer and friendlier relations with Australia. In the letter I received from the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr MacKellar) explaining that these Koreans would not be allowed to visit Australia, the Minister said, presumably speaking about the efforts of Koreans in North and South Korea:

Their efforts to improve relations with each other have our strong support.

In the circumstances one could not but be left with some doubt whether this Government is really putting a lot of effort into improving relations between North and South Korea when it took this extraordinary stand of not allowing three North Koreans to come to Australia to talk to Australians.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– Officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs well know that for a number of years I was a persistent questioner about the fate of the man Ben Bella, who played a role in liberating Algeria from French imperialism. He was released recently, and I am curious to know whether he is allowed to travel outside Algeria. In what conditions does he live in that country?

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I will take that question on notice.

Senator MELZER:
Victoria

– At the moment our National Library is featuring in its foyer a display of propaganda from the present military Government in Chile. When an explanation was sought as to why that display of propaganda was there the answer given was that the books on display were a gift from the Chilean Embassy and that the practice is to acknowledge gifts by displaying them. In view of the fact that, as I understand it, this Government condemns the present military regime in Chile, is there some other explanation as to why that material is being displayed in the National Library? Will the Government permit it to continue being displayed there? If the explanation is true, does it mean that any other country, embassy or group within Australia, merely by making a gift of books or material to Australia or to the Library, may then use our National Library as a venue to display their propaganda?

Senator Mulvihill:

– Bolivia might do the same.

Senator MELZER:

– Yes.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I will take that question on notice.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– In referring to the estimates for the Department of Trade and Resources, I want to draw attention to yet another financial impropriety involving senior Ministers of this Government, or a senior Minister, which is being covered up by the Government. It concerns an application by Chrysotile Corporation of Australia Pty Ltd, which operates an asbestos mine at Barraba in New South Wales, for an export market development grant. The application was originally rejected. It was then reconsidered following a further application by the company. We are told by Mr Anthony that it was then referred to the Bureau of Mineral Resources for an opinion as to whether the material qualified for a grant, and a grant of $395,000 was then approved. This is revealed in the report of the Export Development Grants Board.

This has been the subject of questions in the House of Representatives, originally on 10 September. Again that day it was the subject of adjournment debate speeches, both in the House of Representatives and in the Senate. On 10 September, in reply to a question, Mr Anthony revealed the facts which I have just summarised - that it had been reconsidered and referred to the Bureau for expert advice. Mr Anthony said:

On the basis of the advice concerning the extent of beneficiation involved, the Board determined that highly refined asbestos fibres exported by the Chrysotile Corporation were eligible for export expansion grant purposes.

The key word is ‘beneficiation’. Webster’s dictionary defines beneficiation as ‘the process of reducing ores’; in other words, the process of concentrating ores. There has been no concentration of asbestos, according to the information available to me on this matter. The second definition given by Webster’s is ‘improvement, as of mind’ which is quite clearly not relevant in this context. At page 166 of the second edition of the McGraw Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms it is stated: benefication - improving the chemical or physical properties of an ore so that metal can be recovered at a profit. Also known as mineral dressing.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics classification refers to asbestos crude, washed or ground, including waste, defined as asbestos in crude rock form, raw, beaten or washed fibres, whether graded to length or not, to asbestos in flakes or powder, and to waste products. On 9 September this year the shipping manager at Barraba said:

We only sell as the raw fibre milled from rock. We merely pressurise it into bags, so that they can get more into the bag.

On the face of what is available, the ore was not beneficiated in accordance with either the common dictionary definition of the meaning of that word or the technical definition of the meaning of that word. The original application was rejected. The subsequent application was granted after referral to the Bureau of Mineral Resources for expert advice, which the Minister refuses to make available. In other words, we are being asked by the Minister to ignore the meaning of words, to suppress what common sense tells us has happened. The ground for doing that, so the Minister says, is this secret opinion which he says he and the Board received from the Bureau of Mineral Resources. Quite frankly, we are not willing to take the Minister’s word for it that the Bureau of Mineral Resources’ advice says what he claims it says. Even if the BMR gave such advice, it ought to be published so that the alleged opinion given by it could be challenged by other institutions with expertise in the area. Not surprisingly, the question was raised again in the House of Representatives on 1 1 September, when Mr Anthony repeated a good deal of the information he had given the day before. He went on to say: . . neither the Board nor I am entitled to divulge the information relating to third parties where claims for export incentives are concerned.

He continued in relation to the submissions: the company has notified me that it is prepared to make them available to the Leader of the Opposition if he wishes to see them.

Mr Hayden And the Bureau of Mineral Resources too . . .

Mr Anthony said:

The Company is prepared to make its submission available. Under the Act it is not possible for me to make the departmental papers available . . .

This is what Mr Anthony claims. In other words, Mr Anthony will not make available for public perusal, criticism and scrutiny the departmental note which he claims justified the decision. When the matter was raised, in Mr Anthony’s reply on 1 1 September he said:

I have looked at the papers, including the advice that has been given to the Board by the Bureau of Mineral Resources, and I am satisfied that the Board’s decision was a proper one.

There was then an interjection which asked:

How much did Sinclair get?

The significance of that comment is that the Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd was the major creditor of the parent company of Chrysotile. The Commercial Bank of Australia, according to evidence given before the Industries Assistance Commission inquiry into Woodsreef Mines Ltd, stood to lose $ 1 5m if the assets of the company had to be quickly liquidated. Other people have put the potential loss facing the CBA at a somewhat lower figure than that. We also know that the CBA is the National Country Party’s bank and Mr Sinclair’s bank, which made funds available to him when he was facing a financial squeeze after he had had to pay back some of the money his old man had pinched. He has not paid it all back; he has still got $300,000. He is using that as working capital for the Sinclair Pastoral Co., and the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) by restoring him to senior Cabinet rank obviously endorsed the principle that stolen funds can be used as working capital for ministerial businesses.

So there is more to this matter than appears to meet the eye. There is a close link between the National Country Party and the right honourable member for New England, in whose electorate the mine was located; he has an association with Woodsreef or Chrysotile; he also has that association with the Commercial Bank, through the National Country Party and directly through his own private business. Finally, there is an association between Chrysotile Corporation of Australia Pty Ltd and the Commercial Bank; in other words, there is an interlocking series of facts which all point to yet more financial impropriety by this Government. Those suspicions will not be dispelled until the Minister makes available the advice allegedly given to him by the Bureau of Mineral Resources but which he refuses to make available.

Senator MELZER:
Victoria

– I know that the Department of Trade and Resources has responsibility for the commercial development of the Australian uranium mining industry. I would like to know whether that Department has any investment in developing the method of fabricating Synroc, the synthetic material used to immobilise high level radioactive waste. I note from publications that development of that method has commenced at Lucas Heights. I would like to know whether the Department is concerned or involved in that. I have noticed also that a joint study to develop a national management strategy for hazardous industrial wastes has commenced. I would like to know whether the Department of Trade and Resources has any investment in that study.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I am advised that the Department of Trade and Resources has no interest - I am sorry, no involvement–

Senator Melzer:

– It has plenty of interest.

Senator DURACK:

– The Department of Trade and Resources has no involvement in the matters raised by Senator Melzer. Those matters fall within the responsibility of the Department of National Development and Energy.

Senator SIBRAA:
New South Wales

– In relation to the estimates for the Department of Defence, 1 move:

That the Committee, having considered the report of Estimates Committee F, recommends that the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations:

The cost of special flights by the Royal Australian Air Force and the method of accounting for that cost.

I do so because that matter has been commented upon by a number of Estimates committees in the past. I will not quote what all of them have said about it, but Senate Estimates Committee A, when it reported in October 1979, had this to say about the funding of VIP flights:

During the Committee’s examination of the Estimates for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, we sought information concerning the basis of the estimate for the conveyance of the Governor-General, Ministers of State and others by RAAF Aircraft . . .

The Committee was told that the estimate was . . prepared by the Department of Defence on the basis of the Treasury cost formula together with airport charges, aircraft cleaning costs, rations, crew accommodation, meals and telephones with an allowance for hours flown as an integral part of the RAAF.’

That quotation in the report was taken from page 28 of the explantory notes provided by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. The Committee report continued:

In addition, the estimate for this current financial year is based on the same flying hour rates as applied in 1978-79, but reflects a 10 per cent reduction in flying hours and a corresponding reduction in support services.

The Committee, in considering this year’s estimate, noted that the Budget estimates and actual expenditure for recent financial years were as follows:

A table follows. Mr Chairman, I seek leave to have that table incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows -

Senator SIBRAA:

– Thank you, Mr Chairman. The report continued:

We also noted that the following amounts were drawn from the Advance to the Minister for Finance in order to meet actual expenditure:

The Committee appreciates the difficulties and inherent inaccuracies in estimating for this type of Government expenditure and is aware of, and endorses, the general principle that estimates should be based on past experience. But, in this particular instance, little heed seems to have been paid to past experience. At each of the last three Budget hearings, the Committee has been told that the decrease in the estimates against the expenditure of the previous year reflected an expected reduction in VIP flying hours. On each occasion expenditure has considerably exceeded the estimate, even after the opportunity for a second assessment which is provided by the Additional estimates. This has then led to funds being drawn from the Advance to the Minister for Finance.

This Committee has previously reported (May 1978) on circumstances when the use of the Advance to the Minister for Finance was, at best, very doubtful. But in the situation described above, the extent of the use of the Advance is more attributable to consistently low estimates rather than urgent and unforeseen expenditure.

The Committee will be interested to see the actual expenditure figure for the financial year 1979-80.

Then this year, Estimates Committee A, of which Senator McLaren is a member - he already has raised this issue - reported on the same subject as follows:

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 in spread over a number of Departmental appropriations . . Another example relates to the overall costs in connection with overseas visits by the Prime Minister. The Committee recommends that the Department with the prime responsibility for a program or project provide a summary of the overall cost with cross-referencing to any other Department involved in the explanatory notes.

Again, the report of Senate Estimates Committee F this year includes the following:

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.

In its examination of the consolidated list (page 1 38 - the explanatory notes), the Committee found difficulties in discerning a common formula for allocating costs under various appropriation items between the V.I.P. and Defence role of the aircraft.

The Committee therefore recommends that the Department in its future submissions give details of the formula applied for each of the Items and provide a breakdown of costs.

During debate in the Senate last week on a matter of public importance concerning the No. 34 Squadron and the VIP 707s I cited costs involved in operating those aircraft. I quoted from a United States of America source entitled ‘Carter’s Campaign Cost-Cutting’, which stated:

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 went on to state:

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

During the Estimates Committee hearings I asked what was the formula used for allocating operating costs of those aircraft. I was informed at the time that it was not based on full costs. In fact I was told that no salaries and wages are put towards the hourly cost of these planes. But if one examines the Estimates, particularly item 234.1.05 which covers these matters it is quite easy to work out that the cost of operating these planes is at least $4,189 an hour. The Department of Defence told the Committee that the costed charge for each hour was only $2,757. The United States article stated that the cost of flying a Boeing 707 for President Carter would be approximately $4,600 an hour. I made some other inquires about the cost of renting this sort of aircraft privately. I admit, of course, that there has to be a profit margin for the company involved. The firm I was able to contact was Clarkair International (Australia) Pty Ltd, which said that the cost would be approximately $6,000 an hour.

Again, if we look at the estimate for the number of hours to be flown, we find that the estimate for next year is based on a total of 1,700 hours being flown, which includes 250 hours on non-defence use; that is, 250 hours out of a total 1,700 hours.

But if one looks at the figures provided in the answers to questions I asked this year one finds that the total number of hours flown was 1,296- that is well down on 1,700. The defence role was 577.3 hours, but the VIP role was 482.7 hours. Therefore, last year the planes flew 482.7 hours on VIP flights, yet we are being told that they will be used for only 250 hours next year. I submit that that is nonsense. I also raised the cost of charters from Qantas Airways Ltd. During the consideration 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:

That is an interesting comparision. It was costing us approximately Sim a year to charter Qantas jets and in the Estimates the operating costs of the Boeings for one year alone was over $7m.

Senator Thomas:

– Did you look at the availability of the 747s from Qantas?

Senator SIBRAA:

– No, I did not. But I have two questions on notice about the cost. Those questions deal with the purchase of those Boeings and the number of times we have used them for charters in the past. I put the questions on notice in May 1980. It should be a simple thing to get an answer. I still have not got an answer. On this matter I also refer to the questions raised by Senator Messner at the Estimates Committee hearing on 18 April. Senator Messner asked whether the Department had examined the relative costs at some earlier stage of the use of the Boeing 707 aircraft as against the cost of using Qantas Airways Ltd charters. The answer from Mr McAlister of the Department of Defence was very interesting. He said:

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

That means that the Government purchased those Boeing 707s without any cost-benefit structure at all being done. On the formula and the accounting for these costs I put the following question on notice in May 1980:

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 707s in: (i) 1978-79; and (ii) from 1 July 1979 to 31 March 1980.

I would have thought that was a quite reasonable request and that I would have received answers to those questions; but, as yet, they remain unanswered.

There was a very interesting article in the Sydney Morning Herald by Neil O’Reilly dealing with the Senate Estimates committees. It was his opinion of the way in which some of the Senate Estimates committees are treated. For the benefit of honourable senators who did not read the article I quote from it now:

AS THE FEDERAL ELECTION DRAWS CLOSER, THE BATTALIONS OF BLUE-AND-GREY-SUITED BUREAUCRATS AROUND CANBERRA ARE LOOKING MORE RELAXED

They have been around long enough to know that politicians rapidly lose interest in the Canberra Public Service when they are about to fight an election.

The rush to close Parliament in time for an election has meant that the spending of billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money has received very cursory examination.

Normally, this is the time of the year that bureaucrats dread most - they have to face committees of senators charged with scrutinising the way the public servants spend the taxpayers’ money.

The 64 senators divide themselves into several committees, each with the job of examining a group of Commonwealth departments.

The estimates committees, as they are known, have never proved a match for the bureaucrats skilled in the art of providing non-answers to the most probing questions. But the public servants are always pleased when it is all over.

SPEEDY CHECK

The haste to close Parliament and to get on the hustings saw few senators last week making any pretence of conducting a searching probe of government spending.

Except for some skirmishes over the cost of the VIP jets used to carry the Prime Minister, Mr Malcolm Fraser, on his overseas expeditions, the senators displayed little interest in asking penetrating questions or demanding clear answers.

The senators’ ennui was apparent as they skipped with barely a pause through page after page of spending proposals.

The relief of the bureaucrats was apparent as they relaxed over lunch in the non-members’ cafeteria in Parliament House.

The senators may have displayed greater zeal had they been present to detect the barely concealed contempt the public servants held for their so-called inquisitors.

Perhaps ‘contempt’ is too strong a word, but it is obvious from the reports I have quoted from- 1978 and 1979 and the two reports in 1980 of the Senate Estimates Committee A and Senate Estimates Committee F - that on this matter we are being led up the garden path and we are not getting answers to the questions we are asking. I put it to the Senate: What is the use of coming to Senate Estimates committees year after year if we keep bringing up the same complaint year after year and we do not get any action on the matter? That was the reason that I moved the motion that this matter be referred to the Senate Standing

Committee on Finance and Government Operations.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I am not sure whether the matter I am about to raise should be dealt with in the estimates for the Postal and Telecommunications Department. It concerns Australian defence personnel serving overseas. One of the Services appears to be getting better postal concessions than the others. Perhaps the question of whether that is so can be taken on board by the Defence advisers or the Postal and Telecommunications Department advisers. I get the impression that Royal Australian Air Force personnel are getting greater postal concessions than Navy personnel and a limited number of Army personnel. Naturally, I am advocating that the concessions should be made available to the greatest number. I do not suggest by any means that they be reduced. I would just like that point clarified.

The other matter I raise deals with defence structure. There are two finance divisions in the Department of Defence in Canberra, each headed by a first assistant secretary, lt has been asserted to me that there is a Navy dominance because both of the first assistant secretaries are ex-Navy men; ex-Navy financiers now occupy senior positions in the Army, Air Force and central financial administration. There are no ex-Air Force, exArmy or ex-Central Office officers at all in Navy financial administration in Canberra. Furthermore, both regional finance officers in Sydney and Melbourne are ex-Navy people. Apparently, according to Navy and RAAF personnel this seems a rather peculiar imbalance. So I would like that matter to be probed and an answer to be conveyed to me subsequently.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I would like to raise briefly a matter on the estimates for the Department of Defence. Can the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) inform me whether he or his advisers are aware of any moves or practices at present whereby persons who are applicants for commissions in the Army Reserve are being questioned as to their views on the issue of conscription? Can the Minister give the Committee an assurance that no such practice is being followed and certainly that no applicants for commissions in the Army Reserve will be disqualified on the grounds that they do not support the concept of conscription?

Senator SIBRAA:
New South Wales

– On 6 November 1979 I asked a question concerning Australian military representation in the Philippines. That question was not answered so on 23 May I again asked the question. I asked:

When can Senator Sibraa expect a reply to Question No. 2 1 60, notice of which was given on 6 November 1 979.

On 1 1 September the answer to the first question, that of 6 November 1979, was given to me. It satisfied the query that I had. This afternoon in this chamber I was given another answer, which means that somebody has just found the second question even though the two things are related. It reads:

Senator Sibraa:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 23 May 1 980:

When can Senator Sibraa expect a reply to Question No. 2160, notice of which was given on 6 November 1979.

Senator Durack:

– The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The answer to Question No. 2160 appeared in Hansard 1 1 September 1980, page 891.

I just think that is gross inefficiency and that somebody should have found this second question when they were answering the first question.

Senator DURACK:
Attorney-General · Western Australia · LP

– Most of the questions that have been asked need to be put on notice because the information is not readily available. Senator Wriedt seemed to be trying to pursue a question that was being asked so strenuously yesterday by him and by his leader in another place in an endeavour to prove that the Government was in some way being dishonest or in some way misleading about the question of conscription. It is quite clear from the answers that were given by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen) and by Senator Carrick and myself in this place that the Government–

Senator Wriedt:

– But nobody believes the Prime Minister now.

Senator DURACK:

- Senator Wriedt does not believe the Minister for Defence, he does not believe Senator Carrick and he does not believe me. Is that what he is saying? The fact is that this was a real red herring dragged up by the Opposition with no evidence whatever to establish it. I heard the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) on PM last night telling us that within a few hours there was going to be something else coming forward. If ever the Opposition had a great rotten egg all over its face it has had egg over its face on this issue. The last dregs of that rotten egg are now being dragged up by Senator Wriedt. He asked whether a person applying for a commission in a reserve force is asked his views about conscription. What would be the basis for that sort of question being asked of anybody? Indeed, if the matter had to be laid to any further rest, it was done in the House of Representatives today in regard to the statement by the Chief of the Defence Force Staff, Admiral Sir Anthony Synnot. The Minister for Defence tabled a document laying this whole question to rest as far as the Defence Force and the Defence Department are concerned. I will refer Senator Wriedt’s question to the Minister for Defence and ask him whether any question has been asked by anybody–

Senator Wriedt:

– There is the contradiction. If all that you have said is correct there is no need to refer it to him; you deny it.

Senator DURACK:

– The suggestion that the Government has plans in relation to conscription has been denied over and over again. Somebody applying for a commission in the Army Reserve may have been asked a question - I do not know. I do not suppose the Minister for Defence knows. The officials do not know. I will refer the matter to the Minister for Defence. If such a question were asked it would be totally irrelevant to the issue. The issue is whether the Government has any plans in relation to this matter. That suggestion has been absolutely and firmly denied over and over again at the highest level of government.

Motion (Senator Sibraa’s) agreed to.

Senator COLSTON:
Queensland

– On a number of occasions in this chamber I have spoken about the translator which is proposed for Airlie Beach in central Queensland. This being the last sitting day of this Parliament, and as we are dealing with the estimates for the Postal and Telecommunications Department, I ask whether there is any information that the Government can give so that I can pass it on to the people of Airlie Beach on the progress that has been made with the proposed translator. The last I heard was that some negotiations were taking place on whether the land could be acquired or on some aspect of the land. I saw some reports in the local Press that the whole matter had been referred to the Ombudsman. The people of Airlie Beach have been waiting for their translator for a long time. If information cannot be given this afternoon, I wonder whether the Minister could arrange for it to be given to me later in the day or even after the Parliament has risen.

The people at Cooktown are a little mystified because they recently saw some activity which seemed to suggest that they might be obtaining a translator in that area. The television transmission to Cooktown is quite poor because it has to come from Cairns and in doing so it has to pass over some very high ranges. The residents of Cooktown receive intermittent transmission. As one of them said the other day, it usually goes off at about the time that a program is becoming most interesting. Therefore, I ask whether there are any definite plans for having a translator at Cooktown as well.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– The matter which I am about to raise I shall also raise when we are dealing with the estimates for the Department of Administrative Services. I wish to get a view from the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Durack). Perhaps he could obtain an official view from the head of the Postal and Telecommunications Department or from the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Staley). I received my telephone account for one of the telephone numbers at my Brisbane office. To my surprise I received with that account, which was sent through the Department of Administrative Services, a list of telephone numbers and the names of people to whom I had sent messages or, in some cases, sent telegrams. All the reverse charge calls which were received in my office were listed. As I mentioned this morning, senators make themselves freely available - especially if the State that they represent is large and embraces isolated areas - and take reverse charge calls. I seldom refuse a reverse charge call unless the caller has established a pattern of overpersistent use. To my surprise, 1 have now received this information, which indicates that Telecom Australia has compiled a list of the numbers of messages which are transmitted and of the calls which are received in my office. That, apparently, was done at the request of the Department of Administrative Services.

I will deal with the matter as far as it concerns the Department of Administrative Services when we are dealing with the estimates for that Department. I ask the Attorney-General whether Telecom appreciates that it has broken the confidentiality and the privacy of a member of parliament’s communications by supplying such a list to the Department of Administrative Services, lt may argue that the Department of Adminstrative Services is the lessee of my telephone. Technically, that is correct. Nevertheless, does it not appreciate that a member of parliament’s telephone, which is used for political purposes, should be secure from the disclosure of such information? That information should be available only to me, on my request. From time to time I have requested lists of the telephone calls or messages which have been sent from my office to make sure that there has been no misuse. I should make such a request directly to Telecom and I take it that Telecom would respond. When at the request of somebody else Telecom supplies that information, it is actually supplying the pattern of my political activity. Being a left wing politician, I take it that some of my activities would come under question by Government members. I am prepared to say that people ring me–

Senator McLaren:

– There is nothing wrong with your activities, Senator.

Senator GEORGES:

– No, of course there is not. It just happens to be part of our political environment. It may be that people belonging to, shall we term it, fringe organisations contact me and I listen to what they have to say. If there were a consistent communication from a particular fringe organisation, and if that list, having been so compiled, got into the hands of one of the number of security forces that we have in this country, that security force could make some sort of story out of it. That force could argue that I should have nothing to hide, but who determines what is to be hidden and what is not to be hidden? I say that Telecom ought to investigate this matter. As far as a member of Parliament is concerned such a list should be supplied at the request of the member and of no one else. There are certain calls that I am not authorised to make. I cannot make overseas calls or send cables overseas. I have not the right to make any overseas communication. That is not part of my privilege. If the Department of Administrative Services were to ask Telecom for information of this sort I would have no objection to the information being supplied. It would assist me to know whether such calls had been made, or if I had made a call of that sort, I should know of it and be rendered an account for it. That is a different matter altogether. The Minister may not be able to answer my question. He may have to refer to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Staley) to get some statement of policy. I am putting it to him that it is an invasion of privacy. It ought not to be done without the direct request of the member. If the Minister states that this is a matter for the Department of Administrative Services we can take up the matter with the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr John McLeay) as I intend to do when we discuss the estimates for that Department.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I ask the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) whether his advisers can advise him whether Telecom Australia receives requests from the Department of Administrative Services for the details of the telephone accounts of members of parliament in their electorate offices from time to time. If so, is this information given without the consent of the member? Is he not advised of it? While the Minister is taking on board that question, I ask him for the latest details, if I can have them, on what stage the provision of television for the west coast of South Australia in the Streaky Bay area has reached.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– The matter raised by Senator Georges and Senator McLaren regarding information about the use of member’s telephones and the privacy of members is a matter of principle which I will refer to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Staley). There is no one among my advisers who can give me any assistance on the matter. I now refer to Senator Colston’s queries concerning the acquisition of land at Airlie Beach. Negotiations with the landholder have concluded and, apparently, the process of acquisition is about to begin. It is expected that the service will be available in 1982. So there is some development on that matter. Cooktown is one of the five areas that will be receiving programs via the INTELSAT satellite. It is expected that broadcasting will begin on 28 September this year. I have some information for Senator McLaren about Streaky Bay. The Eyre Peninsula plan will take several years to complete. However, it is expected that a service will be provided in Streaky Bay in early 1 98 1 .

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I am indebted to the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) for his answer regarding Streaky Bay. I well recall that three years ago a promise was made that the people on the Eyre Peninsula and the west coast of South Australia would have television within 12 months. Three years have gone by and they do not have it. The Minister has just advised me that it will be at least another two years before they can expect it. They will get it five years after the promise was made.

Senator Durack:

– I said 1 98 1 .

Senator McLAREN:

– I thought you said 1 982.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

Senator McLaren has misunderstood. I referred to 1982 in relation to Airlie Beach. I said that the service will be provided to Streaky Bay in early 1 98 1 .

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I take it now that the people have a definite undertaking that early next year, say in six months’ time, they will be able to view television on the west coast of South Australia.

Senator COLSTON:
Queensland

- Senator McLaren has done much better in South Australia than we have done in Queensland. We are one year behind what will happen in South

Australia. I must admit that I am a little disappointed to hear that it will be 1982 before anything is done at Airlie Beach. Negotiations started in relation to the land in 1975 before the current Government came into office. From memory they started in about August 1975. Since then there has been a great deal of difficulty in getting anywhere with the project. Can the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) give any further advice - he may not be able to do so while we are considering these estimates and I may have to wait until we get to those for the Department of Administrative Services - about exactly where we are with the land on Shingley Hill. Does the Postal and Telecommunications Department now have access to the site where it wants to put its translator? When will we actually see the translator go up?

My understanding is that the original equipment for the translator was bought many years ago. I believe some of it has already been used on another project. If negotiations have been completed for the site on Shingley Hill it seems to me that it should not take much to put the translator up there and get the service operating. There are a number of translators in the area, including one at Proserpine and one not very far from Airlie Beach which services the islands off the coast but which is not situated in such a place that it can service Airlie Beach. I cannot see why the residents of Airlie Beach should have to wait until 1982. There was a very big protest meeting at Airlie Beach not too long ago. The people of Airlie Beach are, in general, not radical people who would normally have a street march but on this occasion they had a large scale protest about the fact that nothing had been done with the translator that they were promised in 1975. Some honourable senators might remember that not long ago I presented in this chamber a petition signed by over 1,000 people in the Airlie Beach area asking for a translator as soon as possible.

After they find out thai it has been said in the Senate this afternoon that they will have to wait until 1982, when there are translators all around the area to service other places, I would not be surprised if we see another demonstration of their anger on a weekend afternoon at Airlie Beach. I ask again whether the Minister has any further information about the acquisition of the land. I acknowledge that I might have to wait until we consider the estimates for the Department of Administrative Services to ask about the matter in depth. I also ask when it is likely that a start will be made on installing the translator in the Airlie Beach area.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I am advised that the problem at Airlie Beach has been the negotiations with the landowner. Apparently, the site is the only one suitable for the translator station. Negotiations have proved very difficult and have been prolonged. I would have thought that the people of Airlie Beach would be pleased to know that the negotiations have now been successfully concluded. Proceedings will take place to acquire the land and presumably, the construction of the translator station will commence. In view of the delays that have already occurred, no doubt every effort will be made to speed it up. I have indicated the estimate which the departmental officers have been able to make. Perhaps those concerned with erecting the station can do better than that. I hope that they can. The reason for the delay was the problem of acquiring the only land which was suitable in the area.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– The Senate is probably aware that each week day the Australian Broadcasting Commission conducts a book reading service which is very popular. The Royal Blind Society of New South Wales has had a problem for some time in endeavouring to get the co-operation of the ABC in making available tapes of these sessions for its members. It appears that permission has to come from the author, the abridger and the narrator of each of the books referred to in these daily broadcasts. On the basis of economy the ABC has stated that initially it is not able to make these radio broadcasts available to the Royal Blind Society. Representations have been made by the Society and by persons who are blind that, subject to the qualifications of the three persons concerned in the actual program, the service ought to be available to members of the Society.

As we are dealing here only with the cost of the tapes - I appreciate there is an economy drive on - I wonder whether our priorities are right in these matters. I appreciate that the Minister will establish the fact that the ABC has a measure of independence in all of these matters, but I wonder whether me might not agree that some representations ought to be made so that the tapes become freely available in each of the States. I am talking about the six States in which these services are not at the moment freely available in the way in which one would naturally expect. I give credit to the ABC because the book reading service is a very useful one and one that is greatly appreciated. But not every person who is blind is necessarily able to listen in at the particular time, so the tapes become an important part of a cultural resource for members of the Royal Blind Society. I wonder whether the Minister is prepared to make some representations to add to the weight of the request which has been made by the Society. I am sure we are not talking about great sums of money. We are talking about tapes which are available from day to day. I imagine we are talking about less than 520,000 in a financial year. In those circumstances I seek the assistance of the Minister to resolve the conflict which exists in this area.

Senator COLSTON:
Queensland

– I do not want to harp on Airlie Beach, but the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) made the point that the people at Airlie Beach will be pleased that the negotiations have concluded in relation to the land. I suppose they will be. The site has been known for a long time. Many people have inspected it. Many people have even gone right to the top of Shingley Hill to look at the possible site. The people at Airlie Beach know all about the land. Once there is some tangible evidence that construction of a translator will commence, they will have some heart in the matter. After all, they have seen the land there for five years. Once they see a translator starting to be built, at least they will have cause for having some heart.

The Minister may not be able to state now when a start is likely to be made on the translator. If I could go back to the people at Airlie Beach at some stage and say ‘It looks like construction will start at such and such a time’, it might be better than for me to say that conclusions have been reached in relation to the land. If the Minister has any information regarding when construction will commence I ask him to advise what it is. If he does not have that information at this stage I ask whether he will be able to supply it at some subsequent stage so that the people at Airlie Beach will have some idea of when they will have some tangible evidence that the translator is really coming to the area.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I take note of the points raised by Senator Colston. I will pass them on to Telecom Australia which is responsible for construction in relation to this matter.

Senator McINTOSH:
Western Australia

– I wish to ask a question of the Minister for National Development and Energy (Senator Carrick) regarding electoral rolls. Can the Minister advise me what has happened to the names of 9,131 Western Australians which were deleted from the electoral rolls between 26 February 1980 and 1 May 1980? That seems to me to be an enormous number to have been removed from the rolls in that short space of time. For example, in Kalgoorlie the names of 956 people disappeared from the rolls between February and May. In the seat of Stirling, the figure is 1,530; Swan, 1,260; Tangney, 271; the seat of Perth, 2,622; Curtin, 1 , 200; Fremantle, 783; Moore, 663 and O’Connor, 806. Those people seem to have disappeared from the electoral rolls between the months of February and May 1980.I wonder whether there is some explanation for this having occurred.

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

– It is quite apparent that the officers of the Department of Administrative Services can not give special detailed reports at this moment on the matter raised by Senator Mcintosh. There are routine inspections and check-ups in relation to the rolls and deletions and additions are made. I understand that Senator Mcintosh is intimating that there may be something abnormal or exceptional about it. We will take the matter on board. We will direct that to the Australian Electoral Office and ask whether there are exceptional circumstances. It would be necessary for the request to go through that office and out to the divisional returning officers to find out what were the particular circumstances in each State. I will ask the officers to take a note of that and see that it is done.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– In the estimates for the Department of Administrative Services under item 140.2.03 there is an appropriation this year of $6,300 for telex services for senators and members. That is a new amount. I ask: Which senators’ and members’ offices were those telex services provided for?

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

– I will take the matter on board for a moment. I will give the information which is requested as soon as I can.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– Firstly, I wish to ask a question relating to the Australian Electoral Office Act. We all know that the electoral rolls have been revamped and that there will also be a supplementary roll. I received a telephone call from Sydney this morning informing me that the rolls have been completed and available, but will not be for sale until the Chief Australian Electoral Officer, I assume in consultation with the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr John McLeay), decides what the price of the rolls will be. I telephoned the secretary of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) at lunch time. I thought he may be taking carriage of the matter. Can somebody tell me whether a price has been fixed for the new rolls so that people who require them urgently can purchase them? The second matter I wish to raise deals with Commonwealth Accommodation Catering Services Ltd. I will refrain from raising it until I receive a response to my first question.

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

– The Chief Australian Electoral Officer advises that the price of electoral rolls has not changed. He apologises for any inconvenience Senator Mulvihill may have been caused. The principal roll for New South Wales has been reprinted in the last week and supplementary rolls will be printed after the rolls close at 6 p.m. tomorrow. People should be aware that they have only until that time to place their names on the roll or to register changes. There is no change in the price of a roll.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– Is the Minister for National Development and Energy (Senator Carrick) saying that if a person went to an electoral office anywhere in Australia tomorrow he could purchase a roll?I am not talking about the supplementary roll. Can he purchase a roll now? What is its current price?

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

– The answer is yes.

Senator Mulvihill:

– What is the prevailing price?

Senator CARRICK:

– I cannot answer that question. It is unchanged. If Senator Mulvihill wants to know what that unchanged price is I will seek that information for him.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– The Minister for National Development and Energy (Senator Carrick) used the word ‘unchanged’. I want to establish whether that means that if any divisional returning officer has wrongly given evidence that he cannot offer anybody a roll because he is not sure of the price he is in error. In other words, the status quo prevails.

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

– That is the reason for the apology of the Chief Electoral Officer to Senator Mulvihill.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– I raise the question that I raised when speaking to the estimates for the Postal and Telecommunications Department. I referred to a practice which has been commenced by the Department of Administrative Services of asking to be supplied with a list of telephone activity, if I can put it that way, on the part of a member of Parliament. I questioned whether Telecom Australia should be providing that information. Telecom Australia may say that the Department of Administrative Services is the lessee of the telephone and therefore it must respond to the request from the lessee for that information. If that is the case, the responsibility is now that of the Department of Administrative Services.

Senator Young:

– You pay the rent. You are responsible for it.

Senator GEORGES:

– I do not pay the rent. I am speaking of the telephone in my electorate office. I have three telephones in my electorate office. I have now received an accounting from the Department of Administrative Services, and with that accounting I have received a 10-page list of telephone activity. On that list are included telephone numbers to which messages have been sent and, in some cases, the names of the persons to whom those telegrams have been sent. For instance, one page of the list which I have supplied there are three names. I give them as a matter of interest. The names are Batt, Combe and Murphy - a strange trio, it might be said; nevertheless those three names appear on that list. What I am saying is that the confidentiality of my communication has thus been broken by those three names appearing on that list. Who has the list now? The list is provided to the Department of Administrative Services. It provides a record of my telephone activities. It does not disclose the subscriber trunk dialling calls because they are bulk, but it does disclose a whole list of telephone numbers and a great number of people to whom I have sent messages. It also gives the telephone numbers of those people who have contacted me. If the Department of Administrative Services says that it would like members to get a list from Telecom so that it can certify the account when it is sent to the Department there can be no objection. I do not object to that. If Telecom wants to go to all the trouble of listing all of these telephone numbers just to provide me with them, well and good. If the Department of Administrative Services then says ‘Before we pay this certify that you have not made any unauthorised calls, or any calls overseas’, by all means that is my responsibility. Once I certify that, I make myself responsible for any misuse of the facility.

Senator Colston took up this matter before I did. He went to the trouble of writing to the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr John McLeay). Perhaps I should have done that at the time. He took the initiative, without any communication to me, and wrote to the Minister. He received this response:

I refer to your letter of 8 August concerning electorate office telephone services.

In November 1979 1 directed my Department to arrange for Telecom to provide when, billing for electorate office telephones, an itemisation which showed the cost of any overseas calls and cables and then to seek reimbursement from the members concerned.

There can be no quarrel with that, because we are not authorised to do that. The letter continues:

In the event, Telecom has not isolated overseas calls and cables from the statement it prepares. My Department examines these statements, however, merely for the purpose of extracting charges for overseas calls and cables which as you would know are the personal responsibilities of members.

In seeking that information, the Department also receives a whole host of other information. The letter continues:

I might add that I took this step after Mr J. L. Armitage, M.P., made allegations in the Parliament that certain electorate office telephones were being used to send overseas cables for private purposes. I had then found that my Department had been paying members’ electorate office telephone accounts without satisfying itself that charges related to trunk lines calls and phonograms within Australia only.

I do not favour your proposal that Senators and Members should be asked to obtain statements from Telecom and then advise my Department of any inaccuracies. The present arrangement makes no demands on a member and as far as I am aware there is no general objection to it.

I think the Minister has missed the point. There is a general objection to it. He has not been made aware of that general objection. He has taken the one objection from Senator Colston. That is not a general objection. I now object. It makes it far more general. There is no doubt that I am awakening the interest of other honourable senators to what is occurring. The letter states:

The present arrangement makes no demands on a member . . .

It does not make any demands on a member, but his privacy is seriously invaded. I suggest that Senator Colston’s proposition is the proper one. The list should be provided to the member and the member should then certify the account. If the Department of Administrative Services wants to know from Telecom of any overseas call Telecom will have to go to the trouble of extracting those and sending that information and that information only to the Department of Administrative Services.

Senator COLSTON:
Queensland

– I did not intend to raise the matter of telephone accounts received by members of parliament during this debate, but now that it has been raised I think I should give some explanation of what occurred with me and why I took objection. I received a list that had been sent from Telecom Australia to the Department of Administrative Services itemising all of my trunk calls for a certain period. Among those trunk calls were many reverse charge calls from people in country areas who had contacted me. In some cases the list actually mentioned their names. Where names were not mentioned, it mentioned the number from which the call originated. All honourable senators, I am sure, would at some stage receive reverse charge calls from people in country areas who need some help. In trying to obtain that assistance they do not really want everybody to know that they have gone to a member of parliament or that they have gone to a certain member of parliament. Once that list becomes public, or once it starts to circulate within the Public Service, these people can be identified.

In the State which I represent, and I suppose this applies in many other States as well, there are many places that I cannot ring without actually booking a call. There is no subscriber trunk dialling facility. If I want to telephone someone, a constituent, I often have to book the call and go through the local exchange. Once that call is booked, it is a trunk call, and therefore it goes on to the list. So the list not only shows people who have telephoned and reversed charges, but also shows the people whom I have telephoned when I have had to book the call.

As Senator Georges pointed out, I do not mind at all if certain information is extracted from the list relating to calls which, under the decision of the Remuneration Tribunal, we are not entitled to make. But I do have some objection to my privacy being invaded in relation to the people whom I have to call by the use of trunk facilities; but more importantly I object to the invasion of the privacy of those people whom I have to call or who call me by way of reverse charge telephone calls. I think the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr John McLeay), probably, on reflection, would see the point that we are raising, and I will not take it any further.

I wish to mention one other matter, however. I am not sure that the officers from the Department of Administrative Services were in the chamber when I was speaking about the television translator at Airlie Beach a little while ago. I was given some information in relation to the acquisition of the land and when the television translator might be in operation. Is there some further information in relation to the acquisition of the land at Airlie Beach for that television translator that the officers from the Department of Administrative Services might be able to provide?

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

– Both Senator Georges and Senator Colston outlined matters that I think, in terms of the telephone charges, merit study. I give an undertaking that the Department of Administrative Services will review the processes in the light of the evidence that has been raised. As to the other point, the Department cannot respond at this moment. It has to contact its office in Brisbane to get the information. We will make the contact and see how quickly we can get the information, but it is not possible at the moment.

Senator Colston:

– Could I take it from that that once the information is obtained I will be advised?

Senator CARRICK:

– Yes.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I told the Minister that I wanted to ask some questions dealing with the Commonwealth Accommodation and Catering Services Ltd annual report. Before I do, there is one other matter which I wish to refer to, and that relates to the Commonwealth Centre in Sydney and the security staff who work there from 4 p.m. to 8 a.m. As a believer in promotion and progression in the services, I have noticed lately that- I think Senator Carrick would also have noticed - we seem to get a blending of security operatives from Pritchard Services Group Holdings Pty Ltd plus our own people. I am curious why we do not encourage the filling of the gaps with people who are on the normal Commonwealth employed security staff rather than be beholden to the Pritchard security service. It is a question only of industrial relations. What is the long range policy? Are we to fill in as we get retirements from our permanent staff or are we to hand over to the Pritchard security service?

I deal now with the Commonwealth Accommodation and Catering Service report. I notice that the present Chairman of the Board of Directors is a J. J. Maunsell. I do not know whether that person is any relation to our Chairman of Committees, but I want to get biographical details of each member of the board of directors. I think the director by the name of Devereux would be a man who had an illustrious career in The Amalgamated Metal Workers and Shipwrights Union, but I am not sure. I should like to get some information on that matter and on their attendances at meetings. In the Chairman’s statement he refers to the four guest houses operated in Canberra. As one who was well looked after at Brassey House, I ask: What are the other three guest houses in Canberra? I think Macquarie Hostel would be one, but what are the names of the others? I should also like to know the financial position of Brassey House for the last financial year.

The other matter concerns the concession at Brisbane Airport. The authorities had taken over the operation of the gift shop at the international terminal, the cocktail bar and a coffee shop at Brisbane Airport. I notice, unfortunatelySenator Puplick and his friends might be happy with it- that after 5 December this State enterprise might die. I do not know the Government’s intention. I assume it was a successful operation. Will this matter be in the lap of the incoming Government after 15 December? What will happen to this project?

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

– A series of questions has been asked of me. The first related to the security people at Chifley Square. 1, like Senator Mulvihill, have noticed certain reincarnations. I think we have welcomed that. At least one person who, being a former public servant and having, I presume, reached retiring age, has come back into the work force through the private service. I do not know the policy. I imagine that the general policy is to employ public servants as such. I will get that spelt out and let Senator Mulvihill have the information without prejudice to the present blithe spirit.

I think a question was asked in relation to the Commonwealth Accommodation and Catering Services Ltd. We will get the biographies and the attendances of members. Senator Mulvihill is correct in assuming that the gentleman he mentioned has been a very active and prominent trade unionist. Mr J. J. Maunsell, Bachelor of Science, is Managing Director of Century Storage Battery Co. Ltd. I do not know about his relationship to the Chairman of Committees. Mr G. N. Crawford-Fish is a partner of the firm of Irish, Young and Outhwaite of Melbourne, chartered accountants. Mr J. P. Devereux is a retired union official. Mr J. M. Wark is the First Assistant secretary of the Department of Finance. Mr J. L. Rundle is the senior partner of J. C. Rundle and Associates, hotel brokers, Adelaide. Mr J. J. Craig is the former Director and General Manager, Administration and Finance of Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd. Mr P. W. Osborn is the Registrar, Administrative Staff college, Mount Eliza, Victoria. So they are a pretty good show.

There are four hostels in Canberra: Macquarie, Gowrie, Havelock and Brassey. I think Senator Mulvihill asked me about the actual financial transactions of Brassey. We will get that information in due course. I have been asked about the concession at Brisbane Airport. I am not thoroughly briefed on that at the moment, but I will get that information in due course and let him know.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– The Minister, I understood, was to endeavour to get an answer for me about where the telex services for members and senators were allocated. Whilst he is dealing with that question, there is a matter under the item of Government Parties Support Secretariat. Could I have some information on its function? I cannot find anything in the explanatory notes for the Department of Administrative Services which states that there is any Opposition party support secretariat.

Senator Puplick:

– Your leader has got those.

Senator McLAREN:

– Of course, the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has got everything too, you know. I am interested to know whether back bench policy committees are provided with staff and telephones. I ask the Minister, not Senator Puplick, because he should have all the information. Perhaps he has more information than the Minister has.

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

– I regret that I cannot get the answer referring to telex services as a matter of immediacy. I would have to send for it. I am trying to do so. Nor in immediacy can I get the information on the Government Parties Support Secretariat. If I can do so during the final part of these estimates, I shall; otherwise I shall make sure that a written answer is given to the honourable senator.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I raise one other matter and it is a matter which I have been pursuing for nine years. I am very pleased that the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr John McLeay) advised me recently that a site had been purchased at Murray Bridge for the construction of Commonwealth offices. Has the Minister any information as to when construction will start on those offices at Murray Bridge? I understand that the land has been purchased. When is it likely that those offices will be ready for occupancy?

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

– I seem to recall that that question was asked at the Estimates committee hearings. I understand Senator McLaren’s interest in the matter. The answer at the moment is: It is not in the works programs as yet. That does not mean that it cannot be foreshadowed in the programs. If I can give further information I will arrange for the honourable senator to be written to.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I wish to make just one other comment on the Department of Administrative Services. Honourable senators will recall that for quite a long time I have been complaining in the Parliament that it is impossible to obtain the total costs of the overseas trips of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). I just want it recorded in Hansard that on page 313 of the explanatory notes under the heading ‘Purpose of Item’ it is stated:

This item provides for the cost of visits abroad of Ministers of State (including personal staff) and other visits such as Parliamentary Delegations. It does not provide for the costs of departmental officers who may accompany a Minister. These costs are met from the votes of the Department concerned.

I think everybody knows of not only my complaints but also other honourable senators’ complaints about how hard it is to be able to get the actual costs. I am pleased that at last that reference is actually included in the explanatory notes, that these costs are spread around all of the departments.

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

– I gave an incorrect answer to Senator McLaren which has been drawn to my attention. In the proposed new works program at Murray Bridge, South Australia, the cost of the erection of Commonwealth offices is $680,000. 1 apologise for that error.

Proposed expenditures agreed to.

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

Bill reported without requests, but with an opinion and five recommendations; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 1318

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 2) 1980-81

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 1 2 September, on motion by Senator Carrick:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1318

QUESTION

ADVANCE TO THE MINISTER FOR FINANCE 1979-80

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 28 August.

Motion (by Senator Carrick) proposed:

That the Committee approves the statement for the year 1979-80 of heads of expenditure and the amounts charged thereto pursuant to section 36a of the Audit Act 1901 .

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– I have a question I wish to ask as a matter of interest. I take it that these advances come under the scrutiny of the Joint Statutory Committee of Public Accounts. Is it automatic that the Public Accounts Committee looks at these advances? If it is, of course, it somewhat removes our responsibility to take a closer look at them.

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

– I am advised that that is so.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

page 1318

COPYRIGHT AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Bill returned from the House of Representatives with amendments.

In Committee

Consideration of House of Representatives amendments.

House of Representatives amendments -

1 ) Clause 1 0, page 1 0, line 28, omit ‘the purpose of including the copy in the collection of the library’, substitute ‘a purpose referred to in sub-section ( 1 )’.

(2) Clause 10, page 10, lines 37 to 39 (inclusive), omit 'or a part of a literary, dramatic or musical work (other than an article contained in a periodical publication) ', substitute 'of a literary, dramatic or musical work (other than an article contained in a periodical publication) or of a part of such a work that contains more than a reasonable portion of the work'. (3) Clause 19, page 22, line 21, omit 'so to disclose', substitute 'to make'. (4) Clause 27, page 35, after proposed sub-section (12), insert the following proposed sub-section: - (13) lt is a defence to a prosecution of a person or body (in this sub-section referred to as the "defendant"), for a contravention of sub-section ( 1 2) if the defendant satisfies the court that- (a) the contravention was due to the act or default of a person other than the defendant or to some other circumstance beyond the control of the defendant; and (b) the defendant took all reasonable precautions and exercised due diligence to avoid the contravention.'. Motion (by **Senator Carrick)** proposed:

That the amendments made by the House of Representatives be agreed to.

Senator TATE:
Tasmania

– I think it is necessary for the Opposition to indicate its support for the amendments, most of which are of a very technical nature picking up problems that have been revealed in the exchange between the two chambers. But as for amendment No. (4), I believe that that is a matter of greater substance. I am pleased that the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) has taken the point of the Opposition’s remarks concerning the liability of a librarian for certain activities. We pointed out that under the Copyright Amendment Bill as presented to this chamber a librarian would be virtually strictly liable for a failure to meet the reporting and compilation of records requirements under the Bill. Now it is the case that a defendant to a prosecution for failing to keep such records will have a good defence if he: satisfies the court that -

  1. the contravention was due to the act or default of another person or to some other circumstance beyond the control of the defendant; and
  2. he took all reasonable precautions and exercised due diligence to avoid the contravention.

We find that that is a very necessary and very welcome modification of the original Bill. It requires some degree of fault, culpability or blameworthiness to attach to the person who is to face some sort of penalty under the Bill. That seems to be as it ought always to have been. We thank the Attorney for that amendment.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

page 1319

PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION TO PERU, VENEZUELA AND BRAZIL

Senator YOUNG:
South Australia

– by leave - I present the official report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Peru, Venezuela and Brazil from 23 July to 12 August

page 1319

STANDING COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL RESOURCES

Senator THOMAS:
Western Australia

– I present the report and transcript of evidence from the Standing Committee on National Resources of its inquiry into the replacement of petroleumbased fuels by alternative sources of energy.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator THOMAS:
Western Australia

– by leave - I move:

On 23 November 1978 the Senate referred the following matter to the Committee for investigation and report:

The replacement of petroleum-based fuels by alternative sources of energy with regard to:

research into alternative fuels

development and demonstration of practical alternatives

fiscal and other measures required to encourage their adoption.

The Committee interpreted the terms of reference to including conservation. Submissions covered a wide range of matters, some of which we were unable to pursue, not because of a lack of interest but because we wanted to complete the inquiry as quickly as possible. Policies in the areas covered by our inquiry are being upgraded constantly, and to draw out the inquiry would have resulted in a report which could have dealt responsibly only with long term matters. The report contains 34 recommendations, most of which we believe can be implemented immediately. I will discuss briefly only some of the recommendations, but I commend the report to the Senate as it covers an area of considerable importance to Australia in the immediate future. Further, decisions taken now will have a great bearing on the shape of Australia well into the twenty-first century.

Specific recommendations are made under five headings. Under ‘Conservation’, I regard our last recommendation as the most significant; that is, that a research project to establish the relationship between lead additives, fuel economy and exhaust emissions under normal usage be set up as a matter of urgency by the Commonwealth Government. Many decisions with regard to lead in petrol and exhaust emission standards are being made with little or no scientific basis by State governments. Those decisions have imposed, and will continue to impose, disadvantages on people who live outside the States which make the decisions. Our report recommends that hydrocarbon plants and hydrogen hydrides be the subject of more research funding, but I think that under the heading of ‘Alternatives to petroleum based fuels’ our most important recommendation is that the Government establish a large scale demonstration project involving the actual operation of vehicles using blended fuels, with the object of clarifying the effects of those fuels in areas such as fuel consumption, exhaust emission and driveability. We received much conflicting evidence on this subject which led us to conclude that more needs to be known before decisions on the use of blended fuels can be made.

Electric vehicles and even steam engines feature in our recommendations for higher research priority under the chapter ‘Alternative Modes of Transport’, while under ‘Research Development and Demonstration’ we recommend that section 73a of the Taxation Act be changed to permit deductibility for demonstration projects leading to commercial production. This will accelerate activity in the most seriously neglected and the most expensive and risky link in the chain between research and the final production stages of a project. Most of our recommendations under the chapter Energy Policy’ are concerned with the energy policy decision-making process, but our final recommendation states:

  1. . the application of the existing customs duty criteria be changed so that cases where no genuine local equivalent is manufactured in Australia can be identified and permitted duty free entry.

That recommendation does not indicate that the Committee is made up of supporters of free trade, attractive as that idea would be, but it is to encourage the manufacture in Australia of engines and motor vehicles in particular which have advantages such as high fuel economy or low emission levels. Our present laws keep out of Australia, or make impossibly expensive, vehicles which perform much better than locally made vehicles. Not only does this increase the consumption of fuel in Australia, but it also does not give local manufacturers sufficient incentive to produce similare vehicles in this country.

I am fortunate to chair a very fine Senate Committee. Senators Robertson, McLaren, Tate, Teague and Maunsell are hard working and dedicated to’ the success of the Senate committee system. They contribute incredible amounts of time and effort and their only reward, I guess, is the satisfaction of producing a worthwhile report and the information gained from the close examination of a particular subject. Finally, 1 wish to record my appreciation to the secretariat, Charles Edwards and Derek Abbott, for once again providing the essential support and advice without which the Committee would not be able to function. Much of their work is done under considerable difficulty, and I join with those other honourable senators who are endeavouring to improve the status and conditions of committee staff. I commend the report to the Senate.

Senator TATE:
Tasmania

– It was notable from Senator Thomas’s last remarks that he was not able to say that we ever got the satisfaction of seeing the Government respond to our reports. I hope that we will see some difference in the Government’s response to this very crucial report on Australia’s future energy requirements. There is no doubt that whilst Australia has many great energy resources, they are not properly matched to the crying need, namely, transport fuels, agricultural fuels, and our defence capability, which is totally dependent at the moment on energy produced from crude oil. The Standing Committee on National Resources is a good Committee, the members work hard, and we have the able assistance of Mr Charles Edwards and Mr

Derek Abbott. Our satisfaction also lies in the very able chairmanship of Senator Andrew Thomas of Western Australia.

If there is any general and surprising conclusion that I came to in the course of the inquiry, it is that Australia is not really in the panic situation that perhaps we thought we were in some two years ago. A lot can be done in the next decade. Indeed, the only course open in the next decade is for Australia to redouble its efforts in the fields of conservation and exploration. In that regard we make certain recommendations, certainly as to conservation, and set very much harder - we suggest that they should be mandatory- fuel consumption targets for passenger vehicles in particular. This is an example of our seriousness about the need for conserving fuel. We also make remarks about the need for a very close interaction between engine design and the configuration and operation of refineries in Australia. In regard to refinery practice and the octane rating decisions they make and the fractions of the barrel of crude oil that they make available for transport fuels as opposed to fuel oil and middle distillates, we have another area where much can be done to conserve for transport needs as much of a barrel of crude oil as possible.

As far as exploration is concerned, and I do not say this in any partisan sense, I think the Committee concluded that whilst money expenditure may have increased the effort is still inadequate, perhaps grossly inadequate. Mr McFarlane of the Rundle project, a man with vast experience and knowledge in this field, estimated that rather than the 60 or so wells a year which are being sunk at the moment, one needs to have a figure approaching 500 wells a year to get going the sort of program which would allow us to meet the otherwise merely statistical and notional chance of doubling or even tripling or finding an equivalent amount to our present known crude oil reserves. It is to the energy conservation and exploration areas that Australia’s effort must be directed over the next decade.

As for the alternatives which will come into being over the next 10 to 15 years, no doubt oil from shale is the pre-eminent one in terms of time. No doubt our great coal reserves also will be utilised. Surprisingly to the Committee, perhaps this will happen before alcohol blends become viable from the point of view of the farmers who will need to grow crops to produce, for example, ethanol. We found that to be so, somewhat to our consternation. For example, I come from the north-west coast of Tasmania where certain groups of farmers expected and still expect ethanol production to be the way in which they will receive a substantial income in the next 10, 1 5 or 20 years. It is true also that if ethanol production were established throughout Australian agricultural areas it would be a great generator of employment opportunities in the agricultural sector, in our country towns, and would assist the decentralisation which we all see as a desirable objective within Australia. It would be a greater generator of employment opportunities than the shale or coal to oil projects which involve huge capital works and do not employ as many people.

It is the shale and coal to oil projects that we can expect to make some addition to our transport fuels in the next 10 to 15 years. In that regard, I think the Committee was of the view that no subsidies should be offered to consumers and that no special or more generous tax concessions or other government incentives ought to be offered by the community, through the taxpayer, to the producers, exploiters and providers of these new energy resources, other than keeping in place the government world parity pricing policy. That policy certainly is justified by the need to open up new fields of oil. In other words, it is needed to help the exploration effort, and of course to guarantee imports of oil into this country.

I say in conclusion that the Committee also found a consensus in an area in which it may not have been expected initially, namely, that when the producers and exploiters - on behalf of the community, certainly - of these great new energy resources make a profit that is greater than would normally be required to justify new investment decisions in the same area, the community has a right to share in the extra profits that may have been generated. This can be done in various ways - there are various mechanisms - and the oil levy presently operating is one way. Perhaps the resource tax is another. We recognise that these mechanisms need to be very finely tuned, but we believe that with care they can be devised in a way which, as I said, enables the community to participate in the extra profits and moneys which may be generated in the context of the development of these great energy resources. We recognise the need for a fine tuning which ensures that investment decisions are not deterred for the future. We put it this way:

It is generally accepted that the community has a right to share in the income generated by the exploitation of nonrenewable national resources . . . Where the profits generated by a particular project or industry are considered to be above the level necessary to maintain investment and give an adequate return on capital an additional tax or levy is commonly used to increase the return to the community at large.

The existing crude oil levy is an example of such a tax.

The operation of that is explained in the report. A secondary profits tax, such as that imposed in the United Kingdom or Papua New Guinea, is noted and it is admitted that in the case of a secondary profits tax or resource tax, as opposed to a production levy, a much more difficult accounting and political problem is involved, in that one has to establish what is a normal rate of profit. That might require a terrific amount of the skills which nevertheless are available within the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Finance. We say that, whatever taxation mechanism is used to enable the community to share in these extra moneys, we must not deter future investors by the spectre of confiscatory taxation. I commend that section of the report to all those who are concerned to create a sure and stable and certain taxation environment in which the necessary decisions will be taken by entrepreneurs to help Australia, while conserving its energy resources, to satisfy its need for transport fuels to enable our transport, agricultural and defence requirements to be met in the coming 10 to 20 years.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I will take only two moments of the Senate’s time. I wish to join with the Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources, Senator Thomas, and with Senator Tate in expressing thanks to Mr Charles Edwards and Mr Derek Abbott for the fine work they did as staff of this Committee. I thank also the hidden staff, the staff whom we very seldom see and who do all the hard work in the back room. It has been a pleasure to work with this Committee. I join with Senator Tate in saying that it is a good Committee. Working on it is one of those jobs in which we can participate together without sabres drawn as we do in here in the Senate. We can get on with our work. I think these all-party committees make for good relationships. They also make for good reports. Once again, I join with my colleagues in thanking our staff. One has to work with them to appreciate the knowledge they have in these matters, particularly in the matters covered in the report. I commend the report to many people to read and to take notice of.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1321

STATES GRANTS (CAPITAL ASSISTANCE) BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 17 September, on motion by Senator Durack:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

Mr President, I take it that the Opposition is happy to have a cognate debate on the States Grants (Capital Assistance) Bill and the Queensland Grant (Special Assistance) Bill?

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– Yes. I have only a few minutes in which to speak on this legislation which essentially involves two Bills, the Queensland Grant (Special Assistance) Bill and the wider Bill, the States Grants (Capital Assistance) Bill, which provides for the annual payment of capital grants to the States for 1980-81 . 1 place again on record the total failure of the Fraser federalism policy. Debate on this subject has gone on in this chamber for the past 4i years. After 4* years we now finally see this policy exposed for what it is - a total sham. In a moment I will quote a better authority perhaps than me - perhaps a less biased authority than me - on this matter. I refer to a statement made by the Minister for National Development and Energy, Senator Carrick, on 27 April 1976 when he said that he would give an unqualified yes in answer to a question asked by Senator Walsh, the essence of which was: Would this Government give a guarantee that its performance and the new federalism policy would give to the States as generous a program of payments as had occurred under the previous Government; that is, would it increase payments by 58 per cent in real terms, as had occurred in those three previous years? Senator Carrick replied:

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

In the brief time I have left to speak, I wish to quote a Liberal Premier so that we can see where, after 4i years, the Liberal Party stands on this issue. The following is what Sir Charles Court said in a statement released on 7 August this year:

It is imperative for the future of Australia that the commonwealth Government recognise the need to recapture the true spirit of its federalism policy.

If we cannot achieve this, and very quickly, Australia could descend into a destructive period of fragmentation and confrontation which will make it impossible to take full advantage of the many opportunities now before us.

He went on to say:

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

In 1976 it was possible to foresee an era of co-operation which would tap the collective expertise of governments through the nation and open the way to a wonderful era in both human and material terms.

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

He went on:

It cannot be denied that the tax-sharing arrangements between the Commonwealth and the States are not working as expected.

They are not being allowed to.

The Commonwealth has manipulated them to impose its will on the States in contradiction of the spirit in which the arrangements were introduced.

What a commentary on the famous Fraser federalism after 41 years and what an exposition in real terms of what it really is. Seantor Carrick loves to tell us about the States balancing their Budgets. This is what Sir Charles Court says:

For our pains, we have been criticised for balancing our budgets as though this were evidence of affluence rather than of careful financial management.

The multitude of changes to the income tax system and the way the Commonwealth has given reluctantly with one hand, while taking away with the other, has destroyed the intent of the arrangements.

I can understand Sir Charles Court saying those things because, as a Liberal Premier, he has summed up in the best possible terms the rort and the racket that has been perpetuated on the State governments since 1 976 under Fraser federalism. This is why another Liberal Premier, Premier Hamer in Victoria, has led the current revolt during this election campaign against the Fraser Government’s policies. He has done so to expose those policies and to alert the Australian people to the fact that what this Government is doing is forcing on every State government in Australia the introduction of a State income tax so that every taxpayer in this country will have to pay a second tax. Senator Young smiles. It is rather a benign smile and I suppose I should not take it too seriously. I am sure he would not want to see South Australian taxpayers paying a State income tax. Maybe he does; maybe he is prepared to follow the policy which Mr Fraser is so assiduously following and which he is so determined to enforce, if he wins the next election to ensure that every State imposes this second income tax.

I look very briefly at the second reading speech, which is a document of deception. I only wish I had the time to go through it in detail. It is the most selective second reading speech I have ever read. In this speech the Government talks about the benefits to the States under these arrangements - for example, infrastructure borrowing. This Bill is about the grant component that is given under loan arrangements with the States and yet there is not a word about the fact that with the infrastructure borrowing the Commonwealth has passed off to the States the financial responsibility of raising their own loan moneys either on the Australian market or overseas. There is no grant component in that. It is not even underwritten by the Commonwealth; it is underwritten by the State governments. That was the whole purpose of the exercise - to get that component out of the Budget. But it does not say that in the second reading speech. It just refers to part of it. It does not give the full story. That is why I say that it is a deceiving document but typical of the government we have become accustomed to for4½ years. I sincerely hope that this is the last occasion on which the Australian people will be penalised this financial year with the sort of double talk which is involved in this second reading speech. The Opposition has no option other than to not oppose the proposition in these Bills. That is obvious because otherwise the States would receive nothing. But we register our warning again to the Australian people of just what is intended under this Fraser Government’s policies.

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

– I commend both Bills to the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1323

QUEENSLAND GRANT (SPECIAL ASSISTANCE) BILL 1980

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 1 7 September, on motion by Senator Durack:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

Sitting suspended from 6.2 to 8 p.m.

page 1323

INTERNATIONAL MONETARY AGREEMENTS (QUOTA INCREASE) BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 1 7 September, on motion by Senator Durack:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The Opposition will not be opposing this legislation. It provides for certain drawing rights for Australia from the International Monetary Fund. I do not think there is any need for us to spend time on it. The only matter to which I would draw the attention of the Senate is the very significant amount of borrowings which have taken place since this Government came to office. As the 1980-81 Budget Papers revealed, in the financial year 1 975-76 the total Commonwealth debt was around $6 billion. In the succeeding five years that total debt has increased to no less than $18 billion. In other words, there has been a three-fold, 200 per cent increase in the total indebtedness of the Commonwealth. The Australian people will eventually have to repay that debt. It is quite ludicrous for the Government to claim, as the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) did recently, that because he anticipates there being no deficit in the present Budget, the Government has paid off the Australian Labor Party’s debts, as he termed it. In fact, the Australian people are far further into debtnow, after 4½ years of Mr Fraser’s Government,than they were in 1975-76.

These are factors which the Australian people will be made aware of, of course, before the decision is made on 1 8 October. This is the sort of thing that has happened in the last four to five years, of which the Australian people must be aware when they make their decision on 18 October. With those few words, in view of the program still to be completed tonight, I indicate that the Opposition will not be opposing the Bill.

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

– I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1323

PETITION

Citizens Band Radio

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

Whereas the Australian Government has announced plans to terminate the availability of the 27 Megahertz - 1 1 metre Band Citizens Radio Service for use by operators within Australia

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray:

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

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will every pray.

Motion (by Senator McLaren) - by leave - agreed to:

That the petition be received.

page 1324

QUESTION

PARLIAMENTARY STAFF: ACCOMMODATION

The PRESIDENT:

– Honourable senators will be aware that Mr Speaker and I have been endeavouring to find a solution to the accommodation problems confronting the Parliament. Our main objective is to find more space in this building for senators and members. In moving towards this end, we are also mindful of the Government’s commitment not to expend large amounts of public funds on costly reconstruction programs in this building. However, we cannot allow the Parliament House building to deteriorate due to a lack of proper care and maintenance, nor do we wish to deny the needs of the Parliament where appropriate renovations can lead to a more efficient use of the space within the building. We have at least seven years left in this building. On 1 May we wrote to each senator and member to ascertain whether there was a consensus as to which elements of parliamentary staff should occupy this building between 1981 and 1988. The replies received to our submission contained such a wide range of views that it was not possible to draw conclusions which could lead us to make the necessary decisions. There was, however, an unsolicited view expressed by members that West Block would provide the most suitable alternative for the Parlament’s accommodation requirements. We have responded to this by again pressing our claim with the Government for the allocation of that building to the Parliament.

Mr Speaker and I attach great importance to the question of the accommodation needs of senators and members. We propose, therefore, to establish Presiding Officers’ committees comprising six members of each House. These committees will meet jointly. The task of the joint committee will be to advise the Presiding Officers which personnel, functions and services could be moved from Parliament House without diminishing the efficient functioning of either chamber and without diminishing the servicing of senators and members when discharing their day-to-day responsibilities. Our decision to adopt this course of action has been reinforced by the response received by Mr Speaker and me from the Australian Labor Party Caucus to our proposals of 1 May which raised issue with a number of suggestions and options which we proposed. The Caucus response requests that no change should take place without further investigation. We believe the investigation we propose will enable the matter to be approached in a constructive manner and result in recommendations which are in the best interests of the Parliament.

We hope to be in a position to make the necessary decisions prior to the resumption of the Parliament for the autumn session in 1981. I will therefore ask the leaders in this House immediately after the election to supply the names of senators willing to serve on the Senate committee. Mr Speaker will do the same in relation to members willing to serve on the committee. There is no doubt that pressure on members’ accommodation will continue to increase until the new parliament house is available. Mr Speaker and I are hopeful that by involving senators and members directly in the matter a generally satisfactory solution will be found.

page 1324

PRESENTATION OF PAPERS

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

– A list of papers has been circulated to all honourable senators. I present the papers. I seek leave to have the list incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The list read as follows -

  1. . Assessment of the Burdekin Project Ecological Study Report by the Commonwealth/State Executive Committee - Copies of the more detailed Study Report are available for perusal at the Senate Records Office and the Parliamentary Libary
  2. Statement on the House of Representatives Committee Report on the Commonwealth Government and the Urban Environment - together with a schedule of Government responses to the recommendations of the Report.
  3. Uranium Advisory Council- Annual Report 1 979-80.
  4. Department of Primary Industry- Annual Report 1979-80.
  5. Australian Honey Board- Interim Annual Report 1979- 80- pursuant to section 30 of the Honey Industry Act 1962.
  6. Pig Meat Promotion Advisory Committee- Annual Report 1979-80- pursuant to section 16 of the Pig Meat Promotion Act 1975.
  7. Australian Egg Board- Interim Annual Report 1979-80.
  8. Commissioner of Taxation - Fifty-Ninth Annual Report- pursuant to section 14 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936.
  9. Australian Bureau of Statistics- Annual Report 1979- 80 - pursuant to section 24 of the Australian Bureau of Statistics Act 1975.
  10. Australian Industry Development CorporationAnnual Report 1980 - pursuant to section 37 of the Australian Industry Development Corporation Act 1970.
  11. Insurance Commissioner,- Annual Report 1979-80- pursuant to section 125 of the Insurance Act 1973.
    1. Operations of Part II of the Primary Industry Bank Act 1977- Third Report- pursuant to section 10 of the Primary Industry Bank Act 1977.
  12. Government’s Response to the Report by the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on the New International Economic Order.
  13. Government’s Response to the Report by the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on Human Rights in the Soviet Union.
  14. Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation- Interim Report 1979-80.
  15. Services Canteens Trust Fund - Annual Report 1979, together with audited accounts of the fund - pursuant to section 34 of the Services Trust Funds Act 1947.
  16. Attorney-General’s Department Annual Report 1979-80.
  17. Geneva Conventions Dissemination Committee - Report to Attorney-General and Chairman of the Australian Red Cross Society for 1979.
  18. Security Appeals Tribunal- Annual Report for the period 1-30 June 1980 - pursuant to section 83 of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979.
  19. Department of Administrative Services - Annual Report 1979-80.
  20. Academic Salaries Tribunal - Report on Part-time Academic Staff- pursuant to section 12DD of the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973.
  21. Sale of Fawnmac Group of Pharmaceutical Companies - Text of a statement by the Minister for Administrative Services.
  22. Establishment of an Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence - Text of a statement by the Minister for Administrative Services.
  23. Government’s Response to the 172nd Report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts on Overseas Property Services.
  24. Galbally Information Kit - Together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs relating to the Kit.
  25. Progress in Education 1980-81 - Report by the Minister for Education.
  26. National Library of Australia - Annual Report 1979- 80 - pursuant to section 27 of the National Library Act 1960.
  27. National Capital Development Commission- Twentythird Annual Report- pursuant to section 24 of the National Capital Development Commission Act 1 957.
  28. Consumer Affairs Council and Consumer Affairs Bureau of the Australian Capital Territory.
  29. Government’s Reponse to the Report by the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory on Tourism in the Australian Capital Territory.
  30. Anglo-Australian Telescope Board - Annual Report 1979-80 - pursuant to section 19 of the Anglo-Australian Telescope Board.
  31. Australian Institute of Marine Science - Annual Report 1 979-80 - pursuant to section 44 of the Australian Institute of Marine Science Act 1972.
  32. Code of Practice on Radiation Protection in the Mining and Milling of Radioactive Ores 1980- pursuant to section 10 of the Environment Protection (Nuclear Codes) Act 1978.
  33. Recommendations of the State Grant Commissions - pursuant to section 10 of the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976.
  34. Administrative Review Council- Annual Report 1979- 80-pursuant to section 58 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975.
  35. Department of Post and Telecommunications - Text of Annual Report 1979-80.
  36. Multi-National Exercises - Statement by the Prime Minister.
  37. National Communications Satellite System - Statement by the Minister for Post and Telecommunications.
  38. Government’s Industrial Policies - Statement by the Minister for Industrial Relations.
  39. Preparation of Annual Financial Statements by Australian Wheat Board- Statement by the Minister for Primary Industry.
  40. . Government Response to Report of Inquiry into Technological Change in Australia- Statement by the Minister for Industry and Commerce.
  41. Australian Science and Technology Council - Annual Report 1979-80- pursuant to section 27 of the Australian Science and Technology Council Act 1978; Report on Industrial Research and Development: Proposals for Additional Incentives; Statement by the Prime Minister.

page 1325

AUSTRALIAN HONEY BOARD

Annual Report 1979-80

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– by leave - I move:

Early on Wednesday morning when the Senate was debating the honey Bills, Senator Rae gave an explanation for the late introduction of these Bills. He said that he would like to reply to my remarks. He said:

One of the reasons why this legislation was delayed is that the Australian Honey Board had not got around to reporting before it wanted its legislation altered to enable the Board to do things which the Board had asked to be able to do with which the Government had agreed.

In my remarks following Senator Rae’s speech I agreed with him that the Honey Board deserved to be criticised. But having looked at the Honey Board’s report, I find that Senator Rae’s remarks were somewhat out of order. On page 1 8, under the heading ‘Honey Research Committee’, the report states:

The Commonwealth Government announced in December 1979 its agreement to the proposal by the Federal Council of Australian Apiarists’ Associations, supported by the Australian Honey Board, for the establishment of a statutory honey research scheme.

The scheme would be based on an industry research levy on all domestic and export sales of honey and a Commonwealth matching contribution. The industry levy would be set at a maximum rate of $0.5 cents per kg., with an initial operative rate of 0.25 cents per kg. Research expenditure from a Honey Research Trust Account would be approved by the Minister for Primary Industry after recommendations from the Honey Research Committee comprising one representative from each of:

Department of Primary Industry (Chairman)

Australian Agricultural Council

CSIRO

Australian Honey Board

Federal Council of Australian Apiarists’ Associations.

This new scheme would replace existing honey research arrangements which have been funded by an annual allocation from the Board and a matching Commonwealth grant.

The enabling legislation passed through the House of Representatives and it was hoped that it would have the Senate’s approval in time to commence the new scheme on 1st July 1980. However, this did not eventuate and it was anticipated that the Bill should be presented to Parliament again later in 1980.

From the Honey Board’s report, it is evident that the Honey Board was not at fault, as Senator Rae said; it was the Government. That the Bill had to be amended was not due to any fault of the Honey Board, it was due to the fact–

Senator Rae:

– 1 said that the report was late, and it was late.

Senator McLAREN:

Senator Rae blamed the Honey Board. He said the report was late and that that was the cause of the late introduction of the Bills into the Senate. I refer Sentor Rae to his remarks in the Hansard. I do not want to delay the Senate by arguing with him. His remarks are in Hansard and I have just quoted them. I point out that it was not the fault of the Honey Board that the legislation was delayed. It was introduced into this place on 1 March. Whether the Honey Board’s report was late had nothing to do with the legislation. It had nothing to do with any amendment to the Bills which came into this place on 1 March. It was the ineptness of the Government or perhaps a ploy used by it to keep the Honey Bills, three of which would have enabled first reading debates, out of the Senate on any broadcast day. The only reason that the amendments which we passed in the Senate the other night had to be introduced was to make the legislation retrospective to 1 July. They were the only amendments made to the original Bills which passed through the House of Representatives and came to the Senate. When the Bills were being debated I said:

I agree with what Senator Rae has said. If it is the fault of the Australian Honey Board it deserves to be criticised.

I take those remarks back. From my reading of the report, it was not the fault of the Honey Board that the legislation was so late in being debated; it was, in fact, the fault of this Government.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– I wish to reply very briefly to Senator McLaren. The Australian Honey Board was late in presenting its report. If a statutory authority wishes for its purposes and for the benefit of its members to have the Parliament pass legislation which it has suggested should be introduced it should get its own house in order first and present its report. Then it can ask for the Parliament to do what it wishes in the interests of its members. It was in that sense that I said, and I now repeat, that the legislation was held up because the Honey Board report had not been presented. Until such time as it was presented there was a resistance to dealing with the legislation.

Senator McLAREN (South Australia)- by leave - Senator Rae has completely misrepresented the situation. I will quote the first few lines of what he said. He came into the Senate at 1 .56 a.m. and said:

I would like to reply to the remarks of Senator McLaren. One of the reasons why this legislation was delayed is that the Australian Honey Board had not got round to reporting before it wanted its legislation altered to enable the Board to do things which the Board had asked it to be able to do with which the Government had agreed.

I pointed out that the legislation had already gone through the other place and was in this chamber. The only amendments made to that legislation were the amendments to make it retrospective because of the delay of the Government. Those were Senator Rae’s words.

Senator Rae:

– How thick can you be?

Senator McLAREN:

– I do not want to take the time of the Senate arguing with Senator Rae. I should have sought leave to continue my remarks when I spoke earlier. Perhaps Senator Rae will do it and we will debate the matter when the Parliament resumes.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– I will fix it up. I wish to speak and I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1326

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Report on Tourism in the Australian Capital Territory

Senator KNIGHT:
Australian Capital Territory

– by leave- I move:

I seek leave to incorporate a statement on this subject that I issued earlier today when the response was tabled in the House of Representatives.

Senator Georges:

– To whom was the statement issued?

Senator KNIGHT:

– Rather than making a statement now I issued a statement earlier today as Chairman of the Committee commenting on the Government’s response which was tabled in the House of Representatives. Rather than making those comments I simply ask that they be incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

– Is leave granted?

Senator Georges:

– No. Read it.

Senator KNIGHT:

– I refer to a few points that I made in that statement. The Government has announced that 20 of the Committee’s 22 recommendations are acceptable. Of the two that are not one relates to the establishment of a casino in the Australian Capital Territory. I indicated that the Committee was not surprised at that response on the part of the Government as it was aware of the Government’s position on the matter which had been clearly stated some time previously. The second matter was a relatively minor one concerning an amendment to an ordinance which the Government indicated it rejected but which it will implement by administrative means. I indicated that I was pleased that the main thrust of the Committee’s report had been accepted, particularly the need for a more aggressive promotional approach by the Australian Capital Territory Tourist Bureau, and that the activities of the Tourist Bureau in Canberra would be stepped up, particularly with the appointment of a new executive officer on a contract. I also indicated some satisfaction that the Government has adopted the Committee’s recommendation that a smaller tourism advisory board be established in the Territory and that it should review the operations of the Australian Capital Territory Tourist Bureau within the next two years. I also indicated a hope that the membership of the new board would be announced shortly.

I commented on another development of significance - the Australian Capital Territory’s proposed representation on the Australian Tourist Commission on the same basis as the States. That was announced recently by the Government. I mentioned a couple of matters with reservation. I have indicated my hope that the Government will not delay action on the Committee’s recommendation that other State offices of the Australian Capital Territory Tourist Bureau be opened and particularly that it give priority to the opening of such an office in Melbourne.

Finally, I express my concern that a number of recommendations which the Government has indicated that it accepts in principle are to be the subject of further examination, particularly by the new tourism advisory board. I hope that this will not mean undue delays in action being taken on those recommendations. I conclude by saying that

I am sure the Joint Committee in the new Parliament will be taking a very close interest in the progress on those recommendations. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1327

QUESTION

CODE OF PRACTICE ON RADIATION PROTECTION IN THE MINING AND MILLING OF RADIOACTIVE ORES 1980

Senator COLEMAN:
Western Australia

– by leave - I move:

I made mention in this chamber a few days ago of the impracticalities of the method we are using at the moment in the issuing of reports and the manner in which they are being presented. Until a moment ago when I asked the attendant to obtain a copy for me, I did not have the Code of Practice on Radiation Protection in the Mining and Milling of Radioactive Ores 1980. It is a matter which interests me greatly. I do not intend to delay the Senate for any length of time at the moment, but I will do so at a later stage. I hope to discuss this matter at some length because it is extremely important. It relates to the radiation protection standards in the mining and milling of radioactive ores and covers a wide range of sureties that, in actual fact, those people who are involved in this specific industry will receive some form of protection, one imagines by way of compensation. Certainly it establishes standards for practices under the mining and milling of radioactive ores. Perhaps one could expect there to be something in relation to transportation. I have not had time to study the report. I now seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1327

DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES

Annual Report 1979-80

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– by leave - I move:

I take this opportunity of paying a tribute to the people who work in the area of the Department of Administrative Services which is responsible for providing services to members of parliament and Ministers. Far too often these people are neglected when reports such as this are presented. For my part, I believe they do a very great job in carrying out their duties. They look after the requirements of members of parliament, whether it be here in Canberra or in our own States, when we have occasion to make contact with them on any matter. I mention particularly those people who look after the transport arrangements for members of parliament. I take 10 seconds of the Senate’s time to place on record my appreciation of the work that these people do and to say how valuable it is to each and every one of us. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1328

QUESTION

JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND DEFENCE

Report on Human Rights in the Soviet Union: Government’s Response

Senator SIBRAA:
New South Wales

– by leave- I move:

As a member of the Sub-committee of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, I welcome the Government’s response. It is a pity that Senator Wheeldon and Senator Martin who were members of the Sub-committee are not in the chamber tonight. I was worried about when we would receive a reply from the Government. I am glad the response has come. On 12 September 1 980 1 asked a question in the Senate of the Minister for National Development and Energy, Senator Carrick, who represents in this chamber the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) about when we would receive a reply to our human rights report. It is a pity that it did take so long for the Government to respond. The report was put down on 8 November 1979. It is a pity we did not get the reply within the six-months period. 1 think the timing and the response to the report is interesting. It is being replied to right at the time of an election. It is full of anti-Soviet rhetoric at a time when this Government’s policy regarding trade with the Soviet Union is ‘business as usual’.

The Minister in his response to my question said that the report was approached in a bipartisan manner. That is correct. The report was approached in such a manner. In reading the response, which I received only today even though the Department of Foreign Affairs’ handout said that the Minister made the speech on 16 September, I formed the opinion that the report has been used in a partisan way. It is a very significant report. It is the first parliamentary report of its nature anywhere in the world. It received very wide publicity in Australia and overseas. It was read into the United States of America congressional record. Two Australian academics are writing a book as result of this Committee’s report. The report probably will have to be reprinted because of the public interest in it. Many copies have been purchased. I know that the former secretary to the Committee has recommended that it be reprinted. The Soviet Union has not disputed the report, even though the Tass newsagency has acknowledged the fact that the Committee did look into human rights in the Soviet Union.

I now deal briefly with some of the recommendations. I will not go through all of the Government’s responses to the report. Paragraph 5 deals with our Embassy’s having observers at the Soviet trials of dissidents. The Government has accepted the recommendation. It is a pity that even since 8 November when we brought the report down the Australian Embassy, according to our advice and the reports we have received, has not sent observers to attend the trials that have been held since that period.

The recommendation in paragraph 62 deals with the Olympic Games. I think it is a great pity that this response from the Government tries to justify the Australian Government’s attempts to boycott the Olympic Games. The Sub-committee did not support the boycott. Of course, it is fair to say that some members of the Sub-committee supported the boycott; others of us did not. I certainly did not support a boycott of the Olympic Games. My views are well known. I have had them recorded in speeches which I have made in the Senate. I believe that if there were a Western boycott it would certainly push the Soviets into a very difficult situation and create a position where they would react unfavourably as far as human rights were concerned. I think there is already sufficient proof that even the partial Western boycott which did not succeed certainly did nothing to advantage human rights in the Soviet Union.

I take this occasion to congratulate the Australian athletes who did go to Moscow. I think historically they will be shown to be the courageous ones. History will prove that their decision was right. It will be seen in the future that there will be boycotts of one sort or another by different countries on successive Olympic Games. Already the future of the Commonwealth Games which are to be held in Brisbane is in serious doubt because a number of African countries are threatening to boycott them due to political decisions. As I said, I think the athletes were the courageous ones. I think they made the right decision.

The whole thrust of the report was aimed at the establishment of a standing committee on human rights to report on serious violations of human rights in any country, including Australia. I believe that that was the main thrust of the report.

The Government does not support that recommendation. It is a pity, because I think that historically this report will be seen to be an antiSoviet report on human rights. In 50 years time, if people are looking back, they will say that this was the particular time when the Australian Parliament led an attack on human rights in the Soviet Union. There was a recommendation that we should look at violations of human rights in the other countries but the Australian Parliament did not go ahead with it.

Senator Young:

– We are not the experts in it.

Senator SIBRAA:

– If we are not the experts perhaps we should not have undertaken this inquiry.

Senator Young:

– I did not assent to it.

Senator SIBRAA:

– I know that. I have said that and certainly I make that point. It is not a unanimous report. My opinion that the main thrust of the report should be that we should have a permanent committee on human rights was not accepted by some other members of the committee.

We have a situation at the moment in which the Australian Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) puts himself forward as a champion of human rights anywhere in the world. But in this particular instance, when he has had an opportunity to act, I believe he has ignored the main recommendation of the report. I think we must look at what is happening with human rights in our own area. We must look at what is happening in human rights in the member countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations. I will not go through them and pick them out individually. Honourable senators here realise that there are some serious violations to human rights in countries very close to Australia.

This afternoon Senator Grimes made an excellent speech in relation to the case of Kim Dae Jung. Mr President, as you know, a guest in this Parliament today has been Mr Goerge Fernandes who was the leader of the Indian Socialist Party. I have just had dinner with him. Fernandes is a person about whom people on both sides of this Parliament stood up to complain when he was gaoled by Mrs Gandhi and her Government. When elections were held he was able to win his seat from gaol. I felt that the debate that took place here about George Fernandes had some effect on human rights in India.

In South Korea Kim Dae Jung is at the moment facing execution. He is a democratic socialist, a person who was kidnapped from Japan and whose one crime, it would seem, was that he was too successful in the ballot that was held. He was allowed into the ballot, but it was never expected that he would get anything like the 47 per cent of the vote that he received. He has now been sentenced to death. As he said in a statement in court, the only thing that he is guilty of is trying to seize power through the ballot box. There will be a reaction to this matter in other countries. I am certain of that. It is a pity that the Australian Parliament has waited until after the man was sentenced to death, for the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) to make a statement on this scandalous abuse of human rights. For many weeks various members on the Opposition side of the Senate have been asking questions and pleading with the Government to make a statement about his imprisonment and his trial.

At the moment we have a Prime Minister who attacks abuse of human rights in the Soviet Union and who at the same time has encouraged his Government to sell wheat and wool to the Soviet Union. We have a Prime Minister who has tried to stop our athletes from going to the Olympic Games and at the same time we find that Australian uranium is being enriched in the Soviet Union.

I believe that human rights are important in every country. I feel that by not establishing the permanent committee on human rights we have lost a great opportunity. I feel, and I am sure that the Labor members of the Committee feel, that because this main recommendation has not been accepted that we have been used by the Government in a most cynical way to produce a report which condemns human rights in the Soviet Union - recommendations that I go along with. Because we are not setting up the permanent committee it will now be seen to be an attack in isolation on the Soviet Union, whereas the establishment of a permanent committee on human rights could have been viewed in a very constructive way, and the Australian Government could have been seen as doing something about human rights in all areas of the world.

Debate (on motion by Senator Peter Baume) adjourned.

page 1329

NATIONAL LIBRARY OF AUSTRALIA

Annual Report 1979-80

Senator DAVIDSON:
South Australia

– by leave - I move:

I speak in my privileged capacity as Senate representative on the Council of the National Library of Australia, and in relation to the report which has been put down today. I commend the report to the Senate. It refers to various technical developments which have been taking place in the library world. It also refers to the role of the National Library in relation to State libraries and the development of library services throughout the States. In particular it takes on board the fact that we are approaching the Year of the Disabled Person and there is a development throughout the library world of library services for the handicapped. The National Library report which is before the Senate also refers to the transition which has just taken place from the retiring DirectorGeneral, Dr Chandler, to the new DirectorGeneral Mr Harrison Bryan, whom I commend to all honourable senators. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– by leave - I have read the annual report of the National Library of Australia about which Senator Davidson has spoken. When I read it I thought to myself that it was a great pity that the report of the Horton committee on libraries, a committee of inquiry which was set up by the Whitlam Government in 1973 and which reported in 1975 has not been implemented in any manner, shape or form, especially since tomorrow, 19 September, is the commencement of National Library Week. I think it is an indictment of the Fraser Government that, having had the report for five years, all that it has done is refer it for another inquiry, as it were, as to what is the latest situation in regard to local government libraries in the States. I think it is a great tragedy that the recommendations of the Horton committee have not been implemented by the Fraser Government.

page 1330

AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF CRIMINAL INTELLIGENCE

Text of Ministerial Statement

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

– by leave - I move:

This is a matter of some considerable importance which it is rather disconcerting to find put to this Parliament in its dying hours in the form of a single sheet of paper, less than even one A4 page of typing. It is a less informative document than the one which was tabled earlier this year as part of the Government’s response to the earlier volumes of the Williams committe report on drugs in Australia.

The omissions from this account of the progress on the establishment of an Australian Bureau of

Criminal Intelligence would appear to be these: First, what is the scope of the activities of the new bureau to be; what are the range of matters in which it is to be authorised to gather and disseminate intelligence? Secondly, what are to be the powers and limitations on the power of this new body in respect of the methods which it can employ in gathering information and the way in which it can disseminate it?

The third question which is not addressed and which ought to be in this ministerial statement is how the bureau is proposed to be organised and administered. What procedures are to apply and what kinds of safeguards are to apply in respect of those procedures? The fourth major question that fails to be addressed in the statement is how precisely these powers are to be shared between the Commonwealth and the States, or how precisely these activities are to be shared. There is reference to this being a co-operative arrangement in which the Commonwealth would appear to have some kind of leadership role, but precisely what the interrelationship is to be between the Commonwealth and the States and who is to exercise what powers on behalf of whom and who is to be accountable to whom are simply not addressed.

A couple of other aspects I think need to be noted. They are that the statement claims to be an implementation of a major recommendation of the Williams Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs. It is really nothing of the kind because what it recommended was a more effective and co-ordinated operation with respect not to criminal intelligence generally but to criminal drug intelligence. It was specifically proposed by Mr Justice Williams that there be established a national and state criminal drug intelligence network of centres. There was no reference in the Williams report, nor does it appear necessarily or logically to follow from the tenor of that report, to any such network of intelligence bureaus having a role with respect to criminal activity generally outside the immediate area of drug law enforcement and matters necessarily incidental thereto.

There is a distressing tendency on the part of the Government, in making these statements, to slide from the original terms of that recommendation into producing something which seems, on its face, to be much wider in its operation. One has a concern that, if criminal intelligence is to be upgraded in this country- which, of course, in itself is no bad thing, especially in the context of extremely serious crimes in relation to drugs and matters of that kind involving organised crime - the establishment of a major intelligence apparatus of this kind could be used in respect to the accumulation of the kind of intelligence which is presently the prerogative of State special branches, and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation at the Federal level, in other words the collection of political intelligence in respect of groups or individuals who might be perceived as having some potentially subversive activities in mind. We have debated all these things at inordinate length in other contexts. I have no desire to canvass the whole range of things that could be canvassed at the moment. All I seek to do is to jangle one or two alarm bells around the place, and to make sure that this development, supported as it apparently is by the police Ministers of all States as well as at the Commonwealth level, does not go completely unnoticed.

I further make the point that it is crucially important that, if one is establishing any police intelligence operation of any kind, considerable attention be paid to the powers and the limitations on power and the kinds of procedures which are to be employed by any such organisation because very real civil liberty questions are involved. I refer the Senate, as I have done on numerous occasions in other contexts, to the report of the Australian Law Reform Commission in 1975 on criminal investigation which addressed itself in general terms to the gathering of criminal intelligence data. It made some preliminary findings and some preliminary recommendations in regard to various areas, but it also said that there are a number of problems which remain to be resolved. Paragraph 244 states:

The outstanding issues include the subject-matter of the data which might properly be collected, the specific circumstances in which it is appropriate for the police to disseminate such data, the problem of expunging of criminal records after an appropriate time lapse, the mechanisms by which individuals might ensure the review and correction of sensitive intelligence data concerning themselves, and the kind of machinery that should be established to provide redress in cases where police or departmental powers with respect to the collection, storage and use of criminal information data are abused or misused.

Senator Archer:

– A fat lot that’ll do.

Senator EVANS:

– Thank you, Senator. I appreciate that I am talking about matters that are outside both your range of competence and your range of concern, but they are matters of considerable importance. It is important to draw the attention of the Senate and of the community to them. The final matter which worries me and in respect of which I would appreciate some response from the Attorney-General (Senator Durack), if he is minded to give it, is this issue of accountability to which I briefly referred; that is, the question of which government is indeed to have the responsibility for the oversight of these operations. Which Minister is to be answerable for the activities of this organisation? Which parliament is to be capable of putting questions which are likely to be answered? In any cooperative federalism arrangement of the kind which this appears likely to be, there are very real problems of buck-passing and shared accountability amounting to non-accountability. It is those sorts of issues which are very seriously raised by this very short statement, and I think it is important that they be answered. I do not know that the Attorney proposes to offer anything by way of an answer now. Since he chooses to sit there on his hands, with his lips sealed on the subject, I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1331

SECURITY APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Annual Report

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

– by leave - I move:

I note that this is something of a non-report in the sense that the Security Appeals Tribunal has only just been established after a considerable lapse of time and it is reporting only in respect of its activities for one month of operation in which it appears that absolutely nothing has happened. I take this opportunity very briefly to draw attention once again to the very real limitations in the operation of the security appeals legislation, as it was passed as part of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation package which this Parliament has debated at length.

I draw attention once again to the fact that the opportunity to appeal against adverse security assessments which affect people’s Public Service employment and affect them in other ways is prospective only in the sense that all those hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people who have been disadvantaged security reports in the past will not have the opportunity to take their cases to this tribunal. I note further that the only circumstances in which matters can be brought before this tribunal are if the person who has been the subject of an adverse security assessment is notified of that adverse security assessment - that being a necessary precondition of any appeal that he might be able to bring to this tribunal, with, of course, there being a catch 22 provision of the AttorneyGeneral’s certification in circumstances which seem good to the Attorney-General and which can have the effect of denying the person of any such notification and, accordingly, a denial of the right to appeal to the tribunal. There are fundamental defects and limitations, accordingly, on the kinds of procedures which are available under this notionally impressive apparatus which is here set up and reported upon.

The only further point I make is that it is absolutely absurd for this Parliament not to be able to get information from the Minister as to the number of adverse security assessments that are being made, the number of people who are being told of their rights to appeal to this tribunal and, indeed, the number of certifications that are given by the Attorney-General. All these matters were the subject of an express refusal by the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Durack) during Estimates committee hearings to give the Parliament this information at the same time as he was refusing to update the information about the number of telephone taps which are applied annually by the security services in respect of the operations of ASIO. Again I notice the Attorney nodding off because of his general well known lack of interest or concern for these matters and total unwillingness to indicate to the Parliament any kind of information which would enable there to be genuine accountability of the security services. In these circumstances, it is no wonder that a report of this kind is quite uninformative. It has manifested the fact that the kind of information which would be meaningful to the Parliament and to the nation will be given so long as this Government remains in power. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1332

ESTIMATES COMMITTEES

Estimates Committee B

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– by leave - I table further information provided to Estimates Committee B and I seek for the additional information to be incorporated in the Hansard record of the Committee’s proceedings.

Leave granted.

Estimates Committee A

Senator YOUNG:
South Australia

– by leave - I table additional information for Estimates Committee A. I seek leave for the additional information to be incorporated in the Hansard record of the Committee’s proceedings.

Leave granted.

page 1332

PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE

Senator ARCHER:
Tasmania

– I bring up the twentieth report from the Publications Committee.

Report - by leave - adopted.

page 1332

CUSTOMS TARIFF VALIDATION BILL (No. 2) 1980

First Reading

Debate resumed from 17 September, on motion by Senator Durack:

That the Bill be now read a first time.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– Last night in the House of Representatives my esteemed colleague, John Dawkins, was interrupted persistently by what was clearly a planned Liberal Party attempt to stifle the comments he was making. Because of that the points Mr Dawkins was attempting to make were not entirely clear. I will attempt to summarise them tonight. He initially expressed concern at the fact that the Liberal Party machine in Western Australia has become a creature of the Liberal Government. The Liberal Party machine in Western Australia is not comparable to any other State branch of the Liberal Party of Australia. Its closest ethical and ideological bedmate is the National Country Party of Queensland. Last week I drew attention to the fact that one Noel Crichton-Browne, freely described as a crook by members of the Liberal Party State Council and by Liberal Party members of this Parliament from Western Australia -

Senator Peter Baume:

– Coward’s castle.

Senator WALSH:

– I repeat that he was freely described as a crook by Liberal Party members of this Parliament from Western Australia. If the honourable senator would like me to name some of them I will. Would the honourable senator like me to name them?

Senator Walters:

– Do you ever say anything like that outside the Parliament and take the consequences?

Senator WALSH:

– Would Senator Walters like me to name the Liberal Party members of the Parliament who freely described Noel CrichtonBrowne as a crook?

Senator Walters:

– I just asked you a question and you will not answer it.

Senator WALSH:

– Yes, I have described him as a crook outside the Parliament on a number of occasions. He is freely described as a crook by Liberal Party members of this Parliament from Western Australia. I notice that none of the Liberal Party senators sitting opposite are willing to challenge me to name those members who freely call Noel Crichton-Browne a crook.

Senator Young:

– Your mates are so disgusted with you there are only two in here.

Senator WALSH:

– The calibre of the candidate endorsed by the Liberal Party in Western Australia might not be a matter of concern to Senator Young and Senator Walters but it certainly ought to be. Apart from the crook, Crichton-Browne, in a most extraordinary preselection - and this also will be quite readily endorsed by Liberal Party members of this Parliament from Western Australia - for what would normally be the blue ribbon Liberal seat of O’Connor, the Liberal Party has preselected one Wilson Tuckey, the Mayor of Carnarvon and licensee of the Port Hotel in Carnarvon for a number of years. Wilson Tuckey in 1967 was convicted of an assault upon an Aborigine while the Aborigine was being held by two other people in Wilson Tuckey’s hotel.

I guess that sort of prudence, that caution not to attack the Aborigine unless he was well held by a couple of other people, is the sort of prudence which might have induced the Liberal Party machine in Western Australia, given its current ethical level, to endorse a candidate such as Wilson Tuckey as distinct from Bill Grayden, the Minister for Cultural Affairs in Western Australia, who tried to punch up two cops in the Sheraton car park without any assistance at all; and he lost. Wilson Tuckey at least won the first round. When he was dragged into court he did not do so well because he was convicted. I will quote how the West Australian newspaper summed up the situation at the time. Anyone who knows anything about the media in Western Australia would readily concede that at the very least the West Australian takes an editorial line which is generally favourable to the conservative side of politics. In an editorial in October 1967 the West Australian newspaper stated:

There is public disquiet over the bashing of a native by Carnarvon shire president Wilson Tuckey, his brother and another man.

His brother and another man were the two people who were holding the Aborigine while Wilson Tuckey got stuck into him. The editorial continued:

Few people would regard the fine of $40 levied against Wilson Tuckey as an appropriate penalty for an offence in which he used a cosh on Ray McGibbon while McGibbon’s arms were held by the two other men. This was a particularly disturbing assault which warranted a severe penalty.

The editorial went on to say that Wilson Tuckey is clearly unfit to hold office as shire president or to be Mayor of Carnarvon. Wilson Tuckey 13 years later is endorsed by the Liberal Party in Western Australia for what under normal circumstances would be a blue ribbon Liberal Party seat. He lives in Carnarvon which does not come within 400 miles of the boundaries of the seat of

O’Connor. Wilson Tuckey has absolutely no industrial, social or residential connection with the seat of O’Connor. Yet he has been endorsed for a seat which would normally be regarded as a blue ribbon seat. Sometimes strange things happen in political parties. If for some reason or other no credible candidates nominate, bizarre people might be endorsed. That was not the case in this instance. I understand that something like a dozen members of the Liberal Party nominated for preselection for the seat of O’Connor.

I do not know who most of them were but I know some of them. I know Harold Lundy of Cunderdin, which is a town very close to the area from which I came. To my knowledge he has been an active member of the Liberal Party for 20 years. He was a member of its federal rural committee almost 20 years ago and was a candidate for the Federal seat of Moore, in 1966. He was one candidate for preselection. I understand that the research assistants of at least two members of this Parliament were also candidates as, indeed, were a number of other people who have quite strong credentials, by reason of their longstanding association with the Liberal Party, to be Liberal candidates.

By contrast, of course, Wilson Tuckey, the chosen candidate of the Western Australian branch of the Liberal Party, apart from having absolutely no residential or industrial associations with the seat of O’Connor and apart from having a record for bashing up a blackfellow while the blackfellow was safely pinioned by two other men, has a rather extraordinary political record. He was an unsuccessful applicant for Liberal Party endorsement for the State seat of Gascoyne in 1974. Having been rejected by the Liberal Party on that occasion, he became the National Alliance candidate for Gascoyne. Of course he lost. He then made inquiries about joining the Carnarvon branch of the Australian Labor Party. Those inquiries were rather peremptorily rebuffed. Then, much to the chagrin of longstanding members of the Liberal Party in Carnarvon, he managed to rejoin the Liberal Party’s Carnarvon branch. Then a few years later he turns up as an endorsed candidate for what with almost any other candidate would be regarded as a blue ribbon Liberal seat. I think it is a sad moment when one State branch of the second largest political party in Australia can endorse for the same election not one but two candidates of the calibre and background of Wilson Tuckey and Noel Crichton-Browne. I must say it is extraordinary, if not reprehensible.

The other matter I wish to raise follows on from matters raised in the Senate earlier this afternoon when I pressed the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, finally to come clean with answers to questions which I have had on notice for more than six months concerning payments under the Beef Industry Incentive Payments Scheme, and in particular whether some of the Ministers who enacted the scheme were double dipping. As a result of that rather severe questioning, very late this evening some answers turned up. I guess the Government was hoping that we would say: ‘The questions have been answered. That’s it. We might as well forget about this issue’. Fortunately, we have had time to look at the answers rather more carefully. We find that although the questions are identical, apart from naming different portfolios, the answers are not, and the difference in the answers is not trivial. For example, and I will not dwell for too long on this, the question asked:

Did the Minister–

Whoever it may have been - or any company of which he is a director or a shareholder receive any payments under the Beef Incentive Payments Scheme; if so:

  1. on what dates were payments made;
  2. what amounts were involved; and
  3. to what person or persons were the payments made.

The answer pertaining to Senator Scott came back and said that yes, a payment was made to Senator Scott and that at the time he was not a member of the Ministry. Okay, that is the end of Senator Scott. The answer pertaining to Mr Nixon said:

The Minister for Primary Industry did not receive any payments for the operation of his property under the Beef Industry Incentive Payments Scheme.

The same sentence, or an equivalent sentence, appears in all the answers. But the second sentence in the answer pertaining to the Minister for Primary Industry said:

No payments were received under the Scheme by any company of which the Minister is a director or a shareholder.

As far as Mr Nixon is concerned, Peter Nixon did not receive any payments, nor, so the answer said, did any company of which he is a director or a shareholder. So presumably Peter Nixon is clean. Then we come to the Prime Minister, and the answer is not quite the same. Not only is it not quite the same, but also in a crucial respect it is quite different. The first sentence is the same:

The Prime Minister did not receive any payments for the operation of his property under the Beef Industry Incentive Payments Scheme.

Then it says:

My department has no knowledge of any company of which the Prime Minister is a director or a shareholder and is therefore unable to provide answers to those parts of the honourable senator’s question.

In other words, the answer said that Malcolm Fraser, Esq. did not receive any payment, but it does not say that Nareen Pastoral Company did not receive payments. I suggest that that is a very significant omission which leaves one with the very strong suspicion that the Nareen Pastoral Company did receive some payments. For all the other Ministers - Anthony, Adermann, Street and Hunt - the answers are identical. It could be said that Mr Nixon was answering the questions and Mr Nixon knows about his own affairs. He not only knows whether Peter Nixon Esq., received a payment, he would also know that Peter Nixon did not receive any payments for companies in which he is a shareholder or a director, and I do not know whether he does have a private company or in what companies he may or may not be a shareholder or director. He does not know whether Malcolm Fraser or Mr Anthony or the other Ministers do receive any. That is possible - at least, nothing that I have said so far is incompatible with that possibility. However, let me return to the Hansard of 19 March with respect to a question concerning the former Minister for Primary Industry - an almost identical question. The question asked:

Did the Sinclair Pastoral Co. Pty Ltd or any of its directors receive any payments under the Beef Incentive Payments Scheme; if so . . .

And so it continues. The answer came back:

No payment was made to the Sinclair Pastoral Co. Pty Ltd or any of its directors under the Beef Industry Incentive Payments Scheme.

That answer came from Peter Nixon, who would be expected to know his own business affairs in some detail. One might say that he may not know in detail the business affairs of the Prime Minister, and he is equally unlikely to know in detail the business affairs of the former Minister for Primary Industry. He is able to answer on behalf of the former Minister for Primary Industry and say: No, Ian Sinclair, Esq. did not get any payments, the Sinclair Pastoral Co. did not get any payments, nor did anyone who was a director of the Sinclair Pastoral Co.’. But he is not able to give that assurance for the Prime Minister. He said:

My Department has no knowledge of any company of which the Prime Minister is a director or a shareholder and is therefore unable to provide answers to those parts of the honourable senator’s question.

I respectfully suggest to the gentlemen of the Press who are sitting in the gallery now that they telephone the Prime Minister and ask him to come clean; telephone Mr Anthony, Mr Adermann, Mr Street and Mr Hunt, and ask them why the answers to the questions concerning them are significantly different from the answers to the questions concerning Mr Nixon and Mr Sinclair. I suggest that it is no coincidence that the answers are different. I challenge the Prime Minister to make an unequivocal statement saying that neither he nor any company or business in which he has a pecuniary interest was a beneficiary of payments under this scheme. I challenge him to give an effective answer to the question.

We know that members of the Prime Minister’s family have a permissive attitude towards dipping their fists in the public pocket. We know that the Prime Minister’s relatives illegally secured a loan of $50,000 from the Victorian Rural Finance Commission, illegally in the words of the Prime Minister’s wife who said: ‘Anyone who would attack a retired man is lower than a snake’s duodenum.’ I am not too sure whether a snake has a duodenum, but the point she was making is that a snake’s belly is on the ground and anyone who attacks a retired man is lower than something that is already on the ground. It just so happens that the provisions governing the issue of loans from the Victorian Rural Finance Commission, from which the Beggs got a $50,000 loan, explicitly forbid the granting of a loan to somebody who has retired. So out of the mouth of the Prime Minister’s own wife we have an implicit admission that the loan received by her father, by the company of which she herself is a shareholder, was illegal. I want to place on record my utter disgust that these Western District brahmins and their cows seem to think that they have a divine right to dip their fists into the public purse whenever they feel inclined to do so.

Senator ROBERTSON:
Northern Territory

– I will be very brief in my remarks because of the lateness of the hour. I raise a matter now in the hope that during the recess it can be looked at. I refer to electorate assistants. I make specific reference to salaries and recruitment of those officers. For some time the low salary which is available for electorate assistants has been a concern of mine. I do not think that I need to define the term ‘electorate assistants’ in the company I am in at the moment; they are those people who work for us in our electorate offices. They are called upon to perform a diverse range of activities. I think it is fair to say that behind every effective back bencher there is a good electorate assistant. I wonder whether the Government appreciates that, because its members have the opportunity to call on the services and resources of the various government departments, the ministerial officers appointed to Ministers and so on. But speaking from my position - I am sure I speak for my back bench colleagues on this side of the chamber as well - a good electorate assistant is a valuable part of our office.

Obviously, the role played by electorate assistants is different for each senator because so often we choose an electorate assistant who will complement our individual capacities and abilities. But certainly the half dozen points I now mention would be common to all electorate assistants. They are required to research material for their senators’ speeches, irrespective of whether those speeches are to be made in the chamber or outside at a function. They need to prepare Press releases and other publications which emanate from most senators’ offices. They spend a good deal of their time investigating the problems of individual constituents: It might be in the area of immigration and ethnic affairs, social security, veterans’ affairs and so on. They spend a good deal of their time investigating those problems. They need to assemble the resource material required by both them and their senators for the preparation of speeches.

I am sure I do not have to go into the detail of the cutting of newspapers, the reading of magazines, the getting of information from the excellent research section in our Parliamentary Library here and assembling that in a form which makes it available both to them and their senators. They develop personal contact with departments - particularly departments such as the Department of Social Security, the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, the Commonwealth Employment Service and so on - in order to assist people who come in with their problems. The last role I mention is that, in the absence of their senators, they need to monitor the trends in the electorate and to keep their senators up to date with what is happening in the electorate. I think that the roles I have mentioned indicate that electorate assistants perform a difficult task requiring maturity and a good, solid academic background. The position is seen as quite attractive. In the times I have advertised for a replacement electorate assistant I have attracted quite a number of graduates, even Ph.D.s.

I give that background simply to suggest the range of work that has to be done and to lead me into the proposition that the salary paid electorate assistants is not appropriate for the amount of work that has to be done. I will relate the salary paid those officers to salaries paid for work done by similar officers. I take as my example officers working for the Leader of the Opposition in the Northern Territory Government, as I know that situation better than any other. I think it is better that we look at the local scene because the job done by the two groups of officers there would be a better comparison than to try to look at parliamentary staff generally. The Leader of the Opposition in the Northern Territory has six ministerial officers - three E2s and three Els - one private secretary and one steno-secretary. The annual salaries of the ministerial officers, the E2s, range from $24,643 to a top of $25,491. The three Els have an annual salary range of $21,533 to $22,331. Having heard those salary ranges let us look at the range of annual salary paid to electorate assistants who serve us in our electorate offices. It is $ 1 1 ,658 to a top of $ 1 3,060.

Basically, the electorate assistants are doing the same work as are the ministerial officers. In fact, I put the proposition that they are doing a much harder job in view of the fact that they have to cover all of the range of activities that the six ministerial officers are able to cover. The ministerial officers may specialise: One might research one area, one might be a Press officer, one might look after women’s affairs and so on. The electorate assistant serving a senator has to cover all the details, yet the classifications for the positions are not particularly different. In fact, the first electorate assistant who left my office left to become a ministerial officer in the office of the Leader of the Opposition.

It is quite clear that the position of electorate assistant is grossly underpaid. I think most honourable senators know that senators in the United States of America have fairly large staffs. I understand 34 staff members is not uncommon. I am not calling for that. I am not even calling for the extension in numbers which I think we ought to have. All I am asking for is reasonable remuneration for electorate assistants. When we look at the salaries of staff working for the Parliament we often put the argument that the quality of work done by honourable senators depends on the amount of support they receive. The argument is just as appropriate if we are talking about the honourable senator working out of his electorate office.

The other aspect I deal with, again very briefly, is the problem of recruitment in the Northern Territory. I will direct my remarks basically to the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr John McLeay). Quite obviously, recruitment in the Northern Territory is mainly from the Northern Territory Public Service. There are very few Australian Public Service people in the Northern Territory, so staff members recruited, unless they come from without the Service, come from the Northern Territory Public Service. I outline what happened in my office within the last fortnight.

My research assistant left to undertake further university studies and I advertised for a replacement. Among those who responded to the advertisement was an applicant - a woman in this case - with a basic degree and two diplomas. She was an excellent applicant. The position she held within the Northern Territory Public Service was an E2 position, on a salary of $24,643.

After the interview, when I indicated to her that I would be very happy to have her join my staff, she approached the Northern Territory Public Service to find out how she could move across from the position she held. She was offered two options. The first was that she should resign and lose everything, all her sickness credits, her air fare entitlement and, of course, the opportunity to return to the Northern Territory Public Service in the unlikely event of my not returning to the Senate in 1981. The other option offered her was for her to take leave without pay. Again, she would receive no credits for leave or air fare; she would have to take those when she returned to the Northern Territory Public Service. From that we get the clear picture that secondment is possible only from the Australian Public Service and not from the Northern Territory Public Service.

Not daunted, she then went on to the Department of Administrative Services to find out how that Department would treat her. She was told that if she took the job she would move from receiving her annual salary of $24,643 to receiving the bottom of the salary range for electorate assistants; in other words, to $11,658- a loss of $12,985. Despite the position she held, her qualifications and experience, the Department would not place her at the top of the range, in which event she would lose only $1 1 ,583 a year by joining my staff.

Of course, that was not all. She was concerned that she would not have an air fare entitlement and would not have leave. She planned to take leave at Christmas because she was entitled to do so. She had an air fare entitlement after working two years and she had leave entitlements. The Department of Administrative Services told her that if she came to work for me she would have to pay her own air fare because she could not bring any entitlements with her and she would have to take four weeks’ leave without pay because she would not be entitled to any leave if she joined my staff in October. I do not think it is surprising that she did not join my staff. Obviously, I have lost an opportunity of gaining a valuable officer.

I will not take any further time of the Senate. I think the case speaks for itself. The details are quite clear. I just add this in conclusion: Firstly, I call on the Minister for Administrative Services to hold discussions with the Northern Territory Public Service about the conditions which exist to see whether secondment cannot be arranged under reasonable conditions. I call on the Minister to instruct his Department to be perhaps a little more flexible. Surely the situation I have outlined, that of a woman moving from receiving $24,000 to $11,000 a year, is not acceptable. Surely she should be able to move to receiving the salary at the top of the range and not at the bottom of the range. Let me make it clear that I am not attacking the Department of Administrative Services; I am sure it tries to do what it can to assist us, particularly when we are out in the field and as far from Canberra as I am. But I ask the Minister to appreciate the need which exists. Let him see the different conditions which operate in the Northern Territory and let him see whether he cannot devise different ways of meeting those different needs.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I want to raise two matters tonight. I have raised one of them on many occasions in this Parliament although I regret to say that as yet no action has been taken to rectify the problem. I refer to the parking at the Senate side of Parliament House. Every night when the Senate is sitting there is chaos on the Senate side of the House with cars being double-ranked. Those members of parliament who have a place set aside for their cars cannot get their vehicles out. It is not that mine has been parked there very often in the past 12 months, but other members park their cars there. Because cars are double-ranked it is impossible for them to get their cars out without bumping into another car.

As I have said, I have raised this matter on many occasions. We are coming to a long recess and I hope that something is done during the recess to make those facilities adequate not only for those members of parliament who park their cars on the Senate side but also for the Commonwealth car drivers. There is not enough room there for them to park their cars. There are not the same sorts of facilities as on the House of Representatives side of the building. I have been told from inquiries I have made today that things are all right over there. Yet they are all wrong on our side of the Parliament. I hope, in the interests of everybody who serves this Parliament, that actions are taken during the recess to fix up those parking facilities so that they are completely satisfactory. One of the other matters I raised was the danger to the transport officers out there, particularly on wet nights, when they have to be ducking in and out of the building getting members of parliament and staff into cars to get them home. I will not say any more on that matter except to put it on the record again. I hope that the work will be carried out. I do not expect it to be done before Christmas although we may be back here for a few days before then - prior to the assembly of the Parliament in the autumn session. I think this work is most essential and there is absolutely no reason at all why it cannot be done.

I have been informed about one other problem and that is that the ordinance covering illegal parking in the area set aside for members of parliament or the restricted areas is not enforceable. I understand that the ordinance is such that people cannot be prosecuted. It is no good having a parking officer employed by the Parliament going around putting parking infringement notices on cars if they cannot be enforced. That situation too ought to be rectified during the recess.

I intended to raise a matter in reply to a statement tabled here tonight but the forms of the House would not allow me to do so. I will not be referring to that document in detail now but I join with my colleague Senator Sibraa in protesting against the actions of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in using Australian sportsmen as political fodder to feed his ego on anticommunism; that is, by his imposed boycott of the Moscow Olympic Games. I have said in public many times that I did not support the boycott. I well remember - and I often quote it - the statement made by this Prime Minister when he came to office that politics had to be got off the front pages. Nobody has done more than Mr Fraser in the last five years to push sport off the front pages of the newspapers of this country and to replace it with dirty politics.

I have been fortunate in that I have visited the Soviet Union. I did so in company with my wife and other members of parliament and exmembers of parliament. I found the residents of the Soviet Union to be human beings, just as we are. Similarly during the television coverage of the Olympic Games some hundreds of thousands of Australians were able to see for the first time that Soviet citizens are human beings. They are not two-headed monsters, which many people had been led to believe because of anti-communist propaganda that unfortunately seems to surface every time we have a Federal election. It is a case of bringing the commo out from under the bed and frightening the little old ladies into believing that the Soviet Union is going to invade this country; that it is going to knock people out of their beds; that it is going to take everything they own. That is the story the electors are told.

Senator Walters:

– Did you see the wall when you were there?

Senator McLAREN:

– I do not want to listen to Senator Walters. She can speak after me. I am having my say tonight.

Senator Walters:

– I just wondered whether you saw the East Berlin wall?

Senator McLAREN:

– I saw the East Berlin wall. It is in East Germany. I have been to East Germany; I do not know whether Senator Walters has. What I am talking about tonight is the Soviet Union. I have been to the Soviet Union. I have good friends who live in the Soviet Union and I have good friends who represent the Soviet Union in Australia. What I am very concerned about is the fact that we have a government in office which is prepared at all times to denigrate the citizens of the Soviet Union and to frighten people about the Soviet Union but which at the same time is going all out to trade with that country. We were told that the Soviet Union’s involvement in Afghanistan was the start of World War III. If there were to be another World War the one person who would be absent from the ranks of the soldiers would be our Prime Minister. He had the opportunity when he was young enough to go to war but he did not; like his predecessor, Bob Menzies, who I think was criticised by Earle Page, the then Prime Minister, who said that the outbreak of World War I interrupted a brilliant military career. It is the same with our present Prime Minister. Many young Liberals say that the workers should be forced to go and fight for them but they do not go. I experienced that during World War II.

I want to put on record the fact that the Soviet Union has never been an enemy of this country. If it had not been for the deaths of 25 million residents of the Soviet Union in World War II many of us would not be in this place and talking about matters before us because Australia could have been overrun by the Japanese and by Hitler. What I am concerned about is the fact that we have a government in this country which, not so very long ago, through its leader - and I have looked at the record in the House of Representatives Hansard - castigated the People’s Republic of China on many occasions, the same as he castigated the Soviet Union, but who is now down on his knees grovelling to China to get it to trade with Australia. China has not changed its philosophy in those few years. I ask people who may doubt what I am saying to look at the record and see what Mr Fraser has said in years gone by about the Chinese people. He said the same as he is saying today about Russian citizens.

I want to quote a recent article in one of the newspapers concerning exports to the Soviet Union. It is headed ‘Exports to Soviet Union have tripled’ and states:

CANBERRA - Australia’s exports to the Soviet Union have tripled in the 10 months to April according to Government figures issued yesterday.

This is despite a fall in April export sales, the Statistics Bureau says.

Exports to the Soviet Union for April were worth $1 18.9m compared with the March record figure of S 1 5.3m.

For the 10 months to April trade was valued at $77 1.9m compared with $2 14.7m for the same period last year.

The Soviet Union was the fourth largest trading partner during April.

Trade to Japan for the month totalled $427.5m and $41 00m for the 10 months compared with $465. 3m in March and $3200m for the 10-month period last year.

Second on the list was the EEC with $247. lm in April compared with $23 1.2m in March and $2200m for the 10-month period this year and $ 1400m last year.

I am reliably informed that at present we are selling to the Soviet Union about $ 1,000m worth of commodities and we are buying in the vicinity of only $12m from that country. So here we have a government which on the one hand is prepared, for filthy political reasons, to denigrate the people in the Soviet Union and on the other hand is prepared to trade with the Soviet Union. My colleague Senator Sibraa, in a speech in the autumn session, referred to the massive tonnage of alumina that was being exported from Australia to the Black Sea ports. We know that rutile is still being exported to the Soviet Union just as we know that wheat, wool and barley are being exported to that country. We are endeavouring to sell the Soviet Union as much as we can. If that country is a threat to this country, why are we trading with it? I do not believe that country is any threat to Australia. It has its own interests to look after in its own country and the other countries that surround it.

Anyone who has been to the Soviet Union and who knows something about its history knows of all the times over the centuries that those people who live in the Soviet Union have been under attack. The people of the Soviet Union have to do something to protect themselves from the capitalistic nations, which would be in there like a flash if they thought they could do it. I make no apologies for saying that I support the citizens of the Soviet Union. I found them to be good people and I think that there are many hundreds of thousands of people in Australia today who watched the Olympic Games on television and who are of a like opinion. The only people who have lost favour over their actions in this boycott of the Olympic

Games in the Soviet Union are the Prime Minister and all those people who sit behind him. 1 am disgusted when day after day I look at the Votes and Proceedings for the other place and see that the present honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) moved pious notices of motion castigating the Soviet Union. I do not think it is any secret that I attended a conference in Caracas with that person last year. Not one day went by when he and I did not have an argument in the meetings before we attended the session. He was incensed with the Soviet Union. He never left the subject. I think practically every third word that fellow uttered right through the conference was in condemnation of the Soviet Union. He has never been there. I doubt that he has ever fought in defence of the country, but he is always saying: ‘We have to defend the nation’. The people who speak repeatedly about the dangers to this country from other countries ought to be the first ones into uniform.

Senator Walters:

– He was only a baby.

Senator McLAREN:

– It does not matter. He was not a baby when the Vietnam war was fought, when the people sitting opposite sent hundreds of our young people to their deaths and to be maimed. The people who sit opposite would not go themselves but they were quite prepared to send the workers’ sons. I will not delay the Senate for any longer except to put on record again that so far as I am concerned we ought to be doing all we can to promote peace in this world, and not for filthy, political reasons using some of our best trading neighbours to try to win votes and frighten little old ladies out of their beds.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

Mr President, we have gained so much time today that I can take five minutes to reiterate to you a matter which I consider to be important to the prestige and standing of this chamber. I refer to the security of Parliament House.

Senator Walters:

– I thought you were trying to raise the standard.

Senator GEORGES:

– I am, as a matter of fact. I am trying to raise the standard of behaviour towards people who visit this place. It is now quite some time since the scares which resulted from that dreadful Hilton Hotel bombing. We have now, I hope, reached a time of tranquillity. Although I accept that a considerable amount has been done to secure this place - overdone, if I might say so - I think now is the time to make certain changes.

The first of the changes that I consider to be necessary - I have spoken to the Senate about this before - relates to the searching of people who enter the galleries, people who have already gone through a very complicated and sophisticated electronic search. I almost said electronic zoo, but I will not say it. I am used to the place. I even go through that search now in the early hours of the morning. There is no other entrance that I can get through and no one will respond to my knocking on the front door, so I come through the bottom entrance. I am used to it. I have been conditioned to it and I have accepted it. The whole danger of these procedures is that finally we accept them. I do not think we ought to accept the fact that we still have police officers searching citizens as they enter the galleries. They have already gone through the security procedures. It is not necessary for a second search. Nor is it necessary for the small annexes to be used as resting rooms for police officers when things are quiet in the building. It is not fair to them. If they have to do that duty, they should have some other place where they can sit and read or smoke a cigarette as they are entitled to do. Let me get back to the fact that it is not necessary to affront our citizens who wish to come into this place and to listen to debate, for what it is worth, from time to time, to put them through a search. I think we have now reached the time when we can discard that practice.

It seems to me that people are searched as they go into the gallery only because they may have some propaganda on them. They have gone through the electronic system. There is no dangerous weapon on them; that has been proven or is supposed to have been proven by the system. Apparently we search them because they may have with them some material which they may display in the gallery or which they may drop over the balcony. That has only happened twice in the 12 years that I have been a senator. It is at the point when it happens that we can take the necessary action to discipline the person who does it. I do not think it is necessary.

Senator Peter Baume:

- Senator, it could be a plastic explosive one day.

Senator GEORGES:

– It could be, but what are we doing here? On the one chance in many thousands of chances we are placing ourselves in a situation of over-security and are harassing and embarrassing many elderly people who have to open their purses unnecessarily. I am saying that it is no longer necessary to do so. If there happens to be some incident in Australia which demands that for the time being we tighten security, those procedures could be then reinstated. They should not be made permanent as they are at present. I implore you, Mr President, to look at the matter again. Let the House of Representatives do what it wishes; as far as we are concerned we should not impose upon ordinary citizens a double searching procedure.

Another matter which I wish to raise is the matter of wearing passes.

Senator Peter Baume:

– You mean, like the one I have.

Senator GEORGES:

– Yes, I know. You are a good fellow. I have said it. I am in a genial frame of mind tonight. I will not have the opportunity to thank Senator Baume for his co-operation over the past few weeks, despite his eccentric behaviour in wearing that badge, which he keeps carefully hidden, I notice. It is an idiotic sort of badge. If it is necessary for him to have something with which to identify himself, he can have it in his pocket. If somebody stops him and asks ‘Who are you?’, he can produce it.

I return to the fact that our visitors, when in the company of senators, still are required to wear their badges. I was involved in one unfortunate incident in which people with me were stopped in my presence and asked to produce their badges. I take the view that when my visitors are with me they do not need to wear those indentification discs. In the members’ dining room, a place of relaxation, all guests, who are in the company of members of parliament, are still required to wear their badges. I think it is unnecessary. It is a procedure of identification or, I might say, of classification, that we all abhor. We do not like to see that sort of system of indentification spread. I suggest that it should be within the discretion of the member who has guests with him whether or not his guests be identified in this way. It borders on the ridiculous, if I might say so. I have spoken on this matter for seven minutes. It has been some three or four months since I last spoke on it. I trust that I will not have to speak on it again in another five months’ time.

Senator MELZER:
Victoria

– I wish at this stage in the Senate’s life to raise a matter that is becoming an increasing problem, if I can judge it by the number of complaints that are coming into my office. In simple terms it appears that women who are forced out of their homes by violence, be it mental or physical violence, and are forced to apply for a pension are having the value of payments made on those homes used as incomes when they are assessed as to the sort of pension they will receive. On 10 September my colleague Senator Elstob raised this question in the Senate. He asked the Minister for Social Security (Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle):

Is it true that women who are receiving special benefits and who in the past were in receipt of sole parent allowances are now finding that their benefits are subject to a different means test? Does this means test involve the reduction of benefits by $1 for each $2 over the first $1 which such women’s husbands may be paying towards the mortgage repayments on their former matrimonal homes? Are such women now being penalised in this way as well as having to pay for alternative accommodation? Will the Minister urgently revise departmental decisions on this matter to rectify this blatant inequity?

The Minister replied, leading us to believe that she was not aware that this was going on:

I will need to have investigated the matter that has been raised by Senator Elstob. It will need to be understood that this years’ Budget introduced a supporting parent’s pension which will have the effect, when the legislation is passed, of repealing the States Grants (Deserted Wives) Act.

I am not able to comment on all of the matters that were mentioned by Senator Elstob, but if particular problems need to be referred to the Department I would be pleased to have information about them. Also, I will seek from the Department a comment on what has been raised in this question.

What concerns me as much as the fact that an increasing number of these complaints are coming into my office is that on 1 August- I remind honourable senators that the question was asked on 10 September - the Minister wrote to a complainant in Victoria stating that it was the longstanding policy based on legal opinion to treat rent or mortgage repayments made for the beneficiary or pensioner as income. The letter said that when a pensioner owns a home and payments are being made by a spouse or former spouse the value of these payments is also regarded as income. On 10 September the Minister implied to us in the Senate in answer to a question that she did not really know what the problem was. On 1 August she wrote to a complainant setting out that it was long-standing policy of the Department. The problem arises when a women, forced out of her home by physical or other conduct, applies for a pension or special benefit and that special benefit or pension is reduced to an amount that will not even feed her and her children. The reason is that the payments that her husband is making are seen as being the income of that woman. She is not getting any benefit from the payments, she is not living in the house, she is having to find money to pay rent for other accommodation but because the payments are being made her income is reduced so much that she cannot exist.

I have in my office details of case after case in which people have reached the point of applying to appeals tribunals to decide these matters. Inevitably, the appeals tribunals regard the decision of the Department as nonsense. They uphold the appeal. But two or three months has passed between the time the pension is reduced and the time the appeals tribunal makes its finding. Women, in the meantime, are forced to beg for food parcels and stay with friends or in refuges. This is completely unsatisfactory. It means that they are under tremendous pressure, they are starving and their children are put under tremendous pressure. It seems that whenever an appeal is made the appeal wins. Each time the tribunal finds that the decision of the Department is ridiculous. A problem that arises is that even after the tribunal has found that the decision is ridiculous and has upheld the appeal the woman who is the subject of the appeal finds that she cannot get the files sent back to the regional office. There is no machinery for having the file and the decision of the tribunal sent back to the regional office. Until it is sent back no payment is made. There is no machinery.

One cannot but ask why it is happening. It did not happen when the States covered the costs of the special benefit for the first six months. In the last Budget the Commonwealth took responsibility for payment for the first six months. Presumably, that is why we are being inundated with complaints from people who cannot understand the position. They cannot live on the sort of money being paid to them. When the States paid the special benefit for the first six months we did not have a problem. Now that the Commonwealth has taken over these payments we have a very real problem. A woman’s husband may be left in the house. He may be making the mortgage repayments or paying the rent. Rent payments appear to have the same effect on a woman’s pension as mortgage repayments. When a couple is buying a house the terrible part of the problem is that often the woman has no equity in the house because of high interest rates and the low deposit the couple has paid. Even if the house were sold she would be more likely to be left owing money than to receive any money from the sale.

The situation has reached the point at which women’s groups, at least in Victoria, are threatening to put advertisements in the Press warning women that they had better stay at home and put up with being thumped by their husbands or put up with their intolerable behaviour. If they leave home the so-called pension will be of no assistance to them if repayments are being made on the house. A very large number of women in the community appear to be at a grave disadvantage. For their sake I ask the Minister to consider the matter. Although on 10 September she implied in the Senate that she did not know what the problem was, it appears that on 1 August she very well knew what the problem was and said that it was Government policy. I ask her to take a long, hard look at the matter and to see that a very large number of women in the community are given at least the very meagre pension that is handed out to single parents.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I take the opportunity of speaking on the motion I moved that the Customs Tariff Validation Bill be read a first time, not to speak on the Bill itself but to deal with some matters that Senator Walsh has seen fit to raise in the Senate again this evening as he did last Friday afternoon. He took refuge in the coward’s castle and made vicious personal attacks on Mr Noel Crichton-Browne of Perth who is, of course, an endorsed Liberal Party candidate for the Senate. This evening he went further and made a similar type of attack on Mr Wilson Tuckey who is the endorsed Liberal Party candidate for the seat of O’Connor in Western Australia. He has widened this attack to include the Liberal Party in Western Australia and its leaders. I propose to say a few words in this debate in respect of the vicious personal attacks that Senator Walsh has made. They are very much in character with Senator Walsh’s performance in this chamber at all times. In fact, as I observed him speaking this evening he seemed to be shivering with hatred of the people about whom he was speaking which, of course, included the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), Mrs Fraser and her parents.

Senator Walsh on occasion after occasion uses the privilege of the Senate to make vicious personal attacks on people. 1 believe that his whole approach prostitutes the privileges that are given to members of parliament for the purpose of carrying out their duties. Senator Walsh has seen fit on a number of occasions to attack Mr Noel Crichton-Browne, who, as I said, is an endorsed Liberal candidate for the Senate. He is the former President of the Western Australian Liberal Party. Senator Walsh has continually reiterated the allegation that Mr Crichton-Browne is a crook. I would have thought that any senator or member who was prepared to use the special privileges he has to make such serious allegations about anybody would have some proof of the allegations.

Senator Walsh:

– Burrill Investments.

Senator DURACK:

– Yes, Senator, Burrill Investments. I was just coming to that. I will deal with what Senator Walsh says is the evidence regarding Mr Crichton-Browne, which he has just admitted is based on Burrill Investments. I am very glad that he has admitted that that is the basis of his allegations. On 19 November 1979 when he spoke on this subject in the Senate, Senator Walsh stated:

This company in which Noel Crichton-Browne was a founding shareholder, and the major shareholder throughout the period in which we were interested, . . .

On Friday, 12 September, when he returned to the attack again, Senator Walsh said:

There are more than 20 pages in the 1974 report of the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange about that company’s trade in Poseidon shares, for those who want to look at it more fully.

I have some familiarity with that report as I was a member of the Committee for some years. I took the opportunity of looking again at the report, particularly the 20 pages to which Senator Walsh referred. I am particularly interested in the allegation that Mr Crichton-Browne was a founding and major shareholder. In proof of that Senator Walsh last Friday went on to say:

  1. . Burrill Investments was incorporated on 22 May 1 969, with a nominal capital of $ 1 00,000 and an issued capital of 20,232 one dollar shares. Of those shares, Messrs Burrill and Jones each held one; Noel Crichton-Browne had 3,000; his brother had 3,230; Esther Grace Stevens - then his fiance, later his wife - had 2,000; and her mother, Norma Stevens, also had 2,000.

Norma Stevens was, I am advised, the sister of Mr Crichton-Browne’s wife, she was not his motherinlaw, as was stated by Senator Walsh. Senator Walsh continued:

Thus, of the 20,232 issued shares, Noel Crichton-Browne and his relatives had 1 2,230 - well over half.

The truth is otherwise.

Senator Walsh:

– Some more shares were issued afterwards and I have already put that on the public record.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Walsh has had his say. I ask him to listen in silence to the Minister.

Senator Walsh:

– I will have another one in a minute too if he keeps on with this.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator DURACK:

– The remarkable thing is that in reading the 20 pages of the report it is clear as a pikestaff to anyone who reads it, who can understand, or who wants to understand it, where the truth lies. Volume 1, Chapter 2 on page 31 of the report stated:

Mr Burrill said that they had formed the latter company–

That is, Burrill Investments - with some of their ‘friends’ in order to conduct share dealing. According to the returns filed with the Companies Registration Office, Perth, two subscriber shares were allotted to Messrs Burrill and Jones in March 1969. Between 18 April and 15 May 1969, a further allotment of 58,748 shares was made, and this was followed by another issue in May 1969 of 20,250 shares. Messrs Burrill and Jones and Mrs Jones then held a total of 12,250 shares in the company, or about 15 per cent of the capital.

When one looks at the documents that were also filed in Volume 2, Committee Documents, Part 1 , on pages 10 and 1 1, there is a very full statement of the allotment of the shares in Burrill Investments Pty Ltd. It shows how the 58,748 shares were allotted between 18 April and 15 May 1969. Page 1 1 shows how the 20,250 shares were allotted on 22 May 1 969, some of which certainly Mr Crichton-Browne and the other people mentioned by Senator Walsh were allotted. The upshot of all that is that of the total allotment of 79,000-odd shares over this period, Mr Crichton-Browne was allotted only 5,000 shares. Even if one adds up all these other people - that is, his brother, his then fiance, her sister and so one - and achieve a figure of 12,250 shares, which is hardly a fair way of going about it, one sees that Mr Crichton-Browne was very much a minority shareholder in the company. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a photocopy of the allotments as shown in the Committee documents.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows -

Dated this Twentieth day of January 1970.

Senator DURACK:

– I thank the Senate. Mr Crichton-Browne was not the founder of the company because Burrill and Jones were the founders of the company.

Senator Walsh:

– He said he was a founding shareholder.

Senator DURACK:

Mr Crichton-Browne was not a founder shareholder because his shares were not allotted until May 1969.

Senator Walsh:

– It was on 22 May 1969 and I will produce a copy.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Walsh, I ask you to cease interjecting. If you disregard my direction I shall name you.

Senator DURACK:

– The Senate Committee report goes on to say:

Instead of arranging for Burrill Investments’ share dealing to be managed by one or more of the share brokers with whom they were associated, Messrs Burrill and Jones apparently preferred to make the decisions themselves.

It is quite clear from the report that the Senate Committee was interested - I know of this of my own knowledge from being a member of that Committee - in the relationship of Messrs Burrill and Jones, who were geologists to the Poseidon Company. The concern of the Committee was that because of their relationship as consulting geologists they should have formed this company, have had an interest in this company and dealt in the Poseidon shares. Mr Crichton-Browne was, as I have said, neither the foundation shareholder or the promoter of this company. At all the relevant times he was a minority shareholder in the company. He was never a director or an officer of it. As the Committee found, the investment decisions of this company were made by Messrs Burrill and Jones. So much for this basic proof of these very serious allegations that Senator Walsh has chosen to make in the Senate on at least three different occasions. They are absolutely unfounded.

Senator Walsh:

– See if you can get Senator Withers to endorse that.

Senator DURACK:

– I was invited to quote from pages of a report. How could anybody not understand what I have read?

Senator Walters:

– Only Senator Walsh could.

Senator DURACK:

– Has Senator Walsh read it?

Senator Walters:

– No.

Senator DURACK:

– No.

Senator Walsh:

– I have also looked at the CAC file and I will be tabling it soon.

Senator DURACK:

– If he has read it he has distorted it. I will leave it to the Senate to decide his motive or reason. Senator Walsh made some other allegations about Mr Crichton-Browne. He went on to say:

The operational method of the company, having had prior and inside knowledge of the initial strike at Windarra in September 1969, was to buy shares on the Perth and other stock exchanges with around $5, wait until a misleading and overstated report of the initial assay of the strike had been made available to the public, and then unload the shares at anything up to $ 1 00, or even more.

Firstly by buying up shares because of improper insider knowledge and secondly by maximising gains by selling off at a time when the market was misinformed in the other direction, the company of which Noel Crichton-Browne was a founding and the major shareholder cleaned up profits of at least $1.3m.

It is certainly a fact that the company cleaned up that profit, and possibly other profits. I do not want to be defending the operational methods of this company.

Senator Georges:

– You are.

Senator Walsh:

– That is precisely what you are doing.

Senator DURACK:

– I am not. I am dealing with what Senator Walsh said were Mr CrichtonBrowne’s methods, and Mr Crichton-Browne, as I said, was simply a minority shareholder in this company which was operated by Burrill and Jones, a very different thing. Senator Georges must understand that, because he knows something of these matters; I concede that.

Let me deal with the allegations against Mr Crichton-Browne. Mr Crichton-Browne was allotted the shares in Burrill Investments Pty Ltd on 22 May 1969. The consulting geologist had at that time made some surveys and done some exploration work, but the real exploration work was commenced after Mr Crichton-Browne had acquired these shares. I refer to the table on page 9 of the Committee documents, volume 2, which shows that drilling commenced on 16 June 1969, the magnatometer survey commenced on 26 June 1969, drilling did not commence until 15 September 1969, and drilling finished on 25 March 1970. The key date, of course, in this whole Poseidon story and saga was the end of September 1969, several months after Mr Crichton-Browne had been allotted his shares.

Those who are familiar with it know the whole of the Poseidon story. Nobody would have been surprised or critical in any way in that atmosphere of the buying and selling of shares of the people who were taking punts on these activities. Whether we approve of them or not, or whatever view we might form about them, the fact of the atmosphere in Perth and indeed in Australia in this Poseidon boom is a very important context in the whole of this activity. The London Times observed:

Poseidon was ‘the share of the year - if not of all time, as far as stock market performance is concerned’.

Shares which had been selling for about $1.10 before the strike, continued to rise in price through December 1969 and January until a peak of $2.80 was reached on 1 0 February 1970.

In the same chapter the report continues:

With numerous stockbrokers and tens of thousand of investors and shareholders experiencing an exuberance of confidence in their ability to make fortunes on the stock exchanges, the mood of the market was not one in which critics of stock market practices or stock exchange authorities could expect a ready hearing.

That is the context of the Poseidon boom. The evidence that Senator Walsh has brought against Mr Crichton-Browne is based upon the allotment to him of a minority shareholding in Burrill Investments which admittedly traded in these Poseidon shares through the boom. Certainly it had a great deal of inside information because of the relationship of Burrill and Jones as consulting geologists.

Senator Georges:

– It was a disgraceful relationship.

Senator DURACK:

– I am not disagreeing with that. I am simply saying that Mr CrichtonBrowne was one of many thousands of people who took a punt in this extraordinary atmosphere. I am talking about Mr Crichton-Browne.

The other charge brought against Mr CrichtonBrowne is that he was a mining registrar at the time. He was the mining registrar at Marble Bar. The strike on the Poseidon mining tenements and the matters that I have been talking about took place at a place called Windarra, hundreds of miles south of Marble Bar in a different mineral field altogether. Senator Walsh is saying: ‘Ah, but he was a mining registrar, and he was guilty of an offence under the Mining Act, which said that a mining registrar should not hold shares in a company which is carrying on mining or exploration activities’. I have already answered that charge. I dealt with it in the Senate in November last year. The fact is that Mr Crichton-Browne - and this is a very strange feature of the proceedings - many years after these activities in 1969 was charged with an offence, a breach of this particular section of the Mining Act of Western Australia which Senator Walsh relies on. And what happened? The charge was dismissed, because it was found by the magistrate that the evidence that was brought against Mr CrichtonBrowne did not amount to an offence under this Act.

Senator Walsh:

– The prosecution wasn’t trying. It is scandalous.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Walsh, I have warned you time and again. I name you. You must listen when I call upon you to cease interjecting. I have had enough of it. I name you, Senator Walsh.

Senator Walsh continuing ;

The PRESIDENT:

– There will be no Hansard record of what you said following my initial direction.

Senator Walsh:

– So you are going to falsify history as well?

Senator Carrick:

Mr President, I take a point of order. This is quite outrageous. This has aggravated events. I draw your attention not only to Standing Order 438 but in particular to 438 (d), which says:

Persistently and wilfully refuses to conform to the Standing Orders, or any one or more of them.

The PRESIDENT:

– I have named Senator Walsh.

Senator Georges:

– We have come to an unfortunate point.

The PRESIDENT:

– I have named the honourable senator.

Senator Georges:

– I know that you have named the honourable senator, but since you have called me now I trust that I will be allowed to say a few words by leave, even if those few words take up sufficient time of the Senate -

Senator Carrick:

– Ask for leave and you will be given it.

Senator Georges:

– I seek leave to say a few words in relation to this matter.

Leave granted.

Senator GEORGES (Queensland)- I hope that the few words that I will say will take up sufficient time to cool the situation somewhat. I know that there has been serious transgression of the Standing Orders. I know all the events which led up to this point. I would suggest that both the time, and the day, which is the last day of the sitting, should lead us to exercise some tolerance, no matter how much that tolerance has to be stretched. I suggest to Senator Walsh that he proceed to do those things that he wishes to do, no matter how objectionable they may appear to be to Government members, and that he should proceed to do those things that he wishes to do according to the Standing Orders. I suggest we go back about five minutes and allow Senator Durack to complete his remarks and then allow Senator Walsh to make a personal explanation. I am suggesting that is the best way in which we could proceed. Others may like to take up the points that I am trying to make. Senator Walters can shake her head. I can do that. I know that we can get terribly angry. If this had happened yesterday, perhaps we could have had a chance to recover today, but we are about to adjourn, At least one person will not be back again. He retires from the Senate tonight. I should not bring that fact into the debate. The point is that we are about to adjourn and it is a time when we exchange certain pleasantries. I have spoken now for five or six minutes. Perhaps I have reduced the flow of adrenalin. Others may be able to suggest some way out of this rather awkward situation.

Senator Carrick:

– I do not want to aggravate the matter in any way, but the next procedure is to call upon Senator Walsh to explain. That will give the opportunity to cool down. I suggest this purely in that regard so that we may proceed with the opportunity for Senator Walsh to explain. Mr President, I ask that, in accordance with Standing Order 440, Senator Walsh be called upon to make any explanation or apology which he may think fit.

The PRESIDENT:

– I call Senator Walsh.

Senator Button - With respect, Mr President, there may be a grave difficulty about this course of conduct. I remind you, Mr President, of what happened here tonight. You named Senator Walsh for interjecting. With respect, it is the naming which leads to the subsequent course of action. With respect, it must be clear what Senator Walsh is being asked to withdraw. I was listening very carefully to what was taking place, and Senator Walsh was named for interjecting. If the course suggested by the Minister is to be followed, it is with respect to that matter that Senator Walsh has to be asked to explain.

The PRESIDENT:

– I named the honourable senator under the provisions of Standing Order 438. They refer to the persistent and wilful refusal to conform with the Standing Orders and persistently and wilfully disregarding the authority of the Chair. I have been patient, you all know that - extraordinarily patient- but there comes a time when even the greatest endeavour to be patient fails. It is not fair to this institution. It is for that reason that I named the honourable senator under Standing Order 438(d) in particular.

Senator Button- With respect, Mr President, you asked Senator Walsh to cease interjecting, and you then named him. Subsequent to that there was further acrimony in the chamber. I want to fix the point in time in respect of which Senator Walsh is being asked to take action under the Standing Orders. That is all I seek to do. With respect, Mr President, the Hansard record will show that I am correct on this matter. I raised the point of order, apart from anything else, in order that the Hansard record would not in any way be prejudicial to your position.

The PRESIDENT:

– It was the persistent disregard for my authority, and that was through persistent interjections when I called for the cessation of interjections. I call Senator Walsh.

Senator Walsh - If I am being given an opportunity to explain, Mr President, I cannot remember the final interjection, but I think it referred to documents from the Corporate Affairs Commission which I was in the process of obtaining from my office and which I intend to table if I am given the opportunity to do so. I certainly resented the implication in Senator Durack’s remarks that anything I have said about this incident has misled the Senate. The figures which I cited last Friday were taken from a photocopy of documents in the Corporate Affairs Commission in Western Australia. It is a Form 1 7, Return of Allotment of Shares. The date on the document is 20 January 1970, and it shows that on 22 May 1969 20,250 shares in Burrill Investments were issued. Those shares were issued to the people whom I named last Friday. There were 20,252 shares in total, of which some 12,500 - I think it was - were issued to Noel Crichton-Browne and his relatives. With respect to subsequent issues of shares in the company, I have a more comprehensive–

Senator Carrick:

Mr President, I raise a point of order. What is being asked for is for Senator Walsh to explain why he persistently interjected.

He is in fact now introducing substantial information for debate on the subject and not an explanation as to why he continually and persistently disobeyed the Chair.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I wish to speak to the point of order. I think the Standing Orders make provision for a member who is named to give the reason he transgressed the Standing Orders. As I understand Senator Walsh, his explanation is that the aggravation justified the attitude he took. To substantiate the case that the aggravation was sufficient to justify him, he is giving the information on matters about which, it would appear from Senator Durack’s remarks, Senator Durack was telling falsehoods to the Senate. He is trying to establish now that he was justified in feeling aggrieved at the remarks of Senator Durack, that he could not hold his emotion or his tongue, because he was being completely misrepresented. He is endeavouring to prove now that the aggravation was such that it justified his action. I think he should be permitted to establish his case for his attitude.

The PRESIDENT:

– Speak to the wilful disregard of my directions to you, Senator Walsh.

Senator Walsh:

– Am I being asked to explain, offer an explanation for my actions, still, or has that been terminated? I seek your guidance.

The PRESIDENT:

– You may either make an explanation of your behaviour or apologise, as you may think fit. That is the procedural arrangement in regard to a matter such as this after you have been named.

Senator Walsh:

– If I may explain - I do not think it was quite necessary for Senator Carrick to take the point of order that he did - on a previous occasion in the Senate I incorporated a more comprehensive list of shareholders in Burrill Investments which had been tabled with the Corporate Affairs Commission some time after 20 January 1970. 1 have a copy of the document which shows the share distribution of the company as I stated it to be last Friday. Certainly, more shares were subsequently issued. I cannot recall the date, but it is approximately 18 months ago. I incorporated in Hansard the complete list of shareholders subsequent to the shareholding having been expanded.

Senator Peter Baume:

Mr President, I raise a point of order. I understand that what Senator Walsh is now doing is returning to the substance of the debate and is not satisfying your requirement that, in terms of what is required after someone is named under Standing Order 348, he either apologises or explains why he abused the Standing Orders. I believe he is going far too far.

The PRESIDENT:

– Under Standing Order 4*0 you may either make an explanation of your behaviour or apologise, as you may think fit. That is the point. You are not to debate the matters which led to this situation. It was your wilful disregard. I warned you a number of times. I said: Cease doing that’, ‘this is the last time’, ‘I warn you’ and so on. You persisted, which then ultimately led to my naming you under Standing Order 348 which refers to wilful disregard for the authority of the Chair.

Senator Walsh - I make the point that I have given an explanation as to why I was interjecting. I submit that I was being misrepresented by Senator Durack. If I get the opportunity I intend to seek leave to make a personal explanation about that misrepresentation. I am quite willing to apologise for the subsequent remarks I made after it appeared to me that I was going to be denied the opportunity of making a personal explanation as to why I believed I was misrepresented by Senator Durack. I am quite willing to apologise for what subsequently occurred and also I am willing, simultaneously, to explain the reasons for the interjections.

Senator Carrick:

– I believe that what happened tonight was a very serious breach indeed of Standing Orders. Since then some of the interjections have been equal breaches. If Senator Walsh makes an unqualified apology, I would certainly not seek to take the further step.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Walsh has apologised.

Government senators - No, he has not.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Walsh, do you make an unqualified apology?

Senator Walsh - I intended to apologise and I believe I have apologised and explained the reasons for interjecting in the way I did.

Senator Carrick:

– If that is an unqualified apology, I do not propose to proceed further.

Senator DURACK:

– Despite all the difficulties I was having with the constant barrage of interjections from Senator Georges and Senator Walsh, I had virtually completed the remarks I wanted to make. I was about to say in conclusion that Senator Walsh saw fit last Friday to make these outrageous allegations, the most serious allegations possible against a man, under protection of privilege in the Senate. He endeavoured to establish the allegations by the evidence he produced, which is contained in the Senate Hansard to which I have referred, and he relied on the authority of the Senate committee report on these matters. I have shown that the allegations were not supported by that evidence that he produced. I believe that in the light of that, Senator Walsh ought to withdraw unreservedly the allegations that he has made against Mr Crichton-Browne and apologise not only to Mr Crichton-Browne but also to the Senate for the abuse of the privilege of the Senate in which he has indulged.

Senator Cavanagh:

Mr President, I raise a point of order. Senator Walsh has made certain statements which you accepted as an apology. Senator Durack now wants more. He must be canvassing your ruling.

The PRESIDENT:

– He is not canvassing my ruling. There is no point of order.

Senator DURACK:

– One other matter arose out of Senator Walsh’s remarks tonight. That matter concerned Mr Wilson Tuckey who, of course, has again been singled out by Senator Walsh simply because he is an endorsed Liberal Party of Australia candidate in the coming election for the seat of O’Connor. He referred to an incident in Mr Wilson Tuckey’s career many years ago when he was charged with and convicted of an assault on an Aborigine during the period when he was the publican of a hotel in Carnarvon of which, I believe, he is still the publican. Mr Wilson Tuckey- there is no argument about this; no doubt about it - was charged, convicted and fined $40 for that assault. Senator Walsh quoted from the West Australian newspaper on the matter. What Senator Walsh did not tell us - and he is a master at this - was that the Crown appealed to the Supreme Court against the sentence of $40 on the ground of its inadequacy and the appeal was dismissed.

Senator WALSH (Western Australia)- by leave - I claim to have been misrepresented by the Attorney-General (Senator Durack). I believe that the remarks of the Minister implied that I misled the Senate last Friday and/or on previous occasions. In order to rebut that implication, I seek leave to table a document headed ‘Return of Allotment of Shares’. It is a photocopy of documents taken from the Corporate Affairs Commission of Western Australia. It is dated 20 January 1970 and it states:

The shares referred to in this return were allotted, or deemed to have been allotted under sub-section (6) of section 54 of the Companies Act of 1 96 1 , between–

And the next part is crossed out -

On the Twenty-second day of May, 1 969.

The document goes on to list some 20,252 shares, which was the figure I quoted last Friday, of which Noel Crichton-Browne had 5,000 shares. I did not name all the shareholders last Friday. I will seek leave to table that document. I willalso seek leave to table a list of shareholders from another return lodged subsequent to 20 January 1970 for Burrill Investments Pty Ltd which lists something like 30 shareholders and an expanded shareholding- the expanded shareholding to which I think Senator Durack referred. Senator Durack, however, implied that I was suppressing information on this expanded shareholding. In fact, I have previously had that list incorporated into Hansard. I am not sure of the date on which I did that but I think it was approximately 18 months ago.

I claim to have been misrepresented by the Minister. I have laid before the Senate on this and previous occasions all the information about this matter which has been in my possession. The information I presented to the Senate last Friday was the original allotment of shares filed at the Corporate Affairs Commission. It is true that subsequently the shareholding was expanded. I made that perfectly clear on previous occasions in the Senate when this matter was being discussed. I seek leave to table the documents.

Leave granted.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill 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 have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows -

This Bill provides for the validation until 30 June 1981 of duties collected in pursuance of Customs Tariff Proposals Nos 9 to 15, 1980, introduced into the Parliament on 26 August, Proposals No. 16 introduced on 28 August and Proposals No. 17 introduced on 9 September. The Bill also provides for the further validation of Tariff Proposals No. 8 introduced on 1 May 1980 and validated until 31 December 1980 by Customs Tariff Validation Act 1980. Under section 226 of the Customs Act the collection of duties in pursuance of Customs Tariff Proposals is protected against legal challenge for six months or until the close of the session of Parliament, whichever occurs first.

The introduction and passage of a Validation Bill is therefore a necessary machinery measure which takes over from section 226 pending the introduction of a Customs tariff amendment bill, anticipated for the autumn sittings, to enact the changes contained in the Proposals. The tariff changes contained in the Proposals validated by this Bill arise, in the main, from decisions of the Government on recommendations made by the Industries Assistance Commission and the Temporary Assistance Authority in their reports entitled:

Gearboxes, gears and shaft couplings;

Pharmaceutical and veterinary products;

Apples and pears;

Travel goods, brief cases, toilet cases and similar goods;

Continuation of assistance for insulators;

Polymeric plasticisers and certain polyester polyols;

Textiles, clothing and footwear parts A to H;

Chemical products (Part B);

Certain works trucks and stackers.

Honourable senators will recall that details of the changes contained in the Proposals were circulated at the time of their introduction. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 1348

NORFOLK ISLAND AERODROME

Public Works Committee Report

Senator MELZER:
Victoria

– In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969,I present the report relating to the following proposed work:

Norfolk Island Aerodrome, upgrading of facilities.

page 1348

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) BILL 1980

Bill returned from the House of Representatives without amendment.

page 1348

EXCISE TARIFF VALIDATION BILL 1980

First Reading

Debate resumed from 17 September, on motion by Senator Durack:

That the Bill be now read a first time.

Senator PUPLICK:
New South Wales

– This evening I wish to make some remarks on the first reading of the Excise Tariff Validation Bill 1980.

Debate interrupted.

page 1348

ADJOURNMENT

The PRESIDENT:

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

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the negative.

page 1349

EXCISE TARIFF VALIDATION BILL 1980

First Reading

Debate resumed.

Senator PUPLICK:
New South Wales

– Today, as has been indicated by other honourable senators, the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) announced the establishment of the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence. One of the things that Bureau is going to do - I do not intend to canvass that matter, which is now on the Notice Paper - is to monitor and deal with the drug problem in Australia. I wish therefore to -

Senator Georges:

– You just gave yourself away.

Senator PUPLICK:

– No. I therefore wish to draw attention to the statistics recently published about drug deaths in the State of New South Wales and to go on to explain something about the people involved in this industry. For the period 1974 to 1977 the official Health Commission statistics on deaths by the misuse of morphine read as follows: in the 15 to 19-year-old age group there were 19 deaths; in the 20 to 24-year- old age group, 47; in the 25 to 29-year-old age group, 15; in the 30 to 34-year-old age group, three; and 35 years of age and over, a further three, making a total of 87. The morphine which is being peddled around the place is being cut as the expression goes, with any number of substances, including caffeine, strychnine, quinine, aspirin, phenacetin, powdered sugar, boric acid, gypsum, and indeed talcum powder.

I wish to talk about four people who are active in this trade, all of whom are named in the further report of the Woodward Royal Commission into Drug Trafficking in New South Wales. The first of these persons is a fellow by the name of Delaney. On page 74 of the Woodward report, talking about Mr Casey, against whom adverse findings were not made by the Royal Commissioner, the report states:

It also means that I cannot conclude that Casey is telling the truth in relation to his dealings with Delaney without the opportunity to fully probe his evidence, and as there are strong indications that Delaney is involved in drug trafficking this is unfortunate for Casey.

The second person I mention is Wayne Thelander. On page 61 of the Royal Commission report it is stated:

Thelander was convicted in relation to the ‘Anoa’ importation of cannabis.

This was one of the largest importations of cannabis into Australia. The report continues: . . Thelander was either a member of or employed by, a syndicate . . . responsible for a parcel of some 3 tonnes of buddah sticks picked up by the ‘Choyra Maru’ off Thailand.

The third person I name is a fellow by the name of Dance, about whom the Royal Commission states:

When it is appreciated that Dance went to jail for one year in November, 1978 and that he had no other employment apart from his own businesses at any relevant time prior to going to jail, I cannot accept that he was confused as a result of a failure of memory.

That relates to statements made by Dance to the Royal Commissioner that he could not remember certain things. The report goes on to say about Dance: . . that he was in partnership with Olson importing furniture from Manila.

Of Olson the report has this to say on page 48:

I have little doubt that Olson was engaged in some significant criminal activity in Manila and that the Filipino Imports business was, more probably than not, a cover both for his presence in Manila and for the smuggling of other goods into Australia.

Why should I mention these particular gentlemen? I might say that adverse findings are almost made against a fellow by the name of Scifleet. I mention them because in the New South Wales Labor Party newspaper dated 26 August 1980, a newspaper entitled Challenge put out by Peter Baldwin and his associates, the following comment occurs:

The Royal Commission on Drugs Report is replete with the names of criminals who were members of Balmain branch–

That is the Balmain branch of the Australian Labor Party - names such as Delaney, Thelander Olson, Dance, Scifleet. Not to mention luminaries of the illegal gambling world such as Bruce and Harry Hardin.

Degen–

That is the member for Balmain- defending his association with such people partly on the ground that he met them in an ALP context. He fails to add that he played a large part in causing such people to join the ALP.

Part of what is happening in New South Wales at the moment is that those persons have been named by the Royal Commission and have been named similarly by the newspaper Challenge as being active members of this branch. The article continues:

Members of ALP branches in Degen’s electorate have a different perspective on this ‘harmless’ larrikinism - particularly those who have been on the receiving end of bashings committed at ALP branch meetings by goons such as Eric Delaney, identified in the Royal Commission Report as a heroin trafficker. Delaney was named in the minutes of the NSW ALP Administrative Committee meeting (18.2.77) as being the initiator of vicious bashings at the December 1 976 meeting of Balmain ALP branch.

The article indicates a number of disturbing elements. Senator Walsh this evening has been particularly anxious to discuss with the Senate certain problems related to the pre-selection of Liberal Party candidates. I refer again to an article in the Labor Party newspaper Challenge No. 27 of 29 July 1 980, which states:

Two members of Federal Parliament owe their position to the presence of corrupt branches. Les McMahon, M.P for Sydney, was first pre-selected in 1975. Rozelle East Branch was crucial in his victory. There were allegations then of irregularities - Head Office failed to act.

In 1979, Leo McLeay won the pre-selection for Grayndler, beating Tony Whitlam by a handful of votes. Allegations were made of irregularities at that time, particularly with regard to The Warren Branch. Later in December 1979, the NSW Administrative Committee received a report on irregularities in The Warren. But Leo McLeay by then was sitting in Canberra. The Warren books have now gone missing from the boot of a car.

If McMahon or McLeay were to face an honest preselection now, neither would survive. The real members of the ALP would vote for others.

Perhaps that is because this business of preselection has a long antecedent in New South Wales. I quote from a report made by the Federal President of the Australian Labor Party of the day, Mr T. Burns, and submitted to the Federal Executive of the Labor Party. The document is headed ‘Confidential to ALP Members Only. Preselection’, and deals with pre-selection in the seat of Blaxland. The report states:

The pre-selection ballot was held on 26 October, 1968. There were six candidates.

On the evening of the count, Junor polled 88 votes, Keating 81 votes and 63 votes went to the other candidates.

When these preferences were allocated, the vote, was Junor 124 - Keating 1 03, and 49 challenged votes uncounted.

These included 30 from Condell Park, 2 from Central Bankstown, 14 from Bass Hill and 3 others.

The report then goes on to discuss the way in which these pre-selection ballots were taken into head office, where they were supervised by head office, who at that stage were backing a particular candidate by the name of Mr Keating. The report of Mr Burns, the Federal President, continues:

So we have three members of a Branch without a charter or in other words a non-existent Branch voting whilst the members of that Branch are unable to vote.

I believe the decisions made by the Executive were slanted to support Mr Keating and were inconsistent with decisions made in respect of the Chifley pre-selection contained in the Credentials Committee’s Report 68/265 dated 1 8. 1 0. 1 968.

Mr Burns’ report to the Federal Executive continues:

The obvious stacking of Branches and sacking of Branches, appears to have been carried out deliberately, intending to ensure certain people gain selection.

As some of these people are now Federal Members of Parliament, these actions must assume importance in the eyes of the Federal Executive.

I strongly disapprove of the actions of the NSW officers in these pre-selection ballots.

Right the way through the system in New South Wales that quaint and curious method of selecting candidates persists. It does not persist only at that stage. I raise a matter in terms of the principle that justice delayed is justice denied. In November 1979 a constituent of mine was involved in an incident which led to his being charged by the police with interfering with them in the performance of their duties when he attempted physically to interfere with policemen attempting to give a breath test to a motorist and his associates after stopping a car in a street at a very early hour in the morning. He was taken to the police station and charged. Representations were then made at the highest level - to the Police Commissioner - to have those charges dropped. The Police Commissioner rightly declined to have those charges dropped.

Then, by a set of mysterious circumstances unbeknown to the police, when the matter was supposed to have come on in court on 8 September 1980 and the police turned up at the court at Balmain they found to their surprise that somehow the matter had been stood over to 24 March 1981 and had been moved from Balmain to Central. The police and the prosecuting authorities had not been told that the case had been stood over, any more than most people knew that representations had been made to the Police Commissioner to have the charges dropped. I suspect that the reason all that occurred is that the person in question, who has been singularly protected in his business, is a gentleman by the name of Rodney Neville Madgwick, who is the Labor Party’s endorsed candidate in the seat of Barton for the Federal election.

When we come to consider what needs to be investigated, certainly in terms of the allegations which were made against Mr Degen and Mr Johnstone for their alleged trips to Manila, Mr Wran, the New South Wales Premier, tabled in the New South Wales Parliament evidence supplied to him by the police. But in fact he tabled only page 1 of a fairly lengthy police report. It is unfortunate that the rest of the report, which deals with the associations rather than the travel of significant members of the Labor Party with the people named in Mr Justice Woodward’s report, was not tabled in the Parliament by the New South Wales Premier. That only that one page, which related only to the issue of travel, and not all the other charges that were raised in the police document was tabled ought to be a matter of concern.

Honourable senators will know that in the New South Wales Legislative Assembly Mr Hatton, the independent member for the South Coast, has made a number of accusations. He has made them against members of the Labor Party, against a former Liberal Premier of New South Wales and a former Liberal member of the House of Representatives. Those charges are serious; they need to be properly investigated. They need to be investigated by the sort of crimes commission that the Liberal Party and the National Country Party in New South Wales have called upon the New South Wales Premier to establish and which the Premier has declined to establish. They need to be investigated by a body which, if necessary, has the sorts of powers Mr Justice Williams has recommended in the latest of his reports ought to be available to the Australian Federal Police, which was raised by way of question by me in the Senate the other day.

It is important that people understand that if Senator Walsh wants to come into the chamber and make accusations about Senate and other candidates in Western Australia and if he wants to make accusations about the Liberal Party in Western Australia, if the public record is to be put straight on these matters there is a whole series–

Senator Walters:

– I raise a point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President. Senator Walsh is not in his place while he is attempting to interject.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Melzer) - Senator Walsh, will you please resume your proper seat?

Senator PUPLICK:

– Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President. The point I was making was that in New South Wales, in terms of Federal candidates, allegations have been made by the Federal President of the Australian Labor Party, Mr Burns, that the preselection of Mr Keating was fixed. Allegations have been made by Labor Party newspapers in the city of Sydney that the preselection of candidates for the seats of Sydney and Grayndler were fixed.

Senator Button:

– What are you saying about Mr Burns being the Federal President of the Labor Party? You don’t know what you’re on about.

Senator PUPLICK:

– If Senator Button had been in the chamber earlier he would have heard me quote from a report by Mr T. Burns, the then

Federal President of the Australian Labor Party, relating to certain matters in October–

Senator Walsh:

– You did not say ‘the then’, you said ‘the’.

Senator PUPLICK:

– At the time he was the Federal President of the Labor Party.

Senator Georges:

– That is what we call self-regulation’.

Senator PUPLICK:

– I have no doubt that that is part of the self-regulation of which Senator Georges approves. Those accusations perhaps are of a similar quality and character to those made by Senator Walsh. I am sure that he is concerned that his allegations concerning individuals in Western Australia should be properly investigated. I am equally concerned that my allegations concerning people in New South Wales should be investigated.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

– I do not want to prolong this matter, but Senator Puplick did say that he wanted to put the record straight, which is an extraordinary explanation of what he has just said. What he in fact was concerned to do, as I understood his explanation of his course of conduct, was to balance the record; that is, he wanted to say: ‘You have some baddies in Western Australia according to the allegations that have been made tonight. It is alleged that the Labor Party has some baddies in New South Wales’.

Senator Missen:

– You win.

Senator BUTTON:

– I assure honourable senators, as Senator Missen knows, the Liberals have some baddies in Victoria, the record of whom was very carefully documented by Mr Doug Jennings, as a result of which he was expelled from the Liberal Party. One could go on from State to State. But it is rather sad to see an historian of Senator Puplick ‘s note reading reports of the kind which he read tonight and seeking to make a particular point about them other than the one which he described as ‘putting the record straight’. What he was doing was balancing the record. I do not think the Senate should be delayed much longer in the process of balancing the record because a lot of weights could be put on each side, I suspect.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– I desire to take only a few moments of the Senate’s time to refer to one matter which I think ought to appear on the record. I refer to action which has been taken today by many members of the Parliament and I think that action should be placed on the record of the Senate. The Senate is aware that yesterday the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) made a statement in respect of the trial and conviction of Kim Dae Jung of South Korea, under which he is threatened with execution. The Foreign Minister made a strong statement in respect of that matter, expressing Australia’s views. I think Australia and Japan were the first two countries to make such a statement. At the suggestion of the parliamentary Amnesty group, today we collected many signatures from members of parliament to this message to the President of South Korea, Chun Doo Hwan:

We the undersigned senators and members of the Australian Parliament appeal to you on humanitarian grounds to commute the death sentence imposed upon Kim Dae Jung, former member of the Korean National Assembly and former Presidential candidate.

Respect for your nation will be strengthened by this action.

Today, the last day of this Parliament, that document was signed by some 119 members of the Australian Parliament. Those people included 56 members of this chamber, which is a very big number considering the fact that some honourable senators are overseas. I am pleased to report that that clear expression of view, endorsed by members of all political parties, has been conveyed now to the Embassy of the Republic of Korea so that it will know how strong is the feeling of parliamentarians. The list of signatories included seven members of the Australian Government, including the four Ministers in this chamber. Although we would have liked to have the time to get further signatures, I think the message will indicate very clearly to the Korean Government that there is considerable feeling on this subject and that it is desirable that some note should be taken of this expression of view by Australian members of parliament.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I do not intend to speak at length on this Bill; I merely wish to reply to one or two matters raised by Senator Puplick. Frankly, he has repeated this matter time after time in this sessional period. I think, with regret, that one must say that Senator Puplick appears to be becoming somewhat paranoid about his electoral prospects. If I may use the terminology, what he has been saying appears to me to be a lot of twaddle.

Senator Peter Baume:

– Such as the candidate for Barton.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am going to deal with the candidate for Barton. If Senator Baume wants to engage in that tactic, and if he wants to get down to the gutter too, he should go to the Barton electorate and state his views there. Something was said about the Labor candidate for Barton being on a charge.

Senator Peter Baume:

– No. It was said that he was denied a quick trial. Justice delayed is justice denied.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The honourable senator should not talk about justice when he came into this chamber tonight and convicted a man before he had even been to trial. The difference is the gentleman about whom Senator Walsh was speaking - I know nothing about the case - had been before a court, had been found guilty, had been fined and had gone to a court of appeal.

Senator Rocher:

– No. He was acquitted.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Attorney-General (Senator Durack) said that the gentleman concerned was fined $40.

Senator Rocher - You are talking about Tuckey, but what about Crichton-Browne?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I do not know. I am just talking about the case that Senator Walsh referred to. He said that some character came before a court, was charged, was found guilty and was fined $40. The case went before a court of appeal and, as I understand it, the sentence was confirmed. Here we have a situation where a person has been charged with some offence. What the offence is I have not been told and neither has this Parliament been told. The matter has been stood over until March 1981. Senator Puplick and Senator Baume in repetitive style want to come into this chamber and be the jury even before the jury is empanelled. Frankly, I think that is a pretty disgraceful thing.

Senator Puplick referred to the Burns report. The Burns report is about nine or ten years old. He talked about the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) and the suggestions that were made about the way in which the honourable member for Blaxland was pre-selected. The fact is that since that time about three preselection ballots have been held in New South Wales. Mr Keating was challenged I think at least on one occasion. He has been opposed on two other occasions. He is now the State President of the Australian Labor Party. He was elected at the ALP conference in June with a record majoritythe greatest majority of any President of the Party. So much for some report that has gathered the mould and the dust of some ten years. Senator Puplick also referred to my colleague the honourable member for Banks, Mr Martin. The Burns report referred to my colleague the honourable member for Banks at the same time as it referred to the honourable member for Blaxland. I think it is disgraceful that in another place, when the valedictories are being made tonight and credit is being given to the service of the honourable member for Banks, in this Senate he and the honourable member for Blaxland are being bagged on a report that came out some ten years ago.

We have heard a lot about what has happened in the New South Wales Parliament. Let me quote to honourable senators something that was reported in, I think, the Sydney Daily Telegraph concerning Sir Robert Askin, the former Premier of New South Wales and certainly not a member of the Australian Labor Party. The report states:

Sir Robert Askin said he didn’t think corruption in NSW was any worse now than in the past.

Incidentally, Sir Robert Askin was Premier at the time when the Moffitt royal commission into crime in New South Wales was established in about 1 974. The article continues:

In fact, I think there is less scope for improper activity by parliamentarians now than in previous years.

The press and other sections of the media are now more widespread and probing than they were 20 or 30 years ago.

I can remember attacking corruption when in Opposition. We were always hammering away at the Cahill Government over Thommo’s two-up school, open slather at Broken Hill, sly grog and SP betting.

These things seem to be part of community life.’

Senator Puplick should take heed of his former leader in New South Wales, the former Premier of New South Wales, and a Premier with a record of service as Premier of a State. If he did so this place might be a better place.

About a month ago Senator Puplick rose in this place and directed a question to the AttorneyGeneral. He drew the Attorney-General’s attention to allegations of crime and corruption taking place in the great and beautiful city of Sydney, the city in which I live and the city from which Senator Puplick comes. He asked for a Commonwealth royal commission to be established by the Federal Government into all aspects of crime throughout Australia. Senator Durack went on with a long blurb and said that he would give the matter some consideration. That consideration has gone on for about a month. This is the last night of this Parliament, and if Senator Durack genuinely believes that a royal commission into crime should be established on a Commonwealth basis, let him get up in this Parliament tonight before this Parliament closes down and say that he intends to set up such a royal commission. If he does not do so he alone is condemning Senator Puplick for making all the accusations and all the allegations here. After a month in which to consider such matters I would have thought that Senator Durack would have had ample time to consider them. Until the Attorney-General comes into this place and tells us one way or the other whether he is going to establish a Commonwealth royal commission into crime throughout Australia, I say it is a case of money up or shut up.

Senator ROCHER:
Western Australia

– I want to speak briefly on the matter raised by Senator Durack earlier this evening. He referred to Senator Walsh’s attacks on Mr Noel Crichton-Browne. Senator Walsh’s attacks on Mr Crichton-Browne, who is, of course, the Liberal Party candidate, along with Senator Withers and Senator Durack in the forthcoming general election, are in a similar vein to attacks he has made on a number of Western Australians, including such people as the Western Australian Police Commissioner, a former Governor of Western Australia, the Attorney-General of Western Australia and even private citizens. Senator Walsh’s somewhat unique approach to politics can be demonstrated by his reference to the Western Australian Police Commissioner as a man convicted out of his own mouth as unfit for public office, his reference to the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) as a playground bully grown older, his reference to the Western Australian Attorney as a member of a conspiracy and even his reference to three private citizens as imperial wizards of the Kimberley Ku Klux Klan. That is florid and picturesque language, to say the least.

In a news sheet issued out of Senator Walsh’s, office and dated January 1979 - presumably written or authorised by Senator Walsh - reference was made to the then Governor, Sir Wallace Kyle, as a ‘vain, pompous old man’. He was a fine citizen with a fine war record and someone very much loved in Western Australia. Senator Walsh has made and repeated a number of allegations against Mr Crichton-Browne which relate variously to trading in mining tenements while a mining registrar, his activities in the Liberal Party and an alleged connection with a Mr Moll. Mr Crichton-Browne is not here to defend himself, but he absolutely denies the charges of impropriety made against him by Senator Walsh. He has challenged Senator Walsh to repeat the allegations outside the chamber. To the best of my knowledge, Senator Walsh has not taken up that challenge to date.

With respect to the allegations of trading in mining tenements while a mining registrar, the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) has already pointed out that Mr Crichton-Browne was charged with an offence under the Mining Act and was acquitted. With respect to his connection with the company Burrill Investments Pty Ltd, there is no evidence that I can find which verifies that Mr Crichton-Browne was a director or an officer of the company. Similarly, there is no evidence that I can find that Mr Crichton-Browne had any influence on, control of or any say in the management, conduct or running of the affairs of Burrill Investments. A recent statement by the President of the Western Australian Liberal Party, Mr Ian Warner, clearly indicates that Mr Crichton-Browne has the confidence of the Liberal Party in Western Australia. That, along with Senator Durack’s earlier remarks, is probably all that needs to be said to refute the spurious charges.

Mr President, it is not unknown for Senator Walsh to avoid spoiling what he sees as a good argument by introducing the complete facts - in this case, relatively easily ascertainable facts. A cursory glance at the Hansard records of his speeches in the Senate will confirm that at least for the last year or so Senator Walsh has accused Sir Charles Court, two entire familes and three individuals in the Kimberleys of being conspirators. He has accused the Western Australian AttorneyGeneral of being a conspirator and of falsifying evidence; he has accused Sir Charles Court, of all people, of a lack of morality; he has quoted verbatim a hearsay conversation between the Deputy Premier of Western Australia and an unnamed person which took place at a meeting which he did not attend and has portrayed those alleged words as factual. They appear in the Hansard of 19 September 1979 at pages 2,486 and 2,487. He has attacked the Prime Minister on many occasions but probably one of the worst instances in my opinion was when he attacked him for not attending the Parliament when he was demonstrably, and reported as being demonstrably, ill.

His accusations do not stop there. I have already referred to the accusations which he has made against the Western Australian Commissioner of Police. He has alleged and indicated charges against three current Ministers of the Commonwealth Government which are neither substantiated nor true. In addition, Senator Walsh has made derogatory and in some cases repeated allegations about the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia and about many other citizens of noted positions and otherwise who are too numerous to name tonight. That is not a comprehensive list by any means. It is an illustration only. Of course, the events of this evening were another example. Senator Walsh’s intemperate remarks and unparliamentary language have earned the displeasure of you, Mr President, or your deputies, on at least a dozen or more occasions over the past six months or so. He has been obliged to withdraw his denigrating remarks directed, at different people and different individuals, on each occasion.

Senator Missen:

– He has contempt for the parliamentary system itself.

Senator ROCHER:

– He certainly repeats those things in such a way and treats the Standing Orders in such a way as to take advantage of them. So we can see that the victims of Senator Walsh’s often vindicitive or, at best, highly colourful language range from decent, ordinary Australian citizens going about their lawful business to some of the most esteemed and respected people in the land. What many of them have in common, of course, is that they do not have the same opportunity as Senator Walsh would have in similar circumstances to defend themselves. They do not have the privilege of parliamentary privilege.

Senator Durack has already more than made the point that there is a startling lack of evidence to substantiate the accusations against Mr Crichton-Browne by Senator Walsh under parliamentary privilege. It may be, however, that by singling out Mr Crichton-Browne for criticism, as he did the former Governor of Western Australia, the Premier of Western Australia and the Chief Justice, Senator Walsh gives a clue to the sneaking regard that he has for the abilities of Mr Crichton-Browne.

Senator Grimes- How many shares have you got in Crichton-Browne’s company?

Senator ROCHER:

– Whatever the reasons may be, it is certain that Western Australians will not be impressed by charges laid and pursued in the manner described here tonight. The people of my State will undoubtedly accept and pay full regard to the fact that criminal or any other charges against Mr Crichton-Browne have either not been sustainable or have not even been lodged in a court of law, nor are any charges contemplated, as far as my inquiries reveal. Western Australians believe in a fair go for men in public office, just as they believe in a fair go for any citizen.

Senator Grimes:

– Why don’t you answer the question?

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Grimes, you are ignoring my direction to you to cease interjecting.

Senator Grimes:

– I am only asking him a question. He won’t answer.

The PRESIDENT:

– That is enough.

Senator ROCHER:

– I believe the electors in Western Australia–

Senator Grimes:

– He still won’t answer.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order, Senator Grimes. You are interjecting in direct contravention of my direction to you. I ask you to cease interjecting altogether.

Senator ROCHER:

– I believe the electors of Western Australia will show their contempt for the attacks on Mr Crichton-Browne by returning three Liberal Party senators.

Senator Grimes:

Mr President, I raise a point of order. I understand that the Standing Orders are contravened when an honourable senator reads his speech. I understand that the honourable senator could not have written this speech. I think he should really be asked to stop reading his speech, which has obviously been written by the same people who own the shares that he has been talking about.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I cannot sustain the point of order.

Senator ROCHER:

- Mr President, I have one sentence to complete what I have to say. The frivolous point of order, of course, was a jovial attempt by Senator Grimes to get into the picture. I appreciate his help and assistance. The electors of Western Australia believe in a fair go. Of course, I believe they will show their contempt for the attacks on Mr Crichton-Browne by returning three Liberal senators in Western Australia, including Mr Crichton-Browne, on 18 October of this year.

Senator Grimes - How many shares do you have in Crichton-Browne’s company?

Senator ROCHER:

– None.

Senator TATE:
Tasmania

– Tonight we have had yet another vicious and despicable attack by Senator Puplick on members of the Australian Labor Party in New South Wales. My objection is not necessarily to his denigration of persons who are candidates for election and who have given good service to the party but to his impugning of the integrity of three members of the House of Representative, which I felt went very close to contravening Standing Order 418. 1 let it go because I thought that the more Senator Puplick went on the more he came into disrepute in the opinion of this chamber. He cast personal reflections on the integrity of Mr Keating, Mr Leo McLeay and Mr Les McMahon in the dying hours of this Parliament. None of those men will have an opportunity, as natural justice demands, to reply to charges which he levelled at them.

What were those charges against these men? They were, in respect of Mr Leo McLeay and Mr Les McMahon, that they entered this Parliament because they had the support of corrupt branches, and that it was only the support of corrupt branches which enabled them to enter the House of Representatives.

Senator Grimes:

– Puplick got his money from Askin.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Grimes, you cannot speak when you are not in your seat.

Senator TATE:

– As for Mr Keating–

Senator Grimes:

– Puplick got his money from Askin.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Cease interjecting. I warn you, Senator Grimes. You cannot carry on like this.

Senator Grimes:

- Mr President–

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I am asking you to cease interjecting or I shall have to deal with you. Realise that.

Senator Grimes:

– He is a crook.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Withdraw that. It is unparliamentary language.

Senator Grimes:

– He is not a crook but Askin was and that is his associate. Make up your mind what to do about that one.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Grimes, you will withdraw you reference to the honourable senator as a crook. You will say no more than that.

Senator Grimes:

– I withdraw the reference to the honourable senator as a crook, not to his associates.

Senator TATE:

- Senator Puplick said that Mr Keating had fixed certain ballots involved in his preselection process. He attacked members of the House of Representatives at a time when he knew they would be unable to reply. None of those members will have an opportunity to reply in a like forum to that in which they have been attacked. Senator Puplick indicated that they all entered the Parliament as a result of corrupt practices in which they engaged. What is the status of attack? What is the status of the materials, the primary sources, which Senator Puplick brought into this chamber? They were, in the first instance, a political newspaper circulating in New South Wales and, in the second instance, an internal party report, neither of which has the status of a verdict of a court such as should enable an honourable senator to come into the chamber and make allegations sound as though they are the reality.

Senator Sibraa:

– No action was taken on any of them.

Senator TATE:

– No action was taken on any of them. There has been no verdict in a court. But Senator Puplick feels free to repeat allegations from those sources as though they are facts. What is most disquieting about Senator Puplick’s effort is that he regaled us with mottos and maxims to do with justice. He used little phrases which no doubt took his fancy. But he has frustrated justice and treated it with contempt tonight by denying it in the one concrete instance under his control. He has denied an opportunity to the members of the House of Representatives whose integrity he has impugned to reply to his charges. All I can say is that Senator Puplick’s much vaunted concern for justice was revealed tonight as a flimsy pretext for his all-consuming political ambition. It will consume him and this chamber need have no regrets about it.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– It is more in sorrow than in anger that I speak in this debate. I think my credentials are impeccable. Much has been said about political morality. I encountered it two and a half years ago with the editor of a paper called the Inner City Extra. I won. At the moment he is whingeing about whether I will get his house or his printery sold up. Let us be quite clear about it. I am one of those people who can give it and take it. I take the issue of political morality a little further. Senator Puplick had his problems in the Beauty Point branch and the Willoughby branch in his preselection. People like me refrained from making any comment. The matter was most serious. It is hard enough in politics. Mr President, I apologise for using the term, but you can be called a bastard by the Opposition and your own party but when people prefix that word with a racial term it is completely unfair and should be dealt with. Whether honourable senators like it or not, I want to say two things. In the first instance, the Liberal Party has to indicate publicly whether it was antiLebanese in the treatment it gave Dr Solomon. It cannot get away from it. It has never answered the question. I refer now to a man whom I admire despite our political differences. I refer to Senator Dr Peter Baume. I have known a man named Urbanchich for a long while. I knew him when he worked in the Commonwealth Bank at Burwood. Whatever our emphasis on foreign affairs, he has one belief which I wonder how Senator Baume has lived with. Urbanchich has never denied what he believes in. On Soviet expansion in the Middle East, he has said that if the State of Israel did not exist the Soviet Union would not covet the area and there would be no problems. I think that

Senator Baume knows what that means. I would dearly love to know, if I had access to Liberal Party records, whether he ever pointed his finger at that man and said: ‘Get out’. Urbanchich has every right to have his political viewpoint. People like Senator Baume in the Liberal Party claim that they are above that sort of thing. I admit that Senator Baume does not believe in it. But what did he do to cast that man out into darkness? He did not do anything. Yet Urbanchich is the sort of man who symbolises anti-semitic utterances. I argued with that man in the Commonwealth Bank at Burwood. The teller at the next door, who was of Senator Baume’s belief, was white faced because Mr Urbanchich had insulted and humiliated him. That is the sort of man he is.

I have dealt with the Jewish community, now I deal with the Catholic community. The man is such an animal. At St Patrick’s Church hill on Christmas Eve all he could say was: ‘Charlie Oliver and Tony Mulvihill will finish up in hell’. If I finish up in hell many people will be there with me. Whether honourable senators believe it or not, that is the sort of man Urbanchich is. He was a Nazi collaborator. Senator Carrick knows this. All the Government has said is that Mr Urbanchich came here in 1949 during the term of the Chifley Government. It has queried whether we were tough enough on screening. For five years, when considering the estimates for the Department of Immigration, I have persisted in asking the Government to introduce a retrospective policy to apply to people like Urbanchich. I have no truck with people to the far Left or the far Right who might commit atrocities.

Senator Puplick talked about political morality. I ask him: ‘Who shall cast the first stone?’. I remind him of the Beauty Point branch and the Willoughby branch. There are people in Senator Puplick’s party who want to cleanse it from others. The eloquent address by my colleague Senator Douglas McClelland referred to the wise words of Sir Robert Askin.

We had a classic illustration of some of these lackeys, these political perverts. I refer to a person named Ryan who does some research for the Australian Broadcasting Commission. He made the headlines in the Daily Mirror which reported that he was ambushed in Balmain. The other day the New South Wales Premier referred to the matter. The local council had put up a protective wall near his house. He fell over a plank. He was probably blind, paralytic drunk. He reckoned that assassins had done it. That is how the media is. Some of these people want drama. Ryan is detested by his neighbours. He is a drunk, yet he gets media coverage.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– I must reply briefly to Senator Rocher. At the outset I know that he is the product of precisely the same political machine which would, but for the grace of the electors of Western Australia, give us Wilson Tuckey and Noel Crichton-Browne. It was common gossip around Parliament House a few days ago that from the six Liberal senators from Western Australia Mr Crichton-Browne would be getting one vote, that being Senator Rocher’s. I am not sure whether that is correct but I note for the record that Senator Sim and Senator Withers certainly have not defended Mr Crichton-Browne, nor are they likely to. Nor has it been denied that another Liberal Party State councillor, Mr Wreford, launched savage attacks upon Mr CrichtonBrowne on 30 September and 2 October last year. In relation to Mr Crichton-Browne’s apparently innocent - according to Senator Rocherconnection with Burrill Investments Pty Ltd, I note that he was the major shareholder in the first allotment of shares filed with Corporate Affairs Commission. Therefore, if that is the definition of a founding shareholder, he is a founding shareholder. I note also that his wife Esther, who was then his fiancee, worked in the office of the geological consultancy business of Burrill and Jones.

With respect to the Kimberley conspiracy, I remind Senator Rocher that the court found that the Attorney-General of Western Australia had broken the law by improperly directing the Chief Electoral Officer, and it found in general against the Liberal Party candidate in that election, Mr Ridge, who, fortunately, has since been removed from the Western Australian Parliament. The court found that another prominent member of the Liberal Party - I am not certain of his name but I think it was 0’Driscoll if it was not O’DrisColl it was one of the three members to whom Senator Rocher referred - lied to the Returning Officer at Go Go with respect to a conversation which Mr 0’Driscoll if I have the correct name - alleged he had had with the Chief Electoral Officer in Perth, when no such conversation took place. Those things were all found by the court. I remind Senator Rocher of that.

I will not deal with everything he raised, but I raise a final point with respect to Mr CrichtonBrowne having been acquitted. He was finally charged after I had pressed, through a public statement at the declaration of the poll in January 1978, and exerted sufficient pressure on the negligent Government of Western Australia finally to bring charges. It is true he was finally acquitted. If one reads the transcript one sees that the most preposterous defence argument was put up. It was not answered by the prosecution. In other words, the prosecution was not trying. Ultimately that led to a conversation taking place about 12 months ago between a then Liberal Party candidate and the then Deputy Premier of Western Australia in which the then Liberal Party candidate, whose name incidentally was Mr Crook - I have not named him before; he is not to be confused with all the other crooks in the Liberal Party in Western Australia- said to Mr O’Neill: ‘Can’t you get him off the charge?’ Mr O’Neill said: ‘Good heavens, no. We can’t do a thing like that.’ He then said: ‘How did Mr Crichton-Browne get off?’ I understand Mr O’Neill was somewhat speechless for some time. The reason I know that is when Mr Crook returned to Merredin, quite freely, he told everyone about it.

Senator SIBRAA:
New South Wales

– Tonight we have heard from Senator Puplick another remarkable speech in which he smeared a number of members of the Australian Labor Party in the House of Representatives and in New South Wales. In doing so he quoted from a number of reports, including the Burns report, which was an internal party document in New South Wales. He quoted also from the Challenge newspaper. The matters he quoted from the internal party report that he was talking about - the Burns report- and the Challenge newspaper have never been accepted or proved. There has never been a reaction. Nobody has ever suffered disciplinary action because of the things that he spoke about.

Senator Puplick referred to Mr Keating’s preselection. What he said was very interesting because the situation is that Mr Keating, the honourable member for Blaxland, has either been unopposed since the time he won his preselection or he has won his preselection ballots overwhelmingly. As my colleague Senator Douglas McClelland said tonight, he was elected as New South Wales State President of the Australian Labor Party last time by a record majority.

Senator Puplick spoke also about Les McMahon, the honourable member for Sydney. Of course, Les McMahon was elected in a fairly tight preselection ballot. What happened after that? This is the test. If people think that is wrong I ask them to consider what happened after that. I believe he won his next preselection ballot by some 800 or 900 votes. There were probably more votes for the Labor Party in those electorates than the Liberal Party has polled in any of its electorates in New South Wales. He has also been elected unopposed.

Senator Puplick also spoke about Mr McLeay, the honourable member for Grayndler. Is it not quite remarkable that he has based his attacks on Mr Keating, Mr McMahon and Mr McLeay on the Challenge newspaper? Maybe he ought to talk to Senator Lajovic tonight who, of course, was accused in Challenge of being a Nazi. Because he used that newspaper as the basis of his beliefs is it to be assumed that what it said about Senator Lajovic is correct? I think not. I think it was a phoney argument from the word go.

Mr New South Wales colleagues and I have resisted over the past couple of months replying to Senator Puplick. We have avoided the smearing that has gone on. Let me tell honourable senators that we have plenty of ammunition.

Senator Missen:

– Oh, yes.

Senator SIBRAA:

– Had we wished, we could have talked about the same sorts of matters. No, Senator Missen, I will not go into all the things we have heard about tonight. I will not quote from the file we have on Alexander Armstrong, who was a National Country Party member, the file on Urbanchich or the statements which were made by Mr Spender, who is a candidate for the Liberal Party in the seat of North Sydney, and Mr Patten, about Mr Urbanchich at the time. We will not go into the full files that we have on the Solomon affair, Mr Finlayson, Judith Barton, the police and the reports of breaking into their homes. We will not mention the St John affair, how Colonel Thomas James Flannigan got the details of Mr Solomon’s military career, how they falsified documents and how most of those people should be locked up in goal. I will not mention the campaign against Grassby. I will not mention the things that were said in Victoria, which Senator Missen would know about, or about Mr Jennings, who now is a Country Party candidate in Queensland.

I can assure honourable senators that if there were time and had we thought that honourable senators opposite really wanted to get down into this level there would be plenty we could talk about in relation to people on their side of the Parliament, especially people in New South Wales. We have avoided that. We have mentioned their names tonight but we have avoided the sorts of smears that Senator Puplick has engaged in. Senator Puplick has named some members of the Australian Labor Party tonight. The New South Wales Parliament will be sitting. There will be opportunities for people to say things about people, including Liberal Party members of the House of Representatives who are in marginal seats, and what thay have been involved in in New South Wales. If Senator Puplick thinks he has been standing over members on this side he will find that there is a day of reckoning coming.

What he is really worried about is the Labor vote in New South Wales. People stood in this place and trumpeted the vote in Bankstown. I inform honourable senators that only 73 per cent of the electorate voted at the by-election in Bankstown. It might be assumed that a lot of Labor Party members and supporters were at the Sydney Cricket Ground where Canterbury-Bankstown were playing in a rugby league semi-final. The polls closed at 6 p.m. Only 73 per cent of the electorate voted. The Labor vote got a very poor 66 per cent of the vote! As the pre-poll votes, the postal votes and the absentee votes are being counted that percentage of the Labor vote is going up. One might wonder whether that is a good vote. It happened to be the highest Labor vote ever recorded in those booths in Bankstown, with the exception of that recorded at the last State election. Therefore, if we compare the voting figures in those booths in the Federal electorate of Blaxland with the 1972 and 1974 Federal figures, when the Labor Party won government, we find that the Labor Party vote was the second highest vote ever.

Of course Senator Puplick would have been worried when he saw those figures. It will wipe him right out of the Senate if those votes are repeated at a Federal election. Nobody said anything about the figures in the seat of Murray. I know that the figures for the Liberal candidate went down. The Liberals lost 19 per cent of the vote to the National Country Party. The situation is that the New South Wales Liberal senators really show in this place continually their hatred for the Wran Labor Government in New South Wales. We do not hear too much about if from the Minister for National Development and Energy, Senator Carrick. I can imagine the bitterness that he feels because he was the General Secretary of the Liberal Party of New South Wales when it was at its very strongest - not only when it was in government federally but also when it was in government in New South Wales. It would be fair to say that Senator Carrick probably ranks as one of the most efficient New South Wales general secretaries the Liberal Party has had because he held that position at the time that the Askin Government had a record term in office. As a former general secretary, of course he would feel bitter about the way the Liberal Party in New South Wales has declined since he left it. Senator Baume does not say too much about it. He is hoping, of course, to be a Minister in a future government, and he does not want to offend the

Liberal Party machine in New South Wales too much. But what is happening is that we have been subject to Senator Puplick coming into this Parliament for the last six weeks or two months acting as the parliamentary pimp for the New South Wales Liberal Party, smearing and casting aspersions on the members of the Labor Party for the simple reason that he hates the success of the Wran Labor Government in New South Wales.

In New South Wales the Labor Party has the biggest majority in the State Parliament that it has ever had. It has the largest percentage of seats that it has ever had, and the Liberal Party has been reduced to the situation in which the Country Party is just about to become the dominant member of the coalition, and Mr Punch will be the Leader of the Opposition in New South Wales.

Senator McLaren:

– We control the Upper House in New South Wales now under a democratic vote.

Senator SIBRAA:

– I will get to that in a minute. Of course Senator Puplick who was President of the Young Liberals in New South Wales and an organisational man for the Liberal Party, should look at the situation on the North Shore. The Labor Party has never had representation on the North Shore in Sydney, and now it holds the State seat of Willoughby, and of Fuller, where Mr Cavalier defeated the former leader of the Liberal Party. The leader of the Liberal Party who led his party into an election could not hold his own seat. The Labor Party holds the State seat of Manly, which the Labor Party has never held before, and of course it holds the State seat of Wakehurst, where I live, where since the formation of the seat the Labor vote had never got above 40 to 41 per cent. But now Mr Webster the State Labor member for Wakehurst, will need a 6 per cent swing against him to lose that seat. He got 56 per cent of the vote. No wonder the Liberals are cranky. The Liberal Party of New South Wales, in a campaign to try to get these seats back, has now begun looking for star candidates. The first person the Liberals tried to select was ‘Colgate’ Meers, the Lord Mayor of Sydney, who has now been referred to as ‘Sunset’ Meers. After the preselection ballot for Willoughby, which he lost, he was asked by the Press: ‘What is your attitude to sunset legislation?’ He said: ‘My views on daylight saving are well known. Of course they are opposed to what the Country Party says’. He did not get up in Willoughby.

Senator Walsh:

– ls that true?

Senator SIBRAA:

– It is in the Daily Telegraph, and it has not been denied. He did not get up in Willoughby. He did not win the preselection in Willoughby, so he got a second chance. The former Premier of New South Wales, Sir Robert Askin, a man for whom I have a great deal of time, asked him to run in Manly. He won in Manly. He has won the preselection, and I am just giving the Senate notice tonight that he is not going to win the State seat of Manly because he will be like the man that the Liberal Party imported once before, Mr Barton Higgs, who was the Mayor of North Sydney. Of course, Mr Douglas Darby, who was a legend in Manly, was able to defeat him. The people of Manly will not accept a second choice, and they will not accept a person who does not live in the Manly electorate. Because it is near a beach, they will probably not accept Sunset Meers either. That would be the last thing they would do.

What Senator Puplick and others really dislike about the Labor Party in New South Wales is that it has reformed the Upper House. New South Wales now has the first democratically elected Upper House in its history. What happened when the people of New South Wales were given a choice, when they were given the opportunity to vote on whether they should elect the New South Wales Upper House? They voted overwhelmingly to reform that House. When the election was held for the Upper House, nobody would believe the result, but on a proportional voting system the Labor Party was able to win the Upper House vote by nine seats to six. That means that the Labor Party in the Upper House in New South Wales will have a majority to the end of this century.

The important thing about that is that the Liberals did not want to lose power in New South Wales. They thought that if they lost an election they would always have control of the Upper House, lt is part of the conservative philosophy that if they control an Upper House they can frustrate legislation brought in by the Labor Party in a popularly elected Lower House. What we have now in New South Wales is a decent voting system. We do not have a rort of a system as we had before. The popularly elected government in the Lower House now has a majority in the Upper House which will guarantee that the Labor Party can bring in the legislation and not be frustrated by the sorts of events which have happened to us in South Australia, in this place and previously in New South Wales. Senator Puplick would be concerned also that Mr Mason, the Leader of the Liberal Party at the moment, the member for Dubbo, is a temporary member. He is about to go out. He represents a rural electorate that the Labor Party will win at the next election.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Country Party is about to become the official Opposition.

Senator SIBRAA:

– As my colleague Senator McClelland says, the big problem is that after the next by-elections are held Mr Punch from the Country Party will have the numbers and will become the Leader of the Opposition in New South Wales.

Senator Walsh:

– Who is No. 2 on the Liberal Senate ticket?

Senator SIBRAA:

– I am not sure. 1 think it is Senator Scott. Much has been said recently about the state of politics in New South Wales. Much has been said by Senator Puplick. I do not think that I could finish on a better note than to quote from the statement that my colleague Senator McClelland also quoted. It concerns remarks by Sir Robert Askin and reads:

Sir Robert said he didn’t think corruption in New South Wales was any worse now than in the past.

In fact, I think there is less scope for improper activity by parliamentarians now than in previous years.

The Press and other sections of the media are now more widespread and probing than they were 20 or 30 years ago’.

This is the most popular Liberal leader they have ever had in New South Wales. The statement continues:

I can remember attacking corruption when in Opposition. We were always hammering away at the Cahill Government over Thommo’s two-up school, open slather at Broken Hill, sly grog and SP betting.

These things seem to be part of community life.’

What we have seen in the last couple of months from Senator Puplick is an obsessional hatred of the Wran Labor Government in New South Wales for the simple reason that it has been so successful, and the fact that the Liberal Party in New South Wales, of which he was a very important organisational part, will not be in power in the Upper or Lower House at least until the end of this century.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

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

(11.38) - I move:

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The purpose of this Bill is to validate all duties of excise demanded or collected pursuant to Excise Tariff Proposal (No. 3) 1980, because Parliament is being dissolved at the end of this week. The Proposals, which were introduced into the other place on 28 August 1980, increased the excise duty on stabilised crude petroleum oil from $140.1 1 to $157.21 per kilolitre and on naturally occurring liquefied petroleum gas from $41.65 to $43.48 per kilolitre with effect on and from 1 July 1980.

These increases have been made in accordance with the Government’s long-standing policy of linking domestic prices of these products with movements in the prices of the products overseas. This policy is fundamental to the maintenance of an adequate supply of liquid fuels over the longer term and has the proven dual object of conservation of irreplacable resources while accelerating the development of indigenous energy reserves. Honourable senators will appreciate that the community is faced with either paying realistic prices for petroleum products or having shorter term access to cheap fuel with the inevitable result that conservation is not encouraged and a shortage of the products will occur. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

The PRESIDENT:

– Is it the wish of the Senate that we discuss this Bill and the Customs Tariff Validation Bill (No. 2) 1980 cognately? There being no objection, that course will be followed.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– I will be very brief. The first Bill, the Customs Tariff Validation Bill (No. 2) 1980, which both retrospectively and for the future validates changes to the Customs Tariff, is not being opposed by the Opposition. The second Bill, the Excise Tariff Validation Bill 1980 which validates - and I use that in the technical legal sense, because it could not be validated in any other way - the increases in the crude oil levy and the liquefied petroleum gas levy on Australian oil and gas. That is of course an integral part of the present Government’s disastrous import parity pricing policy for oil. That Bill will be opposed by the Opposition. The first Bill will not be opposed. I note that when the Excise Tariff Validation Bill was before the House of Representatives, Mr Hurford, who was handling the Bill at the time, noted that because of the late hour the Opposition would not be calling for a division on the second Bill. That is an example which we will follow in the Senate.

Senator MASON:
New South Wales

– I wish to speak briefly on this matter because I had an intention to oppose the Excise

Tariff Validation Bill. Whether we divide or not means little to me, but I should state my intention that I oppose the Bill. I feel I have to do this partly because of the Liberal Party paranoia which has been expressed in recent days by Senator Baume in which he says in as many words through the media that the Australian Democrats are somehow in league with the Australian Labor Party. 1 notice that this paranoia is expressed in other ways. In Queensland the Liberal Party is saying that Joh Bjelke-Petersen is in league with the Labor Party. Just to complete this rather confusing situation, Flo Bjelke-Petersen on AM this morning said that the Democrats are disenchanted Liberals. So there is the same sort of mixture there.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! This is a second reading debate on the Excise Tariff Validation Bill. We are not at the first reading stage. Confine yourself to the provisions of the Bill, Senator Mason.

Senator MASON:

– Thank you, Mr President. I have been laying down my reasons for wishing to express at this time the Democrats’ objection to the Bill. If we had felt that the Government was levelling with the Australian people in the sense that it was to use these huge levies in the correct way - in other words, they only way they could be used to any purpose and value in this society, that is almost totally to provide research and development for alternative forms of energy - then I would be voting for them. I wish to make that point quite clearly. The point I am making- I think it is a good one - is that the Australian Democrats and I vote in this place for our reasons. If other people vote in the same way as we do for their reasons, then that is a matter for them.

I feel it has been necessary to make this point, and it is the reason that I am taking the time of the Senate to discuss this matter. As things are, of course, these huge levies represent an unequal and unfair tax which is levied without regard to degree, need or ability to pay on behalf of the Australian people. 1 think the Government has not considered this matter nearly carefully enough. That is the purpose for this Bill. It is to increase that kind of levy which applies to all kinds of income and all kinds of need - the morning shift worker on the basic wage - and says: ‘You will bear this burden just as much as the wealthy man who has every opportunity to get the money to pay it and in fact does not even feel it. He does not worry about it’. Really, it is true that his levy has been made an unfair tax which has been visited on the people who can afford to bear it least of all.

The Government claims, and we see it in the second reading speech, that conservation is the purpose of this measure. Yet it will not in any way adjust the levy to the reasonable needs of conservation. It is a fact that a great deal of fuel, both distillate and petrol, is necessarily used in this country for essential production. That essential production includes some of our most important export primary industries, such as wheat. How are they to conserve fuel? Are they to conserve fuel by growing less wheat or by trying to make a tractor run on less fuel than it did before? I try to point out to the Government that it is being irrational in this area. It would be rational if it did two things. It would be rational if it said that there was an unequal levy and the inequality of that levy would be assessed on the degree of need, that the motorist who used fuel for pleasure motoring on Sunday would bear the full levy, and that those people who were primary producers and who had to use fuel in their occupation would pay a lesser amount. I made the same point last night about air travel. We need some air travel. I think there is some reason to assume that there be some sort of subsidy, especially for large States. The second point is that if the Government wanted to be rational and to be taken seriously in this talk about conservation it would say: ‘What are we conserving for?’ The only answer, I suggest, is that we are conserving in order to provide something for the Australian people in the future. In other words, we could say: ‘This is a wasting asset. Here is the money’. Fortunately, we have it for the time being. People of Australia, bear with us, we will use this money for major research and development into alternative energy resources’. We are not doing that. Less than one per cent is being used for that purpose. On that basis and for reasons concerning my party, not any other party, the Australian Democrats oppose the Bill.

Senator GEORGES:
Queesland

– I foreshadow that the Opposition will move to the Customs Tariff Validation Bill (No. 2) 1980 the following amendment:

At end of motion, add, ‘but the Senate if of the opinion that a Parliamentary Standing Committee on Customs and Excise Tariffs should be established to examine each change in customs and excise tariffs following the gazettal of proposals or their being introduced into the Parliament on the one hand and before related Bills are introduced into the House on the other’.

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE (Victoria- Minister for Social Security) (11.46) -I have noted the amendment foreshadowed by the Opposition. The Government will not accept that amendment. I commend the Bills to the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1362

CUSTOMS TARIFF VALIDATION BILL (No. 2) 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-As foreshadowed during debate on the Excise Tariff Validation Bill 1980, 1 move:

At end of motion, add, ‘but the Senate if of the opinion that a Parliamentary Standing Committee on Customs and Excise Tariffs should be established to examine each change in customs and excise tariffs following the gazettal of proposals or their being introduced into the Parliament on the one hand and before related Bills are introduced into the House on the other’.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1362

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Motion (by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) agreed to:

That intervening business be postponed until after the consideration of General Business Order of the Day No. 338, Constitution Alteration (Electors’ Initiative) Bill 1980.

page 1362

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (ELECTORS’ INITIATIVE) BILL 1980

Second Reading

Senator MASON:
New South Wales

– I thank the Government for the opportunity of introducing the second reading of this Bill in this session of Parliament. I move:

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows -

This Bill, if carried by this Parliament, would allow the Australian people themselves to decide whether they should have a democratic right already available in many other parts of the free world - the right to make law. The fundamentals of the Bill are very simple. It seeks a referendum for a constitutional amendment. This amendment, if carried, would create a new chapter of the Australian Constitution - Chapter IX. This new provision of the Constitution would allow any proposition for a change of the law and, indeed, of the Constitution itself, to be initiated through a petition of 250,000 signatures. ‘Propositions’ brought forward in this way would be presented to the people once a year on a set day.

In the case of a change of the Constitution, there would have to be a clear majority nationally and a majority in the majority of the States; but the Bill also provides that where a two-thirds majority nationally is achieved, then the provision for a majority in the majority of the States shall not apply. In the case of initiation of changes in law which do not seek to change the Australian Constitution, a simple majority nationally would carry the matter. Such carrying would make the propositions law without the need for any approval or intervention by the Federal Parliament.

The Australian Democrats contention is that the present system, which allows only the Parliament the right to initiate law, is an anachronism. Its relevance to the nineteenth century may have existed, but it is no longer enough for a free people in the late twentieth century to have the right to elect only one party or another to government - indeed, to have no real control over the legislative process beyond that.

The Bill, if carried, would also remove at one stroke whole regions in which the community clearly and consistently perceives the risk of governmental corruption. As matters now stand, financial and other influences brought to bear on governments are perceived as being reflected in the making of law, and also in the absence of certain kinds of laws. The community is powerless to control that process and perhaps for that reason gives it far greater weight than is perhaps deserved.

I will look for debate on this Bill. It is already widely predicted in the community that the Government and the Australian Labor Party will seek to avoid debate on it. There has been opposition expressed to this issue already in this place. lt amounts mainly to the arguments, which were historically presented against universal suffrage and later women’s suffrage, that people ‘do not know enough to decide’. I dispute that. These arguments, no matter how tortuous the attempt may be to conceal the main point, are really, in the end, arguments for some kind of dictatorship or oligarchy. That must be clearly said and said again as often as these arguments are advanced.

What are the merits of the Bill? First, it allows matters of very considerable public interest to be brought to the attention of the electorate itself for decision. Such matters would be unlikely to be trivial. So far as I know, in recent decades there has not been a single petition presented to this Parliament which would have been large enough to secure an initiative. But if this requirement of 250,000 signatures is thought too small this Parliament plainly has the power to amend that figure upwards. An amendment, though, to a very high number - higher, for instance, than half a million signatures - would, I believe, be demonstrably insincere.

However, as the matter would be an experiment, a bold step forward for this Parliament and a bold step forward for the Australian people, there would be no harm in some caution. My purpose at this stage is to have the idea freely canvassed. Is it a mere idealistic exercise in impractical democracy? 1 believe not. As I shall later show, it works very well in some of the world’s most successful free societies - societies within friendly nations and friendly regions with which Australia already identifies. But beyond that, it has some other values.

In a future which is acknowledged generally to have difficulties, to present problems and to require some sacrifice from the community at large, is it not best to allow that community to involve itself in the issues; to give it the means to study and know the facts? Is it not likely that such an opportunity would give the people a greater sense of responsibility and involvement and so, over a period, encourage them to a more far-sighted attitude? We now have a much better educated and more politically aware society than has existed in the past. The great increase in both media and public interest in politics and the rapid growth of citizen movements of all kinds demonstrates this.

Another advantage is a fuller use of political expertise and experience in government, lt should be obvious that one of the regions in which initiatives are most likely to be organised would be the Opposition in this Parliament. Is there anything but good in that? ls it not ludicrous that all influence vested in one area should become virtually no influence as the result of an election? Surely the nation would be better served if an avenue existed where the Opposition could at least, with sufficient effort and support, bring forward a matter for referendum.

Would this device of citizens’ initiative be abused? Like every other right, it could indeed be misused by powerful pressure groups. No freedom can be absolutely guaranteed. Proper use of the initiative would then be a matter for the community to look after, and that is as it should be. Would the right usurp the authority and usefulness of parliament? Far from it. In other countries with the initiative, the making of the vast body of law, especially in technical or complex areas, has remained the responsibility of the Parliament I believe that this would also be the case here.

Would the device be costly? It would not be in either real or relative terms. The Bill proposes that the referendum be held on the first Saturday of each December. As a national referendum would cost about the same as a national election, a referendum this year could be expected to cost approximately S10.5m. which amounts to 71c per head of population. In addition, every three years the date of the referendum would coincide with the date of the national election, which would diminish the cost enormously in that year.

The right of the citizen to initiate referenda is practised already, as I have said, in several of the more enlightened countries, including Switzerland, Austria and the United States of America. This right is often found to be a longstanding one, having been granted to the Swiss people in 1892 and having been adopted by 24 states in the USA since 1890. In Switzerland, between 1892 and 1944, 47 initiatives were submitted to the confederation through petition. Of these, about one-quarter were adopted, the others being either rejected or withdrawn.

In the USA the most famous example of a citizen-initiated referendum is probably the Californian ‘proposition 1 3’ of 1 977 which altered the taxation laws. Another proposition aimed at cutting a different area of taxation was rejected which indicates, I feel, that citizens can be trusted to judge a referendum topic on its individual merits and not just on whether it will result in personal gain for the person himself. I commend this Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Peter Baume) adjourned.

page 1363

RETIREMENT OF SENATOR THE HON. K. S. WRIEDT

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

– Before I move for the adjournment of the Senate I take the opportunity to say a few words in the Senate regarding the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Wriedt, who has decided to retire from the Senate to contest a House of Representatives seat. It would be quite wrong if the Senate, in a completely bipartisan way, did not acknowledge the contribution that Senator Wriedt has made to this chamber. I acknowledge the personal relationship he has had with me at all limes. Quite apart from the achievements of men I think the manner of the man is important. I have never doubted the quality of Senator Wriedt as a gentleman- and I use the correct term- as a person who holds values and holds them in trust and as a person who, in sitting opposite me at the table, was willing to understand and to extend the true courtesies of this chamber.

I do not wish to dwell on the matter because the Senate well knows Senator Wriedt’s achievements. He has been a member of the Senate for, I think, 1 2 years or more. He held several portfolios in the Whitlam Government. I believe that his colleagues in the then Government held the view that he was an able Minister in that Government. Within the philosophy of his own party he discharged his work in that regard. He has served his country both in wartime and in peace time and has served this chamber as Leader of the Opposition. We wish Senator Wriedt well in the future. We say to his family that we acknowledge the actual debt we owe to all families for allowing their members to come forward into the Senate. Senator Wriedt goes into another contest. We will engage in that contest with all the vigour of a contending of philosophies. Of course, we would not deny that we will strive hard and hope that we will win that contest. We thank him for the contribution he has made and in the journey of life ahead we wish him well.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

– On behalf of those honourable senators who remain I want briefly to say a few similar words about my colleague and friend, Senator Wriedt and to support some of the remarks made by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Carrick. I divorce my sentiments from the last few remarks he made about the coming battle in Denison. Otherwise I share the views - I am sure we all do - put by Senator Carrick. Senator Wriedt was elected to the Senate in 1968. It has been a fairly turbulent period in Australian politics since then. He has seen several governments - I say that in the sense that there were two Australian Labor Party governments in that time - and he has seen some quite extraordinary events in the Senate. I suppose that for a very long time he will be remembered as a most distinguished Minister in the Whitlam Labor Government.

Whatever any of us say in the context of partisan political debate about that Government, if honourable senators want to make those comments about Ken Wriedt in the countryside of Australia they do so at their own peril if their remarks are in any sense derogatory. The people in the non-metropolitan areas of Australia have immense regard for his work as a Minister in that Government. He asked me not to say anything about him tonight. 1 think it is very typical of the man, that he does not want people making a fuss over his depature.

One of the reasons for that is that we on this side of the House know he will be back. But he will not be quite as close to us as he has been in the past 1 2 years, that is for those of us who have been here that long. There is something of a gulf in Kings Hall which separates the Senate from the House of Representatives. It is a gulf of considerable magnitude like the one which separates the present Government from the Australian people, for example. It means that we will see less of him, but we will all be able to see him, we hope, from time to time.

I would add to what Senator Carrick said about Ken Wriedt’s philosophy. I think he has always been a very cool member of the Senate. I make a very favourable comparison between him in that regard and some others of us here. I think that has had a lot to do with his philosophy. He is very much a convinced social democratic. I am told that sometimes he is a half-convinced Buddhist. He is one person in this chamber who has a profound knowledge and love of music. We might all be better off if we had his knowledge and love of music because it can be a very important thing in the life of a person who seeks to induce tranquility in others as I believe he does in the cool approach that he has adopted in this place. We all wish him well. I believe he has a long and happy future in politics. Whether that be so or not we all wish him a long and happy future wherever it may be.

Senator MASON:
New South Wales

– On behalf of the Australian Democrats, and indeed on my own behalf, I would like to thank Senator I Wriedt for the kindness, integrity and honesty which has been very evident to us in our association with him in this place. The Australian Democrats wish him well in whatever the future brings him.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– I would like to join with the previous speakers. Ken Wriedt and I were No. 2 on the ticket for the Senate election which was held in 1 967 and which is now starting to be a while ago. I first met him when campaigning around an area where he lived then and still lives. I was door-knocking. I will never forget knocking on a door and finding that the guy who answered the door was my opposite number on the Opposition ticket. He invited me in and I met a fellow for whom I have had a very high respect ever since. I have enjoyed and respected his capacity as a member of the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange. Whilst we had our problems, I respected his capacity to be able to see some of the salient questions, to pursue them and to contribute to the work of a committee which, I like to think, has changed a little, the operation of the private enterprise sector of Australia to its betterment. I would like to say that one of the people who contributed to its betterment was Senator Wriedt.

Remarks have been made as to his contribution as a member of the Whitlam Government. It would not be news to anybody for me to say that I thought that that Government was a disaster. But it would perhaps be relevant to say that I thought one of the things that made it less of a disaster was that Senator Wriedt was a saleable commodity. At times I sympathised with him having to go to country people who were being disadvantaged and trying to put in presentable and acceptable terms the policy of the Government. I compliment him for the way he was able to do it. I do not want to get into politics and political partisanship. As a Tasmanian, I believe that Senator Wriedt is another Tasmanian who has contributed to putting the interests of his State first and foremost when he can in a States House. As a senator, I have enjoyed the privilege of working on the Standing Orders Committee and in various other areas of activity with Senator Wriedt. I have enjoyed the fact that he is someone who wishes to see change and progress take place, but not in a revolutionary way.

I believe that I can say of a man whom I would like to regard as a friend that he is a man who has contributed to Australia, gently but positively. I regret that he has chosen the course he has. I believe that it is to the detriment of the Senate because I think his contribution to this chamber has been very considerable. It is unfortunate that we will no longer have his contribution from his side of politics. I hope that those who follow him will follow his example. He has contributed positively in a very real sense to the development of the chamber. This is a place in which perhaps the policy arguments are not paramount but rather the interests of the country in having a second chamber. It is not entirely inappropriate to develop a committee system and to rethink matters that take place.

I do not wish to say anything that would make anybody of his political philosophy criticise him but rather to say simply that I regret that he is leaving this place. I hope that I do not ever see him in the House of Representatives because I hope, and nobody would expect otherwise, that in the seat of Denison the Liberal candidate succeeds. I pay very sincere tribute to the man whom I believe has been one of the contributors to Australia’s development over the period that he has served in this Senate.

Friday, 19 September 1980

Senator SCOTT:
New South Wales

– On behalf of my party, the National Country Party of

Australia, I want to extend my good wishes to Senator Wriedt as he departs from this chamber. When I first came into this Senate for a short period back in 1970 Senator Wriedt had been in the chamber for only two years. He was, as he is now, a tall man but, as I recall, he had a crew cut and his hair was not quite as grey as it is today. The years that have intervened have seen him move with a great measure of significance in this chamber. He has maintained a measure of dignity throughout his period here in his many capacities. Perhaps I have a feeling of something in common because he was well known and recognised in rural Australia, in that area I have a fairly deep and lasting knowledge myself. Senator Wriedt has been a credit to his party in his 12 years in this chamber. Indeed, sometimes my only regret was that he was over there and not over here. I hope that, in the future, Senator Wriedt, after a distinguished career in this chamber, does not come back to the other chamber but that he and his family have a long and happy life.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I think I am the only one in this chamber at this immediate moment who served with Senator Wriedt as a Minister in the Labor Government. As one of his former ministerial colleagues, I say that not only did he serve the Labor movement with distinction but also he served the Senate with great honour. He was a very successful Minister indeed. He was the Minister for Primary Industry, later became Minister for Agriculture and subsequently, for a short time, was Minister for Minerals and Energy. He also had the distinction of being elected by his peers as Leader of the Government in the Senate. When we went into the Opposition, he was elected unopposed as Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. His contribution to the formulation of an effective and constructive agricultural policy for Australia is well known. I know, as one of .his former ministerial colleagues, that the work that he did in bringing about a restructuring of the Australian wool industry during the term of office of the Labor Government will stand to his eternal credit and record.

Senator Primmer:

– And the dairying industry.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– As my colleague Senator Primmer says, and the dairying industry. I personally well recall the tremendous amount of work that he did in bringing about the restructuring of the wool industry. That will stand to his eternal credit and to his record, just as the establishment of the wheat industry stabilisation scheme stood to the eternal credit of the Chifley Government. I think Senator Wriedt not only for his assistance to me as a senator but also for his mateship, for his great tolerance and for his understanding. Everyone in this chamber knows that he is a very warm and sincere person. In common with my colleague Senator Button, 1 am sure that Senator Wriedt will be back with us in another place and in another role to continue to serve the electors who will return him to this Parliament, to continue to serve the Slate of Tasmania and to continue to serve Australia. Not only do we wish him well, but also in electoral terms, we wish him many happy returns.

Senator TATE:
Tasmania

– I wish to speak very briefly, not in any way to bid farewell to Senator Wriedt as a parliamentarian because I too beleive that he will return to serve this institution and this nation with dignity and with his great ability, but in another place - but to put on record my personal thanks to him for the guidance which he has shown to me as an apprentice senator while he has been Leader of the Opposition in this place.

Qualities and faults which are not known to the general public very quickly become evident to colleagues and to other members of the Parliament in the peculiar situation in which one finds oneself in this Parliament. In particular, of course, integrity is very quickly tested. There is no doubt that in that respect Senator Wriedt is held in the very highest regard within the walls of this Parliament. His quality of calmness and his grasp of many subjects are also known to many outside, but what is not known is how that calmness and that confidence are constantly put at the disposal of other senators and in particular, as I say, at the disposal of those fledgling senators who look to his leadership for the guidance which he so generously gives. I thank Sentor Wriedt for that personal help and guidance which he has given. I thank him for the warmth and respect that he has shown to my parents. I appreciate that very much. I think Senator Carrick is correct to use the term gentleman’ - gentle man - of Senator Wriedt. Perhaps it is derived from his admiration of the Buddhist way of life. I think in that simple title of gentle man one has a sufficient tribute to Senator Ken Wriedt.

Senator SIM:
Western Australia

– I would like to say a few words about Senator Ken Wriedt, whatever his political fate might be. I have had a long association with Senator Wreidt and 1 want to say how much I have admired him. I think we do have a personal friendship. I have a very strong personal regard for him; I hope it is reciprocated. In my view he has been an excellent Minister, an excellent Leader of the Opposition, a man of tremendous courtesy who fights his cause with vigour but also with fairness and honesty. I regret his leaving this august chamber maybe for other political fields, maybe not. I add my word of tribute to him, both as a man and as a senator. I think many of us have been very proud of him. So, through you, Mr President, I say to you, Senator Wriedt: I will always retain a tremendously strong personal regard and, if I may say so, affection for you.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– Firstly, I thank all members of the chamber who have spoken, particularly for speaking in the terms they have. I dare say that when any of us come to this chamber- indeed, to the Parliament - we come in the belief that in the course of the time we are here we may make a contribution, not just to this Parliament but to the people of this country. If I remember rightly - I did not check this; I suppose I should have - the first sentence of my maiden speech was to the effect that I came here with the intention of serving the people of Australia. I suppose we all say that in our various ways. We differ in type, in style and in manner. I am not sure which is the best style for politics. I do not know whether it is a calm, quiet style, which I am alleged to have, or whether it is a slightly more aggressive style. Whichever it is, I think we should all keep uppermost in our minds the fact that we are here for that purpose.

It is apparent that the citizens of this country outside the Parliament feel a sense of powerlessness. Certainly, they have an opportunity to vote at every election, but between elections they seem to be overwhelmed by events which happen so quickly in politics, of which we are a part. We all seem to have an opportunity to be involved and to play a role, but people outside politics do not. I find that sentiment expressed often. That is all the more reason for our never forgetting why we are here. We are not here just for personal advancement or gain. If that becomes our motivation I think the motivation which brought us here is completely lost. I appreciate the comments made about my period in the Agriculture Ministry. I can never work out why it is that, if I was so good a Minister for Agriculture, we lost all those rural seats in 1975. 1 reckon that by the record I must go down as about the worst Minister for Agriculture the country ever had.

Senator Rae:

– No. You just did not lose more.

Senator WRIEDT:

– Maybe I could not convince my colleagues; perhaps that was the trouble. Anyway, I do sincerely appreciate what has been said tonight. To be truthful, I did not anticipate that so many kind words would be said about me by so many people. Let me leave this chamber on this note: I have no intention of making this my last appearance in the Australian Parliament. Whether Senator Rae will be satisfied with the fact that I will not be back on the Government side of the chamber we will see when the numbers go up on the night.

page 1367

VALEDICTORY

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

– Immediately prior to my moving the motion for the adjournment of the Senate, I indicate that it is my understanding that the Parliament is likely to be called together this side of Christmas. But should there be no such calling together, I very briefly extend to you, Sir, as the presiding officer, to the Acting Clerk and his assistants, to the Hansard staff and to all the other staff in this Parliament the warm thanks of the Government and, I hope, of all members of the Senate. I thank the Whips. 1 thank the Opposition Whip for his courtesy and for a job well done in his own light. I, in particular, and my colleagues have been very dependent on our Whip and Deputy Whip. 1 wish everyone well. I think we will be back here to say Happy Christmas and a prosperous New Year’. If not, I express that feeling now.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I briefly endorse the remarks of Senator Carrick. I omitted to do so earlier. We should always acknowledge the excellent work done by the staff. With that extra bit of acknowledgment after 12 years in the Senate I give a blanket ‘thank you’ to all those who work on the Senate side of Parliament for their assistance to me over the years.

Senate adjourned at 12.16 a.m. (Friday) to a day and hour to be fixed by the President or, in the event of the President being unavailable owing to illness or other cause, by the Chairman of Committees, and that the day and hour of meeting so determined shall be notified to each senator by telegram or letter.

page 1367

PAPERS

The following papers were presented, pursuant to statute:

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act- Administrative Review Council- Annual Report (Fourth), for year 1979-80.

Anglo-Australian Telescope Agreement Act- AngloAustralian Telescope Board- Annual Report, together with financial statements and the Auditor-Generals Report thereon, for year 1 979-80.

Australian Bureau of Statistics Act- Australian Bureau of Statistics- Annual Report (Fifth), for year 1979-80.

Australian Industry Development Corporation Act - Australian Industry Development Corporation - Annual Report (Tenth), together with financial statements and the Auditor-General’s Report thereon, for year 1 979-80.

Australian Institute of Marine Science Act - Australian Institute of Marine Science- Annual Report of the Council, together with financial statements and the Auditor-General’s Report thereon, for year 1979-80.

Australian Science and Technology Act -

Australian Science and Technology Council - Annual Report, for year 1979-80.

Australian Science and Technology Council - Industrial Research and Development: Proposals for Additional Incentives - Report to the Prime Minister by the Council, dated June 1980.

Automatic Data Processing Equipment Bounty ActReturn, for the period 29 March 1 977 to 28 March 1 980.

Bounty (Agricultural Tractors) Act- Return, for year 1979-80.

Bounty (Books) Act- Return, for year 1 979-80.

Bounty (Commercial Motor Vehicles) Act - Return, for year 1979-80.

Bounty (Dental Alloys) Act - Return, for the period 22 December 1978 to 21 March 1980.

Bounty (Injection Moulding Equipment) Act- Return, for the period 23 May 1 979 to 22 May 1 980.

Bounty (Metal Working Machine Tools) Act- Return, for 1979-80.

Insurance Act - Insurance Commissioner- Annual Report (Sixth), for year 1979-80.

Judiciary Act - Rule of the High Court, dated 1 1 September 1980.

Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act - Recommendations of State Grants Commissions on the distribution of local governments’ share of personal income tax collection for 1 980-8 1 for the States of New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria and Western Australia.

National Capital Development Commission Act - National Capital Development Commission - Annual Report (Twenty-third), together with financial statements and the Auditor-General’s Report thereon, for year 1979-80.

Nitrogenous Fertilizers Subsidy Act - Return, for year 1979-80.

Phosphate Fertilizers Bounty Act- Return, for year 1979-80.

Pig Meat Promotion Act- Pig Meat Promotion Advisory Committee- Annual Report (Fifth), for year 1979-80.

Primary Industry Bank Act - Annual Report (Third), on the operation of Part II of the Act, for the period 22 November 1979 to 1 7 September 1980.

Public Service Act- Regulations- Statutory Rules 1980 No. 272.

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

No. 310 - Australian Public Service Artisans’ Association and others.

No. 311 - Administrative and Clerical Officers’ Association, Commonwealth Public Service and others.

No. 312- Amalgamated Metal Workers’ and Shipwrights Union and others.

No. 313 - Federated Liquor and Allied Industries Employees Union of Australia.

No. 314- Australian Public Service Artisans’ Association.

No. 315 - Electrical Trades Union of Australia.

No. 316- Administrative and Clerical Officers’ Association, Commonwealth Public Service and others.*

No. 318- Amalgamated Metal Workers’ and Shipwrights Union and others.*

No. 319- Association and Professional Engineers, Australia.

No. 320 and 321- Transport Workers’ Union of Australia.

No. 322- Administrative and Clerical Officers’ Association, Commonwealth Public Service and others.

Nos 323 and 324- Australian Public Service Association (Fourth Division Officers).

No. 325 - Amalgamated Metal Workers’ and Shipwrights Union and others. (* Not accompanied by statement).

Remuneration Tribunals Act -

Academic Salaries Tribunal- Part-time Academic Staff- Determination and Report on salaries to be paid to academic staff employed on a part-time basis in universities and colleges of advanced education, together with an explanatory statement, dated 6 J une 1 980.

Regulations- Statutory Rules 1980 No. 270.

Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Consumer Affairs Ordinance - Consumer Affairs Council and Consumer Affairs Bureau- Annual Report (Seventh), for year 1979-80.

Services Trust Funds Act- Services Canteens Trust Fund- Annual Report (Thirty-second), by the Trustees, together with financial statements and the Auditor-General’s Report thereon, for 1979.

Student Assistance Act- Regulations- Statutory Rules 1980 No. 271.

Taxation Acts - Commissioner of Taxation - Annual Report (Fifty-ninth), for year 1979-80.

page 1369

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circula

Commonwealth Professional Employment Office (Question No. 1730)

Senator Sibraa:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 8 June 1979:

  1. Are the range and quality of services offered by the Commonwealth Professional Employment Office to be reduced.
  2. Will the Minister assure the Senate that neither a fee for services, nor commission charges, will be introduced in the Professional Employment Office.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. No decision has been taken to alter the range, quality, or basis of the services currently provided by the Professional Employment Office.
  2. ILO Convention No. 88 to which Australia is a signatory provides that Governments shall maintain a free public employment service. 34 Squadron: Service Flying Hours (Question No. 2782)
Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 1 3 May 1980:

  1. How many hours of service flying were undertaken by 34 Squadron at (a) the end of March and (b) the end of June for each of the financial years from 1974-75 to 1978-79.
  2. What was (a) the authorised service flying and (b) the underfly for 34 Squadron for each of the years from 1974-75 to 1978-79.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. and (2) Hours flown by 34 Squadron on Defence Force tasks (ie non-VIP) are shown in the following table’

34 Squadron: Non-Service Flying Hours (Question No. 2783)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 1 3 May 1980:

How many hours were flown by 34 Squadron aircraft, other than service flying, at (a) the end of March and (b) the end of June, for each of the financial years from 1974-75 to 1 978-79.

Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Hours flown by 34 Squadron on non-Defence Force tasks (ie VIP) are shown in the following table:

Appointments to Boards of Statutory Authorities (Question No. 2878)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 15 May 1980:

What are the names, dates and terms of appointment and salaries of all persons appointed to the boards and commissions of statutory authorities under the jurisdiction of the Minister for Education.

Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

TERTIARY EDUCATION COMMISSION

Sections 10, 21, 24 and 27 of the Tertiary Education Commission Act 1977 provides for 35 Commissioners to be appointed to the Tertiary Education Commission and its councils.

The Commissioners appointed by the Governor-General are:

SCHOOLS COMMISSION

Sections 4,5 and 6 of the Schools Commission Act 1973 provide for a full-time Chairman of the Commission, and not more than three additional full-time members out of a total of between four and eleven members of the Commission. Members of the Commission appointed by the Governor General are:

CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT CENTRE

Section 11 of the Curriculum Development Centre Act 1975 provides for one full-time Director and between ten and fifteen part-time members of Council.

Members of the Council appointed by the GovernorGeneral are:

The members of the Council appointed by the GovernorGeneral are:

ACT SCHOOLS AUTHORITY

Section 10 of the Schools Authority Ordinance 1976 provides for one full-time member and fourteen part-time members.

Members of the Authority appointed by the GovernorGeneral are:

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

Section 1 1 of the Australian National University Act 1946 governs the membership of the Council of the Australian National University. Members of Council do not receive salaries.

The members of the Council appointed by the GovernorGeneral are:

CANBERRA COLLEGE OF ADVANCED EDUCATION

Section 8 of the Canberra College of Advanced Education Act 1 967 governs the constitution of the Council of the College. Members of Council do not receive salaries.

COMMONWEALTH TEACHING SERVICE

Section 6 of the Commonwealth Teaching Service Act 1972 provides that there shall be a Commonwealth Teaching Service Commissioner. The Commissioner is appointed by the Governor-General.

AUSTRALIAN MARITIME COLLEGE

Section ( 1 1 ) of the Maritime College Act 1978 provides for a College Council of not fewer than 14 nor more than 23 members. Members of Council do not receive salaries.

Members of the Council appointed by the GovernorGeneral are:

ACT APPRENTICESHIP BOARD

Section 8 of the ACT Apprenticeship Ordinance 1936 governs the membership of the ACT Apprenticeship Board, which consists of a full-time Chairman and four part-time members.

Members of the Board, appointed by the Minister, are:

Answer to Question No. 2160 (Question No. 2941)

Senator Sibraa:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 23 May 1980:

When can Senator Sibraa expect a reply to Question No. 2160, notice of which was given on 6 November 1979.

Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The answer to Question No. 2160 appeared in Hansard 1 1 September 1980 (page 891)

Fife Proposals: Government Implementation (Question No. 2963)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister Representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Does the Government propose to implement the proposals known as the ‘Fife proposals’ for separating the retailing of petrol from the major oil companies; if so, when does it propose to introduce the legislation known as the ‘Fife package’.
  2. Will there be any amendments to the proposals as they were originally put; if so, what will those amendments be?
  3. Has the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs received representations from the oil companies and the petrol retailers to alter the original proposals; if so, (a) what were the nature of the representations; and (b) what were the names of the individual companies and organisations which have put proposals on this matter.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. On 9 September 1980 1 introduced the Petroleum Marketing Franchise Bill and the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Bill in the House of Representatives. These Bills will implement the legislative elements of the Government’s policies for the petroleum retail marketing industry. These measures are based on the package of possible measures announced by my predecessor the Honourable Wal Fife M.P. on 30 October 1978.
  2. The amendments to the package of possible measures appear in the Bills and are explained in the Explanatory Memoranda and Second Reading speeches delivered on introduction of the Bills.
  3. I have received representations from all sectors of the petroleum retail marketing industry, from interested dealer and consumer organisations and from members of the public. The representations have varied from expressions of total support for the proposals to requests for the Government to allow the status quo to prevail. Because of the confidential nature of many of the representations made to me I do not think it appropriate to name the persons who made representations.

Education Statistics (Question No. 2967)

Senator Archer:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 23 May 1980:

  1. What was the total number of students enrolled in: (a) primary schools; (b) secondary schools; (c) tertiary institutions; and (d) Technical and Further Education (TAFE) institutions, in (i) 1950; (ii) 1960; (iii) 1970; and (iv) 1980 (or 1979 if 1980 not available).
  2. What was the total number of teaching staff in: (a) primary schools; (b) secondary schools; (c) tertiary institutions; and (d) TAFE institutions, in (i) 1950; (ii) 1960; (iii) 1970; and (iv) 1980 (1979 if 1980 not available).
  3. What was the teacher/student ratio for: (a) primary schools; (b) secondary schools; (c) tertiary institutions; and (d) TAFE institutions for each State in: (i) 1970; and (ii) 1 980 ( 1 979 if 1 980 not available) .
  4. What are the projected student numbers for: (a) primary schools; (b) secondary schools; (c) tertiary institutions; and (d) TAFE institutions, for (i) 1985; and (ii) 1990.
Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (l)to(4)-

  1. School enrolment data is not available prior to 1954 nor separately for primary and secondary prior to 1962.
  2. All 1979 figures are preliminary.
  3. Numbers of teaching staff are only available for primary and secondary separately after 1973. Figures supplied represent all full-time staff plus part-time staff in equivalent full-time units. n.a.= not available.
  1. to (3) UNIVERSITIES, COLLEGES OF ADVANCED EDUCATION AND TAFE

Information has been presented below on a sectoral basis as historical data of the type sought is difficult to present in the format of the question:

University Sector

Full-time equivalent teaching-and-research academic staff, student numbers, equivalent full-time students and national student/staff ratios, 1950, 1960, 1970 and 1979.

For 1979, however, equivalent full-time students were based on weighted student units which are calculated as follows:

  1. Each subject or other unit offered by a department is weighted in terms of the proportion which that subject represents of one academic year’s work for a full-time undergraduate student; weights for subjects offered in course work higher degrees are given a double value. These weights are then applied to the number of students enrolled in each subject to determine the number of weighted student units for all subjects offered by the Department. The sum of these weighted student units represents the student load for the undergraduate and course work higher degree courses run by the department;
  2. For research higher degrees the following arbitrary weights are applied to each student:

Full-time 2

Part-time 1

External 1

  1. The sum of the weighted student units and the number of EFTS undertaking the research component of higher degrees provides the total number of EFTS for departments, faculties and the university as a whole. t Student /staff ratios are normally calculated by dividing equivalent full-time students by full-time equivalent teachingandresearch academic staff. The student/staff ratios for 1970 and 1979 are not comparable due to the different bases used for the calculation of equivalent full-time students (see footnotes (d) and (f)) . If the arbitrary weights basis used for 1 970 is applied to 1979 data the equivalent full-time student data and student /staff ratio are 142 557 and 1 2.0 respectively.

Advanced Education Sector*

The first national collection of advanced education statistics was conducted in 1969. Statistics for 1970 exclude a large number of teachers colleges which subsequently attained CAE status. For this and other reasons data for 1970 are not comparable with the data for 1979 shown below.

Full-Time Equivalent Teaching Staff, Student Numbers, and Equivalent Full-Time Students.

TAFE Sector

The first national collection of TAFE statistics was conducted in respect of the 1974 calendar year.

Enrolments (a), and full-time and part-time teaching staff 1979 (b)

  1. Enrolments in all TAFE programs streams 1 to 6.
  2. Due to the inadequacy of the TAFE data currently collected it is not possible to derive a meaningful student /teacher ratio.
  3. Preliminary.
  4. An enrolment is defined as ‘An application for a program which has been accepted by an institution’. Enrolment data represent the total number of enrolments accumulated over the teaching year and consequently contain a significant number of multiple enrolments and cannot be used as a proxy for student numbers.
  5. It is not possible to derive the total number of staff teaching TAFE programs due to the conceptual differences in the definitions of full-time and part-time teaching staff, see footnotes (f) and (g) below.
  6. Full-time staff are defined as ‘staff at 30 June who are engaged by an institution or authority on a full-time basis’.
  7. Part-time staff are defined as ‘staff who are engaged by an authority or institution on a part-time basis during the year’. Staff who are engaged on a part-time basis on more than one occasion over the teaching year are multiply counted.
  8. Excludes part-time teaching staff engaged on teaching TAFE programs at colleges of advanced education in New South Wales.

    1. Projected Student Numbers

The Tertiary Education Commission expects to complete in early 1981 its planning related to projected student numbers for each of the three sectors for the 1 982- 1 984 Triennium.

As the honourable senator will know, the Government asked the Committee of Inquiry into Education and Training (The Williams Committee) to comment on developments which might be expected in student numbers up to the year 2000. The Committee’s conclusions were outlined in Volume 1 of its Report, Chapter 3, Growth and Expenditure to 2000.

Oil Companies’ Petrol Sales: Effect (Question No. 2977)

Senator Neal:

asked the Minister representing the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs:

  1. Has Mr J. M. Greenwood, President of the Australian Automobile Association, representing ii million motorists, expressed concern that the proposal to prohibit oil companies from selling directly to the public could reduce the Australiawide availability of petrol to motorists at the most competitive prices.
  2. What steps has the Minister, taken to ensure that the best interests of consumers are served by promoting keen competition between oil companies, so that the petrol price may be reduced to the user at the pump.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Mr J. M. Greenwood, President of the Australian Automobile Association wrote to my predecessor the Honourable Wal. Fife in March 1979 and expressed concern that the prohibiting of oil companies from engaging in direct retailing could reduce competition.
  2. The Government wishes to promote free and fair competition in the petroleum retail marketing industry. It believes that the measures it has adopted for this industry will provide a more secure and fair basis for effective competition. The Government was concerned that the accelerated trend on the part of some oil companies, to move away from marketing fuel through independent service station operators, in favour of direct retailing to the public, might in the long-term have undesirable anti-competitive effects.

The Petroleum Retail Sites Bill which I introduced in the House of Representatives on 9 September does not provide for total divorcement of oil companies from retail selling but will halt the process of vertical integration in the industry and, over a period of 2 years, achieve a reduction of about 50% in the number of retail petrol stations operated by major oil companies, compared with the number operated as at 30 May 1980. This Bill together with its companion Bill, the Petroleum Retail Marketing Franchise Bill forms part of an integrated, and balanced, policy to maintain a vigorous and effective small business sector and to facilitate the long term competitiveness of the industry as a whole.

Diplomatic and Official Passports (Question No. 2978)

Senator Rae:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 19 August 1980:

Do any members of either the Commonwealth Public Service or Statutory Authorities travel overseas on:

diplomatic passports; or

official passports; if so:

what are the names of those persons;

what are the positions held by those persons; and

which type of passport does each person hold.

Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Foreign Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. and (b) Yes, they travel on one or the other, depending on the purpose of travel. Persons who are assigned to positions in Australian diplomatic missions overseas and whose names are included in the Diplomatic List of the country to which they are accredited are issued with a diplomatic passport. The spouses of these persons are also issued with a diplomatic passport.

These would account for the majority of diplomatic passports issued.

Persons who are not included in the Diplomatic List and their spouses are usually issued with an official passport.

Both diplomatic and official passports are issued to other persons travelling overseas on official business. They are issued for a specific purpose and for a specific period. The validity of these passports can vary from three months to five years.

The categories of persons to whom diplomatic and official passports may be issued are as follows:

DIPLOMATIC PASSPORTS

Part A

  1. the Governor-General
  2. the Prime Minister
  3. the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, an Australian Government Minister
  4. the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives
  5. the Chief Justice and Justices of the High Court of Australia, Chief Judge pf the Federal Court
  6. the Chief of the Defence Force Staff and the Chiefs of the Australian Naval, General and Air Staffs, when proceeding overseas on official business
  7. a First Division Officer of the Australian Public Service proceeding overseas on Official business
  8. the following Statutory Office holders:

Chairman of the Public Service Board

The Solicitor-General Director-General of Security Governor of the Reserve Bank

  1. an Ambassador, High Commissioner or other Head of a Diplomatic or Consular Mission of Australia

    1. Deleted
  2. an officer of the Australian Public Service who is the leader of a delegation on behalf of the Australian Government or its sole representative, attending an international conference or undertaking formal bilateral or multilateral negotiations
  3. a Member of Her Majesty’s Australian Diplomatic Service (not including “a member of the administrative and technical staff” or a “a member of the service staff” or “a private servant” as defined in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations)
  4. a Member of the staff of any Australian Government Department or instrumentality assigned to a diplomatic mission overseas and notified to the Receiving Country as holding a recognised diplomatic rank
  5. an Australian Government Diplomatic Courier

Part B

  1. a Governor of a State

    1. a Premier of a State
    2. a State Government Minister proceeding overseas on official business
    3. the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of a State proceeding overseas on official business
    4. a Permanent Head of a State Premier’s Department accompanying his Premier overseas on an official visit

Part C

  1. one Member of the staff of any person covered by category (i) to (iv) of Part A and (i) of Part B above, accompanying that person overseas on official business
  2. a person in respect of whom the Minister for Foreign Affairs considers that exceptional circumstances apply
  3. the spouse of a person granted a diplomatic passport provided:

    1. the spouse is an Australian citizen or possesses the status of a British subject; and
    2. the cost of the spouse’s fare to the overseas destination is to be met from Australian or State revenue.

OFFICIAL PASSPORTS

  1. Members of the Commonwealth and State Parliaments (paragraph 8.2 refers to Ministers of the Crown who are eligible for diplomatic passports); whether travelling on official business or otherwise.
  2. Chief Justices and Justices of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory within Australia and Judges of County Courts in Victoria or Courts of equivalent jurisdiction in other States; whether travelling on official business or otherwise.
  3. Other Justices, Judges and Magistrates of the Australian Government, Australian State or Territory Court (travelling on official business).
  4. Officers of Australian Government and State Government Departments; including State Agents General.
  5. Officers of the Parliament, Judiciary of Administration of a Territory of the Commonwealth. (0 Commissioned officer of the Armed Forces (paragraph 10 refers).
  6. Board members of Commissioners and Senior Officers of Australian and State Government instrumentalities; further details of instrumentalities are given below.
  7. Members and officers of Marketing Boards responsible to the Department of Agriculture provided that Department applies for the grant of official passports and:

    1. the members and officers are travelling solely on behalf of the Board;
    2. their full fare and expenses are being met from Board Funds or are being paid by the Australian Government.
  8. The senior representative of an overseas agency maintained by an Australian Marketing Board where application for the grant of an official passport is made by the Department of Agriculture.
  9. Engineers (e.g. Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation) and Scientists (C.S.I.R.O.)- travelling abroad, for study, or for developmental work in other countries arranged by the Australian Government as a form of assistance.
  10. Persons travelling on behalf of the Australian Government as technical experts under the Colombo Plan (for technical assistance to South East Asian countries) where application for the grant of an official passport is made by the Australian Development Assistance Bureau.

    1. An officer of an Australian or State Government Department or the Administration of a Territory granted any scholarship for study abroad (e.g. an Australian Government scholarship or Australian/American Education Foundation scholarship) provided that he or she is under obligation such as by bond, to return to the Government service on the expiration of the scholarship.
  11. Officials of Local Government when travelling on official business on behalf of their Council or Municipality.
  12. Wives of:

    1. Members of the Australian Parliament and State Parliament and members of the Judiciary referred to in (b) above, who are accompanying their husbands abroad whether or not they are travelling at Government expense; and
    2. other persons granted official passports provided that:
    1. the cost of their fares is being met from Government revenue; or
    2. that the Minister considers the issue of an official passport to be otherwise warranted in view of special circumstances. (Wives must of course be Australian citizens or possess the status of a British subject).
  13. (ii) and (iii) As at I July 1980 there were 1301 valid diplomatic and S703 valid official passports on issue. I hope the honourable senator will appreciate that numbers preclude my giving details of the names of the holders.

My Department does not maintain an index of the position held by each holder of a diplomatic or an official passport. This information would be of very limited value and would not justify the staffing resources that would be involved in maintaining such an index. Unless there is a demonstrated and essential need for the information requested by the honourable senator, I would not be prepared to authorise the use of the extensive resources that would be required to extract it from the 7004 applications involved. There is also, of course, a question of privacy involved.

Fill Aircraft (Question No. 2990)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 20 August 1980:

  1. How many Royal Australian Air Force Fill aircraft are stationed at the Royal Australian Air Force base at Amberley.
  2. Are any Royal Australian Air Force Fill aircraft stationed elsewhere.
  3. Are all the aircraft in (1) and (2) fully operational; if not: (a) how many are not fully operational, (b) for how long have these aircraft been out of operation; and (c) for what reasons are they non-operational.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Twenty
  2. No
  3. Yes. However, Fill aircraft like other aircraft require periodic servicings and modifications which mean that at any time some aircraft will not be available.

Disability Pension for Veterans: Wife’s Allowances (Question No. 2994)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 19 August 1980:

  1. What are the current wife’s allowances which correspond to different percentage disability pensions for veterans.
  2. When were wife’s allowances last increased.
  3. ls it expected that any increase will be made in the near future.
Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. The current weekly rates of dependants’ allowance, which is paid to wives of veterans in receipt of disability pension, are:
  1. Dependants’ allowance payable in respect of wives was last increased in September 1964.
  2. No. Dependants’ allowances have not been increased because successive Governments have concentrated available finance on ensuring that incapacitated veterans and war widows are adequately compensated in terms of pension and have the best possible medical treatment facilities available to them. In this way, the whole family receives the benefit of increased pensions and allowances and the primary purpose of Repatriation pensions, as compensation for service-related disabilities, is achieved.

Isolated Patients Travel and Accommodation Assistance Scheme (Question No. 3009)

Senator Chipp:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 20 August 1980:

Will the Minister consider extending eligibility for the Isolated Patients Travel and Accommodation Assistance Scheme to persons who, although resident within a metropolitan area, can demonstrate a need to travel to another city for essential specialist medical treatment which is not available in the city where they live.

Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Isolated Patients’ Travel and Accommodation Assistance Scheme (IPTAAS) was developed to assist people living in remote areas who, following referral by a medical practitioner, are required to travel at least 200 kilometres for treatment by the nearest suitable specialist. It was not designed to assist people living in major metropolitan areas who have already access to specialists in each of the major specialties listed by the National Specialist Qualifications Advisory Committee.

Plant Variety Rights (Question No. 3012)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science and the Environment, upon notice, on 20 August 1980:

  1. Is it proposed that plant varieties developed by staff members and/or other persons directly or indirectly funded by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) be registered under the Plant Variety Rights Act when it becomes law; if so, to whom will ownership rights apply.
  2. Are there any circumstances in which individual staff members will be entitled to apply for plant variety rights either during or immediately after their employment by the CSIRO.
  3. What conditions, if any, are proposed to apply to the private ownership of such rights by staff members and to the transfer of ownership of such rights.
Senator Chaney:
LP

– The Minister for Science and the Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. CSIRO policy about the use of plant variety rights has not been developed explicitly. However, it is clear that a new plant variety is ‘a discovery, invention or improvement’ within the meaning of Section 54 ( 1 ) of the Science and Industry Research Act (1949). It is also clear that plant variety rights will be registered and used by the Organization in the same way as patent rights to foster innovation, encourage use within Australia and, where appropriate, to earn royalties. As with patent rights, ownership will reside with CSIRO.
  2. As with inventions, individual CSIRO staff members who develop new varieties will be entitled to apply for plant variety rights in their own names if the new varieties were not developed in the course of, or in connection with, their official duties.
  3. It is likely that the same conditions will apply to the ownership and transfer of plant variety rights as apply to patent rights: rights owned by the Organization will be used in accordance with the policy indicated under (1); rights owned by individual staff members under (2) above will not be subject to any conditions imposed by CSIRO.

Plant Variety Rights (Question No. 3013)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science and the Environment, upon notice, on 20 August 1980:

  1. Will any income derived by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization as a result of ownership under the proposed Plant Variety Rights Act of rights to plant varieties developed by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization be taken into account when future levels of funding are decided upon by the Commonwealth.
  2. Will the Minister give a guarantee that the real level of Commonwealth funds provided for plant breeding by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization will not be reduced following the introduction of the Plant Variety Rights Act.
Senator Chaney:
LP

– The Minister for Science and the Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) In determining the Organization’s budgetary allocation in any particular financial year consideration is given to any income expected to be earned by CSIRO, including income from patent licensing. It is most likely that any income from plant variety licensing will be treated in the same way.
  2. The real level of funding for plant breeding work must be considered by the Executive of CSIRO within the overall context of funds availability and research priorities from time to time. It is therefore not possible to give a guarantee in the terms proposed by the honourable Senator. However, it is CSIRO’s intention to maintain an active program in plant genetics, breeding and selection and an undertaking can be given that the real level of work in this field will not be reduced as a result of the introduction of a Plant Variety Rights Act.

Market Research by Australian Dairy Corporation (Question No. 3018)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice on 20 August 1980:

Does the Australian Dairy Corporation undertake market research to determine consumer requirements and preferences; if so, (a) is this conducted in association with promotional campaigns, or are promotional campaigns undertaken without such information; (b) are results obtained on a regional basis, or is a national aggregate result considered adequate; and (c) how often are such surveys undertaken; if not, why not.

Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (a), (b) and (c) The Australian Dairy Corporation does conduct market research in association with its promotional campaigns and the results are obtained on both a regional and national basis. These surveys are undertaken as often as required by the Corporation to obtain relevant information on consumer attitudes and preferences. 1 believe the questions raised by the honourable senator require a detailed answer and in this regard the Minister for Primary Industry has supplied me with a comprehensive report on the promotional and advertising activities conducted by the Australian Dairy Corporation and the role of market research into those activities. I have passed a copy of this report to the honourable senator.

Special Benefit (Question No. 3037)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 1 9 August 1980:

How many persons permanently incapacitated for work and eligible for the invalid pension are receiving special benefit.

Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

A person permanently incapacitated for work and eligible for invalid pension would, generally, receive an invalid pension but provision to pay special benefit has been made for those cases where such persons refuse to accept invalid pension.

Separate statistics for this category of persons are not separately kept at present but the number of such persons would be small. In the new ADP payment system currently in the process of introduction for unemployment, sickness and special benefit recipients (NBS) all such persons will be separately identified.

Invalid Pension (Question No. 3038)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 August 1980:

Can an applicant for invalid pension, under the present provisions, appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal following rejection of a recommendation of a Commonwealth Medical Officer by the Director-General of Social Security.

Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

Social security claimants have a right of appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal where the case has been heard by a Social Security Appeals Tribunal and where the Director-General or his delegate has declined to accept the recommendation of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal.

From 9 September 1980, the jurisdiction of Social Security Appeals Tribunals was expanded to include appeals on medical matters. Accordingly, from that date, an appeal will be possible to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal where the Director-General does not accept the recommendation of a Social Security Appeals Tribunal on such a matter.

It is also proposed to amend the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Social Services Act) Regulations so as to expand the jurisdiction of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to review all decisions of the Director-General, regardless of whether or not he accepts or rejects a recommendation of a Social Security Appeals Tribunal. It is also proposed to empower the Director-General to certify that, in certain special cases of general significance, an appeal may be lodged directly with the Administrative Appeal Tribunal without the need for a preceding hearing by a Social Security Appeals Tribunal.

Disability or Invalid Pensions (Question No. 3039)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 August 1980:

Will the Minister, in light of answer to Question on Notice 1309 (see Senate Hansard, page 2404 dated 30 May 1979), provide details in respect of disability or invalid pensions in: (a) Britain, (b) France, (c) Germany, (d) Canada, (e) Norway, (f) Sweden.

Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s questions is as follows:

Details of the number of Australian invalid pensions being paid in the following countries were, at 6 June 1 980:

These figures exclude invalid pensioners residing overseas who continue to have their pensions paid to bank accounts in Australia. They also exclude the number of pensions being paid to people who had departed for overseas but had not yet commenced to receive payment from overseas paying offices.

Government Funded Pre-Schools (Question No. 3040)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 August 1980:

  1. How many government-funded pre-schools give afterhours child care facilities or other child care support services to community groups outside the pre-school.
  2. What proportion of goverment-funded pre-schools give such support.
  3. What powers does the Government have to require government funded pre-schools to allow other children’s activities and support services to be carried on on their premises.
Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

  1. and (2) The information requested is not currently available. However, officers of the Department of Social Security and other relevant Commonwealth, State and Territory Departments have been co-operating since 1977 on the development of an annual census of pre-school and child care services throughout Australia.

All States and Territories except Queensland will be participating in the first collection of data which is proposed for later this year.

  1. ‘Block grant’ funding to States for pre-schools is provided under certain broad preconditions. These are: that pre-school facilities be available at no cost to the Commonwealth for extended use by the community; and that preference in access to services be given to children of low income families and to children from special need groups such as isolated children, migrant children, handicapped children and children of one parent families.

States are required to provide broad information and statistics on the use of block grant monies and the extent to which these conditions are being met.

International Year of Disabled Persons (Question No. 3043)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 August 1980:

Has any specific amount been allocated for projects under the International Year of Disabled Persons, apart from the $400,000 announced as going to the States for disabled children.

Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

Projects requiring funding will be considered within the normal budgetary process or by giving higher priority to the needs of disabled people in existing program allocations.

Alleged Social Security Frauds (Question No. 3052)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 20 August 1 980:

  1. Did any officers of the Department of Administrative Services go to Athens in connection with the alleged social security ‘conspiracy’ case.
  2. What were: (a) their names; (b) their public service designations; and (c) the dates of their time in Greece.
  3. What was the cost involved in sending these officers to Greece.
Senator Chaney:
LP

– The Minister for Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. No.
  2. and (3) See (1) above.

Commonwealth Rehabilitation Training Scheme Centres (Question No. 3053)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 August 1980:

  1. 1 ) What is the waiting list for each of the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Training Scheme centres (C.R.T.S.).
  2. How many of those on the waiting list are invalid pensioners.
  3. What unused capacity is there at any C.R.T.S. centre; if any, what is the reason for unused capacity.
Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

  1. 1 ) The table below sets out the numbers of people awaiting admission to Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service (C.R.S.) centres at 30 June 1980:
  1. Approximately 72 invalid pensioners were on the waiting list as at 30 June 1 980.
  2. There was no unused capacity in C.R.S. treatment and/or training centres throughout Australia for the 6 month period ending 30 June 1980.

Spouse Allowance (Question No. 3074)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 1 9 August 1980:

  1. 1 ) What is the maximum amount of spouse allowance payable to a person receiving tertiary education assistance.
  2. What level of income from employment may be received by the spouse before the allowance is withdrawn.
  3. What level of social security benefit may be received by the spouse before the allowance is withdrawn.
  4. Is there a difference between the amount which may be earned and the amount of benefit which may be received; if so, what is the reason for that difference.
Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. $31.40 a week. This will increase to $42.70 a week in 1981.
  2. $10 a week.
  3. Nil, except for family allowance.
  4. Prior to 1980 spouse allowance was not payable in any week in which the spouse received any income by way of employment or Social Security benefits (apart from family allowance). It was decided to relax the requirement in relation to income from employment for 1980 to enable the couple to benefit from a small amount of casual employment undertaken by the spouse, but not to widen the scope of assistance to the extent of permitting a student to receive the spouse allowance at the same time as the spouse was receiving some assistance under welfare programs. Both the spouse allowance under TEAS and the various welfare benefits are intended to provide a basic level of support. It is not intended as a general rule that people should receive assistance under two programs with the purpose of providing basic support.

Department of Social Security: Prosecutions (Question No. 3078)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 August 1980:

  1. How many prosecutions did the Department of Social Security initiate against social security beneficiaries in 1979 in each State and Territory and in Australia as a whole.
  2. For each State and Territory and for Australia as a whole, how many prosecutions were:

    1. resolved in court in favour of the defendant;
    2. resolved in court in favour of the Department of Social Security; and
    3. resolved out of court.
Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s queston is as follows:

  1. 1 ) and (2) The table below shows information available on prosecutions under the Social Services Act in the calendar year 1979.

Australian Government Rehabilitation Service (Question No. 3091)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 August 1980:

  1. 1 ) How many 1 4 and 1 5 year old young people undergoing rehabilitation treatment through the Australian Government Rehabilitation Service are paid special benefit of (a) $36 a week; (b) $10 a week; and (c) other amounts.
  2. How many receive other allowances; if so, what, and to what value.
Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

  1. 1 ) and (2) As at 21 August, 1 980:

    1. One (1) person in the 14 to 15 year old age range undergoing rehabilitation treatment was being paid special benefit of $36 per week.
    2. Twelve (12) 14 to 15 year old young people were being paid special benefit of $ 1 0 per week.
    3. One (1) person in the 14 to 15 year old age range undergoing rehabilitation treatment was being paid special benefit of $32.50 per week after income test.

No-one in the 14 to 15 year old age group was receiving other allowances in respect of CRS assistance.

Overseas Aid (Question No. 3103)

Senator Keeffe:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 21 August 1980:

What assistance in terms of cash, food or other help is being given to: (a) Vietnam; (b) Nepal; and (c) countries in the Carribbean region, by the Australian Government to alleviate the social problems in those countries caused by recent and continuing disasters.

Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Foreign Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

I refer the honourable senator to the reply of 26 August 1980 to his question without notice on this subject. The reply appears at page 32 1 of the Senate Daily Hansard.

Commonwealth Land Purchase (Question No. 3111)

Senator Mulvihill:

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

  1. When did the Commonwealth Government purchase the H acre site bounded by Hay, Pitt, Barlow and Parker Streets in Sydney and at what price.
  2. From whom was the land purchased and has the previous owner been paid.
  3. What plans has the Government for the use of the site.
Senator Chaney:
LP

– The Minister for Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) The purchase by the Commonwealth of the 1 i acre site bounded by Hay, Pitt, Barlow and Parker Streets, Sydney, was settled on 25 June 1975. The purchase was S6.7m.
  2. The land was purchased from the Australian Gaslight Company which has been paid.
  3. The site was purchased for Commonwealth Offices. At the present time it is one of several sites that are being considered in the formation of an overall office accommodation strategy for Sydney.

Fuel Supplies to Services (Question No. 31 19)

Senator Kilgariff:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 27 August 1980:

Are members of the Storemen and Packers’ Union employed by the Department of Defence able to prevent necessary fuel being supplied to the Royal Australian Air Force to meet its aircraft commitments and to the Army and the Navy to enable planned movements to be carried out; if so, will the Government take the appropriate action to ensure that these tactics will not succeed in jeopardising the movement of defence services.

Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minster for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The planned commitments and movements of the three Services were not unduly affected by the actions of the Storemen and Packers’ Union.

The dispute was carefully monitored to ensure that necessary measures were available to enable the Services to perform scheduled commitments as they arose.

Social Welfare: Applicants for Benefits (Question No. 3122)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 26 August 1980:

Are claimants for (a) age pension; (b) invalid pension; (c) sickness benefit; and (d) unemployment benefit required to have their spouses, if any, accompany them to interview at offices of the Department; if not, and if it is only the beneficiaries who are required to be accompanied by their spouses, what is the reason for this apparent discrimination.

Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

The departmental procedure is that claimants for age and invalid pensions are requested to attend for interview and are advised that if married and living with their spouse, both should attend, even if only one is applying for a pension. However, if for any reason either is unable to attend for the interview, arrangements are made, where practicable, to interview at home.

Claimants for sickness and unemployment benefit are also requested to attend the office for an interview, but a spouse is not asked to attend in every case.

Social Welfare: Special Benefit (Question No. 3127)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 26 August 1980:

How many people in the following categories are currently being paid special benefit:

Person over the statutory age limit for unemployment of sickness benefit;

person under the minimum age for unemployment or sickness benefit;

person aged 14 or 1 5 undergoing rehabilitation;

dependants of persons on remand;

person remanded in custody;

persons newly discharged from gaol;

7) migrant in hostel or accommodation centre;

refugee;

person employed in sheltered workshop;

married woman temporarily left without support;

maternity case;

person confined as infectious disease contact;

person in need;

person voluntarily unemployed;

claimant for pension or supporting parent’s benefit experiencing hardship and determination likely to be delayed;

person who has been certified permanently incapaciated for work but refuses to accept invalid pension;

single parent or near relative obliged to cease work to care for child;

male caring for sick wife or de facto wife;

female caring for sick husband or de facto husband;

supporting parent;

person in immediate hardship during the waiting period for unemployment benefit;

person admitted to Australia under a maintenance guarantee;

person ineligible for pension or benefit through lack of residence;

24) person caring for invalid/near relative;

person caring Tor household and child where child is orphaned or otherwise deprived of his parents’ care and support;

person providing necessary companionship in an emergency;

daughter or son caring for sole parent and young brother or sister;

victims of natural disasters;

former students;

special or unusual case; and

spouse of person on strike.

Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

Information in the precise form sought is not available.

The latest information for Australia on the number of special benefit recipients by category is at 28 December 1979 and is shown in the following table.

  1. Excludes (i) persons ineligible for widow’s pension or supporting parent’s benefit through lack of residence, (ii) maintenance guarantee cases, (iii) claimant for pension or supporting parent’s benefit experiencing hardship and determination likely to be delayed.
  2. This statistical category was introduced in September 1978. Any cases granted prior to them and still current at 28 December 1 979 are included in ‘other cases’.

Malaria (Question No. 3139)

Senator Neal:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 28 August 1980:

  1. Has the attention of the Minister been drawn to a number of newspaper articles in recent months concerning the sharp increase in malaria cases within Australia and reporting that a minimum of 470 cases of malaria had been diagnosed in 1979.
  2. Is the Minister satisfied that the quarantine provisions are adequate.
  3. Are the drugs currently used to treat this disease developing resistance problems.
Senator Guilfoyle:
Minister for Social Security · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Yes. In fact it is my Department which, through the Commonwealth Institute of Health, collects information on the number of cases of malaria in Australia, and maintains a central register at the Institute.

I would point out that endemic malaria was eradicated from the Australian mainland through the efforts of my Department in 1962 and that monitoring and surveillance activities have been maintained ever since.

  1. Quarantine provisions are not applicable to a disease such as malaria which is not included in the list of diseases internationally regarded as being subject to Quarantine measures.

However, I draw the honourable senator’s attention to my announcement following the Treasurer’s Budget Speech that the Government is to establish a malaria monitoring and control station in the Torres Strait Islands, that is, in the vulnerable area of this country. The activities of this station and other measures directed specifically towards the prevention of the reintroduction of malaria to this country are the appropriate means of protecting Australians from malaria which is again becoming a major public health problem in many areas of the world.

  1. The drugs which for many years were the standard methods of protection and treatment have encountered resistance problems, but new drugs are now available which provide satisfactory alternatives.

Aborigines (Question No. 3147)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 9 September 1980:

What action has been taken by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs to encourage Aboriginals to place their names on Commonwealth or State electoral rolls.

Senator Chaney:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

Section 42 (5) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 gives Aboriginal people the right to choose whether or not they enrol as electors. This right is one which is to be exercised freely and indeed it is an offence against the electoral law to interfere or attempt to interfere with the free exercise by an Aboriginal of his or her choice whether or not to enrol.

The Electoral Office is currently conducting an electoral education program, which was developed with my Department, in tradition-oriented Aboriginal communities and rural towns in Western Australia, South Australia and the Northern Territory. The electoral education program will be extended to other places as resources become available.

Burdekin Dam (Question No. 3150)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science and the Environment, upon notice, on 9 September 1980:

Has the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) completed a study of the ecology of the Burdekin Dam project area; if so, has a report been completed and when will the report be tabled in the Parliament.

Senator Chaney:
LP

– The Minister for Science and the Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

In collaboration with the Department of National Development and Energy, a study of the ecology of the Burdekin Dam Project area was completed by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization in August 1980. The report was tabled in the Parliament on 17 September 1980 by the Minister for National Development and Energy.

Mr M. C. Timbs (Question No. 3152)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 10 September 1980:

Has Mr M. C. Timbs ever been employed by the Iwasaki group of Companies; if so, on what date did he resign, (see answer to Senate Question No. 3100, Senate Hansard, page 666, dated 9 September 1980).

Senator Chaney:
LP

– The Minister for Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Mr Timbs has advised me that he never has been employed by the Iwasaki group of companies.

European Community: Links with South Pacific Forum Members (Question No. 3171)

Senator Evans:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 9 September 1980:

Which members of the South Pacific Forum have concluded or are negotiating agreements with the European Communities and what is the nature of those agreements.

Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Foreign Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Of the thirteen members of the South Pacific Forum, seven - Fiji, Kiribati, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu and Western Samoa- are signatories of the Lome II Convention; and, the Cook Islands are shortly to commence negotiations to accede to the Convention. (For details of the benefits accruing to Pacific members of Lome II please see the Answer given to Question 2771, Hansard 10 September, p. 748).

Although there are no formal agreements governing the overall conduct of relations between the Communities and Australia and New Zealand, these Forum countries have for some time conducted a range of continuing negotiations with the Communities most notably in the trade area.

Allocation for Specialised Equipment to Hospitals (Question No. 3173)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 9 September 1980:

  1. What was the total allocation in the financial year 1980-81 for major specialised equipment to hospitals under the control of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs.
  2. What was the allocation in the financial year 1980-81 for major specialised equipment to hospitals under the control of the Queensland Branch of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs.
Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. SI, 820,000. (2) $318,000

Electoral System: Alterations (Question No. 3180)

Senator Mason:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 1 1 September 1980:

  1. ) Will some 18.5 tons of paper be used this year for the printing of at least 25 million how-to-vote cards for the forthcoming Federal election.
  2. Could the waste of resources, pollution, effort and the annoyance caused to the public at large by this system be avoided simply by providing that Party how-to-vote cards may be exhibited in polling booths and party names on ballot papers, as is the case in many other countries.
  3. Does the Government intend to avoid this waste and pollution throughout the nation by making the necessary simple alterations to the electoral system.
Senator Chaney:
LP

– The Minister for Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1), (2) and (3) The Government is not aware that the present system whereby candidates and their representatives hand out how-to-vote cards to electors on polling day is a cause of annoyance to electors, let alone the public at large.

In matters of electoral administration the Government’s main objective is to ensure, as far as possible, that the free choice of electors is maintained.

In this regard the suggestion that how-to-vote cards be displayed in polling booths raises a number of practical difficulties.

At the moment the printed material which confronts an elector in a polling booth is kept to a minimum and apart from the ballot paper the only official material presented there will be the poster ‘How to Mark Your Ballot Paper’. From studies which have been made by the Australian Electoral Office it is clear that, in the main, informal voting stems from lack of numeracy or mistakes with numbering. In this regard it is most important to ensure that prominence is given to the procedure for marking a ballot paper.

On the other hand, were how-to-vote cards to be displayed in polling booths an elector could be confronted with what can only be described as a clutter of material. In 1974, for example, eighteen groups of candidates and sixteen ungrouped candidates contested the Senate election in New South Wales. Provision would need to have been made, therefore, for the display within the confines of each polling booth, of thirty-four separate Senate how-to-vote cards in addition to those for the House of Representatives candidates in the Division. In such circumstances, the display of how-to-vote cards would seem likely to confuse electors.

There is also the question of fairness- the difficulty, for example, in arranging cards in a booth to ensure that no one party or candidate received an unfair advantage either by way of placement or size.

The placing of how-to-vote cards in polling booths would also invite the possibility of their being marked or mutilated and thus place a further burden of surveillance on polling officials.

The suggestion that party affiliations of candidates be shown on ballot papers, raises far greater and more complex issues. Problems relating to party identification, the verification of party affiliation and the maintenance of party alignment by a successful candidate, would need to be carefully considered not only by the Government but by all political parties. Very detailed procedures would be needed to give effect to any proposal along these lines.

Statutory Authorities: Retention of Private Firms of Solicitors (Question No. 3199)

Senator Evans:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 15 September 1980:

  1. 1 ) Do any of the following statutory authorities mentioned in the First Report of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations on Statutory Authorities of the Commonwealth retain private firms of solicitors in Australia: Category 3A- Commonwealth Employment Service.
  2. If so, for each such authority: (a) which firms are retained; and (b) how much was paid to each such firm in the years 1970-79 for: (i) retainer, (ii) fees (exclusive of disbursements); and (iii) disbursements for legal professional work.
  3. What criteria are applied in determining whether the Commonwealth Crown Solicitor or private firms of solicitors act for such authorities.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. No.
  2. See(l)
  3. See(l)

Statutory Authorities: Retention of Private Firms of Solicitors (Question No. 3213)

Senator Evans:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science and the Environment, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Do any of the following statutory authorities mentioned in the First Report of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations on Statutory Authorities of the Commonwealth retain private firms of solicitors in Australia: Category 3A- Bureau of Meteorology; Metric Conversion Board; National Parks and Wildlife Service; Supervising Scientist for the Alligator Rivers Region. 3B - National Standards Commission. 3C - Science and Industry Endowment Fund. 3D - Anglo-Australian Telescope Board; Australian Institute of Marine Science; Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization. 3E - Environment Protection Commissioners; Great Barrier Reef Authority.
  2. If so, for each such authority; (a) which firms are retained; and (b) how much was paid to each such firm in the years 1970-1979 for: (i) retainer; (ii) fees (exclusive of disbursement); and (iii) disbursements for legal professional work.
  3. What criteria are implied in determining whether the Commonwealth Crown Solicitor or private firms of solicitors act for such authorities.
Senator Chaney:
LP

– The Minister for Science and the Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

No private firms of solicitors are retained by statutory authorities within my portfolio .

Beef Incentive Payments Scheme (Question No. 2539)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 6 March 1980:

Did the Minister for Industrial Relations or any company of which he is a director or a shareholder receive any payments under the Beef Incentive Payments Scheme; if so:

on what dates were payments made;

what amounts were involved; and

to what person or persons were the payments made.

Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Minister for Industrial Relations did not receive any payments for the operation of his property under the Beef Industry Incentive Payments Scheme. My department has no knowledge of any company of which the Minister is a director or a shareholder and is therefore unable to provide answers to those parts of the honourable senator’s question.

Beef Incentive Payments Scheme (Question No. 2540)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 6 March 1980:

Did the Minister for Trade and Resources or any company of which he is a director or a shareholder receive any payments under the Beef Incentive Payments Scheme; if so:

on what dates were payments made;

what amounts were involved; and

to what person or persons were the payments made.

Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Minister for Trade and Resources did not receive any payments for the operation of his property under the Beef Industry Incentive Payments Scheme. My department has no knowledge of any company of which the Minister is a director or a shareholder and is therefore unable to provide answers to those parts of the honourable senator’s question.

Beef Incentive Payments Scheme (Question No. 2541)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 6 March 1980:

Did the Minister for Transport or any company of which he is a director or a shareholder receive any payments under the Beef Incentive Payments Scheme; if so:

on what dates were payments made;

what amounts were involved; and

to what person or persons were the payments made.

Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Minister for Transport did not receive any payments for the operation of his property under the Beef Industry Incentive Payments Scheme. My department has no knowledge of any company of which the Minister is a director or a shareholder and is therefore unable to provide answers to those parts of the honourable senator’s question.

Beef Incentive Payments Scheme (Question No. 2542)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 6 March 1980:

Did the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs or any company of which he is a director or a shareholder receive any payments under the Beef Incentive Payments Scheme; if so:

on what dates were payments made;

what amounts were involved; and

to what person or persons were the payments made.

Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs did not receive any payments for the operation of his property under the Beef Industry Incentive Payments Scheme. My department has no knowledge of any company of which the Minister is a director or a shareholder and is therefore unable to provide answers to those parts of the honourable senator’s question.

Beef Incentive Payments Scheme (Question No. 2543)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 6 March 1980:

Did the Minister for Special Trade Representations or any company of which he is a director or a shareholder receive any payments under the Beef Incentive Payments Scheme; if so:

on what dates were payments made;

what amounts were involved; and

to what person or persons were the payments made.

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE:
VICTORIA · LP

– The

Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

A payment was made under the Beef Industry Incentive Payments Scheme to a partnership of which Senator D. B. Scott was a member. At the time the question was posed Senator Scott was Minister for Special Trade Representations having been appointed to that portfolio on 8 December 1979. However the payment was made on 9 February 1978 before Senator Scott assumed any ministerial responsibility.

Beef Incentive Payments Scheme (Question No. 2544)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 6 March 1980:

Did the Minister for Primary Industry or any company of which he is a director or a shareholder receive any payments under the Beef Incentive Payments Scheme; if so:

on what dates were payments made;

what amounts were involved; and

to what person or persons were the payments made.

Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Minister for Primary Industry did not receive any payments for the operation of his property under the Beef Industry Insentive Payments Scheme. No payments were received under the scheme by any company of which the Minister is a director or a shareholder.

Beef Incentive Payments Scheme (Question No. 2545)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 6 March 1980:

Did the Prime Minister or any company of which he is a director or a shareholder receive any payments under the Beef Incentive Payments Scheme; if so:

on what dates were payments made;

what amounts were involved; and

to what person or persons were the payments made.

Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Prime Minister did not receive any payments for the operation of his property under the Beef Industry Incentive Payments Scheme. My department has no knowledge of any company of which the Prime Minister is a director or a shareholder and is therefore unable to provide answers to those parts of the honourable senator’s question.

Hexachlorophane (Question No. 2758)

Senator Mason:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 29 April 1980:

Which preparatory soaps, cosmetics, shampoos or medicaments sold in Australia contain hexachlorophane, and in what proportions.

Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Commonwealth has no legislative control over the sale and compositions of products such as cosmetics, soaps and shampoos. Legislative powers to control such products are vested with the States and Territories under their respective Poisons Acts, Cosmetics Acts or Food and Drug Acts.

The National Health and Medical Research Council has recommended that hexachlorophane in preparations other than for use on infants and containing 0.1 per cent or less as a preservative be exempt from restrictions. It has recommended restrictions on preparations for use on infants or containing higher concentrations, Council recommendations of this nature are usually incorporated into State and Territory legislation in due course and in practice are often adopted voluntarily by manufacturers in the meantime.

Following the honourable senator’s question industry associations were approached to assist in providing the information requested. Replies received indicate that hexachlorophane is no longer used to any extent in cosmetics, soaps and toilet preparations. Some of these products may contain hexachlorophane to a maximum level of 0.1 per cent but these incidents would be isolated because hexachlorophane is not a particularly effective preservative. Any such products would, in accordance with National Health and Medical Research Council recommendations, be available without restriction.

In relation to medicaments, the Therapeutic Goods Act enables the Commonwealth to exercise control only over therapeutic products imported into Australia; proposed to be exported from Australia; having been, being, or proposed to be, the subject of trade or commerce among the States; having been supplied as a pharmaceutical benefit under a law of the Commonwealth relating to the provision of pharmaceutical benefits; or having been supplied to the Commonwealth or to an authority of the Commonwealth or a Territory of the Commonwealth. There is currently no register of such products but the honourable senator may be interested to know that my Department, with the assistance and co-operation of pharmaceutical manufacturers, is endeavouring to establish a National Product Register of pharmaceuticals which will record the ingredients of all pharmaceutical products sold in Australia. To develop such a register will require amendments of the Therapeutic Goods Act and it is not expected that the Register will be completed for some time.

It has been ascertained from industry associations which medicaments and preparatory soaps currently on the Australian market include hexachlorophane in their formulations. These, with their hexachloraphane concentrations and manufacturers, are:

Acnederm (Ego) 0.1 per cent

Isophyl (Ego) 0. 1 per cent

Mediquick (Sterling) 0.1 percent pHisoDan (Sterling) 3 per cent pHisoHex (Sterling) 3 per cent *Schericur (Schering) 2.5 per cent *Scheriproct (Schering) 0.5 percent

Steriskin (G. P. Labs) 3 per cent

Steri-Dex Foam (Sterling) 2.67 per cent

Steri-Dex Hide and Heal Stick (Sterling) 0.1 per cent

Ultraproct (Schering) 0.1 percent

Those products marked with an asterisk are available on medical prescription only. Those which contain 0.1 per cent hexachlorophane as a bacteriostat and those with higher concentrations, are available for over the counter sale when labelled to indicate that they are to be used for washing purposes, and not for use on infants.

British National Health Service: Commonwealth Nationals (Question No. 2982)

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 19 August 1980:

Has the British Government had any discussion with the Australian High Commissioner in London regarding the existing privileges and coverage accorded Commonwealth nationals under the British National Health Service and the possible cessation of such benefits.

Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Under the United Kingdom National Health Service, all emergency medical care is now provided free of charge to any non-UK national who suffers an acute illness or accident whilst in the UK as a visitor. This includes Australian residents visiting the UK.

I have been advised that the UK Government has not yet announced proposals to charge foreign visitors for such treatment, and that any proposal of this kind that may be developed, would not apply to visitors to the UK from countries with whom the UK has reciprocal, health care agreements. Although Australia does not yet have an agreement with the UK, discussion on this matter is currently being undertaken.

As I understand it, this matter has not been discussed between the UK Government and the Australian High Commissioner in London.

Overseas Visits by Australian Residents (Question No. 3004)

Senator Chipp:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 20 August 1980:

  1. 1 ) How many Australian residents left Australia for overseas visits in the year 1979-80, including holidays, business trips, conventions and family visits;
  2. what was the total amount spent outside Australia by these people;
  3. how much was spent by the Australian Tourist Commission: (a) overseas; and (b) within Australia, in 1979-80 on promoting travel and tourism to and within Australia.
Senator Chaney:
LP

– The Minister for Industry and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Estimates of overseas short-term departures by Australian residents are not yet available for the full year 1979-80. However, in the eleven months July 1979-May 1980; and estimated 1,096,500 Australian residents visited overseas destinations.
  2. Figures provided by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) indicate that $527m was spent by Australian residents undertaking short-term overseas visits in 1979-80. This figure does not include the cost of international air fares. The ABS cautions that due to data source inadequacies this figure is probably significantly below the true level of expenditure.
  3. In 1979-80 the sum of $8. 2m was appropriated to the Australian Tourist Commission. Of this amount $8m was spent on activities aimed at encouraging overseas visitors to travel to and within Australia and $200,000 was expended on a domestic tourism promotion campaign.

Child Accident Prevention Foundation (Question No. 3036)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 August 1980:

What findings or results have been given to the Government by the Child Accident Prevention Foundation since the Government funded it in 1979.

Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

The Child Accident Prevention Foundation is not required to provide the Government with details of its findings or results. However, earlier in the year, it did forward copies of the minutes of its first Annual General Meeting, the President’s annual report and the formal directors’ report including financial statements.

The Government has of course an ongoing interest in the activities of the Foundation and its interests are represented by the Ministerial nominee, the Hon. CLD, Meares, C.M.G., Q.C., who is the Vice-President of the Board of Directors, and a member of the Executive Committee of the Board of the Foundation. In addition, the Director, Office of Child Care is a member of the Operations Planning Committee of the foundation.

International Year of the Disabled Persons Secretariat (Question No. 3044)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 August 1980:

  1. 1 ) How many disabled persons are employed in the International Year of the Disabled Persons Secretariat.
  2. How many persons are employed in the IYDP Secretariat, and what are their public service designations and salaries.
Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

  1. and (2) Nine people are currently employed in the International Year of the Disabled Persons Unit. Details are as follows:

No member of the staff has reported that he or she suffers from any significant disability.

National Trachoma and Eye Health Program (Question No. 3064)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 1 9 August 1 980:

  1. Will Aboriginal people whose mental and physical disabilities resulting from shocking environmental and living condition were detailed in the National Trachoma and Eye Health Program report, be given special attention by the government during the International Year of Disabled Persons.
  2. Will they be eligible to apply for grants if there is no planned government program.
Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

  1. The Council of Commonwealth, State and Territory Ministers responsible for co-ordinating IYDP activities in Australia is expected to discuss the special needs of disabled Aboriginals in the near future. I will be working in close cooperation with my colleague the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in this regard and it is envisaged that a major emphasis will be on education and prevention of disability.
  2. Yes.

Ethanol (Question No. 3107)

Senator MacGibbon:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 27 August 1 980:

  1. 1 ) How many applications have been:

    1. received from;
    2. approved in; and
    3. rejected in each of the States and Territories in relation to experimenter’s licences for fuel ethanol production.
  2. Which companies, organisations, institutions or individuals have been granted experimenter’s licences for fuel ethanol production.

Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs has provided the following answers to the honourable senator’s question: (l)-

  1. Licences have been issued as follows:

Apace Research Pty Ltd., Milthorpe, N.S.W.

  1. V. Hayden, Bucasia, Queensland.
  2. C. and D. R. Norgaard, Oakey, Queensland.
  3. F. Brooks, Yepoon Queensland.

Tento Sugar Estates, Halifax, Queensland.

Burdekin Power Alcohol and Chemical Co., Ayr, Queensland.

  1. R. Lucas, Home Hill, Queensland.

Capricornia Institute of Advanced Education, Rockhampton, Queensland.

  1. Gilbert, Toowoomba, Queensland.
  2. J. Chew & L. C. Jolliffe, Mt Glorious, Queensland.
  3. Payne & Co., Welshpool, Western Australia
  4. Norman, Sandy Bay, Tasmania.
  5. K. and D. Kingston, Smithton, Tasmania.

Note: A number of successful applicants have not yet been actually issued with a licence. This is due to the fact that they have not yet obtained a still or are awaiting the result of feedstock plantings. Both factors involve a considerable time delay and as an annual licence fee is involved, issue of licences will be delayed until the need arises.

Experiments on Living Animals (Question No. 3169)

Senator Puplick:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 10 September 1980:

  1. How many horses or other animals were exported to Japan for experimental purposes in the years 1977, 1978 and 1979.
  2. How many primates were imported into Australia for research purposes in 1977, 1978 and 1979.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Statistics of horses or other animals exported for experimental purposes are not recorded.

The Bureau of Statistics has supplied the following details of exports of horses and other live animals to Japan.

  1. 1977-244, 1978-440, 1979-204.

Drug Dispensing (Question No. 3181)

Senator Mason:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 10 September 1980:

  1. Is the Minister for Health aware that thirty-seven States of the United States of America and the District of Columbia have passed laws allowing pharmacists to dispense lower price generic drugs when brand name drugs are prescribed, except when doctors instruct them not to substitute.
  2. Has the Minister investigated the potential savings to the National Health Scheme expenditures for prescriptions by allowing pharmacists to dispense drugs by their generic, not brand, names as has been experienced in (1); if so, does the Government believe that such prescription and dispensing could lower the overall reimbursement necessary to pharmacists.
Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s questions:

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes. However, it is understood that in the United States of America the major sales of prescription pharmaceuticals occur in the private market in which substantial price differentials between different brands of the same drug are often to be found. Thus, in the circumstances of the United

States of America situation, substantial savings are to be gained by allowing substitution. However, under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme in Australia, it has been the practice for many years not to allow significant price differentials between brands of the same drug, the prices of the dearer brands generally being negotiated down to, or close to, the levels of the cheaper brands. In the current Australian situation, therefore, the potential for substantial savings to be gained from substitution would appear to be rather limited.

Statutory Authorities: Retention of Private Firms of Solicitors (Question No. 3195)

Senator Evans:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 1 5 September 1980:

  1. 1 ) Do any of the following statutory authorities mentioned in the First Report of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations on Statutory Authorities of the Commonwealth retain private firms of solicitors in Australia: Comptroller-General of Customs; InspectorGeneral in Bankruptcy. ACT Authorities- Registrar of Business Names; Registrar of Companies; Industries Assistance Commission; Temporary Assistance Authority; Films Board of Review; Prices Justification Tribunal; Trade Practices Commission; and Trade Practices Tribunal.
  2. If so, for each authority: (a) which firms are retained; (b) how much was paid to each such firm in the years 1970-1979 for: (i) retainer; (ii) fees (exclusive of disbursements); and (iii) disbursements for legal professional work.
  3. What criteria are applied in determining whether the Commonwealth Crown Solicitor or private firms of solicitors act for such authorities.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. No.

The Films Board of Review comes under the jurisdiction of the Attorney-General.

  1. see (1) above.
  2. All matters are referred to the Crown Solicitor’s Office for its advice.

Statutory Authorities: Retention of Private Firms of Solicitors (Question No. 3212)

Senator Evans:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Productivity, upon notice, on 12 September 1980:

  1. 1 ) Do any of the following statutory authorities mentioned in the First Report of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations on Statutory Authorities of the Commonwealth retain private firms of solicitors in Australia: Category 3A - Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Board; Production Board. SBDesign Office; Trade Marks Office. 3G- Patents Office.
  2. If so, for each such authority: (a) which firms are retained; and (b) how much was paid to each such firm in the years 1970-1979 for: (i) retainer; (ii) fees (exclusive of disbursements); and (iii) disbursements for legal professional work.
  3. What criteria are applied in determining whether the Commonwealth Crown Solicitor or private firms of solicitors act for such authorities.
Senator Chaney:
LP

– The Minister for Productivity has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. No.
  2. and (3) Not applicable.

Fifth Television Channel (Question No. 2395)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 19 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) With which sections of the community did the Government have discussions about the use of the fifth television channel in Australia after it received the Galbally Report.
  2. Were there any television executives and/or broadcasting engineers on the panel that recommended the use of the fifth channel.
  3. What will be the estimated cost to the public of establishing the Independent and Multicultural Broadcasting Corporation and having a station to operate for 35 hours a week, as promised.
  4. What are the estimated running costs for the first year of operation.
Senator Chaney:
LP

– The Minister for Post and Telecommunications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. The Government’s decision to purchase transmitters for a fifth television channel to provide a multicultural television service in Sydney and Melbourne was announced in September 1978. This followed the Government’s acceptance of the recommendations of the Report of the Review of Postarrival Programs and Services for Migrants (Galbally Report).

Following the Second Report of the Ethnic Television Review Panel (ETRP) in December 1979, it was decided that these transmitters should be utilised by the proposed Independent and Multicultural Broadcasting Corporation (IMBC).

The Reports followed extensive consultation processes undertaken by both the Review and the ETRP. Relevant Government Departments and instrumentalities were consulted prior to a decision being made by Government.

  1. The Department’s Broadcasting Engineering Division was involved at all stages.

The Ethnic Television Review Panel as originally constituted included Mr Keith Cairns. In September 1979, Mr Cairns was replaced by Mr Frank McManus. Both Mr Cairns and Mr McManus have had considerable experience in television broadcasting.

  1. The 1980-81 Budget provides $5. 62m (including $1.8m for transmitters) to establish a permanent multicultural television service in Sydney and Melbourne.
  2. The Budget provides S 1 4. 1 8m for operating costs in the 1980-81 financial year. It is expected that this will be offset by revenue of $3m from program sponsorship.

Foreign Proceedings (Prohibition of Certain Evidence) Act (Question No. 2497)

Senator Evans:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 4 March 1980:

Will the Minister release the diplomatic notes concerning the Foreign Proceedings (Prohibition of Certain Evidence) Act 1976 referred to at page 6 of the Attorney-General’s Department Annual Report for 1978-79.

Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Foreign Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

I agree to release of the diplomatic notes, which are as follows:

Note No. 13/78 of 23 March 1978, from the Australian Embassy, Washington;

Note of 26 April 1 978, from the State Department;

Note 014 of 6 February 1978, from the United States Embassy in Canberra;

Aide Memoire of 7 February 1978, from the United States Embassy in Canberra;

Aide Memoire of 1 7 February 1978, from the Australian Government to the United States Embassy.

Action is in hand to have the notes released as soon as possible in a public statement which I understand the AttorneyGeneral will be making.

Prime Minister’s Boeing 707 Aircraft (Question No. 2530)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 18 March 1980:

  1. 1 ) Have two of the six Royal Australian Air Force pilots who were especially trained to fly the Prime Minister’s Boeing 707 aircraft left the service to take better paid jobs with commercial airlines now that they have ‘Commercial’ qualifications, as stated in the Canberra Times of 1 3 February 1 980.
  2. Is the cost of training a Mirage pilot approximately $500,000.
  3. What was the cost of training those pilots to fly the Prime Minister’s Boeing 707s and what will it cost to replace them.
  4. Is the Prime Minister contemplating introducing any measures to reduce the high turnover of his pilots.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Boeing 707 aircraft are used mainly on Defence tasks with some use for transport of refugees, and use by the Governor-General, Prime Minister, and Ministers. In the 12 months since acquisition to 1 April 1980, they have flown on overseas tasks as follows:

In the same period they have also been used on six occasions on Defence tasks within Australia.

The Boeing 707 aircraft are not part of No. 34 Squadron, but operate as transport aircraft in No. 37 Squadron based at Richmond.

Formerly the RAAF was obliged to charter aircraft from Qantas to undertake return flights to Butterworth for personnel change-overs. In 1978-79 payments by the Department of Defence to Qantas for these charters amounted to $673,000. With acquisition of the B707 aircraft the cost of charter and civil airfares for this purpose decreased by $436,000 in 1979-80. If the B707 aircraft had not been acquired it would be necessary in 1980-81 to charter Qantas B747s at an estimated cost to the Defence travel vote of $1 .56m.

  1. 1 ) Two of the six RAAF pilots initially trained for the B707 have applied to resign. One has since withdrawn his resignation. The other has applied for release in December 1 980.
  2. The cost of training pilots of Mirage aircraft is approximately $535,000, consisting of basic training, $23,000, advance training $122,000, introduction to fighter aircraft $45,000, and conversion to Mirage $345,000. These costs include salaries and allowances of instructors and trainees and an assessment of overheads/administrative costs of operating the flying training schools.
  3. See my reply to House of Representatives Question No. 5602.
  4. Retention rates for RAAF pilots are currently satisfactory and the position is closely monitored. The Prime Minister on 19 February 1980, and myself on 25 March 1980 have indicated that the Government will ensure that Defence Force Conditions of Service are maintained at appropriate levels.

Minister for Industrial Relations: Appointments to Statutory Authorities (Question No. 2863)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 16 May 1980:

What are the names, dates and terms of appointment and salaries of all persons appointed to boards and commissions of statutory authorities under the jurisdiction of the Minister for Industrial Relations.

Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. . Paid in his capacity as Permanent Head of the Department of Industrial Relations
  2. Paid in his capacity as Permanent Head of the Department of Employment and Youth Affairs.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 18 September 1980, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1980/19800918_senate_31_s86/>.