Senate
24 August 1976

30th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 30th Parliament
  3. 1976

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

page 205

PETITIONS

Social Security Matters

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

– I present 2 petitions, similar in wording, from 47 and 69 citizens respectively, as follows:

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

That distress is being caused to social security recipients by the delay in adjusting pensions to the Consumer Price Index months after goods and services have risen, and that many medications, formerly a pharmaceutical benefit, must now be paid for.

In addition, State Housing Authority waiting lists for low rental dwellings for pensioners become never less, and funeral costs increase ever greater.

Your petitioners call on the Australian Government as a matter of urgency to:

Adjust social security payments instantly and automatically on announcement of increases in the quarterly Consumer Price Index.

Restore pharmaceutical benefits deleted from the free list.

The States Grants (Dwellings for Pensioners) Act 1974, eroded by inflation be updated and increased to overcome the back-log.

The funeral benefit be updated to 60 per cent of a reasonable funeral cost. This benefit, when introduced in 1943 at 200 shillings ($20.00), was seven times the pension at that time of 27 shillings ($2.70) per week, or more than twice the basic wage of 97 shillings ($9.70).

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petitions received, and first petition read.

The Clerk:

– Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:

Medibank

To the honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled, we the undersigned, citizens of the Commonwealth by this our humble petition respectfully showeth.

That Medibank has proved to be the cheapest and most efficient means of bringing health care to Australian citizens and that the citizens of Australia have received Medibank as a great and valued social reform. That Medibank has proved itself to be a far superior system of health care than was offered by the private funds prior to July 1 975.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will observe the promise made by the Prime Minister in his policy speech that ‘We will maintain Medibank and ensure the standard of health care does not decline ‘.

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

Petition received.

Family Planning

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 Family Planning Association and similar organisations throughout Australia contribute to the welfare and well-being of a great proportion of the Australian people both in family planning and in an advisory capacity on the prevention and control of social diseases.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that urgent consideration be given to a favourable decision on the continuation of Federal Government finance to enable the activities of the Family Planning Associations and like organisation to proceed unimpaired throughout Australia.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Coleman (2 petitions).

Petitions received.

Milk Substitutes

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 Goats’ Milk Production industry in Victoria is being threatened with extinction because of

  1. reduction in the age limit from six years to eighteen months for persons eligible to receive cows’ milk substitute as a pharmaceutical benefit under the schedules in the National Health Act, and
  2. the importation of powdered goats’ milk products from the United States of America and New Zealand.

Your petitioners further humbly pray that cows’ milk substitutes be restored to the schedule of Pharmaceutical Benefits for people up to the age of six years as soon as possible, and that protection be given to the Goats’ Milk producing industry from competition from imports of powdered goats ‘ milk from other countries.

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

Petition received.

Pensions

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 those who have retired and those who are about to retire, are being severely and adversely affected by inflation and Australian economic circumstances.

The continuance of the Means Test on pensions causes undue hardship to them.

We call on the Government to immediately abolish the Means Test on all Aged Pensions.

To ensure a pension for all on retirement, and a guarantee that all Australian citizens will retire with dignity.

Acknowledge that a pension is a ‘right and not a charity’.

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

Australian Assistance Plan

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 since the Australian Assistance Plan is making it possible for citizens to help themselves, thereby ensuring best possible use of limited Government resources, as shown by the fact that over 200 community projects have been initiated or funded through the AAP in the Outer Eastern Region.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament will take immediate steps to continue the Australian Assistance Plan as recommended in the Report tabled by the Honourable the Minister for Social Security, Senator Margaret Guilfoyle in Parliament on 4 March 1976 and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Tehan.

Petition received.

Medibank

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

  1. That we deplore the confusion generated by the Government’s proposals to radically modify the system of health insurance in Australia;
  2. That we believe the changes will destroy the concept of universality previously incorporated in Medibank;
  3. That the Government’s actions will lead to a two-class system of health care and thereby creating a division in Australian society;
  4. That the unnecessary duplication of health insurance funds created by Medibank and private organisations both operating will lead to gross administrative inefficiency, waste and increased cost.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government retain at least the original Medibank Scheme.

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

Petition received.

Building Industry

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

Concerned at the record number of building workers registered for unemployment benefits in Australia;

Aware that the Federal Government ‘s Budget for 1 976-77 does not include measures to restore full employment in the building and construction industry;

Alarmed at the fact that unemployment is at the highest level in New South Wales and Queensland since the depression years, with clear indications that the position will further deteriorate.

Aware that at the same time more and more people are being denied proper housing and other building needs of great social importance are not being carried out.

Aware that the apprenticeship system is being seriously threatened and many apprentices are unable to complete their apprenticeship. This along with the fact that thousands of tradesmen have been driven out of the industry, will, in years to come create a chronic shortage of skilled workers to the detriment of the community and with enormous adverse economic repercussions.

We, the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia, by this our humble petition respectfully request that Members of the Senate insist that the 1976-77 Budget provides specific measures to lift building activity particularly:

Government construction of homes, schools, hospitals and public works development projects, employment and training of unemployed young people, restoration of finance cuts in sewerage and urban development work, provide finance to land commission to provide cheaper land for home building, provide low interest home loans finance.

We request that the Budget be returned to the House of Representatives with instructions from the Senate to include such measures. by Senator Cavanagh.

Petition received.

page 206

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE MAPOON COUNCIL

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs aware that officials of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs have brought about the disbanding of the Mapoon Council? Have funds and property of the Council been confiscated or frozen and if so, by whom? Can the Minister also inform the Parliament of the amount of money confiscated or frozen and the present location of funds and other property of the Council? Have the Australian Department of Aboriginal Affairs and the Queensland Department of Aboriginal and Islander Advancement entered into a conspiracy again to force the Mapoon people off their traditional areas in order to make the land available for an extension of mining exploration and /or development?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · VICTORIA · LP

– I cannot immediately supply the information concerning the matters raised by the honourable senator but I shall seek it from the Minister concerned.

page 206

QUESTION

FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-My question is addressed to the Minister for Social Security. Is it a fact that the Budget makes provision for $750,000 to be provided through the Department of Social Security for family planning purposes? How is this money to be distributed and to whom will it go? What provisions are made for country people to have easy access to family planning advice? Has any consideraton been given to making mobile clinics available for the dissemination of family planning help to country people?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– It is a fact that the Budget makes provision for $750,000 to be spent on family planning but this money is distributed through the Department of Health and not through the Department of Social Security. The purposes for which funds are provided under this program are education, research, support of national family planning bodies- the Australian Federation of Family Planning Associations and the Catholic Social Welfare Commission- and for the non-clinical costs of State family planning associations. The Government intends that the States will become more closely involved in this program in future. The Commonwealth role will be one of co-ordination, rationalisation, education and research. It is expected that from 1 October new funding arrangements will be in force so that payments will be made through State governments. The matter of people living in isolated areas is currently under consideration. A project was funded by the Commonwealth in 1975 to investigate the need for family planning services in outback areas. This project was carried out with the co- operation and assistance of the Royal Flying Doctor Service. The results of this investigation are currently being examined by the Department of Health. A suggestion that mobile clinics be introduced is being considered as part of the survey of the needs of country people.

page 207

QUESTION

REPORTED DEATH OF PRINCE NORODOM SIHANOUK

Senator WHEELDON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-Has the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs seen a report that a group of French people, who apparently are well informed on these matters, have addressed an inquiry to the leader of the French Socialist Party, Monsieur Mitterrand, to the effect that Prince Norodom Sihanouk and members of his family have been murdered by the present Cambodian Government? In view of the humanitarian interest that one should take in these matters and also so that we can understand what is happening in Cambodia will the Minister cause inquiries to be made into the truth or otherwise of this allegation?

Senator WITHERS:
Minister for Administrative Services · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

-I shall certainly make an immediate inquiry of my colleague in the other place concerning this matter, as the honourable senator asks. I think that regardless of which side of the chamber we sit on, all honourable senators would deplore violence, leading perhaps to murder, being used as a solution to political differences.

page 207

QUESTION

EDUCATION IN TASMANIA

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

-Is the Minister for Education aware that erroneous statements have been made by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate to the effect that Tasmania’s education system has been one of the biggest casualties of the Budget and that the Tasmanian College of Advanced Education had been the biggest sufferer?

Senator CARRICK:
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

-I take it that Senator Walters is referring to the report in the Hobart Mercury of yesterday under the heading ‘Education Hit Hard ‘. Senator Wriedt has become the victim of using financial year figures. What he sought to prove against this Government in fact rebounds against his own Party and himself. The simple truth is that he sought to compare the figures for the latter half of 1975, which contain significant education expenditure, with the figures for the first half of 1976, which faced the only and the major cutback in expenditure. He did that also with the figures for 1976-77. The honourable senator should know that the figures he used reflect the severe cut by the previous Government of nearly $ 1 70m in the 1 976 capital programs of the 4 education commissions.

Taken in calendar years and therefore taken in terms of the decisions of this Government, the picture is precisely the reverse of that stated by Senator Wriedt. Whereas in the 1976 calendar year, the final year in which Senator Wriedt’s Party had control, education institutions had $5. 52m for capital expenditure, in 1977 there will be a 31 per cent increase in capital, expressed in constant prices, raising the amount to $7.24m. As to the colleges of advanced education, I am happy to say that whereas in this calendar year $ 1.48m will be spent, next year $2. 7m will be spent, an increase of 82 per cent. So in answer to Senator Walters, the figures are incorrect when used for the purposes of the comparison made by Senator Wriedt.

page 207

QUESTION

LEBANESE REFUGEES

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Can the Minister indicate to the Senate the role being performed in Cyprus by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in the billeting of Lebanese refugees, in view of the heavy responsibilities that face Australia and Canada in taking a percentage of those refugees? I am aware, as the Minister would be, of the accommodation costs in the staging centres.

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I am informed by my colleague, Mr Peacock, that the Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees has already proposed to the Cyprus Government that a number of Lebanese citizens be accommodated, if necessary, in former Greek Cypriot refugee camps where facilities may be available. I point out that although his Office has made this proposal, it is necessary to note that the High Commissioner for Refugees has not yet accorded refugee status to persons affected by the situation in Lebanon. Therefore the High Commissioner has no mandate, legally speaking, to take direct action in Cyprus. We understand that the Government in Cyprus is giving assistance to persons who have arrived from Lebanon. The Australian Government is taking a close, keen interest in this matter. I shall pass on to the Minister for Foreign Affairs the honourable senator’s continuing concern and ask him to see that the Government’s concern also continues.

page 208

QUESTION

NATURAL GAS PIPELINE

Senator SCOTT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce and refers to the concern expressed last week by Senator Sibraa in relation to the failure to construct laterals from the natural gas pipeline to Lithgow, Orange and Bathurst in New South Wales. I ask the Minister: Did not the New South Wales Liberal-Country Party Government advise the Australian Gas Light Company prior to November 1972 that it would not grant a licence to construct and operate the main pipeline to Sydney unless laterals were constructed at the same time as the main line and gas was marketed at a uniform rate throughout the State? Did not Mr Connor, in establishing the Pipeline Authority, remove the project from the control of the New South Wales Government and provide for the construction of laterals at a suitable time instead of at the same time? Is that not the reason why the country centres concerned are today without supply and why decentralisation and development projects of the New South Wales Liberal-Country Party Government, like Albaware Tiles and Pottery Pty Ltd at Lithgow, suffer the cost of importing liquefied petroleum gas from Victoria? Did not the Labor Government’s involvement in the Pipeline Authority delay the whole natural gas supply project by over 12 months and greatly escalate the cost?

Senator COTTON:
Minister for Industry and Commerce · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

-After Senator Sibraa spoke about this matter I endeavoured to get some information in case it was required. The information I have obtained may be of interest to both Senator Scott and Senator Sibraa. The Australian Gas Light Company applied to construct the gas pipeline from the Moomba field in South Australia to Sydney and sought the sole franchise to sell the product in that city. In November 1 972 the New South Wales Liberal-Country Party Government indicated that AGL should be granted what it sought but insisted that spur lines be built at the same time to supply Wagga and Cootamundra, on the one hand, and Orange, Bathurst and Lithgow on the other. Moreover there was to be a uniform rate for natural gas throughout the system. When the Labor Government gained office in December 1972 the New South Wales Liberal-Country Party Government advised Mr Connor of the conditions of the proposed licence, which insisted that the laterals be constructed at the same time. Mr Connor, however, allowed the laterals to be constructed at a suitable time, which in real measure abandoned the chances of natural gas being supplied to the aforementioned country centres. Moreover, the involvement of the Pipeline Authority in the project has delayed its completion by over 12 months and at the same time has brought about a substantial increase in its cost.

page 208

QUESTION

HOSPITAL BENEFITS ASSOCIATION LTD

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. I ask the question as a contributor to the Hospital Benefits Association Ltd in Victoria over many years. In view of the findings of the Nimmo committee of inquiry into health insurance funds, does the Minister regard the attitude expressed by Mr Derrick Shaw, General Manager of the HBA, as reported in today’s newspapers, to the effect that rates would be reduced on the basis of using existing contributor reserves, as being a proper attitude for a private health fund to adopt? What are the Minister’s anticipations in regard to the level of rates that will be struck by private funds such as the HBA when the reserves belonging to existing contributors are in fact used up?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

-I am unable to give a definitive answer with regard to the level of rates that may be applicable when the existing reserves have been used, as has been suggested by the honourable senator. I will refer the question to the Minister for Health. I remind the honourable senator that private funds have been subjected to a great deal of criticism in the past because they have been accumulating reserves. Therefore I find it interesting that at the present time they are being accused of doing something unseemly because they want to use those reserves in the interests of” their contributors.

Senator BUTTON:

-I wish to ask a supplementary question, Mr President. I ask the Minister to answer the first pan of the question, namely, does the Government regard it as being a proper use of the funds of existing contributors for those funds to be used to reduce rates? I ask that question particularly in view of the findings of the Nimmo committee of inquiry.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– There is nothing I wish to add to the answer that I have given except to say that any rates that are set by private funds are required to be approved by the registration committee of the Department of Health. The other matters that have been referred to by the honourable senator in his question undoubtedly will be taken into account at that stage.

page 209

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT OF TERTIARY STUDENTS DURING VACATIONS

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

-Does the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations agree that incentives should be given to employers to utilise the services of tertiary students at vacation times in occupations of value to the students and to industry and commerce generally? Would not such incentives help to reduce the lag time before a graduate becomes productive in his chosen career?

Senator DURACK:
Minister for Repatriation · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– The honourable senator’s question raises a number of issues. Some of the issues go to the fundamental matter of transition from education to work. This affects all young people leaving full time education, not just those in tertiary institutions. Growing concern is being expressed at the educational system, particularly that the pattern of postsecondary education is not matching the employment needs of many young people or the demands of the labour market. As the honourable senator will know, work experience is seen as part of the educational process in a number of overseas countries. It is receiving increasing attention in Australia. It is seen not as restricted to tertiary students but as having a contribution even in relation to those who do not go on to further study.

Also to be considered is whether such work experience should be restricted to vacation periods or be more integrated into the course structure during the school or academic year. An issue raised by the honourable senator is the nature of the arrangements involving the employer and the student, including the question of incentives. The Senate will be aware that at the tertiary level there are long-standing arrangements covering quite a number of courses which already require the students concerned to obtain work experience before graduating. These include vocationally oriented courses such as engineering, architecture, medicine and, as the honourable senator would know, law. Arrangements have been evolved by tertiary institutions and industry. The Department of Employment and Industrial Relations has been involved and it will continue its involvement in these discussions and with this question.

page 209

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN WOOL CORPORATION: MARKETING REPORT

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– i ask the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry whether it is a fact that the Minister for Primary Industry has recently held discussions with the Australian Wool Industry Conference on the implementation of the Australian Wool Corporation’s marketing report. If so, when will the decision be announced as to what is intended by the Government?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-I think it is extremely likely that the Minister for Primary Industry has been talking to the Australian Wool Industry Conference. I should hope he would be. I know no more than that. I shall find out for the honourable senator from the Minister and let him know.

page 209

QUESTION

DEMONSTRATIONS

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Attorney-General: Can he tell the Senate whether the Government is keeping a list of the ages and occupations of those people who have been arrested at demonstrations this year? Can he state whether they are students?

Senator Cavanagh:

– Do you want to have -

Senator TOWNLEY:

– I thought that would raise a response from honourable senators of the Australian Labor Party. Is it true that the Government- perhaps this part of the question should be listened to by the Minister for Educationis considering ceasing financial support by way of fees and allowances for those students who are arrested and who are found guilty due to their actions at demonstrations?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-I understand the great concern expressed in this question by Senator Townley, particularly in view of the events of yesterday. It is a matter of considerable concern as to who participated in this deplorable demonstration, where the demonstrators came from and who organised them to be there. I shall refer the questions raised by Senator Townley to my colleague the Attorney-General.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– Since the latter pan of the question was in fact directed to me I ask for the indulgence of the Senate to respond. It would not be the attitude of the Government that there should be what I understand is called double jeopardy in any punishment; that is, students or those posing as students, if they commit a breach of the law will be subject to the same punishment of the law as is any other person. That would occur whether on or off campus. It is important to understand that there are no immunities for anybody on a college or university campus and that no student has other than the ordinary rights of the ordinary citizen. Quite clearly the university and college authorities should ensure that the law is observed on their campuses. It is equally the responsibility of the authorities, in conjunction with the police of a State, to see that the law is observed without fear or favour for any individual and without double jeopardy.

page 210

QUESTION

PENSION CHEQUE

Senator RYAN:
ACT

– Is the Minister for Social Security aware of an article which appeared in today’s Canberra Times in which it is alleged that an officer of her Department called on a widow whose husband had died the previous day and collected his uncashed pension cheque? Can the Minister say whether this extremely distressing action was an over-zealous response by the officer to the Government’s policy of reducing public expenditure? If the action was not prompted by ministerial direction, can the Minister assure the Senate that such unjustified and intrusive behaviour by her officers will not be repeated?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– With regard to the first part of the question, careful inquiries in the Canberra regional office of my Department have not disclosed that any departmental officer was involved in the collection of a cheque for $73.50 dated 19 August in the name of Mr J. W. Traynor. The cheque in question had not been returned to the Canberra office as at 10 o’clock today and inquiries as to its whereabouts are now being made. The Department has not yet received official notification of Mr Traynor ‘s death, so that before the article appeared in the newspaper action had not been taken to cancel future payments to Mr Traynor or to grant the special temporary allowance to his widow. The latter allowance is a payment that is made at the combined married rate to the surviving spouse for a period of 12 weeks following a pensioner’s death.

Departmental officers are aware of the need to proceed tactfully in cases where a married pensioner dies. If such a pensioner receives a payment to which an entitlement does not exist the procedures provide that any overpayment shall be deducted during the currency of the special temporary allowance. In this way any financial hardship caused by the need to recover the proceeds of a cheque is minimised. It appears that Mrs Traynor has full entitlement to the special temporary allowance. An officer visited Mrs Traynor’s home at 10.30 a.m. today but she was not at home. Another visit will be made during today. If there is any further information that I can give the honourable senator I shall be pleased to give it.

With regard to the second part of the question, which implied that ministerial direction or instruction had been given to an officer to undertake what has been alleged in the article, what I have already said will show that the article is inaccurate. I can assure the honourable senator that no ministerial direction would be given in those terms.

page 210

QUESTION

LAND COMMISSIONS

Senator MESSNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister , for Environment, Housing and Community Development: What has been the effect on land prices of the provision of Commonwealth funds to the South Australian Land Commission? Is it a fact that the cost of land to home builders in South Australia has continued to rise at a rate which is much the same as for comparable blocks of land in States where no land commission is in operation? Is the Government re-examining a system of funding land development through land commissions to determine whether their operations are effective?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I personally have had no up-to-date information on this matter since the time when I was the caretaker Minister responsible for the appropriate portfolio, but I can talk with first hand knowledge at that point. I can confirm that precisely what Senator Messner said was the case, that is, that no evidence was brought forward to suggest that land commissions had succeeded in any way in keeping land prices down.

Senator Cavanagh:

– That is not correct in respect of South Australia. There is a permissible increase of 7 ‘A per cent.

Senator CARRICK:

– My understanding was that the land commissions and the ordinary developers were producing serviced land at about the same rate. I acknowledge Senator

Cavanagh ‘s interjection. So that the matter may be thoroughly brought up to date I shall seek the information for Senator Messner and send a copy of the information I obtain to Senator Cavanagh.

page 211

QUESTION

NATURAL DISASTERS ORGANISATION

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-The Minister for Science will recall that recently I asked him whether or not in his opinion sufficient weather and other information was available to the Natural Disasters Organisation to enable it to perform its duties properly. I refer in particular to this morning’s Press report about the second earth tremor in Darwin. The article stated that the Bureau of Mineral Resources in Canberra did not learn about the tremor until yesterday because its telegraphic equipment connecting Darwin with the Bureau in Canberra had not operated since the Darwin cyclone. Is the Minister able to bring us up to date on these matters? Will he look again to ascertain whether the Natural Disasters Organisation has the best equipment possible to enable it to perform its national duties?

Senator WEBSTER:
Minister for Science · VICTORIA · NCP/NP

-When Senator Bishop first raised this question it referred to information flowing from the Bureau of Meteorology to the Natural Disasters Organisation. My recollection is that I obtained an answer for the honourable senator that indicated that the Organisation was entirely satisfied with the information that it received. The answer stated that the Organisation had direct communication with Darwin and, so far as I am aware, did not require any other. The honourable senator now raises the question of an earth tremor. I am afraid I would not be able to answer that question correctly for him. I shall look into the matter to see whether any channels of communication should be available between any organisation under the Department of Science and the Natural Disasters Organisation, and I shall advise the honourable senator.

page 211

QUESTION

DEMONSTRATIONS AGAINST THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL AND THE PRIME MINISTER

Senator BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– In view of recent violent demonstrations against the Governor-General and the Prime Minister, and following Senator Carrick ‘s statement that no Australian is above the law, I ask the Minister representing the Prime Minister whether he can assure us that the Governor-General and the Prime Minister will continue to accept invitations to any part of Australia whether or not violence is threatened by any extremist minority group. Will the Minister advise whether his Government is influenced by violent demonstrations in its consideration of policy for all Australians?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I certainly understand from the Prime Minister that he does not intend to be deterred from carrying out his duties as Prime Minister by what happened yesterday. As to the advice his Ministers might offer to the Governor-General, I do not think I ought to disclose that within the Senate. In the course of my reply this morning to Senator Wheeldon who was genuinely seeking information on a matter in which he was very interested, I said that I thought that people on both sides of the chamber would deplore violence which ended in the murder of one’s political opponents. I state that again. It is all very well to feel saddened that people overseas are murdered by their political opponents- I think we all deplore that- but those who preach and practise violence must put up with the consequences of their preaching and practising.

Senator Primmer:

– What about Vietnam? Did you not preach violence for years?

Senator WITHERS:

-That interjection evidently means that there is merit in both the practice and the preaching of violence. Demonstrations are not new in this country; they are not new in any country. Nobody denies the right to demonstrate. There are all sorts of demonstrations in which people gather to put forward a point of view. Nobody objects to that happening. In fact it is encouraged. All our political parties come together at annual conferences and I suppose to many people that is a form of demonstrationa demonstration of unity on a point of view and a means of stating an attitude. Over the years we have had all sorts of processions and marches in this country.

What is now happening is that people are indulging in violence to prevent those to whom they are opposed putting their point of view. That is what is undemocratic. Honourable senators opposite had better make up their minds where they stand because people in this country are entitled to disagree with each other’s point of view on any matter, whether it be politics, religion or sex- call it what you like.

Senator Keeffe:

– I take a point of order. I respect the point that the Minister is trying to get over.

Senator Jessop:

– You do not want it to go over the air, do you?

Senator Keeffe:

– There is no need to get excited. The Minister is deviating from a reply to what was a legitimate or an illegitimate question. Unfortunately the Minister has used the opportunity to make charges that cannot be backed up. Nobody on this side of the House believes in violence in any circumstances.

Senator McAuliffe:

-Look at Vietnam.

Senator Keeffe:

– That is right. We were the first party in this country to lead resistance to the violence that went on in Vietnam. I think it is quite improper for the chamber to be used in the way that the Minister has used it. I say that with great respect, even though the Minister is trying to get over his point of view. I hope he will keep the reply -

Senator Walters:

– What about -

Senator Keeffe:

– I do not wish to start an interjection battle with anybody. I think that the Minister’s statement has to be put into its right perspective. I do not think his remark is the right sort of thing to say about people on this side of the chamber because none of us believes in violence and none of us support it.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Withers will continue.

Senator WITHERS:

-I am delighted to have the assurance of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and I accept it. I accept without reservation that nobody on his side will either preach or practice violence, and in fact are opposed to it. A statement to this effect has been made in the chamber and I hope we hear it outside continuously from honourable senators opposite.

I repeat that those who practise and preach violence are always somewhat disturbed when the violence takes a turning which they do not always anticipate. I was saying that there is nothing wrong with demonstrations and people putting a point of view. But when a demonstration develops into a situation where the demonstrators attempt to take away the right of people to speak to others, to have access to public places- the campuses are public places- and to address people of different political views or different attitudes, democracy is imperilled. Democracy ought not to be imperilled by those actions.

I understand that the Prime Minister will continue to carry out his engagements. He will not be put off by a small minority of the Australian electorate. Yesterday we had a situation in which about 1000 people attempted to represent 14 million Australians and the bulk of those 1000 people, I understand, were not even students at the university concerned. These people were trying to represent themselves as a group that they are not. This Government does not intend to be intimidated by any group in this community. I repeat that I am delighted that the Opposition is of the same view as we are.

page 212

QUESTION

DEMONSTRATIONS AGAINST THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL AND THE PRIME MINISTER

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

– I direct my question to Senator Withers in view of the answer that he has just given. Will he clarify the meaning of the earlier part of the answer he gave to the question that Senator Wheeldon asked earlier in which he drew an analogy with the position in Cambodia? I listened carefully to the answer that Senator Withers gave on that occasion. He used the term violence leading to murder’ and it seemed to me in his second answer that he was implying that that situation could arise in this country and was associating it with the demonstrations of the last day or so. Did the Minister mean that? I hope he did not. If he did not mean it, will he clarify just what he did mean? Will he state again in clearer terms what exactly was the intention of his answer?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I would have thought the honourable senator would have recalled an instance in which the preaching of violence and the practice of it almost led to the murder of his then leader, Arthur Calwell.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Who was preaching and practising?

Senator WITHERS:

-I am not putting that up. I am not trying to justify what happened at all. There was an instance of a leader of a political party in this country, who was quite entitled to put his views as strongly as did the late right honourable gentleman and was almost murdered because some lunatic in the community disagreed with him. It is no use trying to disguise that it was other than attempted murder. That is what I am talking about. Those who preach violence and those who practise violence always seem to be surprised when the violence results in the death of some person, whether it be an innocent bystander or an intended victim. They hold up their hands and say: ‘We really did not mean it to go that far’. It is all right to throw tomatoes at a governor-general but when the throwing of tomatoes develops into the throwing of bricks and later into the throwing of home made bombs, they are rather surprised that someone is seriously injured. I do not think anybody in this chamber would deny that some of the demonstrations of late have been such that many persons could have been very seriously injured, be they demonstrators themselves, the policemen attempting to maintain order, political figures or otherwise. Once people start to preach and practise violence they will eventually end up doing violence and doing far greater harm than perhaps they intended to do. Therefore, if there is to be a demonstration one would imagine that the obvious thing is never to demonstrate in a violent manner and never to encourage others to do things in a violent manner. If it becomes the accepted practice to throw things at people who are going about their lawful business, or if it becomes the accepted practice to overturn their motor cars or stamp on them or harangue mobs and all that sort of thing, those involved will suddenly be enormously surprised to find that the situation has got out of” hand and then the instigators of the incident will weep crocodile tears and say: ‘We really did not mean it to happen. * That is what I am talking about. I repeat that those who preach violence and practise violence eventually do enormous violence not only to individuals but to the political institutions of this country.

page 213

QUESTION

BRISBANE COMMONWEALTH GAMES

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Did the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development see a report in The Australian on Wednesday, 21 July 1976, headed Boycott Team has Eyes on Brisbane Games, in which Mr Ram Samy VicePresident of the South African Non-racial Olympic Committee, stated that a group of Londoners, most of them exiles from South Africa, organised the Montreal Olympic Games walkout by representatives of some African countries? Did the Minister also see it reported that 4 executive members- Mr James Cooke, Mr Omar Cassem Mr Stephen Tobias and Mr Isaiah Steinwere also involved in the walk-out? Has he also seen reports that this group intends to sabotage the proposed 1982 Brisbane Commonwealth Games? Will the Minister make inquiries into the proposals of these men in relation to the proposed Brisbane Commonwealth Games and endeavour to obtain a guarantee from them that they will not take such action? If no guarantee can be obtained, will the Minister refuse them entry into Australia to prevent them attempting to sabotage and disrupt the Games for their own political ends?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– My memory suggests that I did see the report in the newspaper as

Senator Young has described it. He placed the report as being in the Australian on 21 July. My memory is of the background of the Montreal Olympic Games and of the organised walk-outs and I think the whole Senate and the people of Australia will deplore the fact that sport, international or national, today is being used as a political weapon, indeed a semi-violent political weapon, in that way. The question asked flows on from the ordinary question we are talking about. I am not aware of the identity of the persons concerned although I do remember their names being reported.

I remember also that there was a suggestion that the Brisbane Commonwealth Games might be involved. These are games that would be organised primarily by the Queensland Government which, as I understand it, has not yet finalised arrangements for accepting them. As to that part of the honourable senator’s question, I will make sure that my colleague in another place takes this matter up with the Premier and draws his attention to it. As to the second part of the question relating to refusal of entry visas, this is a matter of government policy. It is a very sensitive matter of government policy and I will bring it to the attention of my colleagues in the Cabinet and remind them of the comments that have been made. However, because it is a sensitive question I seek to make no personal comment on it at this moment.

page 213

QUESTION

MEDIBANK

Senator DONALD CAMERON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security and relates to the pensioner medical service. Is it the Government’s intention that low income earners who have no dependants and who receive more than $2,605 a year or who are married with a family income of over $4,300 a year will have to pay the Medibank levy? Is it intended that these provisions are to apply to pensioners? If not, can the Minister say at what income level pensioners will find themselves liable to pay the Medibank levy?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– On behalf of the Minister for Health I make it clear that those pensioners who hold pensioner medical service cards will not be liable to pay the Medibank levy. They will have the standard Medibank cover as an entitlement through their pensioner medical service card. I am referring to single pensioners who have $33 income a week and married pensioners who have a level of income which entitles them to a pensioner medical service card. It should also be stated that the Government intends that there will be in the legislation a provision that will enable the Government to look at groups of people who are in the low income area or who have special disadvantages so that determinations may be made from time to time on the provision of Medibank cover for them. However, the general answer to the question that has been directed is that those who are holders of pensioner medical service cards will not be required to pay a levy for Medibank standard care.

page 214

QUESTION

DAIRYING INDUSTRY: AID TO INDIA

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry: Is the Minister aware that 10 000 children die every day on the Indian sub-continent because there is nothing to supplement their mothers’ milk? The Minister will be aware that we have thousands of good productive cows in commercial herds, particularly in Victoria, which having regard to the present depressed state of the dairying industry are surplus to our requirements but are desperately needed on the Indian subcontinent to provide milk and so save the lives of these unfortunate infants. Will the Minister on humanitarian grounds discuss the problem with his colleague, the Minister responsible for foreign aid, with a view to making an urgent grant of $5m which is the estimated cost of purchasing and transporting 10 000. of our productive cows to India and Bangladesh, thus assisting to solve this problem?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-Some time ago the House of Representatives had a representative from Victoria, Mr Reid, who had done a great deal of work to help in this field, particularly in India, the area which the honourable senator mentioned. His work was most notable and extremely worthwhile. I listened to the honourable senator with great interest. I can say no more than that the proposal appeals to me and I shall pass it to the Minister responsible.

page 214

QUESTION

THE SENATE

Senator WALSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to you, Mr President. It refers to an allegation made in the book Crash Through or Crash written by the Canberra journalist, Laurie Oakes, that during the Senate blockage of Supply last year Senator Hall and Senator Bunton had planned to call upon the Governor-General and request him to ask the Senate to vote upon the Appropriation Bills but were dissuaded from doing so by the Clerk of the Senate. Mr President, will you investigate that allegation to determine its accuracy? If it is true, will you also determine whether such partisan involvement by a servant of the Senate is consistent with the duties and obligations of a servant of the Senate?

The PRESIDENT:

– I have listened to the honourable senator’s question. I should like to read it in Hansard prior to making any comment in respect of it.

page 214

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN TRADER

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. What action can the Government take that will obtain the release of urgent cargo on the Australian Trader, which has been tied up by the seamen’s union at Bell Bay since late July? What redress have the owners of the cargo from the Australian National Line or the unions involved?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I am aware of the circumstances of the dispute that has given rise to the honourable senator’s question. The Australian Trader has been under ban by the maritime unions which refuse to sail her from Bell Bay to be decommissioned. The vessel is being withdrawn from the Sydney-Hobart run as a result of continued non-profitable operations and in consequence the service will be discontinued. Since the ban on sailing was first imposed on 29 July last by the maritime unions the Australian National Line has endeavoured through negotiations to resolve the dispute so that the vessel can sail. I am now informed that the Australian National Line notified the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission of the dispute on 10 August and that a compulsory conference has been convened for 1 1 a.m. on 26 August in Sydney by Commissioner Allsop. The Government’s attitude is that industrial disputes should be handled by the appropriate body, namely, the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. I am also informed that the vessel has 8 units of cargo for discharge at the port of Burnie. There is one reefer of refrigerated poultry and the remaining units are comprised of general cargo. An approach to the unions to enable unloading of the vessel has been unsuccessful. The cargo is being carried subject to normal conditions of consignment. I am hopeful that during the conference before the Commissioner of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission next Thursday the unions which have to date refused to sail the vessel will agree to do so. The release of the cargo from the Australian Trader by the unions would be consistent with their expressed desire to protect the existing transport system servicing Tasmania and, more particularly, the interests of the Tasmanian people.

page 215

QUESTION

ELIGIBILITY FOR SICKNESS BENEFITS

Senator McINTOSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-Is the Minister for Social Security aware of the anomaly in the present conditions of eligibility for sickness benefit? I refer to the fact that under section 1 10 of the Social Security Act sickness benefit for a man can be paid irrespective of his wife’s income but that sickness benefit is not payable to a wife if it is reasonably possible for her husband to maintain her. Since the conditions of eligibility for sickness benefit differ from the conditions of eligibility for unemployment benefit without any apparent logical reason, will the Minister consider removing this anomaly from the Social Security Act?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– Any decisions of policy that are to be made by the Government will be announced when those decisions have been made. I have taken note of the matters to which the honourable senator referred. If any decisions are made regarding eligibility for unemployment or sickness benefits which differ from those which are at present enacted I shall announce them at the appropriate time.

page 215

QUESTION

BOXING CONTROLS

Senator KNIGHT:
ACT

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development concerning the regulation of the sport of boxing. I refer to the recommendations contained in the report of the interdepartmental committee inquiring into boxing and other combat sports tabled in this Parliament in October 1974. Can the Minister say whether the Government has considered proposals to establish an Australian combat sports commission? In particular, will the Government consider introducing measures to control the sport of boxing on a national basis?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I am aware that the previous Government set up an interdepartmental committee to inquire into boxing and other combat sports and to make recommendations as to the need for controls in addition to or in substitution for those already in existence. My understanding is that the report was tabled in the Parliament in 1974 and that the previous Government did not act on it during the remainder of its period in office. The matter has been before the Recreation Ministers Council on quite a number of occasions and has been discussed at the State level. With the exception of one State, which has already introduced its own legislation, the States seem to hold the view that existing controls for the conduct of boxing contests are adequate from a sporting viewpoint. I make no comment on that; I simply reflect what appear to be the views of the States. They do not appear to want any further action in this regard.

However, on the basis of information contained in the National Health and Medical Research Council’s findings, which were referred to in the report, the health risk to boxers may well be a matter which should be investigated further. To date, the Commonwealth Government’s view has been that the control of such matters must be primarily for the States themselves, since that is the ordinary arena of the law for them, and the Commonwealth has not intervened overall to enforce a national viewpoint. Nevertheless, because it is an important matter I shall bring it to the attention of my colleague the Minister.

page 215

QUESTION

INCOME EQUALISATION DEPOSIT SCHEME

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer: How many farmers does the Government expect to take advantage of the income equalisation deposit scheme which was announced in the Budget? Is it likely that, because of low and declining rural incomes, the scheme will prove more attractive to the Pitt Street and Collins Street farmers than to full time farmers? Is the Minister able to say how much of the expected loss of revenue of $2m during this year because of the scheme will result from the activities of the part-time city farmers?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-This question is in the crystal ball area- What do you see, what don’t you see? I am sorry, but this is something on which I could not really comment. I will direct the question to the Treasurer, but the situation in relation to rural incomes and how the scheme will benefit one person as against another are matters of pure conjecture. There is no way of telling, but I will try to find out for the honourable senator.

page 215

QUESTION

AYERS ROCK TOURIST VILLAGE

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for the Northern Territory. I refer to the interdepartmental committee whose activities are to plan the development of a new village in the Ayers Rock area. Can the Minister advise when the Committee last met, whether it has made any recommendations and, if so, to whom? If the Committee has made recommendations, what action has the Government taken to develop the Ayers Rock area?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-The Ayers Rock Advisory Committee last met in July 1 976. At that time the Committee decided that in view of the current financial constraints on the Government it would be appropriate to examine the possibility of utilising available expertise within the Government for the planning and design of the proposed tourist village. The Ayers Rock Advisory Committee will be providing recommendations to the Government on the feasibility and use of the area by the end of this year. I hope that that is sufficient information on the point for the honourable senator.

page 216

QUESTION

TRAVEL BY RESEARCH ASSISTANTS

Senator COLSTON:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Administrative Services. Is it a fact that research assistants employed on the personal staff of all Ministers in the present Government have recently been granted full travelling rights throughout Australia at government expense? If so, was the decision to allow research assistants to travel at government expense on their Ministers’ official business taken as a result of an admission by the Government that its original arrangements for ministerial staffing were inadequate, or is it a prelude to the granting of full travel rights to all research assistants employed by members of Parliament?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-The honourable senator’s original proposition is incorrect.

page 216

QUESTION

TEXTILE INDUSTRY

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

– Can the Minister for Industry and Commerce indicate the Government’s plans for the long term future of the textile industry in Australia? If the Minister is not in a position to do so at the moment, can he indicate when he may be able to do so?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– A very solid reviewcalled No. 12- of the whole of the textile and clothing industry is being conducted by the Industries Assistance Commission. The best expectation I have is that we might see the first draft of the report towards the latter part of this year. I am anxiously waiting for it. It is an industry that is not at all easy to keep in perfect balance, as no doubt the honourable senator knows.

page 216

QUESTION

MEDIBANK

Senator GRIMES:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question to the Minister for Social Security refers to the answer she gave earlier this afternoon to a question by Senator Donald Cameron. It seemed to me and to other honourable senators on this side of the House that the Minister was suggesting that those pensioners who receive a pensioner medical service card will not have to pay the

Medibank levy. I understand that a pensioner medical service card is issued to a single pensioner who earns up to $33 a week in excess of his pension and to married pensioners who earn up to $55 a week in excess of their pensions, and that the booklet produced by the Governmentthe Commonwealth Department of Healthabout Medibank points out that a single pensioner who receives an income of more than $50 a week and married pensioners who receive an income of more than $82 a week, will have to pay the Medibank levy, which has been confirmed in various statements by Mr Hunt. Will the Minister tell us whether there has been a change in plans in relation to the payment of levy by pensioners under the Medibank scheme? If there has been a change, will the Minister arrange for a new booklet to be produced?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

-People who have been entitled to pensioner medical service cards have always received special treatment with regard to some of their needs. The Government has no intention of withdrawing from them a cover for medical services. Prior to the introduction of Medibank by the former Government pensioner medical service card holders did have a cover for their health services. This is to be continued in the way that I described in my previous answer, that is, those people who qualify under the income level of $33 a week for a single pensioner and under a married rate that I think is slightly different from the one that the honourable senator mentioned will have exemption from the levy.

Page 4 of the booklet to which the honourable senator referred does advise those people who hold pensioner medical service cards to contact the nearest Taxation Office to determine whether they will be required to pay a levy. It was necessary to state that because, as the honourable senator would understand, people who have pensioner medical service cards need continually to qualify for them. They are not something that pensioners hold throughout their lifetime after having once qualified for them. So as at 1 October those people who have an income beyond the $33 a week I have mentioned, and who may not then be eligible under the pensioner medical service card system, would need to deal with the levy in their own way. As I mentioned in my answer to the previous question, there is also provision in the Government’s policy with regard to Medibank for a regulation or a mechanism whereby we are able to give special consideration to the lower income groups of people. If it is decided to do this the appropriate announcement will be made from time to time.

There is no need to reprint the present booklet or to print another booklet. The matter that is referred to on page 4 covers the situation inasmuch as a person needs continually to qualify for a pensioner medical service card to be eligible for exemption from the levy for Medibank.

Senator GRIMES:

– I wish to ask a supplementary question, Mr President. Am I to understand from the Minister’s reply that a pensioner who has an extra income of, say, $60 a week will not have to pay the Medibank levy but a non-pensioner with a taxable income of $60 a week will have to pay the Medibank levy?

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– In the simple terms in which the honourable senator has expressed the question, the answer could be yes, with the proviso that there will be an opportunity for a government to make a decision with regard to special groups of people on the ground of either income levels or because they are suffering from other disadvantages, if that is considered desirable.

Senator Button:
Senator GUILFOYLE:

– As and when it should be considered by the Government. I do not believe that the honourable senator who directed the question to me suggests that those pensioners who now enjoy a pensioner medical card service should be deprived of one of the elements of that service; that is, medical cover. If that is implied in the question I ask the honourable senator concerned to consider that people who do qualify for a pensioner medical card have always been regarded as people with special needs.

page 217

QUESTION

REPORTED DEATH OF PRINCE NORODOM SIHANOUK

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-Earlier this afternoon Senator Wheeldon asked me a question about Prince Sihanouk. I have obtained the following information from my colleague the Minister for Foreign Affairs: The last official reference to Prince Sihanouk was in regard to his resignation as Head of State which was announced on 5 April 1 976 by the Cambodian Government. Subsequent Press reports of his death were contradicted by a recent Agence France Presse report which stated that he was alive and living in Phnom Penh. Recent inquiries carried out by the Department of Foreign Affairs have not produced any evidence to the contrary.

page 217

RESERVE BANK OF AUSTRALIA

The PRESIDENT:

– I lay on the table the report of the Reserve Bank Board on the operations of the Reserve Bank of Australia, together with financial statements and reports of the Auditor-General thereon, for the year ended 30 June 1976.

page 217

THE TRANSPORT (PLANNING AND RESEARCH) ACT 1974

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present a report prepared by the Department of Transport entitled: ‘The Transport (Planning and Research) Act 1974: Report of Progress to 31 December 1975’. Due to the limited numbers available, reference copies of this report have been placed in the Senate Records Office and the Parliamentary Library. The report was produced at the request of State authorities, and provides an example of the cooperation between State and Commonwealth which is being achieved under the Act.

Senator DOUGLAS McCLELLAND (New South Wales) By leave- I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 217

FALLOUT OVER AUSTRALIA FROM NUCLEAR TESTS

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present a series of reports by the Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council, the Australian Radiation Laboratory, and the Bureau of Meteorology entitled: ‘Fallout Over Australia From Nuclear Tests’.

Senator DOUGLAS McCLELLAND (New South Wales) By leave- I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 217

URBAN AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE) ACT

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– Pursuant to section 8 of the Urban and Regional Development (Financial Assistance) Act 1974-75 I present an agreement between the Commonwealth Government and the Government of New South Wales made under the provisions of that Act.

page 217

RURAL HEALTH IN AUSTRALIA

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present a report by the Hospitals and Health Services Commission entitled ‘Rural Health in Australia’.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

– by leave- I move:

That the Senate take note of the paper.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 218

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present a report by the Industries Assistance Commission on ‘Petroleum and Mining Industries’.

Senator WRIEDT (Tasmania) By leave-I move:

That the Senate take note of the paper.

I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 218

TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE AUTHORITY

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present a report by the Temporary Assistance Authority on ‘Thick Plywood (Exceeding 5.5 mm in thickness)’.

page 218

QUESTION

PLACING OF BUSINESS

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Government in the Senate · LP

– I move:

That Government business, order of the day No. 2- the Aged Persons Hostels Amendment Bill 1976- be postponed till after the consideration of Government business, order of the day No. 3- the Social Welfare Commission (Repeal) Bill 1976.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 218

QUEENSLAND GRANT (PROSERPINE FLOOD MITIGATION) BILL 1976

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to authorise financial assistance to the Queensland Government for flood mitigation works along the Proserpine River in North Queensland. Assistance for this project will be by way of a non-repayable grant of up to $374,400 over 4 years towards the cost of specified works commenced during the previous financial year on a 40:40:20 basis of matching contributions- Commonwealth, State and Proserpine River Improvement Trust respectively. This formula for sharing the cost of flood mitigation works between the 3 tiers of Government is consistent with previous Commonwealth participation in similar projects in other States.

Senators will recall the disastrous floods in Queensland in January 1974. As a result, the Commonwealth invited Queensland to submit a State-wide plan of flood mitigation which could be considered as a basis for Commonwealth assistance. Proposals for flood mitigation works in the Brisbane area and along the Proserpine and Pioneer Rivers in north Queensland were submitted by the Queensland Government for priority consideration. As a result, the Commonwealth has provided $2.65m to date towards the cost of works in the Brisbane area and, in 1974-75, the Commonwealth provided $120,000 for the restoration of flood-damaged levee banks along the Proserpine River.

Subsequently, a detailed investigation of the flooding problem along the Proserpine River confirmed the need for an improved system of levee banks to provide adequate protection to the town and surrounding canefields, and a comprehensive plan of flood mitigation was drawn up to provide protection against floods of up to a frequency of one year in ten. The previous Commonwealth Government offered to share the cost of implementing this plan on a 40:40:20 basis with the State and the River Improvement Trust respectively. The Bill now before the Senate relates to the decision of the present Commonwealth Government to confirm that offer.

The works to which Commonwealth assistance will apply are listed in the Schedule to the Bill. Briefly, they consist of river improvement works- such as the removal of impediments to improve river flow; construction, reconstruction and re-alignment of levee banks; construction of spillways and other works to divert overbank flood flows; and road works to accommodate diversion structures. Surveys and design work of the structures have been almost completed and construction should be well under way during 1976-77.

Proserpine has a very productive sugar industry and the flood mitigation works should enable the industry to exploit more fully the natural advantages of the region.

The flood mitigation works will considerably reduce flood damage to property and public infrastructure. They will also lessen the periodic disruption to normal activities in the region and attenuate the insecurity experienced by local residents during the wet season. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland) adjourned.

page 219

AUSTRALIAN HERITAGE COMMISSION AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs · LP

– I move:

This is a Bill to amend the Australian Heritage Commission Act. As honourable senators know, the Government has repeatedly declared its support for the objectives of the Heritage Commission. We are committed to the protection of the National Estate and with the co-operation and goodwill of other spheres of government and the community, we are determined to ensure that the principles set out in the report of the Committee of Inquiry into the National Estate are honoured.

The amendments to the Heritage Commission Act set out in the Bill are designed to improve its effectiveness, and to establish it now as an efficient and meaningful advisory body, within the framework of Government, providing top level advice on action to protect the National Estate. At the same time, the amendments show the Government’s desire to ensure its priority objective of responsibility and restraint in economic management is reflected in the procedures and working arrangements adopted by the Commission.

When the Government assumed office in December it began a detailed and thorough review of the economy and of the administrative arrangements established for the carrying out of existing policies and programs. One of these policies was the National Estate where the Act for the Australian Heritage Commission had established a body at the national level to advise the Government on the preservation of the National Estate. Honourable senators will know that the Bill for the Heritage Commission was supported in both Houses and that the Act received royal assent in June 1975. However, only the Chairman of the Commission had been appointed at the time when the Government took office in December.

The Act in its present form provides that the Commission shall be constituted by a minimum of 12 and a maximum of 19 part-time commissioners. We believe that such a large number is unnecessary and that the functions of the Commission can be carried out more effectively by a Chairman and 6 part-time members. In addition to reducing the number of Commissioners, the Bill also provides that up to 2 members of the Commission may be Permanent Heads of departments, or chairmen of authorities, instead of the existing provision for up to 6 public servants. The needs of the Commission for specialised advice can be met by section 45 of the Act, so amended as proposed in the Bill, which enables the Commission to appoint expert committees with the approval of the Minister.

It is intended to remove the specific reference in the Act for the Commission to advise on expenditure and grants of financial assistance. The conservation and improvement of the National Estate does not depend solely, or even principally, on the expenditure of vast sums of public moneys. Fundamentally, the responsibility for protecting the National Estate is one that rests on the whole community, including governments. Proper attitudes, sound planning, and enlightened decision-making, taking account of all the facts, is the whole basis of responsible environmental protection. In respect to future appropriations for National Estate purposes, the Government will be of course seek the advice of the Commission.

The Commission will be required to give positive and comprehensive advice to the Government on the whole range of ways in which particular elements of the National Estate can be protected. As its first task, the Commission will proceed urgently with the preparation of the register of the National Estate so that priorities can be examined on a factual and systematic basis, and not piecemeal. The register is an important planning document because it will provide essential information for the Government in making decisions on policies and programs. As soon as the register is well advanced the Government will be in a position to consider all the necessary action for the protection of places recorded in the register, including the question of financial assistance, and in conjunction with State and local governments. We are particularly keen to see that the Commission carries out its functions in full consultation with all appropriate departments and authorities both at the Commonwealth level and the State level. Section 8 of the Act will be amended to give effect to this broad consultative role of the Commission. In particular we are providing in the Bill that the Commission consult with the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service.

Honourable senators will appreciate that a most significant part of the National Estate concerns Aboriginal sites. These raise issues that can be quite complex. The Bill provides that the Commission, in preparing the register, should act in respect to Aboriginal sites only when those sites are protected under State or Territory laws, or in accordance with a direction of the Minister, or on the recommendation of a person or organisation approved by the Minister. This is to ensure the necessary degree of co-ordination and control in this sensitive area of the Australian heritage.

It is proposed to amend section 32 of the Act by omitting sub-sections (2) and (3). This will have the effect of removing an anomaly that arose when the Act was passed last year whereby the Chairman of the Commission who is, of course, a part-time office holder, was vested with the powers of a permanent head under the Public Service Act. The power of the Chairman in relation to the staff of the Commission will be provided for by amendment of the Act and by administrative arrangements. Staff will be provided to service the Commission from departmental resources. The Act provides that the services of officers or employees of the Commonwealth Government may be made available to the Commission and this will be done in consultation with the Chairman of the Commission. The Chairman will have the appropriate powers in relation to staff made available under this arrangement.

There are a number of other small consequential amendments and some of a machinery nature included in the Bill. The principal amendments however are designed to ensure that the Commission is established as an efficient and effective unit of Government working within the Government’s overall policies, and with other departments and authorities in order to bring forward policy advice to the Government on the protection of the national estate.

Finally, I wish to inform honourable senators of the arrangement made to get the Heritage Commission operating at the earliest possible date, and to ensure that effective action is taken to protect the National Estate. Appointments were made to the Commission on 8 July 1976, and the first meeting of the Commission was held in Canberra on 27 July.

As I mentioned earlier, the Commission’s priority task is to start work on the register. There is a tremendous amount of work to be done in identifying and recording those places that are important to our heritage, and the Government is keen to see that the full resources of the Commission are applied to this task as quickly as possible. The Commission will be assisted, I am sure, by work already done in this field by the National Trust bodies. Although in the current economic circumstances the Government does not propose to include funds in the Budget this year for grants to the States for National Estate purposes, other than for existing commitments, I can assure honourable senators that we accept our responsibilities for the protection of the National Estate, in the light of the evidence of urgent need disclosed through the preparation of the register. There have been programs of assistance in past years that have been most fruitful, and very well received in the States. This is a year for consolidation and planning, and the Commission will take full advantage of this opportunity to get its operations on to a firm basis for the future.

These arrangements that I have announced show our determination to achieve a responsible balance between conservation of the environment and economic growth. They show also our concern to work with the States and the voluntary bodies, and indeed with the whole community for the improvement of environmental and conservation standards. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Mulvihill) adjourned.

page 220

BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill 1976 is designed to give effect to the Government’s decision to ban the advertising of cigarettes and cigarette tobacco on broadcasting and television stations as from 1 September 1976, and to amend the existing provisions of the Act in relation to the licensing of television translator stations, community television aerial systems and to extend the provisions of the Act relating to television translator stations to permit the licensing of broadcasting translator stations.

On 27 February, the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Eric Robinson) announced that the Government had decided to completely ban the advertising of cigarettes and cigarette tobacco on broadcasting and television in line with the phasing out program which commenced on 1 September 1973. The phase-out program was developed at the request of the previous Government by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board on the understanding that it would provide a breathing space to enable stations to develop alternative sources of revenue. The phasing out plan developed by the Board expires on 31 August next and the Bill provides for the banning of cigarettes and cigarette tobacco advertising from 1 September.

Undisputed reputable medical evidence indicates that cigarette smoking is causing a growing pernicious death toll including facts that approximately 90 per cent of lung cancer cases which now cause some 4000 deaths annually in Australia, are related to cigarette smoking as are 25 per cent of deaths from coronary heart disease. I am sure honourable senators will agree the Government would be negligent in its duty if it did not take action to ban the advertising of such products in areas where it has constitutional power. In this connection the Government has agreed that the Minister for Health should pursue with State Health Ministers their proposals to work towards uniform legislation to control cigarette advertising in areas where the Commonwealth has no constitutional power.

The other proposals in the Bill amend the existing provisions relating to the licensing of television translator stations and community television aerial systems and extend the provisions relating to television translator stations to permit the licensing of broadcasting translator stations. The existing provisions of the Act relating to translator stations restrict the Australian Broadcasting Control Board to making a recommendation that licences be granted in these areas on a criterion based on technical considerations. It is proposed that the provisions be extended to permit the Board to recommend the grant of a licence based on community of interest. The proposal will enable the Board to recommend the grant of a licence where the television service already available does not emanate from a station which is identified with the local community, for example, in the case of a station close to a State border which may provide an adequate signal from a technical point of view to residents of the adjacent State, but which naturally does not provide appropriate programs.

Honourable senators will note that adequate safeguards have been incorporated in the Bill against the possibility of metropolitan broadcasting or television stations being permitted to encroach into areas which are licensed to be served by non-metropolitan stations. It will be noted that it will be necessary for the Australian Broadcasting Control Board to publish in the Gazette and a newspaper circulating in an area that it is considering the need for a licence for such area and to notify interested persons who may then apply to the Board or may make written objection to the Board to the grant of such a licence. Should two or more applications or an objection be received, it will be necessary for the Board to conduct a public inquiry. Should the Board make a recommendation that a licence be granted to a metropolitan station to serve an area that is not within the normal range of a metropolitan station, an application may be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal against the Board ‘s recommendation. It will also be necessary for the Board to determine the normal range of a station and to publish such determination. There will also be an appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal against such determinations.

The amended provisions relating to community television aerial systems will also permit the Board to take into account ‘community of interest’ considerations when recommending the grant of licences and provide for such systems to be developed where for aesthetic reasons housing estates could be planned without the necessity for houses to have individual external aerials. Such systems, of course, will be permitted to receive only programs from nearby television stations. It will not be possible for the systems to transmit anything other than the programs of existing television stations.

There is no provision in the existing Act to permit the licensing of broadcasting translator stations. There are many areas mainly in the outback where broadcasting services suffer some deficiencies, but where the populations are insufficient to support the viable operation of a separate station. The proposed provisions will permit the extension of existing services to such fringe or nearby areas. The widespread use of broadcasting translator stations will also be necessary in respect of frequency modulation services as they are developed in order to fill in gaps in coverage caused by natural and manmade obstructions, for example, hills, tall buildings and so on.

The opportunity has also been taken to make necessary machinery amendments consequent upon the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act.

I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Button) adjourned.

page 222

MARRIAGE AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This is a Bill to amend the Marriage Act 1961-1973. In the last couple of years, most of the attention that has been given to the area of family law has concentrated on the new divorce, maintenance, custody and matrimonial property legislation contained in the Family Law Act, and on the new Family Courts that have been established under that Act. However, it is proper to acknowledge that many of the persons, both inside and outside Parliament, who expressed views both for and against the family law legislation were motivated by a desire to preserve and protect the institution of marriage.

The present Government shares entirely this desire, and the main provisions of this Bill have been included for no other purpose than that of underpinning marriage. Many supporters of the Family Law Act saw it as upholding the institution of marriage by reducing the bitterness and humiliation in divorce and other matrimonial proceedings, and by offering greater encouragement to parties to be reconciled or to terminate their relationship amicably through the use of marriage counselling. This Bill seeks to uphold the institution of marriage by encouraging a greater awareness in persons of the nature, dimensions and responsibilities of marriage before they take the decisive step to enter into marriage.

In other words, while the Family Law Act deals with cures, this Bill deals with prevention.

The Bill contains 4 measures aimed at encouraging stable marriages and discouraging the formation of hasty or ill-advised marriages. Of these measures, the Government regards as the most far-reaching the provisions in the Bill for the subsidising by the Government of pre-marital education programs.

Honourable senators will be aware that the Government already provides a substantial subsidy to approved voluntary organisations to offer marriage counselling. The amount for the current financial year is of the order of $ 1.9m. Marriage counselling is generally understood to mean the helping of individual spouses or individual married couples or, possibly, small groups of couples with their particular problems. However, the presentation of set programs or courses of pre-marital education that are not related to the particular circumstances of the persons attending them falls outside the concept of counselling.

While the Government recognises, and will continue to support, the invaluable counselling work of both the approved counselling organisations and the Family Court counsellors, we feel that pre-marital education programs and courses can, if supported and made more widely available, also play an important part in helping to reduce marital instability. Accordingly, the Bill enables grants of money to be made to approved organisations for the conduct of pre-marital education programs. Voluntary organisations able and willing to conduct such programs can apply to the Attorney-General for approval. Marriage counselling organisations that are approved under the Family Law Act are deemed to be approved for the purposes of these amendments. In the same way as under the relevant provisions of the Family Law Act, the amendments provide for approved organisations to furnish annual financial statements and reports on their premarital education activities.

Honourable senators would be aware that already several organisations are conducting worthwhile pre-marital education programs. It is envisaged that in the first instance, the funds available will be applied towards some pilot programs to determine the relative effectiveness of various types of pre-marital education programs. Allowing the necessary time for the formulation of administrative guidelines, it is expected that pilot funding of programs will begin early in 1977. Accordingly, $50,000 has been allowed in the Budget for this purpose.

An important corollary to assisting the provision of pre-marital education is the need to increase public awareness of the existence of these programs. The assistance given to approved organisations will obviously extend to enabling them to advertise the courses. However, the Government has decided that an additional useful way of drawing the attention of engaged couples to the availability of these programs would be by requiring marriage celebrants to give couples information about the courses on receiving notice from them of the intended marriage. This Bill therefore inserts a requirement in the Marriage Act for a celebrant to hand to the parties to an intended marriage a document, in a form to be prescribed, outlining the obligations and consequences of marriage and indicating the availability of both pre-marital education and marriage counselling.

The information and advice contained in the document about the obligations and consequences would, of course, be of a practical and non-controversial nature. Honourable senators may be assured that the views of marriage registering authorities and marriage counselling organisations would be obtained in the preparation of the document.

I have already indicated that the proposal to subsidise pre-marital education does not imply any diminution in the importance that the Government attaches to individual marriage counselling. In fact, in recognition of the benefit that counselling might offer to persons contemplating marriage, the Government has decided that where a person under 18 has been refused parental consent to marry and wishes to apply to a magistrate for his consent instead, the person should first have to attend counselling with an approved marriage counselling organisation under the Family Law Act. Accordingly, the Bill provides that a magistrate is not to proceed with an application for his consent in place of parental consent unless a certificate is produced to him to the effect that the applicant has attended such counselling. Provision is included to enable the magistrate to dispense with the requirement if he is satisfied that counselling faculties are not reasonably available to the applicant.

Consistently with the policy of the Family Law Act towards the use of counselling, the Bill does not go to the extent of imposing a more general requirement of compulsory attendance at premarital education or counselling. I understand that it is the view of most marriage counselling experts that counselling or education is most likely to be effective where it is sought voluntarily. These amendments also reflect the view of the Government that, in the case of young persons, there is still room for recognition of the value of parental views on their intended marriage. Only when a young person and his or her parent are unable to agree on the intended marriage is it felt that counselling should be made a condition of proceeding with that marriage.

A widely made suggestion for promoting marriage stability is that persons should be made to wait longer before being able to marry. The Attorney-General has received suggestions that persons should have to wait up to 12 months before being able to marry. Although the opinion of marriage counselling experts is somewhat divided on the value of long engagements, the Government saw merit in the proposal to extend the minimum period for giving notice of intended marriage beyond the existing period of 7 days. Proposals for substantial expansion of this period had to be weighed against the consideration that, in principle, arbitrary restrictions on a fundamental right such as the right to marry should not be lightly imposed. The Government decided that the best compromise would be to increase the minimum period of notice of intended marriage to 1 month, which is the period proposed in many of the suggestions received. I might add that the right to apply to a prescribed authority for a shortening of the minimum period for sufficient reason will remain unchanged in the Act.

I hope that the combination of the amendments to extend the period of notice of intended marriage and to require celebrants to hand the prescribed document to the parties on giving notice will encourage more engaged couples to consider the value of attending a pre-marital education course. Where an engaged couple are experiencing difficulties as they approach marriage, I hope that the information about marriage counselling contained in the document might encourage them, in the extra time they will have to wait before the marriage, to consider consulting a marriage counsellor about their difficulties.

The remainder of the provisions of this Bill are of a more technical or formal nature. The virtually obsolete action for breach of promise of marriage is abolished. The amendment preserves any pending action for breach of promise, and also preserves any right that a person would otherwise have had to recover gifts given in contemplation of marriage.

The provisions in the Family Law Act prescribing the circumstances in which a marriage is void are to be incorporated in the Marriage Act, where one would expect to find them. By a curious coincidence, on the two occasions when this Parliament has approved major reforms of family law, the reform of the law of dissolution of marriage has preceded the reform of the law governing the formation of marriage. The Matrimonial Causes Act of 1959 preceded the Marriage Act of 1961 and the Family Law Act of last year preceded this Bill. One consequence of this was that the void marriage provisions had to be included in the divorce legislation on both occasions. In rectifying this state of affairs and putting the void marriage provisions in the Marriage Act, some formal drafting changes have been made to what is a highly technical area of law. No changes of substance have, however, been made. In another technical area of the law, namely, the determination of a person’s domicile, the Bill inserts a provision in the Marriage Act corresponding to the domicile provision of the Family Law Act.

A number of provisions of the Bill provide for various functions now exercised under the Act by courts and judges or magistrates to be exercised by the Family Courts and judges of those courts respectively. By Family Courts I refer to both the Family Court of Australia and State Family Courts. The amendments would also enable proclamations to be made having the effect of making these functions exercisable exclusively by Family Courts and Family Court judges.

The Bill provides for a right of appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, instead of to the Attorney-General, for a person who has been refused registration as a religious marriage celebrant or who, being a religious marriage celebrant, has been deregistered. This amendment is consequential upon the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975.

I feel sure that honourable senators will recognise that the Government is, through this Bill, making a very real attempt to try and bolster the institution of marriage by the only means that are really likely to work in the long run. These are neither prohibition nor compulsion, but persuasion and inducement to people to increase their self-awareness and awareness of each other when contemplating marriage, and thereby to make with more prudence and consideration what will be their most important decision. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Button) adjourned.

page 224

CRIMES (INTERNATIONALLY PROTECTED PERSONS) BILL 1976

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation · LP

– I move:

The Crimes (Internationally Protected Persons) Bill and the two associated extradition amendment Bills will enable Australia to ratify and implement the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons including Diplomatic Agents, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 14 December 1973 and signed by Australia in December 1974. This Convention requires that the intentional commission of murders, kidnappings and other acts of violence against diplomats, Heads of State, Heads of Government, Foreign Ministers in foreign states and other persons entitled to special protection under international law, be made serious offences under national law.

Following consideration in 1 972 and 1 973 of proposals aimed at combating terrorism around the world and particularly terrorism against diplomats the Australian Government spoke in the United Nations in 1972 in support of a convention against terrorism. The Convention is not yet in force but the United Kingdom and the United States of America have also signed it and have announced their intentions to implement it and ratify it. For many years nations have accepted an obligation to protect diplomatic representatives. These obligations were formalised in conventions adopted in Vienna in 1963. More recent events have shown the need, which the present Convention seeks to meet, to develop and make more effective these obligations. The Convention follows in many respects the 1970 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft and the 1971 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Aircraft and the three Bills likewise follow the general pattern of the Crimes (Hijacking of Aircraft) Act 1972, the Crimes (Protection of Aircraft) Act 1973 and the amendments made to the extradition Acts in 1972 and 1973 to implement those conventions.

Article 2 of the Convention requires States Parties to make the intentional commission of the offences described in that article crimes punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature. The obligation that Australia will accept under this article is implemented by clause 8 of the Crimes (Internationally Protected Persons) Bill. As required by the Convention, jurisdiction will be given to Australian courts to deal with these offences, not only when committed in Australian territory, but also when the alleged offender is an Australian citizen or the offence is commited against an Australian internationally protected person overseas. Jurisdiction will also be given to Australian courts when an alleged offender is found in Australia. The intention is that the provisions of the Act dealing with offences in Australia shall be operative on royal assent. However, the provisions concerning offences committed outside Australia will not be operative until the Convention enters into force for Australia.

The remaining provisions of the Bill providing for taking suspected offenders into custody, the prosecution of offenders and the proof of various evidentiary matters implement the obligations that Australia will assume under the Convention. These provisions follow, broadly speaking, the legislation dealing with the hijacking and protection of aircraft to which I have previously referred. The definition of ‘internationally protected person’ in the Convention includes all persons who, under international law, are entitled to special protection from attacks. Lengthy detailed provisions would be required to describe fully the classes of persons who would come within that description. The making of regulations specifying these classes of persons is set out in clause 17.

With the object that offenders against internationally protected persons be punished, the Convention seeks to ensure that the crimes referred to in the Convention are extraditable under existing extradition treaties and to facilitate the extradition in appropriate cases of alleged offenders. Accordingly, the two associated extradition amendment Bills make the new offences extradition crimes for the purposes of Australian legislation. The object of the Convention would largely be defeated if the exclusion provided generally under the extradition Acts in relation to offences of a political character were applicable to the new offences and the two extradition Bills therefore provide that the new offences should not be taken to be offences of a political character.

However, honourable senators can be assured that the essential safeguards provided under Australian extradition legislation will not be affected by these amendments. Not only must the Attorney-General be satisfied as to the general propriety of the request for extradition before an extradition may proceed but also sufficient evidence must be placed before an Australian magistrate to justify the trial of the alleged offender. Further, both Acts forbid extradition where there are substantial grounds for believing that the alleged offender might be prejudiced at his trial in the foreign state by reason of his race, religion, nationality or political opinions. Observance of the requirements of the Act can be enforced by a superior court in Australia. With the passage of these three Bills, Australia will be able to play its part in the international endeavours to better protect internationally protected persons against terrorist acts of violence. I commend the Bills to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Button) adjourned.

page 225

EXTRADITION (COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES) AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation · LP

– I move:

The reasons for the introduction of this Bill have already been covered in my second reading speech on the Crimes (Internationally Protected Persons) Bill 1976. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Button) adjourned.

page 225

EXTRADITION (FOREIGN STATES) AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation · LP

– I move:

The reasons for the introduction of this Bill have been covered in my second reading speech on the Crimes (Internationally Protected Persons) Bill 1 976. 1 commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Button) adjourned.

page 226

COCOS (KEELING) ISLANDS LANDS ACQUISITION (REPEAL) ORDINANCE 1976

Motion for Disallowance

Debate resumed from 19 August, on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland:

That the Lands Acquisition (Repeal) Ordinance 1976, as contained in Cocos (Keeling) Islands Ordinance No. 1 of 1976, and made under the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act 1955-1975, be disallowed.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– The Government is opposed to the motion moved by Senator Douglas McClelland and will vote against it. I do not wish to canvass the arguments as to whether, if a repealing ordinance is disallowed, the repealed ordinance is revived. For some years there has been an argument, which has not yet been settled- perhaps it ought to be settled by proper clarification of the Acts Interpretation Act- as to whether the disallowance of a repealing ordinance revives a repealed ordinance. I think the current view is that it does not, and therefore even if Senator Douglas McClelland ‘s motion were carried it would achieve nothing because it would not revive the repealed ordinance. There is an argument as to whether it does or does not and the most popular view seems to be that it does not. I suppose that the motion moved by Senator Douglas McClelland could be used as a vehicle to debate the Government’s present policies relating to the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, but I put it to the Senate that it is really about whether the repeal ordinance, which was signed into law by the Governor-General earlier this year, ought to be disallowed.

I think we ought to go back to the time shortly after the ordinance was brought into effect by the previous Government when Senator Douglas McClelland was the Minister in charge. The simple fact is that the original ordinance, as approved by Senator Douglas McClelland and as approved by the Labor Government, was found by the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances to be in breach of the principles laid down by that Committee. For years the Regulations and Ordinances Committee has had the respect of all honourable senators. A principle has been followed by the Committee for some 44 years, and I think it is fair to say that the principle underlying the criteria on which the Regulations and Ordinances Committee works is that its aim is to protect individual citizens from the follies or the unfairness or the arbitrariness of governments. I use the word ‘governments’ in its plural sense and not in a party political sense. As you would know from your long experience in this place, Mr Deputy President, the Regulations and Ordinances Committee has been quite undeterred by the party in power when determining its recommendations.

The Committee sees its task to be that of ensuring that ordinances do not trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties. I put it to the Senate that that is something in which all honourable senators would say that they believe. The criteria also seek to ensure that ordinances do not make the rights and liberties of citizens unduly dependent upon administrative rather than judicial decisions, and I have yet to hear anybody in this place say that that is a wrong criterion. Thirdly, the criteria seek to ensure that ordinances are concerned with administrative detail and do not amount to substantive legislation, which should be a matter for parliamentary enactment.

When the Regulations and Ordinances Committee reported on this matter on 18 March 1976 it stated that this ordinance offended at least one of its principles. The Committee was quite careful to point out that it was not concerned with the policy of the ordinance, and I think that is very important. In its report the Committee stated:

This Ordinance, as contained in Cocos (Keeling) Islands Ordinance No. 5 of 1 975, provides for the acquisition of land in the Territory by agreement or by compulsory process, and the transfer of land so acquired to persons. The Lands Acquisition Act does not apply to the Territory.

That means that if the Lands Acquisition Act does not apply to the Territory then no right resides in the owner not only of land but of any property to obtain just terms for its compulsory acquisition.

Section 5 1 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia lays down quite clearly that the Parliament shall, subject to the Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to certain matters. If one looks at placitum (xxxi) one will see that it refers to the acquisition of property, whether personal or real, on just terms from any State or person for any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws. There has been a High Court ruling on this matter and that is that that constitutional provision does not protect people in the Australian Territories. From memory, that was a decision which related in particular to Papua New Guinea, but it still applies to the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory and, one assumes, the 3 island Territories of Norfolk Island, Christmas Island and Cocos Island. Therefore there is a constitutional gap in that should the Commonwealth acquire property in the Territories there is no obligation upon it to pay just terms. If my memory serves me correctly, there is nothing in this ordinance that provides for the payment of just terms. If one were looking at policy and not much else, that would be a good enough reason why it ought to have been disallowed.

The Regulations and Ordinances Committee went on in paragraph 3 of its report to say:

The Ordinance would allow the acquistion of all land in the Territory, and contains no restrictions on the purposes for which land may be acquired and transferred to persons. The then responsible Minister -

That was Senator Douglas McClelland- submitted to the Committee in October 1973:

Much attention was given, when the Ordinance was being prepared, to ways of denning the purposes for which acquistion might take place, but no formula could be found that was entirely satisfactory to cover all the possible purposes for which a government may propose to acquire land in the Territory.’

Another of the Committee’s objections came about in paragraph 4, which reads:

The Committee is not concerned with the policy of the Ordinance, but is concerned to ensure that subordinate legislation, made by the executive, is not used to give effect to substantive matters of policy which ought to be the subject of parliamentary enactment. The Committee considers that, if the executive is to have a general power to acquire and transfer all land in the Territory for unspecified purposes, this policy ought to be laid before the Parliament in the form of a proposed statute for the Parliament’s consideration. For that reason the Committee recommends that the Ordinance be disallowed.

The Committee was an all-Party committee. I think it is fair enough to say that the Committee consisted at the date of that report of 4 LiberalCountry Party senators and 3 Labor Party senators and that they were of that unanimous view. As the Minister in charge of the ordinance- I say this not in excuse but in explanation- and having read the report, I knew very well what would happen to the report, that is, that if the traditions of the Senate of 44 years were followed the Senate would uphold the findings of the Committee and the ordinance would be disallowed by the

Senate. It is well known that when the Regulations and Ordinances Committee has problems as to whether subordinate legislation fits within its criteria the Committee negotiates with the responsible Minister. Perhaps it might be more accurate to say that the responsible Minister starts to negotiate with the Regulations and Ordinances Committee, because any Minister who has any sense of responsibility knows very well that if he likes to dig in his heels and be pigheaded about the matter he will find that the Senate, irrespective of what he may think and not caring about Party affiliations or Party lines, will support its Committee in the disallowance of the ordinance. I think that is a jolly good thing. Because of that attitude the Senate, through its Regulations and Ordinances Committee, has protected the freedoms and the rights of all Australian citizens for a long time.

Those were the circumstances when the Committee presented its report to the Senate recommending disallowance of the ordinance. I repeat that as the responsible Minister I was faced with the choice of arranging for the withdrawal of the ordinance or supporting its disallowance in the Senate. Perhaps it might be stretching it a bit too far to say that a Minister of the Crown would necessarily support a Committee of the Senate and vote for the disallowance of his own motion, but I imagine that the only ones of my 36 colleagues in this place who would have stayed with me would have been my ministerial colleagues, out of respect for ministerial responsibility and collective responsibility and that the balance would have voted for the disallowance of the ordinance. Again I say in explanation and not in excuse that, as disallowance seemed to me inevitable, I chose, after speaking with the Chairman of the Committee, to bring down an ordinance repairing the original ordinance. It seemed to me then, and it still seems to me, to be the simplest and most sensible course for any Minister to adopt because it respected the wishes of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee. It also ensured that an ordinance that offended against the principles laid down by the Committee did not remain on the statute book.

I am somewhat surprised that Senator Douglas McClelland made the remarks that he made the other day. He said that the ordinance should not have been repealed. The fact of the matter is this: Once the Regulations and Ordinances Committee had brought down its report I came to the view- I still hold it- that if I did not repeal the ordinance there would be sufficient honourable senators in this place to disallow it. I believe that it was far better to repeal the ordinance than to have a confrontation with the Committee, whose views I respect, or with my own colleagues. It was because of the fact that the Committee said in its judgment, which I respect and accept, that the ordinance as then framed offended against the long-standing criteria of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee that I repealed the ordinance. It was for that reason and none other that the ordinance was repealed.

Senator Douglas McClelland is now attempting to revive an ordinance that has been condemned by a committee of the Senate. He is attempting to revive a piece of legislation that in effect amounts to an attack upon the rights of people to own and keep property. I thought that we had been all through this before. I recall that quite a while back- I think it was 1973- an attempt was made to have a Bill passed through this Parliament to amend the Lands Acquisition Act to exempt the Commonwealth of Australia from paying just terms for land compulsorily acquired in the Australian Capital Territory- in particular, the Lanyon estate. Those honourable senators who were here at that time will recall that we who were then in Opposition were bitterly opposed to such a piece of legislation. As we said then and as we say now, the distinction that the High Court has found can be drawn between the necessity for the Commonwealth to pay just terms for land compulsorily acquired within the 6 original states and the Territories is a legal distinction. We believe that people who live in the Territories ought not to be deprived of receiving just terms for their property that is compulsorily acquired merely because of an accident of constitutional interpretation.

That was the first attempt of the Labor Party in effect to expropriate property without paying just terms for it. I thought that would have been a sufficient lesson for our opponents opposite and that they would have then believed that it was not in the best interests of Australians to pursue such an action. Basically, the Labor Party is attempting the same sort of action by moving for the resurrection of this ordinance. If the Labor Party is attempting to resurrect the ordinance merely as a vehicle to debate the Government’s policy on Cocos (Keeling) Islands, I think that is a very poor device to use. There are other forms of the Senate whereby that can be properly debated.

When we come to a vote- as we will before long- we will not vote on what either side’s policy is on Cocos Island. We will vote on either side’s policy on the compulsory acquisition of property. It is also a vote on whether the unanimity and total support of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances which for 44 years has enjoyed the respect and the support of all parties in the Senate are to be upheld. When the Senate divides, if the Opposition takes the view that the repeal ordinance ought to be disallowed, in effect it is saying for the first time in 44 years that the Senate’s Regulations and Ordinances Committee was wrong, that the honourable senators who sat on it came to a wrong decision. If they came to a wrong decision, that ought to be the subject of the debate. We should not go about it in this way. That is what this division will be all about, disguise it as the Opposition may wish.

Recently there have been some fairly disturbing rumours around the Senate. It has been alleged- I do not vouch for the truth of the allegation- that the Australian Labor Party Caucus recently decided that its members on all committees in future shall be bound by Caucus decisions. I hope that allegation is false. The success of the committee system in the past has been due to the way in which honourable senators from all sides have submerged their political differences during committee work. If Caucus is asking members to vote against their own consciences, I put it to the Senate that this must mean the eventual, total destruction of the committee system of the Parliament. It will certainly mean the destruction of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee of this chamber. If committees such as the Regulations and Ordinances Committee become the subject of petty, party political arguments and attempts by one party or the other to force its policies down other committee members’ throats, I believe that the whole committee system is threatened. I say that quite seriously.

It is of no use everybody being terribly pious and talking about the role of Senate committees, about the need to have a Senate committee as a watchdog of the people’s rights and liberties- as the Regulations and Ordinances Committee is often referred to- with the necessity to have parliamentary intervention against the always natural desire of the Executive to bypass the normal, standard procedures of Parliament. Really, that is what the Regulations and Ordinances Committee is all about. It is there to protect people from arbitrary government. It is of no use having these fancy phrases and talking about the necessity of ombudsmen, of administrative appeals tribunals and of this and that.

This chamber set up a committee which came into the Senate with a unanimous recommendation that it was not concerned with the policy of the ordinance. I think that was said honestly and correctly by the Committee. It stated that the ordinance offended certain criteria which have long been held to be the proper criteria by the Senate, not just by the Committee. But if the Parliament says that the Regulations and Ordinances Committee is wrong, I think that once we start on that path we may as well start to wind up some of these committees.

I say again that this is not a debate about the policy of the previous Government on Cocos Island. It is not a debate about the policy of the present Government on Cocos Island. That has nothing to do with the motion which is before the Senate. The motion is about whether a Minister of the Crown was correct in repealing an ordinance which the Regulations and Ordinances Committee had recommended be disallowed because it offended certain criteria which have been in force for some 44 years. It is as simple as that. I say in sorrow, not in anger, that it is a matter of enormous regret that Senator Douglas McClelland and the Opposition have brought this motion before the Senate.

In a policy matter it really does not matter whether the honourable senator’s motion should be carried or should fail. What does matter is the fact that for the first time since I have been in this place there has been a party political attempt to upset the oldest presently existing active committee of the Senate which has enjoyed an enormous reputation not only within the Parliament but also among political scientists, constitutional lawyers and those interested in the workings of the Parliament. The Regulations and Ordinances Committee has enjoyed an enormous reputation because it has approached problems not caring about the policy contained in the ordinance or in the regulation but being concerned about the rights of individuals as set out in certain criteria. That is what this matter is all about. The Senate has to decide whether it will stay with its own Committee or whether, after 44 years, it believes that the Committee has been acting incorrectly. The Government will vote against the motion moved by Senator Douglas McClelland.

Senator PRIMMER:
Victoria

-I rise to support Senator Douglas McClelland in his motion which states:

That the Lands Acquisition (Repeal) Ordinance 1976 as contained in the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Ordinance No. 1 of 1976, and made under the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act 1955-1 975, be disallowed.

Senator Douglas McClelland later in his speech on page 1 92 of Hansard stated:

The original purpose of the introduction of the Lands Acquisition Ordinance by me when I was Special Minister of State in the Whitlam Labor Government on, I think, 10 September 1975 was to bring about some form of change on Cocos (Keeling) Islands.

Later in relation to the time that this matter was brought forward the honourable senator stated:

We as a Government at that time were engaged principally, as every honourable senator will remember, in endeavouring to get our Budget accepted by the Parliament. Because of the urgency of the situation we decided to adopt the course that we followed, lt was a matter of urgency because for so long undertakings had been given to the people of the Cocos Malay community- by the McMahon Government as well as by the Labor Government- and to the United Nations by governments, and apparently nothing had been done other than the introduction of primary school education on Home Island and the appointment of an administrator.

At about that time the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence was engaged in pursuing the following reference which the Senate had handed down to it on 3 December 1 974:

Role and involvement of Australia and the United Nations in the affairs of sovereign Australian territories.

I think some honourable senators on the Committee would already know that there was quite some discussion as to whether that Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee should go to Cocos (Keeling) Islands to have a look at the situation for itself. Ultimately the decision was made that it would; but I point out that some attempts did appear to have been made within the bureaucracy to curtail the visit by the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence to these islands, for what purpose I am not quite sure. Nevertheless, as I said, the Committee did visit the Islands. The interest of the Committee in the matter went back to the visit in August 1974 to the Cocos (Keeling) Islands by the United Nations Committee of Twenty-Four. It is noted that paragraph 33 of the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, entitled United Nations involvement with Australia’s Territories, states:

In November 1974 the Committee of Twenty-Four considered and adopted by concensus the report of the visiting mission to the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. In general terms the report was critical of conditions in Cocos and called upon Australia as the administering power to implement reforms. The Australian representative indicated general acceptance of these recommendations. The Committee of Twenty-Four also agreed on a statement, subsequently adopted by the General Assembly, concerning the Cocos (Keeling) Islands which recorded the General Assembly’s appreciation of Australia’s participation and its willingness to receive a further visiting mission to the territory.

The report, which is rather large, goes on to point out some of the things that the Committee found on arriving at the Cocos (Keeling) Islands and talking to the people there.

The matter which concerned Senator Douglas McClelland as the responsible Minister at the time was raised in discussion with Mr Clunies Ross. The following is stated in paragraph 53 of the report of the Senate Standing Committee:

A related issue concerns the continued presence of the Clunies Ross family in the Islands. As a result of economic and governmental pressures, Mr Clunies Ross informed the Committee of his decision to sever the family’s connections with the Islands and to negotiate the transfer of his assets to a Cocos Island Community Co-operative.

The report states in paragraph 54:

The Committee urges that serious consideration now be g’ iven to acquisition of the entire Estate in order to establish a Cocos Island Community Co-operative. The Committee believes that such a co-operative would assist significantly in the creation of an integrated community with a sense of responsibility and purpose. The Committee concurs with the view that acquisition of the Estate is the most practical means of giving effect to the reforms which are desired for the benefit of the Cocos Island people.

In the light of that evidence, which was given to the Committee in its discussions with Mr John Clunies Ross, it would appear that the steps being taken by the Minister of the day, Senator Douglas McClelland, had the agreement of both the Government and Mr John Clunies Ross. From our discussions with Mr Clunies Ross in the privacy of his own lounge room it was patently obvious that at that stage he was prepared to accede to the Government’s wish and to have further talks with the Minister and come to some arrangement whereby his property could be handed over to some form of co-operative in which everybody could participate, provided just compensation was applied.

That being so, I find it rather hard to understand why the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances should have come down with the decision that it made. Here was a man who had stated to us as members of the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence that he was prepared to talk with the Government. I know that Senator Douglas McClelland had been talking and continued to talk with him. Now we have a committee of this Parliament moving in and telling both of those consenting parties that they should not deal with each other. I find that a little hard to understand.

One of the things that perturbs me, and I am sure other members of the Senate Committee who visited the Islands, is that if there are any protracted delays in carrying out some form of progress on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands anything could happen. We read and hear today of problems which have arisen in other countries. One that readily comes to mind is the problem in South Africa where individuals in the community have had their progress retarded for many years. Such action builds up frustrations to boiling point and we then find people being murdered, shot or incarcerated for no reason other than that one party will not give way and will not come to some form of agreement.

Those of us who visited the island could well see the situation that prevailed. The Committee took with it two qualified interpreters. To the best of my knowledge this was the first time that a parliamentary committee had been to Cocos Island and had taken interpreters. In that respect the Senate Committee was miles ahead of the United Nations Committee of Twenty-Four. On one occasion Senator Sir Magnus Cormack and myself were intruded by the Committee to meet with the islanders and to talk about their problems. This we did in the village square, and afterwards we went into the people’s homes and discussed their problems with them. It was obvious that these people knew that there was a better life somewhere else. They have relatives on Christmas Island and in Western Australia who are able to tell them of the disparity between their respective life styles.

Conditions on Cocos (Keeling) Islands are deplorable. To be gracious, perhaps not all of the problem has resulted from the policies of John Clunies Ross. It may be just that history has passed the Islands by. We must realise that these people have no running water in their homes, no refrigerators, and no stoves on which to cook. On Home Island the only toilet facilities are those in the homes of the manager, Mr Dixon, and Mr John Clunies Ross. Every other person on the Island must use the lagoon for that purpose. We talked to the doctor and learned of the continual re-infection of the children with hookworm and respiratory diseases. We talked to the mothers and learned of the lack of educational opportunities. We heard of the frustrations of the younger ones who, off their own bat, had been able to educate themselves to work in some position, like the young lass working in the doctor’s surgery who wanted to go on further with her studies but found that under the existing laws she could not get into Australia to further her education. Several people spoke to us in this vein. I suppose the people who had the greatest impact were the mothers who appealed to us to do something to allow their children to receive a better education.

We sat in the committee room in the Golf Club on West Island and had passed to us notes which had been smuggled into the room because the persons smuggling them feared that John Clunies Ross or Mr Dixon might find out that they were on that Island illegally. One presumes that had the supply ship bringing the 6-monthly cargo to the Islands not been in on the day we were there and had not all the men been working on it we would have met a great number of the men of the community who also would have expressed some grave apprehensions about their future on the Island.

I do not want to say much more at this stage. I hope that before this debate is finished. I will hear from the Minister, Senator Withers, of some proposals that he or his Government has for this community. It does seem to me that, unless he does just that, after the vote is taken on this motion the indigenes of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands will be left in that backwater until the advent of a Labor government some time in the future, perhaps 1978.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK (Victoria) (4.59)- I am bound to support the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Lands Acquisition (Repeal) Ordinance 1976. I hope to make my reasons quite clear. First I want to address myself to the two proponents- first the mover, Senator Douglas McClelland, and then Senator Primmerof a motion for the disallowance of the repeal ordinance, which was introduced by Senator Withers. Not one element of argument has been produced either by Senator Douglas McClelland or Senator Primmer on the correctness or otherwise of the repeal. All we have heard is a description of the conditions on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands.

I will address myself quite clearly in support of Senator Withers for specific reasons. Senator Withers has already canvassed the fact that the Regulations and Ordinances Committee met a rather alarming situation. Recommendations from that Committee have nearly always been accepted by the Senate; I can recollect only one exception in 44 years. Those recommendations are now not being accorded that almost unanimous support that they have been accorded in the past. Rumours around this great, vast and whispering rotunda which is Parliament indicate that the capacity of this Committee to operate on an unanimous basis and get unanimous recommendations accepted has now come to an end. This fills me with a great deal of alarm.

Senator Withers already has canvassed the recommendation of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee, namely that the ordinance should be repealed. Senator Withers took the short cut and repealed the ordinance himself without creating a debate in the Senate. That was unanimously supported by that Committee. The recommendation was supported on the ground of the framework of reference which the Committee was given in 1932. This has already been canvassed but has to be re-emphasised. No Government should be allowed to use the subordinate legislative power to give effect to matters which should be the subject of a statute of Parliament and not the matter merely of an Executive Council recommendation to the GovernorGeneralinCouncil. That is the issue.

Since 1932 this Committee has made its recommendations on the terms of reference that were given to it by the Senate. As I say, the recommendations have been accepted with one exception. I am also aware that when I was sitting on this side from 1951 to 1 953 and in subsequent years the Committee was supported by members of the Australian Labor Party who are now in Opposition. We had to fight tooth and nail with our own Ministers. We always made our point of view prevail, not by going in to a Caucus but simply because right was on the side of those members of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee who demanded the repeal of the ordinance.

Let me give an illustration. One which comes readily to my mind is one which I quoted to Senator Primmer, who was a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence at the time and before we went to Cocos (Keeling) Islands. At that time, honourable senators will recollect, threatening gestures were being made for the acquisition of the land of Mr Clunies Ross and his family. I pointed out to that Committee- I am not breaching any confidentiality which is imposed upon me as a member of that Committee- that the Government which I supported and which had been defeated in 1 972 was confronted with the acquisition of a copra plantation in order to allow for the further development of indigenous people in an area in which the Commonwealth of Australia had direct responsibility. The Parliament of Australia then put through a Bill for an Act to allow for the acquisition on just terms of a vast coconut plantation known as the Plantation of Arawe on the island of Bougainville. It was done by statute. It was not done by the gugger-mugger process of shunting an ordinance through the Executive

Council to acquire land compulsorily in an Australian dependent territory. Bougainville was a dependent territory at that time.

Senator Young:

– It was on fair and just terms.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

-Not only was it on fair and just terms but also the Government of Australia appointed solicitors in Sydney to advise the territorians on a just method of acquisition and on the terms of compensation that should be paid. That Government was of the Liberal-Country Party hue. No effort was made to use the regulatory power and the subordinate legislative power which the Constitution provides to impose acquisition of property in territories. It was done in the reverse way; it was done by statute.

The scene changes and we come to a most disquieting situation which I think I should mention to honourable senators. It was obvious that members of Mr Whitlam ‘s Government were pondering in their minds how they could handle this Cocos (Keeling) Islands situation. No legislative process was to be brought down so that acquisition and treaty could be made under just terms. The matter was put on basis of seizure. Then they involved themselves in what I think is one of the most complicated forms of conspiracy I have ever come across in my experience as a parliamentarian. They invited a sub-committee of the Committee of Twenty-Four- the so-called Decolonisation Committee of the United Nations- to send a mission to the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. This was nothing but a charade and a propaganda exercise. Members of the Government knew perfectly well what was to happen. They knew that members of the mission would be briefed in Canberra and then carted across to the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. The members of the mission had no interpreters with them. They entered into no communication with the people. They spent a couple of days on the Island. They came back to Australia and were debriefed. They then went to New York and solemnly reported to the Committee of TwentyFour that Australia was reprehensible in its management of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. It may well have been- I do not know- but that is an arguable matter which I do not intend embarking upon at present, notwithstanding the piteous tales that I have heard from Senator Douglas McClelland and Senator Primmer.

The Commonwealth Government of Australia then proceeded to move into action. How did it move into action? It moved into action under placitum (xxix) of section 51 of the Australian

Constitution which provides that the Commonwealth has the power to make treaties with a foreign power, in this case the United Nations. The Government undertook to do what the United Nations wished it to do. It applied that foreign power to the compulsory acquisition of land in an Australian territory and then proceeded to acquire it. That is the reason- more particularly than any other- why I say that Senator Withers was entirely justified in repealing the regulation which Senator Douglas McClelland wants rehabilitated. In the first instance, I believe, the Regulations and Ordinances Committee was entirely correct, under the terms of reference given to it by the Senate in 1932, in asking for the repeal of this acquiring ordinance of Senator Douglas McClelland. The ordinance was not in just terms. It was in defiance of an administrative, an Executive and a parliamentary attitude which the previous Government had displayed towards their compulsory acquisition of the Arawe plantation in Bougainville. The Government proceeded to go outside that power and invoke placitum (xxix) of section 5 1 of the Constitution and give itself the power to proceed against the Clunies Ross estate on Cocos (Keeling) Islands. At this stage it decided to bring down the ordinance for compulsory acquisition.

I am aware of the incident mentioned by Senator Primmer. It occurred during the lunch we were having with Mr Clunies Ross at his homestead. Mr Clunies Ross asked me whether I would go out with him to his office. I left the luncheon table with him. He should have asked Senator Primmer- I did not know why I was being invited out there. He then said it was his opinion that the situation was of such an order and nature that he was under the pressure of the majesty, if you like to put it that way, or the vast resources of the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia and there was nothing else for him to do but to get out. He came back to the luncheon table and made the announcement that he was willing to sell to the Commonwealth Government. But he was not willing to sell to the Commonwealth Government on acquisition terms that were less than just.

I do not care who it is. Clunies Ross may claim that he is not an Australian citizen; as far as I am concerned he is an Australian citizen. But whether he is an Australian citizen or not, he is sitting on a territory which is a sovereign territory of Australia and he is entitled to justice. Moreover, before I left the island I gave Dixon, his manager, the address of the solicitors in Sydney who put together the terms of compensation calling for the payment of, I think, $4.5m or f 4.5 m- I forget the exact details at the momentfor the acquisition of the Arawa estate. In this way at least the man who was entitled to justice of one sort or another could get access to technical and legal advice to enable him to protect himself against the action of the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia acting under the foreign power of section 5 1 of the Constitution. I think that this whole operation was a dastardly piece of- I cannot use the word that I want to use because you, Mr Acting Deputy President, would order it to be struck out but anyone who knows me will know the one that was coming to my lips when I withdrew it at the last moment.

Senator Withers:

– Take your pick.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

Senator Withers says, you may take your pick. But there are 2 grounds for repealing the ordinance and I repeat them. The first is the just and proper one used by the Regulations and Ordinances Committee to show why the ordinance inspired by Senator Douglas McClelland and his Government should be repealed. It is impeccable reasoning. The second ground is that it is the first time in my knowledge acquired during the 20 years I have been around the Parliament of Australia that the foreign power contained in placitum (xxix) of section 5 1 of the Constitution has been used in a domestic matter for the acquisition of property. I think that the Senate would be recreant on those 2 grounds if it ever allowed Senator Withers’ action in repealing the ordinance to be overturned.

Of these 2 grounds the one that interests me the most is the attempt by a government to go circuitously around the Australian Constitution. This is indicative of the sort of experiences that perhaps we will have to undergo in future years. This is the first time that the foreign power has been used to obtain a domestic solution in Australia. I hope it is the last. I hope that in the future this Parliament will never allow this to happen. Such action is disgraceful. On those terms I support the arguments put forward by Senator Withers, I reject entirely Senator Douglas McClelland ‘s motion and I hope that the Senate does so as well.

Senator MCINTOSH:
Western Australia

– I support Senator Douglas McClelland ‘s motion on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands lands acquisition ordinance. I do so because the Government has not revealed any policy whatsoever to deal with the situation in the Cocos (Keeling) Islands and it does not seem to be making any moves at all to rectify the feudal system that exists there. We heard something from Senator Withers about rights and liberties. There are also the rights and liberties of the people who are living on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands as well as those of Clunies Ross. These people are anxiously looking towards this Government to see what it is prepared to do about the situation on the Islands.

We heard Senator Sir Magnus Cormack say that he witnessed something for the first time, namely the opposition against this ordinance. We have witnessed a lot of ‘first times’ in this Parliament. We witnessed for the first time something that happened in New South Wales; we witnessed for the first time something that happened in Queensland; and we witnessed for the first time something that happened with the Supply Bills. So there is nothing new in something happening for the first time. The honourable senator spoke about a conspiracy on the part of the previous Government when it was dealing with the Committee of Twenty-Four of the United Nations. There is nothing new about conspiracies either and Senator Sir Magnus Cormack should be aware of that.

I go along with much of the feeling expressed about the United Nations. The United Nations has no formal obligations to implement the grant of independence to non-self-governing territories. But the General Assembly has exerted constant pressure on administering powers to implement articles 73 and 74 of the United Nations Charter not only to achieve selfgovernment but also to achieve independence.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– What about the independence of the Andaman Islands in the Indian Ocean.

Senator McINTOSH:

– The honourable senator can tell us about that the next time he is on his feet. This pressure infers that the United Nations’ conception of democratic government with self-government or independence is, ipso facto, better than the existing system. This inference may not be valid in the short run or necessarily true for a small isolated community such as Cocos. Nevertheless people on the Islands born since 1955 are Australian citizens. People on the Islands of 22 years of age are Australian citizens but are still living under a feudal system. The Government is responsible for administering those Islands.

Since 1955 when Australia became the administering power little has been done to remove or alleviate the worst aspects of the truly feudal system operating on the Islands. There are no elected community representatives. The 6 head men who comprise the Island council and court are appointed by Clunies Ross and are presided over by Clunies Ross. There are no community elections of any sort on Cocos (Keeling) Islands. The workers are paid by plastic tokens redeemable only at the estate store, and the estate is effectively Clunies Ross. Travel to West Island.which is mainly occupied by Australians, is permitted only by express permission of the estate. Any person leaving or residing overseas is not permitted to return to the Islands. Apart from about 600 acres or 150 hectares owned by the Australian Government on West Island, all land, including Malay housing sites, is owned by the estate, which is Clunies Ross.

Education is not compulsory. In fact, students leave school at the age of twelve. The students have primary education but provision is not made for secondary or tertiary education. Yet, we administer these Islands. All the school children on the Islands are Australian citizens. I have received letters from 3 people on the Island who wish to further their education. There is nothing we can do about this situation; there is nothing we seem to be prepared to do about it. These people did not wish me to answer their letters in case they were victimised. They only asked me to see whether we could do something about them furthering their education. They wish to come to Australia and then return to the Islands with some new-found knowledge that they hope to acquire here. But the situation is that we are not prepared to do anything. This is why I am on my feet at the moment and I will refer again to this matter in a moment. The punishments inflicted by the court invariably benefit the estate. For example, people do so many days unpaid labour as some form of punishment.

It appears obvious that a population of fewer than 600 persons with limited resources and technology could not if it were fully independent, provide a viable social and economic structure and some sort of association with a larger, more advanced and richer society seems to be necessary. If Australia is that society it would need to act positively and would need to acquire, by compulsion if necessary, all the land comprising the Cocos group. It would need to acquire the land compulsorily because there is no other way it could administer justice to its citizens living on the estate.

It would need to ensure that the island group is administered by a capable and qualified Australian with due regard to the social and legal customs and mores of the islanders. I believe this is necessary. I believe that if we do anything quickly we could destroy a culture, but we have to do something. Once the curiosities of people have been aroused- their curiosity has been aroused; there is no doubt about that- then it is not up to us to act as God and say: ‘That is enough. You are happy where you are. CluniesRoss tells us that you are happy and some other people tell us that you are happy. Therefore, we can be God and say that your level of education can stop at 12 years of age’. We cannot play that part. Whether it is right or wrong we cannot stop people from satisfying their curiosities.

We have to provide primary, secondary, technical education and, in selected cases, tertiary education on the mainland. I believe this is a responsibility of the Government but I see no Government policy on it. I stand here to oppose the ordinance because no policy has come forward from this Government. We have to ensure that the people are paid in Australian currency and not in tokens. At present, they are paid in tokens which are useless. The people cannot even save up to get off the island because they are paid in tokens.

We have to introduce some form of democratically elected political assembly which, perhaps initially should be an advisory body to the Administrator but which eventually should be fitted to deal with the internal affairs of the islands. There are many things we can do and there are many policies we can have. I turn now to what perturbs me most and it is the only reason I rose to speak on the subject. I refer to a statement on Cocos (Keeling) Islands by the Australian Representative, Mr Forrester, in the SubCommittee on Small Territories of the Committee of Twenty-Four, on 23 July 1976. This would be the nearest to a policy statement that has come from this Government. It was made on 23 July 1976. Mr Forrester eulogises the Government and says how proud he is of the Australian Government and its achievements as an administrating power. Further in the report he states:

At the time of the Minister’s visit -

That would be Senator Withersover 200 of the SOO Cocos Malays had registered with the Administrator their interest in re-settlement away from Cocos. The Minister received strong representations that the Government should assist them in meeting the cost of the air fares to the Australian mainland.

There has been a concomitant interest in gaining Australian citizenship by those who do not already possess it.

That will be those persons over the age of 22 because anyone who is 22 and under is already an Australian citizen. The statement continues:

Those with Australian citizenship are entitled to enter Australia, subject only to prior counselling on employment and accommodation matters. There is nothing particularly new in a division within a community between the traditionalists and those who look for early and significant change in their circumstances. It is by no means new to Cocos. Such divisions have surfaced before, most recently in 19S8, as detailed in the annual report.

Therefore, there is a situation which requires immediate attention. In fact, the previous Government was the Administrator for 17 years and no progress was made. During the 3 years- the two 18-month terms- when the previous Government was in office, it tried to do something. The acquisition of land seemed to be the only road that was open to the Minister at the time. I think the acquisition of land is necessary in order to do something for the Cocos Malays on the island. The part of the statement to which I referred earlier that perturbs me states:

Australia is conscious of the need to seek measures which will heal the divisions within this fragile community.

The Government is aware that there are divisions within the fragile community.

It recognises the risks to the continued viability of the community which these recent developments pose.

In the present situation and with all these matters currently under Government consideration, my delegation is unable at this time to make a statement of policy.

The Government is not prepared and is unable to make a statement of policy. Yet, the Government wonders why we are moving this motion. The report states further:

We feel that, in the circumstances, the Committee will accept that there must be a pause and that it must be left for a later report to indicate what particular policy courses for the future have been adopted by the Australian Government.

I strongly suspect that it will be swept under the carpet. This Government had 17 years to do something but it did absolutely nothing during that 17 years. Once again the Liberal and National Country Parties are in government, by conspiracy, and it has disallowed the original ordinance. The reason I oppose the disallowance of that original ordinance is that I feel nothing will be done if the ordinance is revoked.

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

– I rise to support the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Withers) in what he has had to say about the motion that has been put before the Senate by Senator Douglas McClelland. I cannot describe the motion in any way other than a total disregard of the Parliament and a blatant attempt to undermine the committee system of this Parliament. One of the delights that I have had in this Parliament is to serve with members of the Opposition on joint committees when both sides of the chamber have joined together to try to do something in the best interests of the people whom we all purport to serve. I think the committee system is pure democracy.

It is a disgrace to flout a unanimous decision made by the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances which has been established for so long in this place and which has a very high reputation for its integrity. Of course, this is not the first time that the Labor Party has tried this sort of tactic. When in government it tried to force landholders in the Australian Capital Territory to hand over their land without adequate compensation. I believe that the Labor Party was not fair to the Northern Territory people in its attempts to acquire land in that Territory.

The whole crux of the matter is that the Government believes that the recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances ought to be upheld by this Senate. I repeat that the Committee suggested that it is not concerned with the policy of the ordinance but it is concerned to ensure that subordinante legislation made by the Executive is not used to give effect to substantive matters of policy which ought to be the subject of parliamentary enactment. The Committee considers that if the Executive is to have a general power to acquire and transfer all the land in the Territory for unspecified purposes, this policy ought to be laid before the Parliament in the form of a proposed statute for the consideration of the Parliament. In that way, a proper and fair debate can take place and we can express views upon it.

I thought that Senator Sir Magnus Cormack illustrated quite well the fact that a precedent has been set with respect to the Arawa plantation in Papua New Guinea. We suggest this is the appropriate way to deal with the situation in the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. An evaluation by the appropriate authority should be carried out to determine the value of the coconut trees and the value of the improvements that have been carried out. This is the usual way- the fair way- that we in Australia have acted in the past. This case ought to be no exception.

As Senator Withers has said, the Government is giving careful consideration to the problems of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. It would be unwise to act hastily in this matter. We have to consider carefully the administrative problems that will flow from the acquisition of land in that area. We have heard a lot about the feudal system that has prevailed there for some time but I do not think we are here to argue that. What I am here to say is that I support the proper way of overcoming the land settlement problem in that area and the only way to do it in my view is to bring before the Parliament a proper form of legislation and to see that just and equitable terms are arrived at.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-in reply-The Senate debated on Thursday afternoon last and is debating again this afternoon the motion that I moved on behalf of the Opposition that the Lands Acquisition (Repeal) Ordinance 1976 as contained in the Cocos (Keeling) Ordinance No. 1 of 1976 and made under the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act 1955-75 be disallowed. Notice of that motion had been given by me at some time in May this year. Having presented the case on Thursday on behalf of the Opposition and having listened to the debate that has ensued this afternoon, might I say that the debate has been quite an objective one. Let me briefly comment in reply to some of the matters that have been put by Government spokesmen.

The Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Withers, who is also as Minister for Administrative Services the Minister responsible for the administration of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, said that what the Opposition was saying by this motion was that for the first time in 40 years the Regulations and Ordinances Committee of this Senate was wrong. We are not saying that. We are saying that whilst this Committee is not concerned with the policy that might be involved in this or any other ordinance, as is accepted by the Opposition and as has been stated over and over again by the Committee, we as senators in a political House are interested in and vitally concerned with policy or political ideology, as the case may be, and that this ordinance was designed objectively to get action under way. The reason we brought down the ordinance was to get action under way expeditiously in order to commence the correction of a system which had survived in the Cocos (Keeling) Islands for over 120 years to the detriment of the Cocos-Malay community. By the moving of this motion we are not setting out, as Senator Jessop has suggested, deliberately to flout a decision of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee because it was an ordinance drafted with the interests of the Cocos-Malay community in mind after Mr Clunies Ross had said that he was prepared to negotiate for the sale of land by him to the Australian Government in the interests of the Cocos-Malay community.

The rules under which the Regulations and Ordinances Committee has operated since about 1931 are basically those which Senator Withers set out. I notice that Senator Wood is in the chamber and I acknowledge the great service that he has given to this Parliament as a member and chairman of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee. However, as I understand the principles under which that Committee operates, it sees its task as ensuring, firstly, that the rights of property holders are protected against any regulation that might be introduced by any government, irrespective of political persuasion; secondly, that the rights and liberties of citizens are not dependent on administrative rather than judicial decisions; thirdly, that the administrative detail involved in any regulation does not amount to substantive legislation. Those guidelines were laid down in about 1 93 1 and I do not think they have ever been amended. With great respect to the Committee and the Senate, I think that the Committee should start having another look at the guidelines which have existed for so long because I think they can be modernised and brought a little up to date.

It was said by Senator Withers that the ordinance offended one of those principles under which the Regulations and Ordinances Committee operates and which I fairly set out. However, if the Regulations and Ordinances Committee does not take into account, for instance, the fact that the rights and liberties of others can be very seriously affected- indeed prejudiced- by the non passage of an ordinance or by the disallowance of an ordinance, I submit on behalf of the Opposition, and I emphasise that I speak on this matter on behalf of the Opposition, that the Senate as a political house has a responsibility to act to ensure that the rights of all citizens and not merely those who possess property are protected.

Having said that, let me briefly refer to the remarks made by Senator Sir Magnus Cormack. Senator Sir Magnus Cormack, much to my great concern, talked about a conspiracy between the Whitlam Labor Government and a subcommittee of a committee of the United Nations- the Committee of Twenty-four which is charged with the responsibility of looking at the non selfgoverning territories. The Cocos (Keeling) Islands is a nonself-governing territory of Australia. It was the desire of the former Australian Government to open up the whole question of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands to the world so that the world could judge and appraise itself of the situation and the remedies needed to overcome a position that had been allowed to exist and, if one might use the expression, to lie dormant or to lie behind closed doors for a period of some 5 generations. It was at the invitation of the Australian Government that the Committee of

Twenty-four inquired into the situation in the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. I shall read from appendix VIII the statement made by the Chairman of the visiting mission on 9 August 1 974.

The statement set out the responsibilities of governments which administer non selfgoverning territories. Those responsibilities are to ensure the political, economic, social and educational advancement of the peoples of those territories, their just treatment and their protection against abuses and to develop selfdetermination, taking into account the political aspirations of the peoples and assisting them in the progressive development of their free political institutions. In his statement on 9 August 1974 the Chairman of that visiting mission went on to say in paragraph 4:

The Mission is therefore here to try to get to know the Cocos (Keeling) Islands and its people and to gather the views of the latter on the guiding principles set out in the Charter relating to human rights, in particular, the principle of self-determination, the golden rule of the international community with regard to the future of peoples.

Paragraph 5 states:

Its sole aim is to enable the United Nations to ascertain the aspirations of the people of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands with regard to their future political status and to gauge the state of advancement of that society.

The Mission would therefore like to know in general the problems with which the people of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands may be faced during their process of development, particularly in the constitutional, administrative, economic, educational and social fields and in the field of general wellbeing.

For Senator Sir Magnus Cormack to suggest that a sub-committee of a committee of the United Nations, visiting this non-self-governing territory at the invitation of the then Government to see for itself and to obtain for itself objectively an assessment of the state of affairs that existed on that Island, was involved in a conspiratorial action with the Australian Government is wrong, false and unfair. It is a suggestion that is not worthy to be made in the Austraiian Parliament. That sub-committee went to the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, made an investigation and prepared a report. That report was virtually the same as the one prepared by the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. It reached virtually the same conclusion as I reached as the then Minister after having visited the Territory. For instance, paragraph 212 of the United Nations Committee report states:

The Mission had the opportunity to observe the domination by Mr Clunies Ross of the economy not only of Home Island but of most of the Territory. The complete control by the Estate of the economic life of the Cocos Malay community is effectively exercised through the use of the plastic token as the vehicle of exchange. The fact that plastic tokens are inconvertible helps to maintain the isolation of the Home Islanders . . .

In a statement that I made in the Senate on 10 September 1975 in relation to the presentation of the original ordinance I mentioned that the then Australian Government would take action to ban the use of plastic currency on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. I know that towards the twilight of the period of office of the Labor Government my colleague the then Treasurer, Mr Hayden, wrote to Mr Clunies Ross to that effect.

The UN Mission referred to the necessity to obtain a diversity of production in the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. It pointed out that the economic reliance of the territory on a single source of revenue does not help to advance the economic conditions of the Cocos Malay community. It stated that the Mission had been informed that Home Island was being used as a tax haven. It referred to the social conditions existing in the territory. The Mission found that the isolation of the Cocos Malay community from the outside world and the predominant forces of influence of the Clunies Ross family had adversely affected the cultural life of Home Island. As Senator Mcintosh stated earlier, the Mission regretted that primary education was not yet compulsory on Home Island and that the curriculum was limited in its scope. It referred to the necessity to institute compulsory education throughout the territory.

It was in a desire to meet those needs and to overcome the problems that were found to exist by a sub-committee of a committee of the United Nations that the Labor Government decided to act in the way that it did. This ordinance was introduced in order to give the then Government -and this Government, if it so wished- the power to start along the long road to reform in the islands that had been put aside by the world for over 1 20 years. If it is suggested that the ordinance that the former Government brought down was brought down not bearing in mind the principle of justice and equity- just and fair terms, to use the words of Government supporters- I refute that argument completely. Let us consider clauses 19 and 20 of the ordinance. Clause 19 states:

Where a claim for compensation is accepted for determination under section IS, the amount of compensation to be paid may be determined by agreement between the Minister and the claimant.

In other words, when land is acquired the claimant makes an application for compensation and the compensation is determined by way of agreement. If agreement cannot be reached, clause 20 of Division 4 states:

The Minister and a claimant may, instead of determining by agreement the amount of compensation to be paid in respect of the acquistion of any land by compulsory process, agree to submit the determination of that amount to arbitration.

If the 2 parties could not agree on the amount of compensation involved with regard to the acquistion of land the ordinance enabled that matter to be determined by arbitration. It was, of course, the Supreme Court of the territory which would be involved.

Why did we introduce this ordinance? It was introduced solely to improve the standard of living and conditions of the people of the Cocos Malay community. Clause 45 of the ordinance states:

  1. 1 ) Land in the Territory vested in Australia may, if the Minister thinks fit, and upon such terms as he directs, be transferred to a person.

  2. 2 ) Where land has been acquired under this Ordinance-

    1. the land may be transferred to a person; or
    2. a lease of, or a licence to occupy, the land may be granted to a person, for a purpose related to the advancement of the welfare of the Malay residents of the Territory.

The ordinance specifically states that if land is acquired it must be for a purpose related to the advancement of the welfare of the Malay residents of the territory. I draw the attention of honourable senators to clause 2 of the ordinance which states:

  1. The following Ordinances of the Colony of Singapore, in their application to the Territory, are hereby repealed:

    1. ) Land Acquisition Ordinance, 1 920, as amended;
    2. Land Acquisition (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance, 1955, as amended.

Here we have a situation in this modem day and age, 1976, where a territory of Australia is operating under ordinances of the Colony of Singapore. I think that surely indicates the hopelessness of the situation of the Cocos Malay community. It was in order to obtain expeditious action to improve the lot of the people of the Cocos Malay community that the Labor Government in September 1975 introduced the ordinance that is now the subject of a motion for its disallowance. For all those reasons I submit that the motion moved by the Opposition should be supported by the Senate.

Question put:

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

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

AYES: 24

NOES: 32

Majority……. 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Sitting suspended from 5.54 to 8 p.m.

page 238

TRADE PRACTICES AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 4 May, on motion by Senator Greenwood:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-The Opposition will not be opposing the second reading of this Bill. It does, however, intend to move an amendment in the course of the Committee stage of the debate. I should perhaps indicate at the outset that the Opposition will not be opposing the Bill because it regards the Bill in essence as being a tidying-up measure. That can be seen from the explanatory memorandum that was distributed by the then Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, Senator

Greenwood, with the Bill. Before going to the explanatory memorandum, which sets out some of the main points that the Bill is designed to achieve, I refer briefly to the amendment that the Opposition proposes to move. It is an amendment to proposed section 163a. The amendment is designed to have the effect of permitting the Trade Practices Commission to intervene under that provision as of right. I do not propose to discuss it any further at this stage. I wanted just to indicate the broad nature of the amendment.

I refer to the then Minister’s explanatory memorandum for the purpose of illustrating what are regarded as being the main points of the legislation. The explanatory memorandum states:

This Bill seeks to amend the Trade Practices Act 1 974- 1 975 in the following significant respects-

To give the Industrial Court jurisdiction to make declaratory judgments and issue prerogative writs in the nature of prohibition, certiorari and mandamus in matters arising under the Act ( clause 1 5 )

That is the provision in relation to which the amendment will be moved. The explanatory memorandum continues: to make it clear that State and Federal Governments may make submissions to the Trade Practices Commission on matters of public interest involved in particular authorisation applications to delete all provisions of the Act providing an interlock with the Companies (Foreign Take-overs) Act 1 972- 1 974 to delete all references in the Act to ‘the Superior Court of Australia ‘ to delete, except in sections 34, 35, 44 and 170 all references in the Act to ‘the Attorney-General’ and substitute ‘the Minister’ to amend paragraph 51 (2) (g) of the Act to expand that exception to cover the making, or entering into, of an agreement relating exclusively to exports.

Insofar as that memorandum purports to describe the significant aspects of the Bill, the Opposition regards most of those matters, as I have said, as tidying-up measures. But I should mention some of the areas of our disagreement with and criticism of the present Government’s policy not so much in relation to legislation but in its administration of the trade practices legislation. The fifth point in the explanatory memorandum is perhaps a convenient point at which to start to make that criticism because it is in the fifth point of that memorandum that the then Minister referred to the deleting of the references in the Act to the Attorney-General and the substitution of references to ‘the Minister’. At the beginning of his second reading speech the then Minister said:

This Government believes in effective trade practices legislation.

We have some doubts about that statement being anything more than a pious utterance of Liberal-Country Party philosophy through the ages. The then Minister went on to say:

We have stated that time and time again. Free and fair competition is a basic tenet of a free enterprise economy. The complexities of the market place have required successive governments to produce complex legislation to maintain that free and fair competition. However, complex legislation must always be kept under close review to ensure that the legal requirements and procedures always work efficiently and equitably in the public interest.

As I have said, that is a very pious statement of intention that might have been uttered in a platitudinous vein by any Attorney-General in this country in the last 25 years, but more particularly by Liberal-Country Party Attorneys-General. We have a sneaking suspicion that, as a result of its administration of the trade practices legislation in the 8 months in which it has been in office, the Government is perhaps not as fair dinkum as the then Minister would like to make it sound in the passage of his second reading speech to which I have referred. Perhaps that has arisen because the Government really is not quite sure whether it supports small business or big business and which of those two supports it. That, of course, is a very confusing situation for any political party to be in, indeed, I have some sympathy for the Government. But do not let it be thought that I take that too far.

We regard it as being an extraordinary situation indeed that the trade practices legislation has been placed under the administration of a Minister who is described as the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. As somebody has said, business and consumer affairs sounds to us very much like a department of conflicting interests. I know that the President of the Australian Labor Party has often been described as being a person who wears 2 hats and reflects some conflicting interests, but the 2 hats he wears are really little Arab type hats compared with the ones that the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs wears in relation to this portfolio. Even in the halcyon Liberal-Country Party days of Sir Garfield Barwick when he actually drew his salary as a politician, the first trade practices legislation that he introduced- it was fairly toothless legislation- was introduced under the administration of the Attorney-General and his Department, which is a department that, with all the weaknesses it may have, has a strong tradition for being concerned about the administration of legal rights and for asserting its rights in contradistinction to the interests of other departments. We are concerned that the Government has seen fit to take the trade practices legislation out of the area of the Attorney-General’s administration and place it under the administration of a Minister for conflicting interests.

Not only are we concerned about this matter; we believe that the Trade Practices Commission itself is also concerned about it. If one reads the references that are made to consumer protection in the first annual report of the Trade Practices Commission, particularly consumer protection prosecutions, it becomes clear to us that the Commission takes the view that consumer protection prosecutions are not being adequately dealt with. In that report the Commission drew attention to the provisions of section 163 of the Act and suggested that the Chairman of the Commission might be authorised as an independent figure to consent to such prosecutions. We believe that if the Minister acted on that suggestion and the right was vested in a responsible independent authority, such as the Chairman of the Trade Practices Commission, the Minister himself would be freed of the doubtful responsibility of, as Stephen Leacock would put it, riding a horse which gallops off in all directions. I refer, of course, to the Minister’s Department. We should have hoped that the Government would have seen fit to adopt that course. It is not only the concern of the Opposition and the Trade Practices Commission but also, we believe, a profound concern of consumer groups in this community. Their concern, of course, relates to the fair dinkumness, if that is a noun, of the Government’s attitude to consumer protection.

Senator Wriedt:

– It is an adverb.

Senator BUTTON:

-I am informed by Senator Wriedt that it is an adverb. That is the most helpful interjection I have ever had in this chamber; I have actually learned something from it. There is also continuing concern among people who are anxious about consumer protection and trade practices legislation at the carefully calculated rumours emanating from Government sources to the effect that trade practices legislation and the Trade Practices Commission are somehow hampering economic recovery in this country. I suppose that for this Government any excuse is better than none. If it is not some trade unions making excessive wage demands or a variety of other scapegoats who have been referred to in the last few days, why not the Trade Practices Commission as an excuse for the Government’s failure to manage the economy and hence the rumours which emanate about the Commission?

We think that only indicates the Government’s ambivalence on this general question of trade practices legislation and also shows the

Government’s concern at the failure of the much-vaunted economic recovery led by consumer spending which was supposed to take place in Austrafia on 14 December 1975, a date which we will all have occasion to remember, I suppose, as we debate economic matters for the next year or so. But whatever happened, economic recovery did not take place. The business confidence about which people are concerned has not re-emerged to the extent that Government spokesmen would like. As I say, the trade practices legislation perhaps is being made a scapegoat for that. Another point I make is that the trade practices legislation is, of course, a creature of capitalism. It depends on the ethos of competition in the public interest. It is ironical that it took a Labor Government to introduce trade practices legislation with any teeth in this country. Now a Liberal Government is making hesitant efforts to abort that legislation and is being a little uncertain about where it is going in that process.

These are the sorts of factors which confuse the business community and which contribute substantially to the continual undermining of business confidence. I point out that any watering down in relation to trade practice legislation which this Government attempts is the sort of watering down which would not be tolerated in a country like the United States of America where there is less ambivalence about the desirability of legislation of this kind and less ambivalence and confusion about what the Government really intends to do, about what the Government really supports in terms of business interests and what it really supports in terms of consumer interests.

The other factor which I mention in relation to the Trade Practices Commission is that since May this year or earlier the Government has set about a process of stealth. I believe it is uncontrolled capitalism by stealth, to turn a phrase which we heard a lot last year, by cost cutting the Commission ‘s budget and making it less effective in the performance of its task. No doubt we will be told later, in a year or so, that the Trade Practices Commission does not work at all and therefore it should be abolished. I mention that only as a gesture of prophecy. I point out that at the moment the Commission’s work is being hampered, that it is working much less effectively than it might, because the Government is not making money available for it to work. I mention these matters because I would hate the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Durack), or those honourable senators on the other side who have taken the trouble to be here tonight, to think that by not opposing the motion for the second reading of this Bill we accept with a total lack of criticism what the Government has been doing in the area of trade practices legislation. We do not. I have made those points for that reason. I want it on the record that we feel that way about what is happening to this legislation and what might happen in the future. So we record these qualifications which we have about the Government’s administration of the legislation. As I indicated earlier, we intend to move an amendment during the Committee stage.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation · LP

– in reply- I find a rather basic contradiction in the approach of Senator Button who has led for the Opposition in relation to this Trade Practices Amendment Bill. He started off, quite rightly, by saying that it was a tidying up operation and, for that reason, the Opposition would not oppose the Bill. Then he proceeded to launch a rather vague, if also vigorous, attack on the Government’s administration and intentions in relation to trade practices legislation generally. Unfortunately for him I believe that that basic contradiction in his approach has rather vitiated the criticism which some people may have thought had some merit. The fact of the matter is that the Government in the election campaign- I remind the honourable senator of the result of that campaign and of the attitude which was taken to our policies- made it perfectly clear that we regarded trade practices legislation as in need of review.

Shortly after the election of the present Government the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Howard) set up a committee to conduct a general review of the trade practices legislation. That review committee was comprised of 5 experts in the field. Its terms of reference were tabled. Of course, the names of the experts were at all times public. They have been conducting a general review of the trade practices legislation. There has been no reason for the Opposition to suspect or fear, and certainly no reason to suggest, that the Government has not approached the question of trade practices legislation in a perfectly open and clear way. The activities of the review committee have been perfectly well known since the election. It was one of our election promises to set up that committee. I am advised that the committee has completed its work and has now reported to the Minister. Very shortly the report will be made available to the Parliament and to the public. It will be open to full, effective debate in the Parliament and in the business community. Of course, if legislation is necessary it will be brought here and fully debated. That will be the appropriate time for the Opposition to make criticisms, certainly with any effect, of Government policy in this regard.

As I have said, Senator Button has made some rather vague and veiled suggestions that the Government was not- I think I have the phrase correctly- fair dinkum. Perhaps his expression was a little less elegant than that. Nevertheless, it was telling. He suggested that we were not fair dinkum about our attitude to trade practices legislation. He made the remarkable suggestion that it was a Labor government which first introduced trade practices legislation. I am glad to say that he added ‘with teeth’. That is a remarkable statement because, of course, it was a Liberal-Country Party Government which pioneered trade practices legislation in this country.

Senator Button:

– It was toothless.

Senator DURACK:

– It was not by any means toothless legislation. It was legislation which was proceeding very satisfactorily to establish some clear guidelines under which business could operate and know where it stood. Then, as we know, we had the legislation which was introduced into this Parliament by Senator Murphy, as he then was. 1 think it was one of the first pieces of legislation that Senator Button would have seen pass through this Senate. I might hasten to say that it was in such a magnificent condition when it was introduced that honourable senators will remember 109 amendments had to be introduced by Senator Murphy to put it in a fit state to go on the statute book.

Senator Grimes:

– Did you oppose it?

Senator DURACK:

– We opposed certain sections of it, as the honourable senator will remember. The honourable senator was here then and would remember quite well what happened. Broadly speaking, with reservations and some attempted amendments, we supported that legislation. We have always had criticisms of and reservations about it, and that is one of the matters which no doubt the Government will be looking at in the general review that will be undertaken.

The only other matter to which I should refer at this stage is Senator Button’s reference to the change in the administration of this Act from the Attorney-General to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. The amendments to the Act which are contained in this Bill are necessary because of the administrative arrangements under which the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) set up the present Government and under which he transferred from the AttorneyGeneral ‘s Department the areas of that Department’s administration which had been concerned with business and consumer affairs. There was no magic about the Attorney-General being the man to administer the trade practices legislation. The mere fact that this legislation has been the responsibility of the Attorney-General in the past does not mean that he should and must continue, or even that it is desirable that he should continue, to administer such legislation.

As the Senate knows, the intention in establishing the new Department of Business and Consumer Affairs was to bring under the one Minister all those areas of Federal Government legislation which had a particular impact on the business community, such as the trade practices legislation and the Prices Justification Tribunal. The old Department of Customs and Excise was brought under the new portfolio also. So we now have a portfolio which is expert in and is confined to that particular area of economic activity. That was the reason for the change in the administration of the Trade Practices Act as provided for in this Bill.

Some reference was made by Senator Button to a conflict of interest between business and consumer affairs. The fact remains that the one piece of legislation, that is, the Trade Practices Act, which deals with trade practices and consumer interest, was administered previously by the Attorney-General. If there is any conflict now in its being administered by the present Minister, there was the same conflict before when it was administered by the Attorney-General.

I understand that an amendment will be moved to this legislation. Like Senator Button, I shall leave my remarks in relation to that until he moves the amendment. Apart from those remarks, I thank the Opposition for its support of this Bill. Without more ado, I feel we should proceed to a vote.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Clause 15.

After section 1 63 of the Principal Act the following section is inserted: 163a. ( 1 ) Subject to this section, a person may institute a proceeding in the Court seeking, in relation to a matter arising under this Act, the making of-

  1. a declaration in relation to the operation or effect of any provision of this Act other than Division 2 of Part V or in relation to the validity of any act or thing done, proposed to be done or purporting to ha ve been done under this Act; or

  2. an order by way of, or in the nature of, prohibition, certiorari or mandamus, or both such a declaration and such an order, and the Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the proceeding.

    1. The Commission is not entitled to institute a proceeding in the Court under this section but may, in its official name, intervene in a, proceeding instituted in the Court or in any other court, being a proceeding in which a party is seeking the making of a declaration of a kind mentioned in paragraph (1 ) (a) in relation to a matter in respect of which that party gave, or could have given, a notice to the Commission under section 92, 93 or 94.
Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-I move:

In proposed new section 163a, sub-section (3), leave out all words after ‘Court’ second appearing, insert ‘under this section or in a proceeding instituted in any other court in which a party is seeking the making of a declaration of a kind mentioned in paragraph ( 1 ) (a) or an order of a kind mentioned in paragraph (1 ) ( b ) ‘.

The purpose of this amendment is fairly obvious. I again refer the Senate to the explanatory memorandum that was circulated by the former Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, Senator Greenwood. Paragraph 3 of the second section of that explanatory memorandum, which deals with the expanded powers of the Industrial Court, states:

The Minister, but not the Trade Practices Commission, may institute a proceeding in the Industrial Court seeking such a declaratory judgment or prerogative writ . . .

The proposed new section 163 A, sub-clause (3), as it stands, gives the right to intervene only in matters that have been or could have been the subject of an application for clearance under the Act. We see the proposed section as it stands as an improvement, but in our view it does not go far enough. It does not go far enough, for example, in proceedings under the proposed section relating to practices for which clearance is not available, in relation to monopolisation, resale price maintenance and price discrimination. The amendment has the effect of giving the Trade Practices Commission a right to intervene as of course in those matters. We think that right should be vested in the Commission for the simple reason that it has the resources, the expertise and the impartiality to enjoy this right. We feel that the right should reside there and not only with the Minister. That is the purpose of the amendment.

Senator DURACK:
Western Australia · LP

– The Government does not accept the amendment. The new section that it is proposed to insert in the Act by clause 15 of the Bill expands the remedies that may be given by the court exercising jurisdiction under the Trade Practices Act. The Senate will appreciate that the court that has that jurisdiction in the main is the Industrial Court, although the jurisdiction does reside in other courts; but the Industrial Court does not have any power to make a declaration or to issue orders in the nature of prohibition, certiorari or mandamus, all of which are important remedies for a court to have available to it if it is called upon to interpret an Act, such as the Trade Practices Act, and to oversee actions taken under it particularly, of course, by the Trade Practices Commission. That is the main purpose in inserting this proposed new section in the Bill.

The proposed new section also gives the Minister in control of this Act the power to institute proceedings in the Industrial Court and to intervene in any proceedings in relation to matters under this Act that may be going on in any court. It limits the right of the Commission, as Senator Button has said, to intervene only in certain proceedings which broadly are those dealing with the sections of the Trade Practices Act under which clearances can be obtained from the Trade Practices Commission. The Commission is not entitled actually to institute any proceedings of its own under this proposed new section.

The reason why the Government is not prepared to accept the Opposition’s amendment is that in principle any submissions in relation to the interpretation of the Act should be confined to the Minister who is in charge of the administration of the Act. These are questions of law. They are not questions on which the Commission as such has any jurisdiction. The Commission has it general administrative role under this proposed new section and it has certain other roles, as I have said, to give clearances under particular sections of the Act, but the question of the powers of the Commission and the proper interpretation and ambit of the Act are essentially matters for decision by a court. The proper person to represent the Government in such proceedings and to make submissions to a court on behalf of the Government is clearly the Minister.

Although the amendment moved by Senator Button on behalf of the Oppostion may appear to be a technical one and may appear even to have some merit, it does raise a very fundamental question: Which is the proper party to make representations to a court about the interpretation of this Act- the Minister or the Commission? Under the proposed new section the Government has given the right to the Commission to intervene in certain cases where clearances would be available. The reason for that is that cases of this type would be either appeals from the Commission or attempts to avoid approaching the Commission at all. In other words, the proceedings in the court would be to try to get around the Commission, so to speak. The Government felt it proper that the Commission should have the right to intervene in these cases. We take the view that broadly speaking the proper person to appear before a court on matters involving the interpretation of this Act, which essentially are matters of law, is the Minister. As I have said the Government is opposed in principle to the Commission’s having a general right to intervene and appear and in a sense to be possibly competing with the Government in submissions being made to the court.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-Lest the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Durack) did not understand the amendment, I point out that it is only a right of intervention which the amendment seeks on behalf of the Commission. The Minister has a right under the proposed new section both to institute proceedings and to intervene. There is a difference, of course, between these 2 rights. I thought the Minister was both charitable and thoughtful in the comments which he made, but I thought, with the utmost respect of course, that he might have misinterpreted the nuance between the 2 rights which were being sought.

Amendment negatived.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 243

SOCIAL WELFARE COMMISSION (REPEAL) BILL 1976

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 4 June on motion by Senator Guilfoyle:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

-The Opposition will not oppose the Social Welfare Commission (Repeal) Bill 1976. The intention to abolish this Commission was announced by the previous Government. That decision has been reaffirmed and now put into legislative act by the present Government. The Commission was established in 1973 because it was felt that a need existed for an independent body to evaluate the social welfare systems of this country, to advise the government of the day on the effectiveness and efficiency of its welfare policies, to conduct and commission research and data gathering, and to recommend how new initiatives could be introduced and how the current system of welfare could be better co-ordinated to suit the needs and priorities of this nation- the needs and priorities largely of alleviating and preventing poverty.

It may be that when the Commission was set up this combination of powers made life difficult. It may be that the advisory roles of the Commissionof necessity private roles- and the role of public reporting of its findings and its researches, were difficult- some would say perhaps impossibleand caused conflicts that were impossible to resolve. I am sure that the conflicts which arose between these various roles complicated the lives of the Commission and the Commissioners. I am certain this caused extreme irritation to those people in the community whose role is purely advisory. I suggest also that the conflicts were as much externally originated as internally.

The Commission, I believe, carried out in its short lifetime an imaginative program of investigation and research, and improved greatly the information available on welfare systems. Above all it demonstrated the need for further research and discussion. It also demonstrated the deplorable lack of statistical data in the welfare field. One would hope that the work of the Social Welfare Commission and the work of the Commission of Inquiry into Poverty and other inquiries into various aspects of welfare will enable us and inspire us to take a more thoughtful and rational approach to the provision of welfare. That this Government, and the previous Government in fact, found it desirable to halt this experiment- one can only say it was an experiment after the Commission’s short lifetimeis of some regret to me personally. The Commission was a first in this country; in fact it was probably a first in the world. It was an attempt by a government to establish an organisation with expertise and the capacity to harness the expertise existing in the community. It was an attempt by a government to establish an organisation which could sit back and look at the welfare field with a broad view, to make dispassionate analyses of the problems and suggest alternatives to the present system and within the present system. That it is to be disbanded is, I believe, as much a reflection on the system of government that we work under as a reflection on anything else.

I believe there are lessons to be learnt from the experiences of the Commission in dealing with the bureaucracy and in dealing with the political aspects of our government. It is no secret that at some levels the bureaucracy was disturbed and angered by the establishment of such a commission. The processes of government in this country meant that any independence given to the Commission was at best curtailed by the influences of the Public Service- influences such as that of the Public Service Board on staffing, perhaps of the Treasury on finance and of other established departments in the welfare field in general. When I speak of the welfare field I do not mean only the Department of Social Security. This experience was not confined to the Social Welfare Commission. Having been a member of the Public Accounts Committee of this Parliament, with the present Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle), having heard the evidence of witnesses from various departments, both old and new, on the difficulties of staffing and the difficulties of establishing new schemes, and having more recently read the report of Dr Coombs and his colleagues, one realises how difficult it is to change anything, how difficult it is to innovate under our present system.

I believe that the failure of some departments, and the bureaucracy of some departments, to cooperate with the Commission, despite requests and despite even directions to do so, reflected the hostility which was present from the very establishment of the Commission. The lack of staff which the Commission suffered and the inability to overcome the deplorable lack of hard statistical information were inhibiting factors in an organisation which attempted- and which I believe attempted gallantly- to have a meaningful look at the overall welfare problems of this country.

Another problem that I believe the Commission had is that the welfare field in general and the social security field in general does not only involve the Department of Social Security but also involves departments dealing with education, housing, the environment, urban and regional development and in particular the Attorney-General’s Department in respect of legal aid. All these departments have become very compartmentalised. It is very difficult for any government of any persuasion to co-ordinate the activities of these various departments. I believe, as Dr Coombs has pointed out, that these departments in their own way are very jealous of their own responsibilities, their own areas of activity and their own power and view an intrusion like that of the Social Welfare Commission as an unwelcome one to say the least.

The experience of the Social Welfare Commission is a reminder to us all of the importance placed on power of various sorts in our systemthe importance of power to the bureaucracy as well as the importance of power to the political arm of government at any level. Dr Coombs in his address to the National Press Club recently alluded to the fact that there are some people- I repeat, some people- in the upper echelons of bureaucracy, and I would say that there are certainly some in the upper echelons of the political arm of government in this country, who have established themselves and who will carefully guard their areas of responsibility and power against the intrusion of others.

So it was that we had a relatively unconventional, a frequently abrasive and sometimes assertive organisation on the scene which had difficulties with both the political and the bureaucratic sides of government, and added to this were other problems. The Commission was given the task very early in the piece of overseeing the introduction of the Australian Assistance Plan. As honourable senators will know, this was another innovation attempting to involve the people in the community at the grass roots level in social welfare, in social planning and in determining their own priorities in the community. This organisation was seen by both local governments and State governments as a threat to their power and influence. Despite the active participation of members of all political parties at all levels of involvement in politics in various regional councils in the Australian Assistance Plan, the Plan was in fact continually pointed to as a centralist plot, a plot, I suppose, leading us down the rocky road of socialism. Other colourful phrases are used so often by some supporters of the Government.

Senator Donald Cameron:

– Chipp never said that.

Senator GRIMES:

-Certainly Mr Chipp never said that. Certainly there are many members of the Liberal Party and the National Country Party in the various States involved in the Australian Assistance Plan- even some in Senator Tehan ‘s State- who expressed great disappointment that the Plan will not continue.

Senator Missen:

– It sounds as though you are really against this one, Senator.

Senator GRIMES:

-We will come to that in a moment. The States are not happy about taking over the Australian Assistance Plan. No State is happy about taking it over. Any State that attempted to take it over without some guarantee of finance would be unwise and I am sure that no State will.

The reaction of some members of the bureaucracy to both the announcement by the previous Government and the announcement by this Government of the abandonment of the Social Welfare Commission was at times one of indecent haste to be in at the kill, to be in at the dismemberment of the Commission. Last year an attempt was made to deplete the Social Welfare Commission of staff before details of arrangements that were to be made were even announced and certainly before any legislation was even at the drafting stage. This attempt failed. It failed because administrative action to overcome the statutory body, set up by statute of this Parliament, was successfully resisted by the Commissioners themselves. I would suggest that a similar thing has happened in the lifetime of this Government.

The Minister stated in her second reading speech that the Government had approved som> projects such as the Family Services Committee and the various research projects and fellowship and they would be absorbed by the Department after the Act was repealed, but until that hap pened they would continue with the Com mission. I would suggest that this is no fault o the Minister. I am not being particularly critical of her. But this has not happened. Transfers have been made although the repealing legislation has not been passed through the Parliament. In fact, administrative action has preceded the actions of this Parliament.

I would question the advisability of allowing officers of any department or the Deputy Chairman of the Commission to treat the passage of this repealing Bill through the Parliament as a formality even though that may be true. I would question the propriety of leaving all the functions and powers of the Commission in the hands of one person without the calling of a meeting of Commissioners since the announcement of the disbandment was made. It may be, as I said before, that this repealing legislation is a formality, but I believe that the due processes of the Parliament are probably worth respecting in this case as much as any other and they appear not to have been respected here.

I wish to pay my respects to Mrs Coleman, the commissioners and the members of the staff of the Social Welfare Commission for the work that they did and the contribution they have made to the development of social welfare policy in this country. A perusal of any of the papers, the productions or the research projects of the commission in its short life reveals much which will long be useful to all of us who are interested in social welfare and will be a useful reference, I believe, to all people concerned in the welfare field in Australia.

I would hope that the social welfare research centre to be set up in New South Wales will provide a basis on which future advancement can be made in this field. I hope that the consultative committees, both national and State, will be useful. As yet, we have had little detail on how these will be set up and what their various functions will be. One understands that the members of the various consultative committees will be nominated by the directors of the departments in each State. One understands that the committees will consist of a variety of people involved in the welfare field, including departmental members, members of voluntary welfare organisations and, one would hope, consumers in the welfare field. I think we would all be interested to know how consumer representatives could be elected and how they would be selected by a departmental process. Personally, I do not share the belief of the Minister expressed in her second reading speech that consolidating advice on research on and into social welfare matters within the Department is necessarily a good thing unless there is careful outside assessment of the advice, the effects of this advice and evaluation of the ultimate outcome of the various plans introduced.

I accept the fact that governments must make decisions on needs and priorities and I would have it no other way. I accept the fact that governments must take responsibility for these decisions. However, I believe that the advice arising from too structured an organisation such as the Department is not necessarily the best advice. An overall look at the intermeshing and the co-ordination of the various welfare departments by outside evaluation is necessary. The advice of outside bodies at the moment, worthy as they often are, on many occasions reflects the prejudices and the functions of the various members of those bodies and one rarely gets a dispassionate opinion. Senator Missen suggested earlier that I sounded as though I was opposing this legislation.

Senator Missen:

– You did.

Senator GRIMES:

– I am not opposing this legislation but as I said earlier in my speech, it is with some regret that I see the ending of the Social Welfare Commission and what I have regarded as a very useful contribution to welfare research and co-ordination in this country. I repeat what I said at the commencement of my speech: I think the downfall- I specifically do not use the word ‘failure’- of the Social Welfare Commission reflects as much the failures of all of us in the processes of Government in this country as it reflects anything that the Social Welfare Commission did or was involved in. Governments of all persuasions need dispassionate and disinterested advice. I believe, in its way, the Social Welfare Commission succeeded. While not opposing the legislation, I certainly express regret that this fine experiment did not succeed. In the words of the title of the final paper of the Commission, ‘it was an idea before its time’. Perhaps we may see a similar body set up in the future.

Senator BAUME:
New South Wales

– The Senate is considering the Social Welfare Commission (Repeal) Bill 1976. At the outset I congratulate Senator Grimes for the candour with which he spoke and for some of the things he said. I am reminded that he was a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs and that the consideration by that Committee of the clauses of the National Compensation Bill last year probably saw the Social Welfare Commission functioning at its finest hour because it was the evidence and contribution of the Social Welfare Commission which more than anything else demonstrated the shortcomings in the proposed legislation and which led to its being withdrawn. It may also have had a considerable part to play in the precipitate decision by the then Prime Minister to announce that the Commission was to be abolished. In his chapter entitled Health and Welfare Services in the book Towards a New Australia under a Labor Government, Bill Hayden- then in Opposition- wrote:

The administration of Labor’s comprehensive health and welfare program will require the setting up of new organisations. First, a Social Security Commission as an independent public authority will be charged with the administration of the social security program . . .

It was out of this idea that we had the development and formation of the Social Welfare Commission. The body was, in fact, established in the middle of 1973. If one looks at the Hansard report of the debates at that time, one sees that it attracted bipartisan support with speakers from both sides of the Parliament hailing the formation of this body and encouraging its objects. In his second reading speech, Mr Hayden was filled with great zeal about the future role which the Commission would play. He described its concept as most exciting. He emphasised that it would be independent, flexible, autonomous and that it would decentralise power. He thought these features would make it attractive as part of a comprehensive planning program. He received support from all pans of the community and from both sides of the Parliament.

The role of the Social Welfare Commission was stated some time after its formation by the Chairman, Mrs Marie Coleman, when she addressed the Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science Congress on 23 January 1 975. At that time, she said:

It is processes of this kind which confirm me in the view I held long before taking up my present appointment, that it is far easier to preserve one s reputation, professionally speaking, by remaining as an outside administrator or an academically based evaluator of Government policy than by taking the plunge and becoming part of the policy formulation process.

I think she must have been able to see the future a little. Mrs Coleman continued:

The Government has created the Social Welfare Commission as an advisory body. It has no executive function insofar as it does not administer service delivery programs or the funding of service delivery programs. Rather, it makes recommendations to the Government about programs which it expects to be administered by other Australian Government authorities although it is the function of the Commission to monitor and evaluate those programs . . .

It was this evaluation process, as much as anything, which brought the Commission into conflict with Government. Mrs Coleman, when speaking at the opening of the Commission, also quoted the words of the then Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam:

We are concerned about the social needs of Australia . . .

These are Mr Whitlam ‘s words- we have not sought from you a political program . . .

That is what Mr Whitlam said when giving his instructions to the Social Welfare Commission- . . we do want to know what are the needs and what means you recommend to meet them, given the social and political circumstances … we will not hide your recommendations but our decisions must be based on practicalities, as must yours.

Looking at what the Social Welfare Commission was able to achieve in less than 2 1/2 years, it had an impressive record of achievement and especially tonight when we are debating the motion that the establishment Bill should be repealed, it is worth listing some of the achievements of the Social Welfare Commission. It produced a large number of quite innovative reports to help those people involved in service planning and delivery to understand better the issue of the day and to plan better the kinds of programs appropriate to Australia. The Commission brought out the report on aged persons housing, it brought out a project report entitled Children, Parents and Community Emergency Relief, and the very important discussion papers Nos 1 and 2 which dealt with the Australian Assistance Plan. It produced a paper entitled Evaluation of Raising the Standing Rate of Pension to One-Quarter of Average Earnings. It brought out a paper entitled Community Development and Community Development Training and papers on family welfare, participation and participation patterns in Australia and regional funding. It brought out a paper on the proceedings of a conference on the rights of a child and progress reports on the Australian Assistance Plan as well as a paper on income security issues. Finally it brought out the evaluation reports on the Australian Assistance Plan. These publications which the Social Welfare Commission has either produced or commissioned through outside workers have opened up large areas for debate within the welfare area in Australia. Sometimes it has not been too kind about formal government policies when it has come to examine them.

We then come to what the Social Welfare Commission achieved, not in terms of reports or papers but in terms of structures. The list is also impressive. First there was the development and funding of the Australian Assistance Plan to which Senator Grimes already has referred. I had the honour at the invitation of the Minister to chair the national evaluation of the Australian Assistance Plan in Canberra on 1 and 2 May last and was able to see there the very impressive job which the regional councils have done. As a member of a regional council I am an unashamed protagonist of the Australian Assistance Plan. I do not believe it is doomed. I still hold hopes that it will continue and I am gratified by the increased allocations for it in the Budget this year. I am impressed whenever I talk to people who tell me their politics are on the left that they tend to see the Australian Assistance Plan as a middle class plot and when I speak to people whose politics perhaps are the other way that they tend to see it as a socialist plot. It seems to me that many people were fearful of this program which gave the grass roots community a chance to participate in its own program. I simply interpolate in this debate on the Social Welfare Commission that I believe in the Australian Assistance Plan and hope from the announcement the Minister has made that it can continue.

Looking further at the achievements of the Social Welfare Commission there was the establishment of social welfare research grants and these have led to the commissioning of a large number of papers. There was the development of social policy planning units in co-operation with the States. There was a recognition and formalising of government support for councils of social service. There were changed criteria for approvals and changed administrative practices relating to the aged persons housing program and new emphasis was placed on child care. It was the work of bodies like the Social Welfare Commission which led to the formation of the Children’s Commission and from the Children’s Commission to the new Office of Child Care. To a large extent the Social Welfare Commission developed a coherent social welfare program and this program did not run entirely parallel to the grandiose designs of Mr Whitlam because the Social Welfare Commission put its emphasis more upon the welfare of the most needy whereas Mr Whitlam ‘s program often had more of a universalist bias.

The major article in the Financial Review of 6 June 1975 described the Social Welfare Commission as ‘a major critic’ of the Government’s policies, especially as they related to the proposals of the Whitlam Government to develop a quite impractical national compensation scheme. It was very interesting to watch the co-operative effort of the Senate Standing Committee and the Social Welfare Commission in the critical examination of that legislation. I remind the Senate that the original decision to abolish the Social Welfare Commission was made by the former Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam. It was announced with the Cabinet reshuffle of 5 June 1975. It is reported in the Canberra Times of 13 June that Mrs Coleman was not consulted about the decision to abolish the Commission. It is reported in the same newspaper that Mr Hayden was not consulted and that Senator Wheeldon was not consulted. These reports are also contained in the Daily Telegraph of 9 June. It is also reported in the Daily Telegraph that the Director-General of the day was unable to communicate this decision to Mrs Coleman before it became public.

The Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, has made it clear that he believes it more appropriate for bodies doing such jobs as that done by the Social Welfare Commission to be directly answerable to the Minister. He believes that in the end Ministers of State must accept responsibility for what is done and that this is more easily achieved if bodies like the Social Welfare Commission are integrated with departments. As a matter of policy he wants advice, and good advice, available to the ministry and I welcome the fact that Mrs Coleman, the only permanent head with the

Social Welfare Commission, has been offered and has accepted a senior position within the Department of Social Security in charge of the new Office of Child Care. I find the abolition of the Social Welfare Commission a matter of regret and I know that many of my colleagues feel the same way. We accept, however, the logic and validity of the Government’s proposition and view.

When one comes to examine decision making in government, how decisions are made and how they can be influenced, one is drawn sadly perhaps to the realisation that often it is more difficult to influence government policy making from outside, and that there are some advantages to those people developing policy advice who have access to the Minister. This fact does not in any way diminish my commitment to the kind of goals for which the Social Welfare Commission stood or for the kind of advice it was prepared to offer. I hope that the Social Welfare Research Group which will operate within the University of New South Wales and report to the Minister for Social Security will be as effective as the Social Welfare Commission has been in offering critical advice on such a wide ranging group of issues. One of the matters which the Social Welfare Commission raised was the question of the evaluation of programs. I simply draw to the attention of honourable senators that there is an increasing concern about evaluations of health and welfare programs in Australia and a reference was given by the Senate to one of the standing committees for evaluation of health and welfare programs. I hope that in the work of that committee we can profit from the kind of approach and system of operation which was established by the Social Welfare Commission. I believe that that body’s record was one of achievement, that it was progressive in its approach and that the enterprises which it started and the documents which it produced have been of benefit to Australia. I hope that the practices and the impetus which derived from the Social Welfare Commission will not be lost with its abolition.

Senator RYAN:
Australian Capital Territory

– I rise to speak tonight in a rather strange debate. The Senate is debating a Bill for the repeal of the Social Welfare Commission Act 1973, yet the speakers in this debate so far have almost entirely spoken in support of that body which is being repealed. Although they have not opposed the repeal of the Commission they have given no reason why it should be repealed. I was rather confused after listening for some time to the previous speaker, Senator Baume. He was so enthusiastic in his support of the Social Welfare Commission, particularly the way in which he saw it as a formidable critic of the Whitlam Government and its proposals, that I thought for a moment he was going to oppose the legislation before us tonight and vote for the retention of the Social Welfare Commission for that reason if for that alone. However, he did not do that.

I will not be opposing the repeal of the Social Welfare Commission Act. Like my colleague, Senator Grimes, who has already spoken in this debate, I accept the necessity at this stage for the repeal of the Social Welfare Commission. But I regret that necessity. I rise to speak also because I think there are some questions to be raised about the future performance of the functions which have been carried out by the Social Welfare Commission to date. When the Commission was established it was given a number of functions, the major one being to make recommendations to the Minister for furthering the achievement of a nationally integrated social welfare plan. Its functions included the requirement, set out in section 14 of the Act, that it should make recommendations for avoiding duplication of social welfare programs and for promoting the maximum efficiency and effectiveness of the community social welfare effort.

It seems to me at this stage of the development of social welfare programs in this country that neither of those objectives has been achieved. Certainly we do not have anything at this stage that could be called a nationally integrated social welfare plan and we still have a multitude of duplication and fragmentation of services, as any person who has fallen into the welfare network and tried to avail himself of welfare benefits will tell you only too readily. So at this stage there is still a need for a body to perform the functions which the Social Welfare Commission was set up to perform. I suggest to honourable senators that that need is greater at this particular period of our social and economic history than it has been in previous times. I refer to the current economic situation, in particular to the current excessively high rate of unemployment being experienced. Because of this high rate of unemployment and the associated disruption to many individuals and groups in society there is a greater call on social welfare programs than previously and, I think, a greater opportunity to focus on the inadequacy of many of our programs, and in particular the lack of co-ordination between them.

I think that at this period when we have many Australians dependent on welfare benefits we might start to consider very seriously the necessity for something like a guaranteed minimum income scheme for all individuals and families in our society. As yet we are not very close to having the machinery for implementing such a scheme. There are many women, who formerly had an opportunity to go out to work and support their families, but now exist on the supporting mother’s benefit. They are experiencing many difficulties in supporting their families on that benefit and experiencing many difficulties in the administration of that benefit. At this time we might again turn our attention to a different kind of measure of eligibility for financial support for supporting mothers. What I am referring to, and perhaps I should make myself a little clearer, is the fact that we hear again and again- this matter has been raised in this chamber- that the eligibility of a single mother for support from the Government for her family seems somehow to be connected with her personal and sexual relationships. Although the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) has assured this chamber that there is no moralism operating in the payment of benefits to supporting mothers, nevertheless we hear from supporting mothers that they are subjected to impertinent and prurient questioning from field officers. Apart from the fact that there may be undue moralising and prurience on the part of some of these officers there is a very real problem. In what way can we measure the need of a supporting mother who may have other relationships. I think there is a difficulty in formulating some way of measuring her economic necessity whilst at the same time preserving her civil liberties with respect to her personal relationships.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– In other words, you are arguing for sexual security.

Senator RYAN:

– I am arguing for a better system of social security payments than we have at present. I am arguing for the development of a way of measuring the economic need of supporting mothers- amongst others- which would not involve an intrusion into her personal life. I do not think that that is unreasonable but some difficulties exist in formulating such a proposal. It is to just that sort of new way of measuring economic need that a body like the Social Welfare Commission could have devoted itself. But it no longer exists.

Senator Baume:

– You will agree that that need goes right across the social welfare area.

Senator RYAN:

– I certainly agree with Senator Baume. In fact, we seem to be in agreement on many points this evening. I quoted that particular example because I think it demonstrates that there is a real problem in terms of the provision as well as the administration of social welfare and in ensuring that field officers carry out the Government’s policies and do not project their own attitudes into their work. I think it is unfortunate that the Social Welfare Commission is being abolished at a time when the sorts of functions it could have performed are very much needed. It is unfortunate, too, that the proposals put up to date by the Government for replacing the Social Welfare Commission and the work it was doing do not seem to be an adequate replacement. We on this side of the chamber had hoped that the Government would formulate a better plan for the development of social welfare having regard to the enthusiasm for the Social Welfare Commission and the Australian Assistance Plan which has been so often expressed by Government supporters.

Senator Baume spoke tonight with such enthusiasm about the Social Welfare Commission that I wondered why he was not opposing its repeal. I am pleased to note that his expressions of support tonight are not new but that he has been a consistent supporter of the Social Welfare Commission. I quote from an article written by Senator Baume which appeared in the AMA Gazette on 26 June 1 975:

As far as I am concerned, any proposal to abolish the Social Welfare Commission will fail. The proposal is one of the most ignominious retreats from decentralised government seen in recent years.

The article went on to say:

Many of us feel that the placing of the Commission under departmental control would be one way of clipping its wings. We do not want this.

Although Senator Baume ‘s enthusiasm for the Social Welfare Commission has not decreased, his determination to maintain the Commission seems to have disappeared entirely. But it is not only Senator Baume who has been an enthusiastic supporter of the Social Welfare Commission and the concept on which it was based. In the election campaign of 1975 the coalition parties’ policy contained repeated references to the importance of such a concept. The social welfare policy of the coalition Parties stated:

It is essential that there be a permanent body with the capacity to provide analyses of overall welfare priorities, evolving social needs, and evaluations of program effectiveness. This has to be a continuing process and carried out with the highest integrity and objectivity. We will encourage and be responsive to independent and critical analysis of our policies.

Similarly, with reference to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation the coalition’s policy on science and technology stated:

We recognise that bodies connected with research and development need substantial independence from government controls and supervision to operate effectively with respect to their policies and personnel and maintain independent initiatives.

Despite those commitments to a nationally developed social welfare body- independent, objective, able to operate outside the framework of the bureaucracy- the provisions made to date by the Government following the abolition of the Social Welfare Commission fall far short of those objectives. I have read with care the Minister’s second reading speech and, although most of the functions of the former Social Welfare Commission will continue in some form or another, the more valuable and innovatory aspects of the Commission’s work will be lost in the new arrangements. I should like to comment briefly on that, firstly in relation to the need for research and data analysis. I will not describe that need because it has been described adequately already by previous speakers in the debate tonight.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

- Mr Deputy President, in the area of unisex, I take a point of order. In defiance of the Senate Standing Orders, the honourable senator is reading her speech.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Plenty of your people do it.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– I have never read a speech in my life. I am taking a point of order and I would ask Senator Ryan to sit down while I address myself to the point of order. I object to an honourable senator reading a speech in defiance of the Senate Standing Orders, and the honourable senator has been reading her speech. Mr Deputy President, I suggest that you either apply the Standing Orders or abandon them and allow the honourable senator to continue reading her speech.

Senator Cavanagh:

– As long as it is both ways.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– I have never read a speech in my life.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator DrakeBrockman) Senator Ryan, I had noticed this. I thought you were reading some quotations.

Senator RYAN:

-Yes, I was.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I accept that, but I ask you to bear in mind the point of order raised by Senator Sir Magnus Cormack.

Senator RYAN:

– Thank you, Mr Deputy President. I will bear in mind the point of order that has been raised. I was reading quotations. If the honourable senator who raised the point of order cared to look at the notes before me he would see that I was not reading my speech.

Nevertheless, I will endeavour to keep my eyes at a different level and so assure the honourable senator that there are no grounds for the objection. Although the Minister has announced that a new unit will be set up within the University of New South Wales for research and data collection, at this stage I doubt whether such a unit in a university will be able to repeat the kind of research work that has been carried out by the Social Welfare Commission. Senator Baume gave the Senate a long list of the research activities of the Social Welfare Commission, and I doubt that the unit being set up for the purpose will be able to continue that breadth of research. I wonder too how the functioning of the new unit in the University of New South Wales will be affected by the restriction of funds allocated to the universities. It is my understanding that there will be no new developments in our universities as a result of the last Budget, and I wonder if the unit will have sufficient funds to perform the sorts of functions in the research and social welfare areas which the Social Welfare Commission was performing.

Another indication of what is to come is contained in the Minister’s description of the consulting groups. I do not oppose the idea of having consultative groups. In fact, the Labor Government during its period in office set up many consultative groups. I think that is a very useful exercise, but I do not believe that consultative groups alone can replace the kind of work done by an independent objective body. Naturally, consultative groups represent the organisations from which they come and their advice to government could not possibly be as comprehensive as the advice of a separate independent statutory body.

We have been told by the Minister that research projects not completed by the Social Welfare Commission will be completed, but we have been given no indication of future field work that may be carried out by the Department of Social Security, which has taken over the work of the Social Welfare Commission. Overall, the new arrangements for the continuation of the work of the Commission suggest fragmentation and a breaking down of the excellent teamwork which had been developed by the Social Welfare Commission. I think that fragmentation must lead inevitably to poorer quality advice, to less innovation, and to a diminishing of progress towards the original objective of the Social Welfare Commission, that is, the formulation of an integrated national social welfare plan.

I had intended to speak of the excellent work published so far by the Social Welfare Commission, but as Senator Baume has already given such a comprehensive list, which no doubt he had memorised in order not to have to read it in the chamber, I will not repeat it. I myself have not memorised it and if I were to read the list I might be called to order again. Suffice it to say that I agree that in its 3 years of operation the Social Welfare Commission did an enormous amount of work in preparing reports on a very wide range of social welfare issues. Its reports were always progressive; they looked at new approaches and new solutions to long-standing problems. They always added something to any debate to which they were contributed, and I think that all of us who are concerned with social welfare are indebted to the Commission for its reports and will refer to them often in the future. In conclusion, I should like to repeat that I doubt whether the arrangements made by the Government for the carrying on of the functions performed by the Social Welfare Commission will be adequate for what we all seem to agree is necessary, that is, a nationally integrated social welfare plan. I hope that in the future the Government will see fit to reconstruct a body similar to the Social Welfare Commission, a body having objectivity, independence, adequate resources and a national monitoring, evaluating and co-ordinating role.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

-in reply-I thank the Senate for its debate this evening on the Bill to abolish the Social Welfare Commission. Many of the statements made have found agreement on both sides of the chamber, and I simply want to respond to some of the matters that have been raised by honourable senators. Senator Grimes referred to the anticipation of the abolition of the Social Welfare Commission, and I believe that some statement should be made in response to that. It appeared to be asserted by Senator Grimes that it was improper to anticipate the abolition of the Commission, to transfer staff to the Department of Social Security and to take other actions which were necessary. It should be understood that in June of last year the then Government announced its intention to repeal the Social Welfare Commission Act and to abolish the Commission. There were many months of uncertainty for the staff of the Commission during last year and for a period of this year. Many of them were uncertain about their future.

Any action that was taken to transfer the functions of the Social Welfare Commission to the Department of Social Security perhaps could be interpreted as pre-empting a decision of this Parliament. However it was decided to abolish the Commission, it was widely publicised that this would take place and it seemed appropriate that certain steps be taken with regard to the functions. Many of the staff had been transferred to the Department of Social Security and some of the work needed to be dealt with administratively in relation to the re-deployment of staff and other functions had to be done without further delay. It may be of interest to honourable senators to know that on 20 February there were 49 officers in the Social Welfare Commission and that as at 19 August the staff situation was as follows: Twenty-five officers had been transferred within the Australian Public Service; 4 officers had resigned from the Australian Public Service; and 20 officers were still within the Social Welfare Commission. Two of the Commissioners have resigned since 2 February this year, notably, Mrs Coleman, who was the Chairman and who resigned in June, and Mr Tom Roper, who was one of the part-time Commissioners and who resigned on 20 February.

With regard to the statements made by Senator Grimes as to pre-empting a decision of the Parliament concerning the repeal Bill and the abolition of the Commission, it is fair to say that the actions that were taken with regard to the movement of staff and dealing with administrative matters were actions that we believe were in the best interests of all concerned. The staff of the Social Welfare Commission now occupy Public Service Act positions which are included in the establishment of the Department of Social Security. Action will be taken to transfer Commission staff to the unattached list of the Department on the repeal of the Social Welfare Commission Act. As an interim measure pending the formal abolition of the Social Welfare Commission, the remaining staff of the Commission have been seconded to the Department to continue work on approved projects within the departmental framework. Some officers have been used on various activities, such as research projects, fellowship awards and other jobs of that nature. Far from endeavouring to pre-empt the decision of the Parliament, I think that practical measures needed to be taken in the way in which I have outlined.

It was mentioned with regard to the regret that people have about the abolition of the Social Welfare Commission that one of its primary advantages was its independence. I should draw the Senate ‘s attention to the final report of the Social Welfare Commission in which it styled itself as an idea before its time. The Commission itself reported that it was its lack of independence that created many difficulties and that it was the lack of functions that it found most difficult to overcome. Some of these matters were referred to in the way in which Senator Grimes described the difficulties, but I rather feel that some of the matters he spoke about were reflections upon the administration through the departmental structure of government as we know it rather than perhaps an acknowledgment of some of the things that the Commission itself acknowledged in its final report. In part of its final report the Commission said:

It is stated that the independence of the Commission was largely illusory. The independence which the Commission was given under statute included the right to institute inquiries and undertake related research; and to provide reports to the responsible Minister. Consequently, it was perceived by some to have a substantial degree of independence and as a result co-operation between the Commission and those interested in policy analysis and review developed. However, many other groups were disappointed and then became disinterested when it was discovered that the Commission did not have an abundance of money at its disposal to fund outside bodies.

In relation to the co-ordination and evaluation functions of the Commission, it was not kept informed of policy program initiatives with social welfare implications prior to government decisions; it was never given the power to enforce co-ordination nor was it given an automatic right of access to Cabinet submissions on policy proposals affecting social policy, thus placing the Commission’s independent review role at serious risk.

That is the way in which the Commission saw itself in its final report. I think that those statements that have been made with regard to its independence and the value of that need to be taken into consideration in the context in which the Commission finally reported on its own activities.

One other matter that I believe should be referred to by me is the matter raised with regard to the funding of the policy research unit at the University of New South Wales. The assumption that was made because the Department of Education has certain policies with regard to new initiatives is not a correct one. The funding for the policy research unit at the University of New South Wales is through the Department of Social Security. In this year’s Budget S75 000 has been provided for the establishment of the premises that will be required by the research unit to undertake its work, and additional funding will be forthcoming as the university research group is able to get its people to work in the capacity that is contemplated. The funds will be able to meet its requirements. It is not a matter of funding that is within the general funding to universities in Australia; rather it is a matter of specialised funding that is the responsibility of the Department of Social Security.

The statements that have been made with regard to consultation and the process of consultation that is being developed should take into account the various ways in which policy will be able to be considered by groups outside of government. There is to be a national consultative committee, there are to be State consultative committees and there is to be a women’s consultative group. With these various bodies having outside representation on them, we believe that this process will be invaluable to government in leading towards the welfare policies that are required by the Australian people.

It was said by Senator Baume that the Government considers the co-ordination of social welfare information as the basis for policy formulation as being mainly the responsibility of the Department of Social Security. The Department has the capacity to collect information on community welfare services, to formulate advice to the Government on broad social questions and to evaluate experimental and pilot social welfare projects. It has the capacity to consult with State and local government in the collection of information that government will require for future policy development. The integration of policy within the departmental structure is the way that has been decided by this Government to suit its own needs, as it evidently was decided by the former Government when it decided to abolish the Commission.

With regard to the co-ordination of health and welfare and the formulation of a national plan on health and welfare, I draw attention to the operation at the present time of the health and welfare task force, which is looking closely at matters of health and welfare and which soon will be reporting to the Government on ways in which there can be co-ordination between those and other departments with related responsibilities. I welcome the way in which the Senate has dealt with the debate on the Social Welfare Commission (Repeal) Bill and I thank honourable senators for their remarks and the contributions that they have made.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 253

AGED PERSONS HOSTELS AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 1 8 May, on motion by Senator Guilfoyle:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

-In the spirit of unanimity and peace abroad tonight I announce that the Opposition will not oppose the Aged Persons Hostels Amendment Bill. Despite this fact the Opposition certainly does not give any indication that it approves of the Government’s policies, at present or in the future, on the provision of aged persons accommodation in this country. The Bill, which has been seen on the Senate notice paper for some time, is designed to amend the Aged Persons Hostels Act to enable those voluntary bodies which are entitled to assistance under the Act to maintain their entitlement beyond the time limits imposed by the present legislation. The Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) is introducing 2 amendments to the Bill tonight. They are machinery amendments and the Opposition will not oppose them although we, and I am sure the Minister, would have appreciated longer notice than we received of those amendments.

The original legislation was introduced in 1 972 because of the realisation by the then Minister for Social Security that there had developed an overall shortage of accommodation for the aged. The accommodation which was available and which was provided for the aged was not always appropriate to the needs of those people. The then Minister assessed the need as being one for more hostel accommodation and that there needed to be a crash program of building hostels to make up the leeway which had developed over the years. Progress was made but there was some constraint on the progress possible. In 1974 the legislation was amended to allow transfer of rights to benefits under the Act to other organisations enabling a further expansion of the program. Approval was given to outstanding applications in August 1 975 so that applicants would be eligible under the Act in the knowledge and on the understanding of the Minister of the day and of the people concerned that they would not all be funded at once but that in 2 or 3 years the backlog would be overcome.

The Bill extends the time indefinitely in which the projects can be commenced. The present legislation provides for commencement by 27 September this year. It does this by allowing construction to commence within 12 months of approval of the grant. The amendments which will be moved by the Minister tonight correct certain difficulties in the original legislation presented to the Parliament. The uncertainty of the Government’s intention as to the future time scale of completion of this scheme is of some concern to the Opposition, especially in view of the announcements in May and in the recent Budget of the Government’s cutbacks in spending on accommodation for the aged generally. We find it very difficult to understand how a Government which proclaims concern for projects of this type to be completed on a basis of needs and priorities in the community should cut back spending by 36 per cent and probably in real money terms by some 40 per cent to 45 per cent in an area where there is an acknowledged backlog of suitable accommodation available. Of course, we will have more to say about this in the Budget debate.

We express our concern that the people who are to build this sort of accommodation will know where they are. The scheme should not be hampered by any general restraints on Government spending to the extent that obviously there have been this year. The total problem of care for the aged, as is obvious to everyone, is an increasingly urgent one for government and for the whole community. It seems to me that the problem arises from factors in our society which are largely beyond the control of any legislature. There is an increasing percentage of aged persons in our community caused partly by the increasing birth rate and, to a lesser extent, by the small increase in longevity. These are the primary sources of the problem. But the problem probably of greater importance is that our society in its post industrial phase has developed into one of nuclear families where families of 2 generations live in accommodation where there is neither the ability nor often the desire for immediate members of families- for sons, daughters or anybody else- to care for the increasing numbers of aged persons.

Much as many of us may regret the passing of the biologically extended family with several generations under one roof or close by, I think we must accept that it is a fact of life. It is a situation which is difficult or impossible to change. Certainly it is not amenable to change by legislation or by any number of words spoken in this place. Assistance can be given and I believe should be given to encourage the care of the aged in their own homes or in the homes of families. But I believe the evidence points to the fact that this fundamental change in the attitudes of our society is not based on financial grounds or causes and therefore it is not able to be solved by the direct or indirect use of money or by the refusal of any government or parliament to give aid. When the problem became obvious in the post war years the initial response by governmentsthis was accepted by society- was to provide assistance in the form of nursing homes. This produced a burgeoning of nursing homes built by voluntary and charitable organisations as well as by governments. Because of a shortage of this sort of accommodation the situation could not be coped with by the government and by voluntary and charitable organisations. This, together with the motive for profit, produced an expansion of commercial nursing homes. Some of them were built for the purpose and were well run, but I believe that too many were conducted in converted old buildings unsuited for the purpose. They were conducted to make a quick profit. They were, and I believe sometimes still are, a blot on our society. We now have one of the highest ratios of nursing homes per capita in the world but there is too little accommodation for aged people who wish to be independent in independent units. Certainly there is too little accommodation for the frail aged who need hostel type accommodation rather than full nursing type accommodation. The Social Welfare Commission in a publication entitled ‘Care of the Aged’, in relation to hostels when well planned and well run, states: . . provide for the frail aged who are at physical or psychological risk, some degree of freedom, combined with accommodation and care which will help preserve that freedom, and keep them out of the continuous nursing situation.

The Commission also pointed out that although this form of accommodation is not cheap- it certainly is not cheap- it is much less expensive than nursing home and hospital care. Honourable senators will realise that there are many people in acute, high cost hospital beds who would be better off in nursing homes. There are many people in nursing homes, also at too high a cost economically, emotionally and sociologically, who would be better off in hostels and sometimes in independent type accommodation.

A bugbear in all systems of providing accommodation for the aged, in fact a bugbear in the whole of our welfare system, is that of deciding the criteria for need, in this case for financial, social and medical need. It is especially difficult in the case of hostels to decide which of the people who need some sort of institutional care beyond that able to be given in a home or in an independent unit are suitable for hostels and which are suitable for nursing homes. The Government has expressed the concern, which was shared by the Labor Party when in government, that the aged should not be in nursing homes and hostels unnecessarily. It is not easy to make the necessary assessments.

I know an announcement has been made that it is intended to ensure that proper assessment is made of people who are housed in subsidised homes and hostels. Some details of these assessment procedures required in the future deserve the careful scrutiny of this Parliament and the public before they are applied because I think it is terribly important that such assessments be carried out in a way which maintains the dignity of the people involved and the feeling of selfesteem which is so important to the aged. The assessments should not be too clinical. They should not be so rigid as to rule out assessment based on experience by the people who are involved in doing the assessing. Despite the shortage of aged persons’ accommodation the criteria should be sufficiently flexible, and perhaps flexible in various areas, to provide for the differing types of populations in those areas.

I believe that the aged persons’ hostel program has served a useful purpose. Until it runs out it will continue to be of some benefit. However, I believe that in the future hostels and other sorts of homes and nursing homes should come under a total scheme for care of the aged, using not only special facilities provided in retirement villages or aged persons’ villages or whatever they may be called in the various States, but also facilities such as health centres and rehabilitation and recreational facilities that already exist in the community and are there to be used by the whole community, including the aged. The people who use these facilities should not arbitrarily be cut off from access to these facilities at the age of 65 or 70 years or at whatever age they suddenly become inmates or citizens of the various types of aged persons accommodation. I think that this concept of total care for the aged, not only nursing care, is mentioned in every report on care for the aged that has ever been written. It has tended to be an abstract sort of concept or dream thought about by people in the community, but I firmly believe that it is a feasible proposition and one that can be achieved if philosophical- if we like, ideological- blinkers do not inhibit the development of these schemes by those who are responsible for them.

As the Social Welfare Commission stated in its report entitled Care for the Aged, it is inevitable that the financial responsibility for the capital construction, upkeep and staffing of these institutions in most cases will rest with the Government. The Commission concedes and I concede that voluntary organisations and local authorities should be encouraged to set up such institutions and to set up hostels, but they should be encouraged to do so only if there is proper expertise, proper staff and, above all, if they can demonstrate a local need for this facility. For too long the distribution of aged persons homes and hostels has depended not only on a need but also on the existence of an organisation which can, because of its previous experience or finances that it has already, apply for the Government subsidies which have been made available. I understand one of the worst areas in this regard is the northern area of Victoria. Too often frail aged persons have to be transported over very long distances because there are very few facilities to accommodate them satisfactorily in their own area. This arises where towns tend to be small and the established institutions which would be likely to set up appropriate facilities are not present.

I believe that the overall assessment of need, particularly on an area basis, is a responsibility of government or of some assessing organisation in the social welfare field, outside the Government if necessary. The assessment should be done in a much more logical manner than at present and not in the present haphazard manner which depends upon the existence of certain organisations in certain areas. We must look very closely at the funding arrangements for these facilities and at other situations which have existed and been accepted in the past whereby public funds are given to groups which eventually move beyond public control and scrutiny.

Only a very small minority of the people in the community can afford either private nursing type accommodation or private hostel type accommodation of an adequate standard with adequate supervision without considerable government subsidy. I believe that in the past government supervision has not been as great as it should have been in this area. Too often we are swayed by the lobby composed of some people who are all too willing to use the very real emotional feelings that can be raised when dealing with problems of accommodation for the aged and who have become expert at using the media and advertising in this field. These people will continue to press for the present system and to press for more and more subsidies for nursing home accommodation. I believe that governments of all persuasions should resist and not cater for this sort of pressure without careful assessment of where the money is going and how the money is being used.

Planned development of hostels is important and is of the utmost importance to the establishment of a fully comprehensive scheme of total care for the aged. There is a very great danger that the present subsidy plans for aged persons accommodation tend to channel money to organisations that can extend their present facilities and that have the basic capital to establish new homes. Too often these organisations are the large established charities and voluntary organisations in established areas with regular sources of income because of their history and because of their relative popularity in those areas. As I said earlier, their distribution is not always appropriate to the proper distribution of the needy aged in the community. They do not always provide for the possibility of full community participation for the aged, even down to things like shopping and social visiting, and there has been a great tendency to isolate the aged from the mainstream of the community into villages or settlements away from the areas of origin of the people involved.

I am concerned that the Government’s policy of reducing the Commonwealth contribution from $4 to $1 to $2 to $1, although having the effect of giving a greater spread of funds, will cause disadvantage to those organisations caring for the aged in lower socio-economic areas, and in some smaller communities will cut the possibility of these organisations taking part in this and other schemes for the aged persons.

As I said before the Aged Persons Hostels Act has supplied a need in the community. We supported it when it was introduced. We support its continuation but we believe that before another scheme such as this is introduced careful and comprehensive plans are needed to provide for domiciliary care, unit type accommodation, hostel type accommodation and nursing home accommodation in a proper balance and in a proper distribution. A lot of statistical information has been gathered in this area and a lot of the preliminary work has been done by the Social Welfare Commission and by the other people who have reported on aged persons’ accommodation and care in the community. We believe a scheme can be produced which may differ very much from our present scheme but will probably be more satisfactory. We hope that the new committee set up by the Government to look at care for the aged will produce a scheme which is satisfactory for all. We would have some fear if the result were the same as the present changes to Medibank which emanated from the same sort of direction. We support the legislation, expressing our concern for the future time scale of provisions in the legislation, and urging the Government to consider, as we were considering, revamping the whole concept of care for the aged in the community and the development of a scheme of aged persons’ accommodation more appropriate to the needs of the community.

Senator BAUME:
New South Wales

– The Senate is debating the Aged Persons Hostels Bill 1976. To be old in Australia at present is generally to be frail or ill, to be poor and to be alone. The Henderson Commission of Inquiry into Poverty has derived the kind of data which makes it quite clear that aged persons do not have the resources to care for themselves in terms of money, they do not have the family support and their health is inevitably going downhill. It is to this kind of question that we address ourselves when we look at aged persons’ welfare housing. Senator Grimes has already referred to the report of the Social Welfare Commission entitled Care of the Aged in Australia which made a number of recommendations relating to aged persons’ welfare housing. It also made a number of recommendations which were designed to make it easier for people to function independently in the community. A large number of recommendations had to do with domiciliary support, rent rebate programs, community health programs and home repair programs. In the midst of the recommendations was a realisation that in looking at old people extra resources had to be provided for them to obtain housing assistance for some kind of institutional care. The great need in Australia at present is for both funding and increased provision of aged persons’ welfare housing.

The present Bill addresses itself principally to the provision of one kind of housing, though it does contain some funding components which will be of great value. It is inescapable now that the extended family has gone in Australia; if it has not gone it is rapidly disappearing. The normal way of life no longer provides for a 3- generation family. It is no longer the norm that the generation of working adults are prepared to care for the aged in their own homes with their own children. The fact is that it is not an easy thing to do. Modern housing is not large. It is not designed to provide for multi-generational living. Problems occur when the very young and the very old are put together. It is becoming easier in this country to look at the alternative ways of disposing- I use the term advisedly- of the elderly into what almost could be called a ghetto- isolated areas where aged people can live almost in quarantine from society because they present problems about which many young Australians do not want to know.

It is good that we have started to develop domiciliary care programs. The programs are progressing. They are having some effect but they are not always appropriate. At present they are quite inadequate in the breadth of cover they give and they do not always address themselves to some of the problems of aged persons’ housing. A problem that is worrying the Council of the Aged is the single person living in a large house which is no longer appropriate. The Council has said that we should be looking at programs that would make it easy for people in this kind of housing- the Council has statistics; the numbers run into hundreds of thousands- to move into more appropriate and simpler housing which they can manage and at the same time get some benefit from giving up their own housing to give to society extra housing for families which is needed at present. Our new community attitudes in Australia make institutional care acceptable where it was not acceptable as a norm 50 years ago. We have to accept that, and the kinds of programs that have evolved from government in the last 15 or 20 years have increasingly recognised that it is a proper role of government to provide support for aged persons’ welfare housing.

Senator Grimes has asked the question: Are the programs always appropriate and are they working? It is a very reasonable question and I think we should examine it further. Some of the aged persons’ welfare housing is situated in isolated areas. Much of the aged persons’ welfare housing which has been built by charities in the great cities, including the conurbation in which I live, has been placed at the periphery of the city. It has been placed where land could be purchased at a price which the charity or group could afford. It is often in a site totally inappropriate for the people who will serve as the clients. It means that automatically the people are physically isolated from services, particularly community services. They are away from community facilities. They are away from medical services and shops. They are isolated from their families. The development on the outskirts of the great cities has been one of the problems we have had to face.

We have had another problem with the development of aged persons’ welfare housing. A series of programs has certainly provided housing places for people who need them but we have no evidence of uniform availability of aged persons’ welfare housing to all the potential clients. I am told that it is not good enough to measure what one’s programs have done; one also has to look at what they have not done. One has to examine the area of unmet need. Often it will be discovered that the programs, far from being satisfactory, are basically totally inadequate. The best example I can think of is the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Training Scheme. The yearly report covering the scheme outlines quite justly the achievements of the clients who attended the scheme that year. It is only when one discovers that the scheme takes only 6 per cent or 7 per cent of those who apply for rehabilitation training that one realises how totally inadequate the cover is in terms of the problem presented. So I would like to know whether we have information not only in terms of total unmet need but also in terms of distribution of aged persons’ welfare housing in different areas of the community.

It is not easy to build aged persons welfare housing even with matching government subsidy. A matching subsidy involves someone having the initial ceiling amount of money to attract the government contribution. It is easier for the middle class areas in our cities to provide that kind of resource. It is easier for the established charities. It is more difficult, Mr Acting Deputy President- and we both come from the same city- for a Mount Druitt community to provide the basic amount of money needed to start a welfare housing project than it is for an established charity or for people somewhere on the North Shore. This may mean that the clientele who gain access to available aged persons welfare housing are not always those who might be judged as the most needy. This is not saying that those who live on the North Shore and use these facilities do not deserve them.

Senator Keeffe:

– What about the people who live at Burketown? How do they get on?

Senator BAUME:

- Senator Keeffe raises the question of rural or non-metropolitan Australia. I think it is fair to say that the problems I raise when I talk about deprived areas on the outskirts of cities apply with even greater force to areas in non-metropolitan Australia where the problems continue.

We do not know who constitute the clientele of aged persons welfare housing. There are some very extensive housing projects to the north west of Sydney. I do not know whether their clientele come from that area, whether they have been transported from other areas of Sydney or whether they have been transported from areas out in the remote parts of New South Wales. Until I have that kind of information and until I have some kind of data base on which to work I cannot really judge whether the aged persons welfare housing projects have really been successful in the social sense. Given that they are supposed to help those in need, I do not know whether they are doing so. I know that the people who are in these homes are benefiting. I do not know who are the people who need them but who cannot yet get access.

I was talking about some of the problems of aged persons welfare housing and I remind the Senate that the problem of maintenance of projects once established is a continuing problem and one that is assuming even greater importance. We need to evaluate the programs that we have been running. If the Social Welfare Commission taught us one thing during its life it is that evaluation is not only a good idea but also it is essential. I give notice now that if there is one thing that our Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare will examine it is programs like the aged persons welfare housing program to determine what goal the scheme thinks it is serving and to what extent these schemes are serving those programs. After all, the programs have evolved over many years. They are the programs of governments of all parties. One is not being partisan when one asks whether the programs are working. It is a matter of national importance that we know whether our welfare dollar is achieving anything and whether we are gaining anything for it.

I want to know who are the clientele using these homes. I want to know whether it is a fact, as has often been alleged, that in the western suburbs of Melbourne, which is an area of great need, very few aged persons welfare housing projects have been started. I want to know to what extent projects have been started in the western suburbs of Sydney as opposed perhaps to projects started in some of the more affluent areas. I want to know who make up the people occupying the beds.

Having said that I want to make it clear that the projects which have been built and which are operating at the present time are serving a very real need for the many people who use them. If we are to have institutional programs of care for our aged Australians it is important that the programs be integrated. It is no good providing some form of subsidised housing suitable for those who are independent and can look after themselves if we provide nothing for these people to go to when they ceased to be independent.

It is generally agreed that 3 types of housing are necessary- independent units, hostel accommodation for those who are frail and nursing home accommodation for those who need nursing care. The best kinds of developments seem to include all 3 kinds of housing. They might contain in one complex independent units, some hostel accommodation for those who are frail but still can lead some independent life and also nursing home accommodation for those whose disability is greater. If we believe in integrated programs it is important that we encourage the development of hostels. The Bill now before the Senate seeks to make it easier for us to increase the availability of hostels for aged persons.

We see a progression of need and presently we see a great need for better integration of services than we have had to date. I note from the second reading speech that the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) specifically hoped that the provisions of this Bill would enable the building of hostel type accommodation catering specifically for the frail aged and those in greatest need of accommodation because of advanced age and limited finance. The program which this Bill sets out to achieve is a finite program. The commitment to provide hostels on a subsidised basis was finite when it was introduced. We know exactly how many hostels remain to be built from the original allocation. It is the intention of this legislation that they will be built for they are part of the development of properly integrated aged persons housing projects.

Approvals given to eligible organisations under the provisions of this Bill will allow those organisations 12 months to commence building from the time they are told that they have a grant. Because of this it will be possible for organisations to get their plans prepared and buildings started. On the question of funding aged persons welfare housing, the Government and the Minister for Social Security have gone a long way to bringing some rationality and help to the building of various kinds of units. It is well known that building costs have been rising steeply and that the increase in building costs has exceeded the rate of inflation. It is better economics for an organisation to build this year and get its grant next year because even if it has to service the money for the 12 months that elapse it is cheaper to build than to wait for 12 months and then to build.

Before organisations can start building they need some kind of insurance that money will come through. I am very pleased to support the kind of initiative which the Fraser Government has put forward, namely the promise of a triennial funding program- a program which will indicate in advance the amounts of money that will be available for the provision of aged persons welfare housing. The program is for $225m. An amount of $45m is to be allocated for this financial year and $90m is to be allocated for each of the succeeding years. But what is more important is that the advance information that grants will be made available will be given as soon as possible. When those announcements are made organisations will be able to proceed immediately to build, secure in the knowledge that their grant has been promised within the triennium. These organisations can move in to get their buildings started and provide the resources for the aged persons who will use their building. They can do so secure in the knowledge that their money will come through this financial year, next financial year or the following financial year depending upon the information they get from the Department.

More than that, the Government has decided to increase the amount for each unit. It now works on a cost basis of more than $15,000 per bed. That is the kind of level of subsidy on which it will work. There will be upgradings of this level as there are movements in building costs. It makes the matching funds more realistic in terms of the job that the organisations have to do. Since it is cheaper to build now and borrow money than it is to wait one year, this will be a very real help to those organisations and to those groups trying to provide aged persons welfare housing. It will provide 15 000 new places for the frail aged in Australia. This is a program which is being supported by both sides of the Senate; and so it should be. It is a program of compassion and need. It is part of an integrated housing program. The only thing that remains is that we need to know a little more exactly what we are gaining in terms of the considerations I mentioned earlier to the Senate. I believe this is an appropriate measure which should enjoy the support of all honourable senators.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

-As my colleague, Senator Grimes, said earlier tonight we are not opposing this Bill. However, we are taking the opportunity to point out some of its shortcomings and hope that the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) will be able to reply to some of the criticisms that we are offering. Quite frankly, I felt rather sorry for Senator Baume. He sounded like the typical drowning man going down for the third time, defending the policies of a hopeless Government. The Budget deficit is being loaded on the shoulders of 3 groups in the community- the very young who have had to accept financial sacrifices in the field of education, pre-school training and so on; the very old, including the frail aged to whom Senator Baume referred, and the people in between- the gathering numbers of unemployed.

There has been no cutback on immigration. In fact, immigration has been increased. Normally, the migrants to this country constitute the factory fodder, but in this case, they are bolstering the gathering group of unemployed who will provide additional factory fodder. In other words, they will be used as an instrument of blackmail to make sure that there are no wage increases but there is no safety valve to make sure that there are no increases in profits for the larger groups, particularly the multinational companies. It is significant that at the same time there are some sections of migrants who are being brought in under this category. They will have an effect on the number of aged people of this country in the long term. The aged people constitute a very large section of the community to whom we all owe a lot of loyalty and support because it is they who built the Australia that we know now. Both Senator Baume ‘s generation and my generation owe to the aged people of our country.

I should like to digress slightly from the Bill. I hope to speak at greater length during the Budget debate about migrants who have been discriminated against. Those who have ties here ought to be allowed in and they would probably be able to help some of the older people in Australia. Before I go on to further criticise Senator Baume ‘s contribution to the debate, I draw the attention of the Minister to page 29 of the Explanatory Notes on Estimated Expenditure 1976-77. 1 do not intend to open up a Budget debate on social security. Item 03 deals with grants to eligible organisations under the Aged Persons Hostels Act. Under the heading Purpose of Item, it states:

This item provides for subsidies payable to eligible organisations under the Aged Persons Hostels Act, the purpose of which is to provide additional accommodation for needy aged persons.

The estimate for 1976-77 is $25m. The expenditure for the 1975-76 financial year just ended was $36,946,734; almost $37m. The decrease, obviously, is $1 1,946,734. On page 29 of the Explanatory Notes it is stated further:

Under the scheme, the Commonwealth Government meets the full cost of providing hostel accommodation for 2 people for every one residing in an unsubsidised home or for one person for every two residing in a home built with a $1 for $1 subsidy between 1954 and 1957.

It is all very well for Senator Baume to say: ‘We are upgrading this. We will find 15 000 new places’. Senator Baume cited some figures and said that grants on this occasion would exceed $15,000 per person. To be precise, it is $15,300. But that does not mean a thing. He is merely making a pretty picture. As I have said, when he gasped his last political breath and went down for the third time these were the figures he was citing. They do not fit into the situation at all. I hope the Minister has a satisfactory answer for me. The Budget has cut last year’s expenditure by $ 12m and that needs a lot of explaining, particularly when we take into consideration the fact that Australia has the highest rate of aged people in the world living in institutions and the highest rate of residents in institutions run for private gain. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of people in this community capitalising on the suffering of aged people. They are able to register small nursing homes and large nursing homes but they offer sub-standard services. I am not saying this about every nursing home. Many of them are worthy institutions. Without those institutions there would be old people in the communitysome of use here may be members of that section of the community at a later stage of our lives- who would have nowhere to live and would be forced into parks and sub-standard accommodation. Some of the organisations which run these aged persons homes do provide substandard services and sub-standard accommodation, and they make very fascinating profits out of it.

I now turn to the Minister’s second reading speech. The Minister, when speaking about the amendment to the Bill, was very careful to say that the Government would not re-open the legislation for lodgment for applications for new or additional grants. If this Government has the social welfare of Australians at heart, particularly the needs of the aged- I place greater emphasis on the frail aged- then it ought to be looking at the possibility of extending these services to an increasing number of people. When Senator Baume was speaking I interjected at one stage and referred to the people of Burketown. Senator Baume replied to my interjection my saying that he was not sure about the drift of people from areas. If someone lives in Broome, Burketown or Borroloola and he wants to stay there when he reaches the age of retirement, why should he not be allowed to do so? Why should it not be the responsibility of the Australian people to ensure that those aged people spend the evening of their lives in reasonable comfort surrounded by their relatives and their life-long friends? But instead of that, we dodge the issue. During the 3 years- it was almost 3 years- when the preceding Government was in office, there was a growing tendency to try to overcome some of these gaps. But now we have the Liberal and National Country Parties back in office. Unless the Minister has an explanation for the decrease of $12 in the current financial year, I believe there is a tendency by this Government to abandon the old to their own fate as well as abandoning the Aboriginals and the young people of this country.

In my own city of Townsville the Good Shepherd Hospice is an organisation run by the Anglican Church. It is the only major institution in the city area catering for aged people. It is the only institution, apart from the geriatric section of the Townsville General Hospital, which caters for the frail aged. They were in trouble prior to 2 December 1972. It was in trouble for most of the period of the Labor Government but is in a hell of a mess now because of the present Government’s changed attitude to treatment for these people. It has abolished the system of deficit budgeting which this organisation might have been able to adopt and had applied to adopt under the Labor Government. There is a home that ought to be extended. It ought not to be left at the present standard and the Government ought to give the organisation every assistance to extend it. I refer also to the people living in Cooktown where there is no unit at all for the frail aged or elderly people. In Mareeba the aged people have been living in shacks and as they die these dwellings are being dismantled. These are a few thoughts that I hope will lead to further debate on this Bill.

Debate interrupted.

page 260

ADJOURNMENT

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! It being 10.30 p.m., under sessional orders I put the question:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

page 261

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Fishing Industry (Question No. 625)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How much has the Commonwealth Government spent on the research and development of:

    1. a ) north Australia ‘s marlin fishing industry.
    2. b ) north Australia ‘s prawn fishing industry.
    3. north Australia ‘s tuna fishing industry.
    4. ) north Australia ‘s mackeral fishing industry and
    5. north Australia’s other fishing industries, over the past 10 years up until 3 1 December 1 975.
  2. How much has been spent on these industries for the first four months of 1976 and how do these figures compare with those for the first four months for the years 1970-1975 inclusive.
  3. Of these funds, how much has been allocated annually for (a) research, (b) development of fishing fleets, (c) protection of national waters from foreign fishermen, and (d) other expenditures.
  4. What are the annual tonnages of fish and crustaceans caught for the five groups referred to in ( 1) for the past 10 years.
  5. ) What were the sizes of the various fishing fleets for the same period.
  6. How much revenue has each of these fishing industries contributed for each year in the past 10 years.
  7. What are the predicted growth rates for these industries.
  8. What restrictions are applied to the taking of fish in each of these industries, in terms of size, age and sex, etc.
Senator Cotton:
LP

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

  1. (a) Nil. This is not a commercial industry,

    1. Approximately $4.5m,
    2. , (d) and (e) Individual figures for tuna and mackerel cannot be separated. The total would approximate $3. 3m. The figures do not include expenditure on protection of national waters as information is not recorded separately.
  2. Information is not available on a 4 months basis.

  3. For the 10 year period specified in ( 1 ) expenditure has been:

    1. Approximately $6. 4m.
    2. Approximately $0.6m.
    3. Not recorded separately.
    4. Approximately $0.8m.

(4)-

Above figures are totals for Northern Territory and Queensland. Only details of the Western Australian pearl shell industry are included (under the heading ‘Other Fisheries’) as production in other northern Western Australian fisheries is negligible. Source: Bureau of Statistics.

  1. The sizes of the fishing fleets are not recorded separately on an industry basis.
  2. Revenue from licence fees, etc. is not recorded separately on an industry basis.
  3. In the northern prawn fishery the current fleet is capable of fully utilising the resource; production will probably fluctuate around present levels. For other fisheries, insufficient data exists yet to permit meaningful predictions on growth rates. However, many resources in the area offer good potential for exploitation.
  4. Under the Fisheries Act 1952 no restrictions are applied to the taking of fish in each of these industries in terms of size, age and sex. The Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Act 1968, implements minimum sizes in respect of mother-of-pearl, trochus shell and green snail.

My colleague, the Minister for the Northern Territory administers fisheries legislation in respect of the Northern Territory. In Queensland the Minister for Aboriginal and Islander Affairs and Fisheries and in Western Australia, the Minister for Fisheries and Wildlife, administer legislation relating to fisheries in the waters under the jurisdiction of those States.

Broadcasting Inquiry (Question No. 659)

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What is the estimated total cost of the proposed review of broadcasting in Australia.
  2. How many people are or will be involved in the inquiry and what are their salaries and/or sitting fees.
  3. 3 ) What are the estimated administrative expenses.
  4. What are the total estimated travel costs and allowances.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. $116,000.
  2. There are two people involved full-time and twentythree people involved part-time in the inquiry. The estimated total of their salaries for the period of the inquiry is $95,000.
  3. $8,500.
  4. Travel-$8,000; allowances $4,300.

Television Programs (Question No. 678)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice:

  1. What are the last available figures indicating the percentage of Australian content of programs being shown on commercial television in Australia.
  2. Was the percentage of Australian content of programs in 197S41 percent.
Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Minister for Post and Telecommunications has provided the following answers to the honourable senator’s questions:

  1. 1 ) The latest available information refers to the period 29 June 1975 to 3 April 1976. During this period 38.4 per cent of programming, averaged over all commercial television stations in Australia was of Australian content.
  2. For annual statistical purposes, the Australian Broadcasting Control Board arranges its records from the last Sunday in June of one year to the last Saturday in June of the next year. The figure for 1 974-75 was 43.7 per cent.

Jury Service (Question No. 707)

Senator Rae:

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Are figures available showing what percentage of the Australian population has been aged between eighteen and thirty years for each of the last five years; if so, what is the percentage.
  2. Are figures available showing what percentage of the jurors hearing cases under Commonwealth jurisdiction for each of the last five years have been in the eighteen to thirty age group.
  3. Irrespective of the answers to (1) and (2) above, are younger people seldom called for jury service and is this as a result of a specific and, if so, what policy direction.
Senator Withers:
LP

– The Attorney-General has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. The following figures supplied by the Australian Bureau of Statistics show the percentage of the Australian population aged between 18 and 30 years on their last birthday. 1971- 20.81 percent 1972- 21.05 percent 1973- 21.21 percent 1974- 21.51 percent 1975- 21.69 per cent
  2. No.
  3. There has been no policy direction regarding jury service by younger people. Where a State Court is exercising federal jurisdiction the procedure relating to the impanelling of a jury is, by virtue of the Judiciary Act, governed by the law of that State. In the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory persons are randomly selected for jury service from jury rolls. These rolls are compiled from electoral rolls by the Sheriffs of the Territories at intervals of not more then 4 years in the Australian Capital Territory and not more than 3 years in the Northern Territory.

Coal Deposits (Question No. 734)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources, upon notice:

  1. What is (a) the total known, and (b) the total inferred, reserves of coal in Australia.
  2. What are the reserves for each State and Territory in Australia.
  3. What are the names, size, grade and locality of all deposits in excess of 30 000 000 tonnes in Australia.
  4. What mining company, or group of companies, owns each of these deposits.
  5. How long are the mining leases granted for each deposit.
  6. How many deposits, if any, have reached the production and /or development stage; which deposits are these and what is the annual mining rate for each.
  7. How many deposits, if any, are still in the exploration stage: which deposits are these, and when is it likely that they will be brought into production.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. (a) 34 739 million tonnes (in situ) of black coal; 67 100 million tonnes (in situ) of brown coal, (b) 193 934 million tonnes (in situ) of black coal; 55 100 million tonnes (in situ) of brown coal.

The proportion of recoverable raw coal obtainable from in situ reserves can vary between deposits, generally in the range 30 to 90 per cent depending on mining conditions, with the higher recoveries mainly from opencut mining. To the extent raw coal is processed to meet end-use requirements, there is a further proportionate reduction to the determined saleable reserves. Saleable reserves of washed coking coal are generally of the order of 70 per cent of recoverable reserves, but coal used for power generation

In these figures:

  1. ‘known reserves’ are those defined by the Joint Coal Board as reserves for which there is a substantial amount of information and which would be mineable under current economic conditions and using current rnining technology;

  2. ‘inferred reserves’ are equated to additional resources of the Joint Coal Board, which defined them as resources in coal bearing lands where drilling has been inadequate or for which data is sparse.

    1. 2 ) Reserves by State and Territory-

commonly receives no further treatment. In this case recoverable reserves can be equated with saleable reserves.

  1. Coal is graded according to ‘ran!-:’, that is, to the degree of progressive alteration the coal has undergone in its transformation from peat through lignite (brown coal), subbituminous and bituminous coal, to anthracite. In the main,

coal deposits in Australia cover large areas coinciding with sedimentary basins. Most of these coal bearing regions can support more than one mine and the deposits have been subdivided by the various State Mines Departments and Coal Boards into areas or districts for which reserves are calculated.

  1. and (5) All matters relating to leasing are within the province of the respective State Governments. Available published information on lease ownership and duration is contained in the following documents:

Queensland- Queensland Coal Board Annual Reports;

Coal Exploration and Mining Lease Maps and accompanying schedules of the Queensland Department of Mines.

New South Wales- Joint Coal Board Annual Reports;

Coal Exploration and Mining Lease Maps and accompanying schedules of the New South Wales Department of Mines.

Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia, TasmaniaCoal Exploration and Mining Lease Maps and accompanying schedules of the appropriate Mines Departments.

  1. Deposits have reached the production and/or development stage in the following areas:
  1. Exploration of deposits is at various stages of advancement in sedimentary basins throughout Australia, including some basins where there are as yet no established reserves. Monitoring of the progress of such activities is the responsibility of the State Governments concerned and available information is given in annual reports of Mines Departments and Coal Boards.

Projects where exploration has been completed to the stage where mine construction is proceeding are:

Oil Shale Deposits (Question No. 739)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources, upon notice:

  1. 1) What are (a), the total known, and (b) the total inferred, reserves of oil shale in Australia.
  2. What are the reserves for each State and Territory in Australia.
  3. What are the names, size, grade and locality of all deposits in excess, of 30 000 000 tonnes in Australia.
  4. What mining company, or group of companies, owns each of these deposits.
  5. How long are the mining leases granted for each deposit
  6. How many deposits, if any, have reached the production and/or development stage, which deposits are these, and what is the annual mining rate for each.
  7. How many deposits, if any, are still in the exploration stage; which deposits are these, and when is it likely that they will be brought into production.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. (a) About 180m tonnes, (b) No reliable estimate is available at present, but geological information on the occurrences of oil shale in Australia points to very large to vast total resources.
  2. About 24m tonnes in New South Wales and 130m tonnes in Queensland. At least three other deposits in Queensland have potentially large reserves, but no figures are available. Tasmanian oil shale reserves are estimated to be at least 25m tonnes. For a breakdown of these figures, I refer you to Geological Survey of Queensland Report No. 83 (Oil Shale Resources of Queensland), Geological Survey of New South Wales- Mineral Industry of New South Wales No. 30 (Oil Shale), and the APEA Journal 1976, volume 16, part 1 ( A. W. Lindner and D. A. Dixon- Some Aspects of the Geology of the Rundle Oil Shale Deposit, Queensland ).
  3. The reserves at Julia Creek, about 240 km east of Mt Isa, form a very small pan of the oil shale resources in the Toolebuc Formation covering an area of between 500 000 to 700 000 sq km of the Eromanga and part of the Carpentaria Basins in Queensland. The average oil content of the oil shale is less than 100 litres, per tonne, or 9.2 per cent by weight, at the margins of the deposit, but improves basinward

Resources in The Narrows area, northwest of Gladstone, are also in excess of 30 000 000 tonnes; the average oil content of the oil shale is 80 litres and 8000 litres of hydrocarbon gases per tonne.

  1. The Julia Creek prospect is held as two Authorities to Prospect (Mining) by the Inland Industries Group- comprising The Oil Shale Corporation of America (through TOSCO (Australia)) and CSR (through Pacminex Pty Ltd). The third partner- Aquitaine Australia and New Zealand Ltdwithdrew from the proposed venture in 1975. The other Queensland oil shale prospect, The Narrows, northwest of Gladstone, is held in two adjacent Authorities to Prospect (Mining) jointly by Southern Pacific Petroleum N.L. and Central Pacific Minerals N.L.
  2. The Julia Creek Authorities to Prospect were granted jointly to TOSCO and CSR on 29 August 1975 for three years with option for renewal on application.

The Narrows Authorities to Prospect were granted on 24 July 1974 and 7 January 1975 respectively for 2 years each with option for renewal on application.

  1. Neither of the new projects mentioned above has reached the production and /or development stage. Feasibility studies based on the varying rates of oil shale production and extraction of major products (gasoline, lube oil base stock, fuel oil, sulphur and vanadium) have been and are still being carried out for the Julia Creek deposit. The studies seem to indicate that shallow open-cut mining and above-ground retorting and refining of Julia Creek oil shale could be economic at a crude oil price fractionally above the current level of import parity.
  2. Both deposits need more exploration, particularly the Narrows deposit. No estimated date for commencement of production can be given for either.

Energy Sources (Question No. 741)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What is the current annual level of expenditure for research into alternative sources of energy.
  2. What has been the annual level of expenditure for this research for each of the past fifteen years.
  3. How much of the past four years annual research expenditure has been allocated annually to the following areas of research: (a) solar energy, (b) wind energy, (c) wave energy, (d) tidal energy, (e) oil shale energy, (f) liquefaction of coal, and (g) other forms of energy.
  4. Which of these areas of research have shown the most promise as alternative energy sources.
  5. What scientific, Government and non-Government, groups have been responsible for this research.
  6. What has been their annual budget for this research for the past five years.
  7. What are the main problems, associated with each of these energy forms, that are likely to delay their development as alternative energy sources.
Senator Withers:
LP

– The Minister for National Resources has provided the following answers to the honourable senator’s questions:

  1. Not available.
  2. Not available.
  3. (a)-

In addition some universities have supported solar energy research programs from their own budgets, but details of the amounts involved are not available. (b), (c), (d) and (e) Not available. (0 In 1974-75 and in 1975-76 the Government provided, through the National Coal Research Advisory Committee, $100,000 to the Australian Coal Industries Research Laboratories Ltd, specifically for coal conversion research.

  1. Not available.

    1. At this stage coal conversion and solar energy appear to be the alternative energy sources most likely to play a significant role in meeting Australia ‘s future energy needs.
    2. The relevant research carried out directly by the Federal Government is performed almost exclusively by various divisions of the CSIRO. Non-government research is carried out in a number of laboratories operated by industry, universities and other tertiary institutions.
    3. Not available.
    4. The main problems associated with all alternative forms of energy relate to the costs of the energy produced and to the scale of operation required to enable them to make a significant contribution to Australia’s energy supplies. With the exception of certain applications of solar energy the new technology associated with these forms of energy is as yet unable to compete with technology based on more conventional fuels, except in specialised circumstances.

Sweden: Purchase of Minerals (Question No. 763)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources, upon notice:

Has the Swedish Government had discussions with officials of the Australian Government since 1 1 November 1975, concerning the possible purchase by Sweden of (a) uranium, (b) coal, and (c) nickel from Queensland; if so, when did the discussions take place, who was involved in them, and what was the outcome of the talks.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. Yes. In March 1976 there were discussions between the Swedish Nuclear Fuel Supply Company and the Department of National Resources. The Swedish officials were advised that no final decisions have been made regarding the marketing of Australian uranium.
  2. Yes. In March 1976 there were discussions between officers of the Swedish Embassy and the Department of National Resources. The continuing interest of Sweden in purchases of Australian coking coal was noted.
  3. I am not aware of any contact between the Swedish Government and my Department concerning the possible purchase by Sweden of nickel from Queensland.

Tullamarine Airport: Stamp Machines (Question No. 820)

Senator Rae:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What facilities are available for the purchase of postage stamps at Tullamarine Airport, Melbourne.
  2. ) Where in the terminal building are stamp vending machines located.
  3. 3 ) Can 1 8c stamps be purchased from these machines.
  4. If not, will arrangements be made to install machines which will dispense 1 8c stamps.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2 ) A post office with full postal facilities is located in the Astrojet building about 400 metres from the Tullamarine terminal and a postage stamp, stationery and postal order sales counter (out-stationed from the post office) is located on the first floor of the terminal building. The post office and the postal sales counter open from 9 a.m. to S p.m. Monday to Friday.

Postage stamps can be purchased at the Ansett ticket and information counter in the terminal building from 5.30 a.m. to 10 p.m. each day of the week and at the Tullamarine Travelodge 24 hours a day. They are available also from five stamp vending machine locations in the terminal building and from vending machines outside the post office.

Within the terminal building, vending machines are located: on the ground floor, in the international arrival lounge on the first floor, near the postal sales counter, in the international departure lounge and in the Ansett and TAA departure lounges.

  1. A combination of stamps to the value of 18c can be purchased from these machines but the machines do not vend an 1 8c stamp.
  2. An examination was made of both the practicability of modifying stamp vending machines currently in use or of the possibility of replacing them with machines offering greater flexibility of operation.

Unfortunately, because of technical limitations, it was found that it is not possible to modify the machines either to accept combinations or coins, or to vend both stamps and change for a single coin. Investigations into the availability of new, more flexible machines, have met with some success. Australia Post is particularly interested in arranging trials of a machine which recently became available overseas and which is capable of dispensing preselected combinations of stamps and change for a single coin.

Whale Oil Substitute (Question No. 852)

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Have United States oil companies announced that by the end of 1 976 they will have marketed a substitute in place of sperm whale oil for use in heavy equipment gear boxes.
  2. Will such an industrial breakthrough usher in a complete ban on the harvesting of sperm whales.
Senator Cotton:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) I am not aware of any such announcement.
  2. The future harvesting of sperm whales will depend upon decisions of the International Whaling Commission.

Whaling (Question No. 853)

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

How many whales, 13.7 metres and over in length were caught by the Cheynes Beach Whaling Company last year.

Senator Cotton:
LP

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

The Cheynes Beach Whaling Company caught 153 male whales, 13.7 metres and over in length last year.

Telephone Calls to Government Departments

Senator Carrick:
LP

-On 29 April 1976 Senator Townley asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications the following question, without notice:

I refer to my question on notice No. 427 to which I have received an answer today. I asked what arrangements could be made for persons who live away from capital cities to telephone Commonwealth departments at local call rate so that they might have the same access to those departments as do people who live in the cities. The answer states that Telecom Australia has advised that such an arrangement is not technically possible at the moment. I now ask: Has Telecom Australia indicated to the Minister an aim to develop such a capability? When it is technologically possible what will be the Government’s attitude to allowing long distance calls to be made to Commonwealth departments at local call rates?

The Minister for Post and Telecommunications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Telecom Australia advises that a small number of what are known as ‘Distant Exchange’ lines have been provided to meet the needs of certain business organisations. The appropriate line rental is charged to the company concerned. As an indication, the annual cost to lease a single trunk circuit full time for a distance of 100 km is about $3,500 and for 400 km $14,000.

These services enable subscribers in a given area to dial a local number and have their calls automatically extended through the trunk system and answered at a distant point. The only charge to the subscriber is the local call fee. If services of this nature were to be installed to meet the honourable senator’s request, it would be necessary to provide for each Depanment a separate trunk line extension (or extensions) from approximately 600 call charging zone centres to the respective metropolitan or regional offices of those Departments. This would be a very large and costly undertaking.

The Commission is also looking at what is known in the U.S.A. as Wide Area Telephone Service (WATS). The scope of such a service is much wider than that provided by the Distant Exchange Line Service, but investigations to date indicate that the introduction of such an automatic service in

Australia would call for nation-wide modification of the telephone system. Having regard to other demands on the Commission ‘s resources there are no firm plans for such a service at this stage.

It is not possible to state what the Government’s policy will be until a firm proposal has been developed for consideration.

Country Telephone Services

Senator Carrick:
LP

– On 2 June 1976 Senator Tehan asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications the following question without notice relating to the conversion of manual to automatic telephones in country areas:

Is the Minister aware of the grave hardship which this process involves for subscribers who happen to reside outside the radius to be served by the new automatic exchange?

Is he aware, in particular, of a number of farmers who are only 8M miles from the new automatic exchange at Donald in Victoria and who have been denied connection to that exchange but have been connected to a small country exchange at Wooroonook, a similar distance away?

The hardship falls into 2 categories, that created because they are outside the radius fixed for either exchange and are each required to pay in excess of $ 100 to be connected to the automatic exchange and because the telephone communication with their normal business centre of Donald is by way of trunk line connection and not local call. Will the Minister investigate the situation with a view to ensuring that subscribers to an existing manual service can be transferred to an automatic exchange without individual financial contribution?

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

Telecom Australia advises that there was only one subscriber whose service was transferred from the Donald exchange to the Wooroonook automatic exchange. His premises are clearly located in the Wooroonook exchange area and he was called upon to contribute $160 towards the cost of providing a wholly-maintained Commission line.

The Government and the Commission are appreciative of the special need of people in rural areas for a modern telephone service. A liberalisation of the free line plant policy for services in automatic exchange areas was announced recently. Under the new policy, line plant will now be provided at Commission cost for a distance of 12 km radially from automatic exchange. Previously, the distance was 8 km.

To assist those living beyond the 12 km work, the contribution rate of $160 per 1/2km has been retained, although substantial increase in costs have occurred since this rate of contribution was determined in 1 973.

The Commission is also looking at the zoning arrangements in the Donald/Wooroonook area to see if any improvements in call charges can be made. In such cases, though, a change in zoning to benefit callers in one direction may be adverse to other contributors. The aim is to have the arrangement best suited to meet the overall needs of subscribers in the area.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 24 August 1976, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1976/19760824_senate_30_s69/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant