Senate
9 December 1976

30th Parliament · 1st Session



The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Condor Laucke) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers.

page 2879

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

– Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:

Petrol Price Equalisation Scheme

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

That the Commonwealth Government restore the Petrol Price Equalisation Scheme immediately for the benefit of those people who live away from the seaboard.

Your petitioners believe that the matter is urgent.

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

Petition received.

Primary School at Fraser

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

That residents of the suburb of Fraser, in the Australian Capital Territory are deeply concerned at the lack of adequate educational facilities to be made available to our primary school aged children.

That plans to remove children daily to other suburbs will cause overcrowding, will force parents to private transport or pay bus levies, and will make a mockery of the frequently quoted A.C.T. Schools Authority policy that primary school students should have access to a school within reasonable walking distance of their homes.

That population trends in Fraser and adjoining suburbs more than adequately prove the need for a separate primary school in each of these suburbs. That a primary school in the suburb would provide an important focus for an area which currently lacks any identity as a community.

That plans to distribute Fraser students between two to four different schools in adjoining areas may well frustrate the social development of many of these young persons, forcing them into a situation where they must relate to two different sets of peers.

Your petitioners therefore most humbly pray that Senate in Parliament assembled will take urgent steps to revise current plans for the education of our children with a view to the provision of a government primary school in Fraser.

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

Petition received.

page 2879

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2879

QUESTION

MOTOR VEHICLES: ASSEMBLY PLANTS

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

-I direct a question to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. In view of the Government’s announcement about revaluation of the dollar and lifting of the import quotas on completely built up and completely knocked down motor vehicles, will the terms for the establishment of Japanese assembly plants now be altered? If so, what now will be the basis of the establishment of those plants in Australia?

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

-There is no proposal to alter that basis. No request has been made for its alteration. I think the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate would know and expect that there will be changes in the whole motor vehicle scene. Various people will be involved, including present manufacturers, future manufacturers and those who import. We will be involved, as we always are involved, in discussions on these matters in an attempt to make quite sure that the situation is adequately covered and the public interest is properly protected.

page 2879

QUESTION

ENTRY OF DELEGATIONS FROM TAIWAN

Senator BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. It follows a question I asked some weeks ago about the failure of a medical group from Taiwan to get permission to come to Australia in any representative capacity. While accepting that delegations from Taiwan cannot claim to represent China, what reasons exist which prevent them from entering Australia claiming to represent Taiwan?

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

-Honourable senators will recall that I undertook to obtain an answer on this matter for Senator Baume. The answer I have received from my colleague is as follows: A clear implication of the commitment that Australia entered into in establishing diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China is that care needs to be taken with any proposal that may have the effect of conferring the status of a separate and independent country upon Taiwan. More than 100 governments have now established diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China. None of these governments can continue to have diplomatic relations with the authorities on Taiwan or is able to recognise Taiwan as a separate and independent country without doing fundamental damage to relations with the Chinese Government. Fewer than 30 governments continue to recognise the so-called Government of the Republic of China on Taiwan. It does not follow that these governments recognise a separate and independent country of Taiwan. The authorities on Taiwan, like the Government of the People’s Republic of China, themselves regard Taiwan not as a country but as a province of China and firmly reject any claim that Taiwan has any other status. This consistent attitude on the part of the authorities on Taiwan was clearly reflected in their refusal to allow a team to compete under the name Taiwan in the Olympic Games held this year in Montreal.

page 2880

QUESTION

CURRENCY DEVALUATION

Senator McAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND

-Is the Minister for Industry and Commerce aware that 44 currencies have moved since the present Government came to power and that the Australian dollar has depreciated 19.5 per cent against the United States dollar? Is the Minister also aware that the depreciation against the United States dollar is larger than that of sterling and the New Zealand dollar and less than only that of countries such as Chile, Mexico and Uruguay? In the Minister’s view, does this engender confidence in the minds of overseas investors contemplating construction of new industrial plants in Australia?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-I am not very strong on the details of South America’s changing governmental and currency scene, but amongst all the papers I have here I have some information which may help the honourable senator. Large parts of South America are notorious for their instability, and their currency values as related to the United States dollar would not have great relevance to the Australian scene. But if we look at the currency position in our own country, where we are concerned, certain things do become relevant. Australia’s wage expansion has been very much greater than that of our major trading partners. That cost explosion, which is out of relativity, has been the major cause of the necessary devaluation. In the last 6 years wages in Australian manufacturing industry increased by 130 per cent compared with 53 per cent in the United States of America and 70 per cent in West Germany. The fact that an Australian Government at last is prepared to face up to the realities of its position as to the relative value of Australia’s currency in the light of that wage explosion, which is out of context, is a clear sign that we will get investor confidence rather than the lack of confidence which has characterised the past.

page 2880

QUESTION

MEDIBANK LEVY: DECEASED ESTATES

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the Treasurer. It relates to the imposition of the Medibank levy on deceased estates. By way of background, I indicate that a case has come to my attention of somebody who died in May 1975 and whose estate has not yet been settled but is still earning income. The Taxation Office has advised the solicitors handling the estate that, in addition to paying tax and provisional tax, this gentleman’s estate must pay the Medibank levy. I ask the Minister: What possible rationale could the Taxation Office have for charging the Medibank levy against someone who is now dead? Is the Government prepared to look at this ridiculous situation?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-The honourable senator was good enough to come into my office a little while ago and ask me whether I could find out about this matter for her. I have tried to do so. She understands my position in tax affairs. I am a donor rather than a recipient. The answer that the Taxation Office has provided to me rather quickly is that the trustees of deceased estates and other trusts are basically liable to pay the Medibank levy. I underline the word ‘basically’. The income of the Australian individual is used as the basis on which the levy is calculated. Income of trusts and deceased estates will in due course- I underline the words ‘in due course’ordinarily flow to Australian residents. If it were not levied, people whose income was obtained through trusts would pay less levy than appropriate in their situation. I think the question calls for a more detailed answer in writing so that Senator Martin can have the information available in dealing with her problem.

page 2880

QUESTION

SOLAR ENERGY

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– Is the Minister for Science aware of evidence given in the recent Fox inquiry which indicated that adverse environmental effects would result from the generation of electricity by solar methods? Can he inform the Parliament of the alleged adverse environmental effects?

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

– I am unaware of the evidence that the honourable senator suggests was given, nor am I able to comment on the suggested effects on the environment of the generation of electricity by that means.

page 2880

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL LINE

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Treasurer or the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, whoever is the appropriate Minister. The question arises out of the annual report and accounts of the Australian National Line. The commencing statement is that the Line incurred a loss of $9.44m. At page 27 of the report it is seen that in maintaining the Tasmanian service the Line incurred a loss of $4.5m. Note this comment- the ingenuity of Government accounting:

The amount-

A loss- is recoverable from the Australian Government and has been included as Revenue from Trading.

The report then refers to $lm received from the Australian Government as a subsidy for the Empress of Australia which has also been included as revenue from trading. If those 2 losses are added to the figure declared as a loss, the amount of $9.44m, the true loss is $ 16m or thereabouts. Private persons have served gaol terms for accounts false in a material particular. What I am asking is whether the Minister will have the correctness of this accounting scrutinised by the best advisers within the Government and say whether or not subsidies from government should be included as trading revenue lest unsuspecting members of Parliament- those like myself of now 30 years’ experience who have got growing suspicions about them- might be deceived.

Senator COTTON:
LP

-I am actually rather pleased to pick this up. I just ask by way of an aside- I hope it is not too irregular: Can the honourable senator tell me who the auditors are for the accounts of ANL?

Senator Wright:

– The Auditor-General.

Senator COTTON:

-Thank you. I am going to proceed to deal with this matter. There are those of us here in the Senate who were together involved in examining the whole of the affairs of the Australian Industry Development Corporation at a certain stage of our lives when we were younger and smarter. We were then looking at the treatment of accounts by what I call government instrumentalities and we were discussing the way in which they ought to be handled. I think it will be recalled by those with long memories that I was also concerned at one stage about the treatment of the accounts of Qantas Airways Ltd and how exchange gains or losses were treated. I always held the view as an accountant in my earlier years in public practice that one ought to take out of the trading accounts what might be called windfall losses or gains or irregularities. They should be struck out. One should in effect have the trading situation in comparable terms year by year by year.

Things that happen that look like incidental gains or incidental losses should be treated in a separate section of the accounts. One strikes, in effect, a profit and loss account in 3 separate stages: The true profit and loss account -equal trading and equal activity of itself; the second part that deals with the relationship between incidentals one year to another, which puts that in proper context; and then one takes the third item as to how to dispose of the profit and loss account final balance. This seems to me to be the way to operate. I am interested in the honourable senator’s observations about how the ANL has treated its accounts. I cannot be fairer than to say that I think the honourable senator’s comments will have to be directed to the Treasurer, perhaps to the Auditor-General, with a view to an overall approach being taken by government necessarily in the Senate itself as to what is the proper basis of account treatment by instrumentalities which are either owned by government or operated by government. I think it is a fair question.

page 2881

QUESTION

DEPENDANTS’ ALLOWANCES

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. Is it a fact that a widow who receives a dependant allowance in respect of a school-age child loses that dependant allowance the moment the child leaves school? In current circumstances is the Minister prepared to have the position examined to see whether that is the case. My reason for asking the question is that a child now completing examinations at school has to be supported by a widow because he or she is ineligible to receive the unemployment benefit and is perhaps incapable of getting a job, anyway, until the examination results are known. That creates a situation of considerable hardship. I ask the Minister whether that is a fact and whether she will have the matter examined urgently.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · VICTORIA · LP

– Earlier this week Senator Donald Cameron asked me a similar question. His question was related to family allowances and the additional pension and additional benefit for student children. I subsequently answered his question by saying that family allowance payments to school leavers who are not permanently employed will be continued during the school vacation. Senator Donald Cameron’s question was related to dependants’ allowances and additional benefit. I informed him that it was not formerly the practice to make a payment of additional pension or benefit to a child over the age of 16 years who has left school, but in view of the practice that we have now adopted in regard to family allowances, we will in future ensure that the payment of the additional pension and the additional benefit in respect of school leavers will be continued until they commence permanent employment or become eligible to receive the unemployment benefit.

Senator BUTTON:

-I wish to ask a supplementary question. Pursuant to the answer just given by the Minister for Social Security, I ask whether it can be made quite clear to the Department as quickly as possible that that is the position, because there are very genuine cases of hardship.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– Following the inquiry made by Senator Donald Cameron this matter was investigated because it could have caused an inconsistency between our treatment of the payment of family allowances and dependant allowances. Subsequent to that examination which resulted from Senator Donald Cameron’s question, I told the Department that I wished to see consistency maintained in this regard. The benefit will be continued to be paid until a child leaves school or is eligible to receive the unemployment benefit. So that direction has been given. I shall ensure that all State directors and regional officers are quite clear as to the continuation of that payment.

page 2882

QUESTION

STUDY COMMITTEE OF JAPANESE COMPANIES

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources, refers to the report in the Australian Financial Review of Tuesday, 7 December 1976, detailing the disbanding of a study committee of Japanese companies, which was originally formed to investigate industrial development in the Pilbara region, due to a lack of specific long range Government policies on this matter. Is the Minister aware of this disturbing situation? Can he inform the Senate as to the Government’s initiatives in respect of developments in the Pilbara region?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I am informed that neither the Government nor officials have been advised directly of any reported disbanding of the Japanese committee on the Pilbara, nor of what ‘clarification’ of governmental policy is required. The basic premise of the Government’s minerals and energy policy is to provide a suitable legislative and economic framework within which the minerals and energy industries can develop in the national interest. In the August

Budget, for example, significant changes to mining taxation provisions were announced. In addition, the Government has set clear guidelines on foreign investment policy, and these provisions have laid the foundations for recovery and development in the mining industry, as is evidenced in the Pilbara area by the recent announcements of expansions of iron ore projects and proposals in the development of the North West Shelf.

page 2882

QUESTION

CHILD AND VACATION CARE CENTRES

Senator COLEMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. How many out of school child and vacation care centres are being funded in Western Australia for the coming summer holiday period? How many applications have been received from Western Australia for total or partial funding? What is the total amount of money that this Government is contributing to vacation care facilities for children in Western Australia during the Christmas break?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I do not have the precise details on these matters. I made an announcement early this week, or late last week with regard to the holiday program for children, giving details of the amounts provided in each State. I will ensure that the honourable senator receives a breakdown of those figures and also the figures with regard to the care centres that she mentioned in her State.

page 2882

QUESTION

DEFENCE FORCES PENSIONS

Senator COLLARD:
QUEENSLAND

-Can the Minister representing the Minister for Defence inform the House what action has been taken or is being taken to provide for automatic adjustments to the Defence Forces Retirement and Death Benefits Scheme, known as DFRDB pensions?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I shall have to refer that question to my colleague the Minister for Defence.

page 2882

QUESTION

APPOINTMENT OF ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF MIGRANT SERVICES

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Social Security. It refers to questions asked by me and other honourable senators about the appointment of an assistant director for migrant services in South Australia. The Minister will recall that in a reply on 2 December she referred to the visit to South Australia of Mr Scott and the possible report from the DirectorGeneral. Has she received the report and determined the matter?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I have not received a formal report in the form of a document. I have had discussions with the Director-General following Mr Scott’s visit. The appointment of Mr Brown to the position of Assistant Director of Migrant Services is a Public Service Board appointment. It was made following opportunities for people inside and outside the Public Service to apply for the position. It appears that the normal provisions of the Public Service Act apply with regard to appeal against the appointment. This does not, of course, apply to anyone outside the Public Service. The decision by the Public Service Board to appoint Mr Brown took into account all the applications and the requirements necessary to undertake the duties of that position. As I understand it, discussions have been held with migrant groups and others in South Australia interested in this appointment. Whilst there may be some disquiet on the part of some people in the community that Mr Brown does not have linguistic skills, it is believed that with co-operation he will be able to undertake the duties he is required to perform. I can only say that in the migrant services section of my Department we wish to give as much service to migrants and community organisations as possible. We are hopeful that with co-operation from all Mr Brown will be able to undertake his duties effectively.

page 2883

QUESTION

RADIO AUSTRALIA

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. It relates to Radio Australia and arises from a series of recent newspaper reports and a radio comment this morning. Is the Government contemplating the closing down of Radio Australia? If not, what plans are in hand to meet the challenges of the British Broadcasting Corporation and other national broadcasting agencies which are reportedly establishing powerful transmissions to the Asian and Pacific area. Finally, in another area relating to programs and their reflection of Government policy, can the Minister give any information regarding this matter particularly as there seems to be confused public opinion and information?

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

– My clear undemanding is that the Government has no intention of closing down Radio Australia. The reverse is true. It holds Radio Australia in very high regard for performing a significant function. My colleague in another place, Mr Peacock, has made it clear that Radio Australia will continue, free and independent. I stress those words in response to the final question asked by Senator Davidson.

page 2883

QUESTION

SAFETY STANDARDS ON LIFTING APPLIANCES

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. It concerns the efforts by the Commonwealth Government, aided by all the State governments except the Victorian Government, to get a consolidation of safety standards on the certification of new lifting appliances, including cranes. In view of the attitude of the Victorian Department of Labour and Industry not to be a participant in the application of uniformity of safety standards, what is being done to overcome that problem? In particular, will the 6 unions whose members man such cranes, namely the Waterside Workers Federation, the Federated Engine Drivers and Firemen’s Association, the Transport Workers Union, the Australian Railways Union, the Federated Ironworkers Association, and the Australian Workers Union, be kept fully informed of what is happening? When the next conference takes place will the trade union movement, through the Australian Council of Trade Unions, be a direct participant in the discussions?

Senator DURACK:
Minister for Veterans’ Affairs · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I am sure that the matter which Senator Mulvihill has raised is of considerable importance and also of great interest to the unions to which he has referred. I do not have with me at the moment any information concerning the attitude of the Victorian Government in these negotiations; but I am sure I can give the Senate an undertaking that the Minister whom I represent will be keeping the unions informed of what is happening in regard to this problem. As to the actual steps that are being taken by the Minister or the Government or the other governments in relation to the problem, I shall refer that part of the question to the Minister whom I represent.

page 2883

QUESTION

REPATRIATION : OPTOMETRICAL SERVICES

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I ask the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs: Is it a fact that his Department is utilising the professional services of optometrists in certain areas to the economic advantage of his Department and the convenience of patients living in areas remote from departmental hospitals? Has the Minister received representations from the Australian Optometrical Association concerning the implementation of optometrical services throughout his Department? Is the Minister in a position to inform the Senate whether this is so? Has he made a decision on the matter and when does he expect to be able to make an announcement?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-It is a fact that my Department makes use of the services of optometrists in a limited fashion, as Senator Jessop has mentioned. This is mainly in country areas where no ophthalmologists are practising and the particular repatriation beneficiary is seeking refraction services. However, in addition, my Department has arrangements with the local associations of optometrists in Tasmania and South Australia for their members to make the glasses which are prescribed by optometrists. In other States it has other arrangements for that to be done. My Department has received representations from the Australian Optometrical Association. Mr Layland the President of that Association, has called on me. I have had lengthy discussions with him about proposals that the Association has to extend the role which optometrists can play in the delivery of services to repatriation beneficiaries provided by my Department I also have visited the School of Optometry in the University of New South Wales and discussed the nature of the services that are provided and the expertise of optometrists.

With regard to the question as to whether I am in a position to announce a decision, unfortunately I am not able to announce any decision that has been made as to the widening of the role of optometrists by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. The question certainly is being actively considered by the Repatriation Commission. I hope that early in the new year the Commission will be in a position to discuss specific proposals with Mr Layland and his Association. The object of those discussions will be to widen the role of optometrists within the repatriation system.

page 2884

QUESTION

NOW CENTRE, MELBOURNE

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

-Has the Minister for Social Security received a letter from the NOW Centre in Melbourne protesting about her withdrawal of the welfare rights officer grant from the Federation of Italian Labourers, Emigrants and Families? As the Minister’s initial reason for withdrawing this grant was that 2 Italian agencies were receiving grants, until it was pointed out that she was making grants to 2 single parent organisations, and as her second explanation some weeks later centred on the proximity of the NOW Centre rendering unnecessary the service provided by FILEF, will the Minister take note of the letter from the NOW Centre objecting to her reasoning, her lack of knowledge of the NOW Centre’s operations and its statement that it would appreciate being consulted before she makes further misleading statements of this nature? In the circumstances, will the Minister restore the FILEF grant, or is there further justification for the hasty action taken in depriving the Italian community of this valuable service?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

-I am aware that we have received a letter from the NOW Centre broadly in the terms mentioned by the honourable senator. As I have previously explained, grants under this appropriation are subject to review from time to time and a decision was taken with regard o the grant that was given to the FILEF organisation. I would strongly disagree with the comment from the NOW Centre that we are not aware of the operations of the Centre because several officers of the Department of Social Security are in the NOW Centre and there perform their duties as members of the Department. Grants to any of the agencies under this plan are subject to review at any time. The grants for the forthcoming year have been announced and there will be no review of them until the next budgetary review of grants that have been made.

page 2884

QUESTION

ESTATE DUTY

Senator LEWIS:
VICTORIA

– I direct my first question in the Senate to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Will the Government give earnest consideration to the abolition of estate duty as an iniquitous tax especially on our farmers, many of whom spend their lives working to pay off the debts incurred by them as a result of the death of their parents?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-The honourable senator has raised in his first question a matter which has concerned many of his colleagues in this place who share the worry that he has about it. Senator Guilfoyle, former Senator Lawrie from Queensland and I as well as our colleagues in the Australian Labor Party did some work on this some time ago in the period of the Labor Government. Senator Guilfoyle, former Senator Lawrie and I then came to the conclusion that it would be better for the Commonwealth to vacate this field, to move right out of it, and to abolish death duties. Of course, we are now in government and somebody can remind us of that conclusion that we reached. The problem is that there is always the question when the Commonwealth vacates such a field of whether the States will move in behind the Commonwealth and in effect replace the Commonwealth duty with a State duty. If that happens people can be worse off, as is the case with payroll tax, a field which the Commonwealth vacated and into which the States moved with adverse effects.

Before we can achieve abolition of death duties there needs to be a concord on behaviour patterns between Commonwealth and State treasuries. Nonetheless, I am of the view that there is a solid case for abolition of estate duty. That is my personal view and I am not the Treasurer. He probably would think that I am a disaster.

page 2885

QUESTION

RECORDS OF COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYMENT SERVICE

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations: Is he able to say how long the Commonwealth Employment Service keeps its records of persons who have registered as unemployed? If not, will he obtain the information for me as soon as possible?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-I do not have that information but I will obtain it as soon as possible.

page 2885

QUESTION

BAILEY TASK FORCE REPORT

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. As the report of the Bailey task force on coordination in welfare and health will be of great interest to the Senate Standing Committee on Health and Welfare, because, Mr President, as a committee we have taken considerable evidence on many of the task force references, can the Minister say when the report will be handed down?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I inform the honourable senator that the report is well on the way to completion and is likely to be presented to the responsible Minister within the next week or two. It is expected that the report will be complex and will need careful consideration. This consideration may not be completed until about the end of January.

page 2885

QUESTION

TARIFF REVIEW

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs and relates to the Government’s recent review of the tariff structure consequent upon the devaluation of the Australian dollar and the subsequent decision either to remove temporary assistance or to reduce tariff levels in selected areas where such reductions will not have adverse effects on local industry. Because the Government’s decision has attracted widespread interest, I ask: Has the Government prepared for publication a list of the affected items, said to be in excess of 900? If not, will the Government do so at the earliest opportunity?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I will refer that request to the Minister whom I represent and see whether that can be done.

page 2885

QUESTION

AIRLINE PILOTS

Senator BAUME:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and concerns a request made recently to the Department by the Federation of Air Pilots that the compulsory period between drinking and flying should be extended from 8 hours to 12 hours, as it was previously. I believe that the Department has refused the request. I therefore ask the Minister: Is not the association a responsible grouping and could not the only result of such an extension be an increase in air safety? Will the Minister indicate the reasons why the association ‘s request was refused and the possibility that exists to have the decision reviewed?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– My understanding is that the Federation of Air Pilots is a very responsible body, and I accept that submissions from it should be given very careful study. I am not personally aware that, the request having been made, the Department rejected it. Because of that lack of awareness, I will seek out the information and let the honourable senator have it.

page 2885

QUESTION

NUCLEAR WASTE

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. Does the Minister recall the question I raised as a matter of urgency on 30 November- 9 days ago-about the public concern being expressed about the burial of nuclear wastes at Maralinga in South Australia? Does the Minister know that since then citizens have come forward voluntarily with information that they participated in the burial of such waste in 197 1? As sufficient time has elapsed since I raised the question, can I be assured that the Government will provide me with an answer before the Senate rises so that public concern about the safety aspects of nuclear waste can be answered?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I have no direct ministerial responsibility in that, of course, so I cannot give that assurance. However, I do say to the honourable senator that I will use my best endeavours to get the information before the Senate rises.

page 2886

COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYEES (REDEPLOYMENT AND RETIREMENT) BILL

Senator KNIGHT:
ACT

-I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and I refer to the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Bill 1976. In his second reading speech in another place yesterday, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations said:

These new approaches are a significant improvement over existing provisions.

Can the Minister outline how the measures contained in this new legislation are an improvement in terms of first, redeployment and, secondly, retirement for Commonwealth employees?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations in another place yesterday introduced the Bill to which Senator Knight refers. The object is that the Bill should lie on the table during the recess, which will give ample opportunity for all concerned to study it and make representations to the Government on the measure. I imagine that in the recess period honourable senators will take the opportunity to study the proposals carefully. However, in answer to Senator Knight’s specific question, there are some major features of the legislation which I will mention briefly. The Bill provides more flexible arrangements for fixing ages for voluntary retirement, and it is proposed that the age should be fixed now at 55 years rather than as in the present provision in the Public Service legislation. There is also to be a more direct relationship between redeployment and retirement powers and their clear purpose, namely, the efficient and economical function of the Service. Comprehensive rights of appeal are also proposed in relation to any management initiated redeployment or retirement action that may be taken. There is also provided a power to determine special benefits payable to persons who are retired at the initiative of management.

page 2886

QUESTION

SENATE STATIONERY SUPPLIES

Senator COLSTON:
QUEENSLAND

-Mr President, I am not aware whether I should ask my question of the Leader of the Government in the Senate or of you, but I shall ask the question of the Leader of the Government in the Senate and I presume that in the spirit of goodwill that exists at this time, if I misdirect the question it can be redirected. In relation to the Senate stationery store, is it a fact that no new orders are currently being placed for stationery and associated requisites? If so, is this situation due to current lack of funds? When will the position be remedied so that honourable senators are able to receive those materials which are necessary for them to carry out their duties adequately?

The PRESIDENT:

– I advise the honourable senator that I shall look into the matter that he has raised and bring down a statement on it as quickly as possible.

page 2886

QUESTION

CURRENCY DEVALUATION: PURCHASE OF HOSPITAL EQUIPMENT OVERSEAS

Senator MISSEN:

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. I refer to the report in the Australian on Monday, 6 December, regarding the financial problems that will be encountered by hospitals purchasing specialised equipment overseas now that the Australian dollar has been devalued. Will the devaluation effectively stop or severely curtail imports of such specialised life saving equipment, or is alternative action proposed to alleviate this situation?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I am informed that State hospital authorities have this matter under close examination and some have already discussed it with the officers of the Commonwealth Department of Health. The Commonwealth is of course contributing $108m towards State hospital development programs and this represents significant assistance in regard to major capital items. Through the hospital cost-share arrangements 50 per cent of the cost of smaller equipment items is also met by the Commonwealth. I expect that the relevant State authorities will use the flexibility of their capital works programs to deal with any effects of devaluation while maintaining life saving and essential priorities.

page 2886

QUESTION

SCHOOL LEAVERS: UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT

Senator DONALD CAMERON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for Social Security: Has she been alerted to a radio statement today by the honourable member for Fraser in the Australian Capital Territory, Mr Fry, advising all school leavers who are refused the unemployment benefit to appeal to the social security appeals tribunals? Will the Minister recommend to the tribunals that the payment of benefits following appeals that are upheld be made retrospective?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I heard the radio message that was announced as coming from Mr Fry. Appeals to the social security appeals tribunals are available to any person who seeks a benefit or a pension from my Department. The social security appeals tribunals are independent in their judgment with regard to appeals referred to them and they make recommendations to the Director-General of the Department of Social Security. On the basis of the facts as they are determined a benefit will or will not be paid. I am unable to give any blanket assurance with regard to hypothetical situations that could be referred from the appeals tribunals.

page 2887

QUESTION

EAST TIMOR: WREATH LAYING CEREMONY AT AUSTRALIAN WAR MEMORIAL

Senator BAUME:

– My question, which is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, arises out of matters raised in the adjournment debate last night. I believe that the Leader of the Government in the Senate offered to try to obtain additional information. I ask him: Is he now in a position to give the Senate any additional information on the matters raised in that debate?

Senator Georges:

– I rise on a point of order, Mr President. This question in some way takes away the rights of other honourable senators to enter into a debate on this matter.

Senator Withers:
Senator Georges:

– It is an important matter that was raised in the adjournment debate. If the Leader of the Government in the Senate answers the question in such a way that some of us are stirred into making additional comment or wanting to make additional comment, what are our rights? If Senator Baume ‘s question is answered at this stage by the Leader of the Government in the Senate I think that we would be deprived of our rights to make further comment.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Georges, I believe that Senator Baume is quite within his rights in asking the question in the way in which he has asked it.

Senator Harradine:

– I rise to a point of order, Mr President. Last night the Leader of the Government in the Senate undertook to make a statement to the Senate today. The point of order I raise is the same as the one raised by the Opposition Whip.

The PRESIDENT:

– I call the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-As I recall it, I did not say that I would make a statement; I said that I would try to get what factual information I could and inform the Senate of it. I do not intend to be controversial. It will be recalled that I said last night that I thought that the people would be better able to make judgments if they knew the factual situation. All I can say is that I saw the Director of the Austraiian War Memorial this morning and he was good enough to give me 3 documents. The first is a letter dated Tuesday, 30 November 1976, from a Mr Brendan O “Dwyer to the Director of the Australian War Memorial, Canberra. It reads:

On behalf of the Association, I would like to formally request permission to hold a wreath laying ceremony at the Memorial on Tuesday, December 7.

Senator Wriedt:

– Which association?

Senator WITHERS:

-I am sorry. The letter is from the Australia East Timor Association (ACT). The letter continues:

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition Mr Tom Uren would lay the wreath in memory of Australian fallen in Timor during World War Two.

We would like the ceremony to begin at 1 o’clock.

I look forward to hearing from you soon so that arrangements can be made.

The reply to that letter was dated 3 December. It was addressed to Mr O ‘Dwyer and signed by Mr N. J. Flanagan, Director. It reads:

I refer to your letter of 2 December in which you request on behalf of the Australia East Timor Association permission to hold a wreath laying ceremony at the Memorial on Tuesday 7 December. The Trustees have approved of the request on the basis that the wreath is to commemorate Australian service men who were killed in Timor during World War II.

You will be aware of an earlier approach from a committee member of your Association, seeking approval to lay a wreath on 7 December to commemorate the anniversary of the invasion of East Timor. The Trustees rejected the request to lay a wreath for this purpose on the grounds that the Australian War Memorial is a national memorial to Australians who have died on, or as a result of, active service.

I might mention that the Trustees have on other occasions rejected requests for the laying of wreaths to commemorate events which have had no connection, direct or implied, with the presence of Australians on active service.

The only other document that I would like to read is the card which was placed on the wreath, which reads:

In Memory of Australian and Timorese Fallen With Sincere Sympathy

From

Australian East-Timor Association December 7th 1976

They are the 3 facts that I put down. I draw the attention of those honourable senators who are interested in other matters to certain letters to the Editor in this morning’s Canberra Times. There is a letter from the Director of the War Memorial, Mr Flanagan, and -

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– When did you start reading the newspapers?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-Do honourable senators want that letter read? I think it is unnecessary to do so as it is a matter of public record. I think I should just draw the attention of honourable senators to the reply that Mr Flanagan put in the newspaper. There was but one other matter raised last night and what I say about it I say merely as a matter of fact. Senator Walters raised a matter concerning a speech by Mr Uren or a text issued of such a speech. This went through the ministerial documents system. I have no knowledge as to whether or not the speech was delivered. Only Mr Uren and those who were present would know. But the information I have is that this text of a speech, which is on the letterhead of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, was not in the possession of the ministerial documents service prior to 3.30 p.m. that day. It was picked up after 3.30 p.m. and before 5 p.m. that day.

page 2888

QUESTION

MEDIBANK LEVY

Senator RYAN:
ACT

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. It also is a question about the Medibank levy. When the Government introduced the Medibank levy, it insisted that it was very important that the community know exactly what the Medibank system was costing. Why then do the pay slips of Commonwealth employees fail to show the levy charged as a separate deduction? Does the fact that the levy is included in the general tax deduction demonstrate that, as far as the Department of the Treasury and the Taxation Office are concerned, the levy is simply an increase in personal taxation? Following Senator Martin’s question about the Medibank levy being charged on deceased estates, will the Minister now agree that the so-called Medibank levy is in fact an increase in direct personal taxation and different from other tax charges only in that it is charged more selectively and less equitably?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-I do not agree with the construction that Senator Ryan placed on this whole matter in the last part of her question. It is a specific question about administrative detail. It refers to pay slips of Commonwealth Government employees. I do not recall anything I have been paid by the Commonwealth illuminating the scene in the slightest degree. I therefore will seek to get accurate detail for Senator Ryan, as I will for Senator Martin. I do not think Senator Ryan, from what she has seen so far, can validly make the inferences that she did.

page 2888

QUESTION

MOUNT LYELL MINING AND RAILWAY CO. LTD

Senator HARRADINE:

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. It relates to the Senate select committee on the operations of the Mount Lyell Mining and Railway Co. Ltd and the fact that that committee indicated that the company could continue without retrenchments. Is the Minister aware that as yet there has been no response from the company? Is the Government aware of the critical situation that has arisen in Queenstown, where the first retrenchments take effect from next week? Can the Minister obtain or will he attempt to have the Prime Minister obtain an urgent response from the company today? Finally, if no such response is received by this afternoon, what measures are available to the Senate to ensure that the recommendations of its committee are followed?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I have no information as to whether there has been a response from the company; but I can well understand the honourable senator’s concern, because my own colleagues have continually informed me of their concern for the people in Queenstown. I will pass on to the Prime Minister the honourable senator’s request that the Prime Minister seek an urgent response from the Mount Lyell company. As to the final question, I do not think I am here to advise honourable senators as to the procedures of the Senate.

page 2888

QUESTION

BEEF

Senator MARTIN:

– I am not sure whether I should direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry or to the Minister representing the Minister for Overseas Trade. It relates to the import of New Zealand beef into Queensland. Is the Minister aware of a news report today that Thomas Borthwick and Sons (Australasia) Ltd is importing New Zealand beef for sale in Queensland, apparently on the ground that it is feed lot beef? Feed lot beef, of course, is available in Queensland. It is produced basically on the Darling Downs. In view of the critical situation of the beef industry in Queensland, can the Minister say why this company, which announced this week that it was exporting Queensland beef to Russia, is permitted to import beef? Is it truly a reflection of market demand or more a reflection of the standing of this company amongst beef producers in Queensland?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– There are a couple of things we can fix up. It does not really matter whether the question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry or the Minister representing the Minister for Overseas Trade. I happen to be both. So, that covers that. I have never had the misfortune to engage in beef production in Queensland, so I do not know the standing of the Borthwick company in that State. I have had my problems in beef production in New South Wales, where that company has always been known to me as a pretty useful group of people. I understand that it has wide affiliations. It has been very strong in Victoria, I know. It is also strong in New Zealand. I cannot really do anything more than look at the overall scene and ask the Minister to give us some information as to what is the reason; how much is involved; whether it is to suit a specific market; and whether there is an alternative source available in Queensland. To my certain knowledge there is without any doubt beef lot feeding in Queensland. It has been going on for some time. I will not go into the detail of whether or not beef lot feeding is a good idea for cattle producers. There is a wide variety of views, mostly negative.

page 2889

QUESTION

EAST TIMOR

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

-My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I draw the attention of the Minister to a statement that the Roman Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace reportedly in letters to the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs has pointed out the serious conflict between the Australian Government’s recent action and its stated policy on East Timor. As reports paint a grim picture of a territory disrupted by conflict and military occupation and the decimation of the population with an estimated 100 000 Timorese killed in the invasion and occupation, will the Minister give the Senate an assurance that the Government will clearly and unambiguously restate its policy on East Timor?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I cannot give that assurance on a matter that resides within the portfolio of a Minister I but represent, but I will certainly pass on to the Prime Minister and to the Minister for Foreign Affairs the request of the honourable senator.

page 2889

QUESTION

MEMORIAL SERVICE SPEECH BY MR UREN

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Administrative Services. I ask the Minister: If, as was claimed, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition did not make at the memorial service on 7 December the printed speech as circulated to the Press Gallery, can the printed speech of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition now be circulated through the ministerial documents service as the official speech given by the Deputy Leader?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I have no knowledge of what Mr Uren said at the Australian War Memorial. I was not present. I have heard what has been said about what happened, but I have no direct knowledge of my own. All I know is that the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in each chamber have the right to have their speeches and statements which are made outside the Parliament distributed through the ministerial documents service and printed weekly in the Commonwealth Record. There is no obligation on them. It is a matter for their own choice if they wish to put documents into the system. All I can inform the honourable senator is that I assume on the authority of Mr Uren, the Deputy Leader in the other place, a text purporting to be the speech that he ad made was put into the system at some time between 3.30 and5 p.m. last Tuesday. It has been circulated in the normal course as with all documents going through the ministerial documents service and it will be printed in the Commonwealth Record. That is all I can say. I have no knowledge as to the other matters raised by the honourable senator. I imagine they are matters within the knowledge only of Mr Uren.

Senator YOUNG:

– I ask a supplementary question. Has the Minister in his answer to me taken into consideration a statement given as fact last night by some members of the Opposition who claimed to be present at that service and also claimed that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition did not make the speech as printed?

Senator WITHERS:

-Yes, I heard that. I accept their word for it, but apart from that, as I said, I have no direct evidence. I was not present. I do not know what he said or what he did not say. All I know is that last night a number of honourable senators opposite said that he did not make the speech which he circulated or which came into the system which is under my ministerial control some couple hours after he did in fact make a speech. I would not know whether he made a speech on the same subject. I am not very interested either.

page 2889

QUESTION

COMMUNITY YOUTH SUPPORT SCHEME

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. Can the Minister provide details of funding under the community youth support scheme? What groups and organisations have received funding? Has the department received criticism of the scheme from community organisations and trade unions? Can a person who receives the $6 a week allowance for the so-called voluntary work receive the unemployment benefit? Is it true that the community youth support scheme is not available to self-help groups? If those groups are ineligible under the scheme, on what basis were those necessary groups of unemployed excluded? Finally, is the Department prepared to alter the arrangements in order to enable self-help groups to become eligible under the scheme?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-In view of the many details that the honourable senator seeks in his question I suggest that he put it on notice.

page 2890

QUESTION

LOAN BORROWINGS

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer, is related to Australian Government loan borrowings for 1976. In what currencies were the loan borrowings made? Has the Government estimated the effects of the devaluation and now the revaluation upon those loans? Finally, can the Minister say what is the net financial situation in regard to the loans following devaluation and now revaluation?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-I am sure that the honourable senator is interested in overseas loan raisings because obviously loan raisings in Australia are made in Australian currency. I am sure that the honourable senator will understand that I have to get precise details from the Treasurer in order to respond to the question which he asks.

page 2890

QUESTION

APPLES: JAPANESE MARKET

Senator WRIGHT:

-I direct a question to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Am I correctly informed that an important trade conference between Japanese interests and the Australian Government will take place in January next? Will the Minister, in his capacity as Minister for Industry and Commerce and as the Minister in this chamber representing the Minister for Primary Industry, list as an agenda item for urgent negotiation the matter of the advent of apples into the Japanese market? I am sure that the Minister will be aware that objections to the acceptance of Australian trade in apples were taken on the grounds of quarantine on codlin moth, and that scientific and trade investigations have been taking place on that subject. The apple industry is in a parlous position, and this important channel of trade is vital to the industry at this time. I ask the Minister whether he will make this matter an important agenda item for negotiation.

Senator COTTON:
LP

-It is likely that there will be a ministerial meeting between Japan and

Australia in Japan sometime early next year. Precise dates have not been determined. Such meetings have been taking place for some time now either in Australia or, as will be the case next year, in Japan. They are very useful and extremely important meetings. The matters covered by those meetings are wide-ranging. I was in Japan myself not very long ago to discuss a range of matters involving government activities and private activities with business and Japan’s relations with Australia in the banking area. At the time I talked to the Ministry of Trade and Industry representatives about the apple industry’s problems in exporting to Japan. It is an important matter and a long time has been taken in seeking a resolution of the problems. The honourable senator may be assured that the matter will be raised again and that I will see that it is placed on the agenda.

page 2890

QUESTION

CURRENCY: REVALUATION

Senator SIBRAA:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister representing the Treasurer aware of reports circulating within the Australian business community to the effect that the Government is considering a further revaluation of the Australian dollar? Is the Minister aware that these reports are based on speculation that there is a continuing excessively high rate of capital inflow into the country as a result of the 17.5 per cent devaluation? In view of this uncertainty, will the Minister give the Australian business community an assurance that the Government is not contemplating further adjustment or alteration to the exchange rate of the Australian dollar?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-I am quite sure that the honourable senator will realise that in the business and financial community both in Australia and overseas there are people who are most anxious to light fires which will move across an area and leave them untouched but burn out somebody else. Let us be in no doubt that profits have been made by people as a result of currency speculation and rumour. I refer to both Australian groups and overseas groups. They cannot be identified; they cannot be proved. That is a logically founded suspicion. I have read those comments by people who have been seeking to increase speculation about the future of the currency. I never engage in it. I think that those who do so may either have genuine concern or perhaps some other interest to serve. Either way, I do not think it is a good thing to speculate on the currency’s future. In some countries people are shot for doing it.

page 2891

QUESTION

INDIAN HIGH COMMISSION

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

-by leave-I intended to raise this matter on the adjournment tonight or to ask a question about it. I apologise to the Senate that I did not give it greater priority. I am concerned about a discussion that took place between myself and the High Commissioner for India. He and members of the diplomatic corps attached to the Indian High Commission are being harassed and intimidated by a group of people. This has been going on for some time. The staff of the Commission are very upset about these activities. I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs to have this matter investigated so that the people of the High Commission can expect the traditional courtesy and- to a degree- privilege in their host country.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Government · LP

– by leave- Senator Wheeldon raised the same matter with me last week. I said that I would certainly have the matter pursued. Responsibility in this matter falls also on my Department because the Commonwealth Police have to provide protection for foreign embassies within Australia. I shall certainly pursue the matter that Senator O ‘Byrne has raised because it is important. There seems to be a growing idea in this country that as part of one’s political activities persons should be harassed. The Government believes that people in this country ought to be able to go about their lawful business without being harassed, whether they are people from overseas or Australians. I am delighted that Senator O ‘Byrne and his colleagues have now joined with me in believing that people ought to be able to go about their lawful business without being harassed.

page 2891

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN SENATE PRACTICE

The PRESIDENT:

– On 1 1 November the Senate referred to the Standing Orders Committee for consideration and report the statement which I had made to the Senate on 10 November in relation to questions asked in regard to the fifth edition of Australian Senate Practice. I have to inform the Senate that the Committee has since met on 2 occasions and has made progress in regard to the reference but because of the pressure of parliamentary business has decided to defer completion of its consideration until the coming parliamentary recess. The Committee expects to present its report on this matter immediately after the resumption of the Senate’s sittings in February.

page 2891

AUSTRALIAN WAR MEMORIAL

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Government · LP

– Pursuant to section 23 of the Australian War Memorial Act 1962 I present the annual report of the Board of Trustees of the Australian War Memorial for the year ended 30 June 1976.

page 2891

AUSTRALIAN WATER RESOURCES COUNCIL

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Government · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the record of the 19th meeting of the Australian Water Resources Council held in Perth on 27 September 1976.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

-by leave- I move:

That the Senate take note of the paper.

I seek leave to make my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2891

EXPORT DEVELOPMENT GRANTS BOARD

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Industry and Commerce · LP

– Pursuant to section 48 of the Export Market Development Grants Act 1974I present the first annual report of the Export Development Grants Board for the year ended 30 June 1976.

page 2891

AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF STATISTICS

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Industry and Commerce · LP

– Pursuant to section 24 of the Australian Bureau of Statistics Act 1975 I present the annual report of the Australian Bureau of Statistics for the year ended 30 June 1976.

page 2891

NATURAL DISASTER INSURANCE SCHEME

Senator COTTON (New South WalesMinister for Industry and Commerce) For the information of honourable senators I present a discussion paper entitled: ‘A Natural Disaster Insurance Scheme for Australia’, together with the text of a statement by the Minister Assisting the Treasurer relating to that paper.

Senator ROBERTSON:
Northern Territory

– by leave- I move:

That the Senate take note of the papers.

I seek leave to make my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2892

DAIRYING RESEARCH COMMITTEE

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Industry and Commerce · LP

– Pursuant to section 1 6 of the Dairying Research Act 1 972I present the annual report of the Dairying Research Committee for the year ended 30 June 1976.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

-by leave- I move:

That the Senate take note of the paper.

I seek leave to make my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2892

DAIRY ADJUSTMENT ACT 1974

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Industry and Commerce · LP

– Pursuant to section 5 of the Dairy Adjustment Act 1974I present a further agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia and the State of New South Wales relating to that Act.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

-by leave- I move:

That the Senate take note of the paper.

I seek leave to make my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2892

AUSTRALIAN CANNED FRUITS BOARD

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Industry and Commerce · LP

– Pursuant to section 36 of the Canned Fruits Export Marketing Act 1 963I present the annual report of the Australian Canned Fruits Board for the calendar year 1975.

page 2892

AUSTRALIAN WHEAT BOARD

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Industry and Commerce · LP

– Pursuant to section 45 of the Wheat Industry Stabilization Act 1974I present the annual report of the Australian Wheat Board for the year ended 30 November 1975.

page 2892

TECHNICAL AND FURTHER EDUCATION

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-(New South WalesMinister for Education)- Pursuant to section 30 of the States Grants (Technical and Further Education) Act 1974 I present a statement of payments to the States authorised under that Act for the financial year 1975-76.

page 2892

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL AIRLINES COMMISSION

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– Pursuant to section 40 of the Australian National Airlines Act 1945, I present the annual report of the Australian National Airlines Commission for the year ended 30 June 1976.

That the Senate take note of the paper.

I seek leave to make my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2892

BUREAU OF TRANSPORT ECONOMICS

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the report by the Bureau of Transport Economics entitled A Study of Intersystem Railway Freight Rating Practices.

That the Senate take note of the paper.

I seek leave to make my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2892

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the first annual report of the Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development for the year 1975-76.

page 2892

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL PARKS AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– Pursuant to section 52 of the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975 I present the report of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service covering the period from 13 March 1975 to 30 June 1976.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– by leave- I move:

That the Senate take note of the paper.

I seek leave to make my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2892

INTERIM COMMITTEE ON THE NATIONAL ESTATE

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the second report of the Interim Committee on the National Estate.

page 2893

QUESTION

POVERTY AND EDUCATION IN AUSTRALIA

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– As the Minister responsible for the Commission of Inquiry into Poverty, for the information of honourable senators I present the fifth main report of the inquiry entitled Poverty and Education in Australia. I seek leave to make a short statement relating thereto.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

-Honourable senators will recall that three of the five main reports of the Commission of Inquiry into Poverty have already been tabled; namely, Professor Henderson’s Report on Poverty in Australia, Professor Sackville ‘s Report on the Law and Poverty and Reverend Martin’s Report on Social/ Medical Aspects of Poverty. The fourth main report which will be by Professor Gates entitled Consumers and Clients- Aspects of Poverty in Australia, has been delayed in its preparation and is now expected to be available early in the new year. Because of this, what has been listed as the fifth main report, namely Poverty and Education in Australia by Dr Fitzgerald, is being tabled ahead of the fourth report. Dr Ronald T. Fitzgerald, who is currently Dean, School of General Studies, Burwood State College, Victoria, was appointed as a commissioner of the Commission of Inquiry into Poverty for the purpose of inquiring into education and poverty. His specific terms of reference were as follows:

Investigate-

  1. the nature and extent of educational and cultural disadvantage among the poor and the ways in which it leads to poverty in successive generations,
  2. existing educational and cultural services to ascertain-

    1. their adequacy in meeting the needs of the poor,
    2. how they might best be improved in order to overcome educational and cultural disadvantages;
  3. 3 ) any associated matters relevant to the above and to the general objects of the Inquiry.

When I tabled the Martin report on 3 June last, I supplied the Senate with a list of the research reports commissioned by the poverty inquiry which had been published or were to be published. Since that time the additional research reports have been approved for publication and I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a list of those reports.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

The list read as follows-

Research to be published by Professor Sackville

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I also submit a list of the research studies specifically arranged by Dr Fitzgerald in connection with his inquiry and seek leave to incorporate the list in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

– Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

The list read as follows-

Research Report Arranged by Dr Fitzgerald

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– Because of this Government’s very great interest in educationan interest which is reflected throughout the whole community- I am sure that Dr Fitzgerald’s report will command a great deal of attention by education authorities, teachers and teacher organisations, parent groups and educationalists generally. For its part the Government regards Dr Fitzgerald ‘s report as an important contribution to the consideration of education development and policies and I can assure honourable senators that the recommendations made in the report will be given full consideration by the Government.

The report is of more direct concern to several of my ministerial colleagues but by far the major portion of it lies within the area of responsibility of the Minister for Education, Senator Carrick. I am sure that Senator Carrick would want me to assure the Senate that he and his department will be carefully examining the comments and conclusions of Dr Fitzgerald. May I take this opportunity on behalf of the Government of thanking Dr Fitzgerald for his work in the preparation of this report. I am sure that the recommendations made in this report, as has been the case with other reports from the poverty inquiry, will ultimately lead to the improvement of services for the poorer and disadvantaged sections of our community. I move:

That the Senate take note of the paper.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

– It is necessary that I say something on the tabling of this very important fifth main report of the Commission of Inquiry into Poverty. I thank the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) for her usual courtesy in allowing me to see the report before it was tabled. At this time when we have 40 per cent of those unemployed in this country aged between15 and 19 years and in view of the great possibility that opportunities for school leavers will be fewer in the next few years, the recommendations and findings of Dr Fitzgerald and his colleagues will be of the utmost importance to the Minister for Social Security, the Government and particularly the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick). It is startling to see demonstrated in a table on page 7 of the report that there are 254 000 very poor dependent children, 281 000 rather poor dependent children and 536 000 poor dependent children in this country, using the rather austere definitions of ‘poverty’ which were drawn up in the first main report on poverty by Professor Henderson.

In the short time that I have had to look at the report, and particularly at chapter 5 which is concerned with work and educational opportunities, it has become apparent that it has been brought home to us all that in this country we will have to take positive action. There will have to be positive government interference in the work market to provide opportunities for those in this community who are socially, economically, culturally and educationally deprived. Far too many people, and young people in particular, are getting into the vicious cycle of deprivation causing unemployment, further deprivation, and further unemployment. That sort of activity extends right through their families and particularly to their dependants. We cannot go back, as some people would like to do, to the days of Adam Smith and the free uncontrolled, unrestricted market that some people would so much like to see. This report is of vital importance. It could not have been put down at a more important time in our history. It provides information. Like all other reports, it requests the Government to seek further information. I hope that the Government will take the report very seriously, as the Opposition does. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2895

ANNUAL REPORT OF DEPARTMENT

page 2895

OF ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS AND ANNUAL REPORT OF ABORIGINAL HOSTELS LIMITED

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– For the information of honourable senators, I present the annual report of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs for the year ended 30 June 1976. I also present the annual report of Aboriginal Hostels Limited for the year ended 26 June 1976.

That the Senate take note of the papers.

I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later date.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2895

WORKING PARTY ON THE MEASUREMENT OF LABOUR PRODUCTIVITY

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans ‘ Affairs · LP

– For the information of honourable senators, I present the report of the Working Party on the Measurement of Labour Productivity.

page 2895

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN WAR MEMORIAL: REPORT OF BOARD OF TRUSTEES

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-by leave- I move:

That the Senate take note of the paper.

I take this opportunity to speak briefly on a matter which involves the Board of Trustees of the Australian War Memorial. Following the debate on the adjournment last night, and questions and answers this morning, the implication remains that some persons endeavoured to deceive the Board of Trustees of the Australian War Memorial by arranging the laying of a wreath at the Memorial on the anniversary of the invasion of Timor by Indonesia. Let me put clearly to the Senate that my advice was sought on this matter and that correspondence which passed between the applicants and the Board of Trustees and the advice given by the Trustees was known to me. It was very clearly intended that the laying of the wreath should be in memory of Australian servicemen who died in Timor. That was primarily the purpose of the ceremony, but nevertheless the opportunity was taken to remind the Australian people of the role the Timorese people played at that time alongside Australian soldiers.

Senator Walters:

– Why did not the prepared speech indicate that it was for fallen Australians?

Senator GEORGES:

– An invitation was issued to all honourable senators, including Senator Walters, to be present at the laying of the wreath. I think the invitation clearly stated the purpose of the laying of the wreath. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives (Mr Uren) was aware of the requirements of the trustees and he made his speech accordingly at the War Memorial. A tape record of that speech is available and I think that at the earliest opportunity that speech should be included in the Senate Hansard, as was the statement that Senator Walters introduced into the Senate last night. I want to make it clear that the organisers in no way wanted to circumvent the Australian War Memorial Act or be discourteous to the Board of Trustees of the War Memorial. I have spoken to Tom Uren concerning this matter and he has assured me that the speech that he made was made bearing in mind the conditions that the trustees had placed upon that wreath laying. The speech that was circulated as a speech delivered by Mr Uren was in effect a statement to be made on the day.

Senator Walters:

– Oh, Senator!

Senator GEORGES:

-Senator Walters, I agree that this is the only matter in question and it is a matter which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition will correct. If Senator Walters wants to bring some evil intent into this situation and make some political capital out of an earnest desire on the part of people to commemorate those who fell in Timor, both Australian and Timorese- if she wants in some way to convert that into some evil intention on the part of members of Parliament- she may by all means go ahead and endeavour to do her best. She cannot sustain it and it cannot be sustained. I wish to make it clear at this point in speaking to the presentation of the annual report of the Australian War Memorial Board of Trustees that no discourtesy to the trustees was intended, and no breach of the Act was intended. That was the intention of the organisers and that was carried out. It was necessary to remind people in Australia that the Timorese in East Timor went to the assistance of Australians and fought alongside Australians. Senator Carrick and possibly Senator Missen and a number of other honourable senators can give evidence of the valour of those men who died alongside Australians. The purpose of the wreath laying was to remind Australia of this. It seems odd that both Senator Harradine and Senator Walters should seek to denigrate that act.

Senator WALTERS:
Tasmania

– I should like to seek clarification from Senator Georges on a point. Can he say who recorded the speech that Mr Uren finally made at the laying of the wreath?

Senator Mcintosh:

– I rise on a point of order, Mr President. I should like your ruling on a matter. Last night Senator Walters read a speech which she claimed was given at the Australian War Memorial. I stood in my place and said that this was not the speech delivered, and a number of other honourable senators did the same thing. I resent any imputation to the contrary. I should like your ruling on anything that implies the contrary.

The PRESIDENT:

– I believe that Senator Walters read a speech which had been circulated. That was the situation last night.

Senator Walters:

– On a point of personal explanation, Mr President, at no stage did I say that the speech had been read at the Australian War Memorial. I said it had been circularised to honourable members and senators purporting to be a speech that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition had made at the wreath laying ceremony.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– We have before us a situation which was perhaps adequately debated last evening in the general context of the wreath laying ceremony and Timor. Senator Georges has drawn attention to the fact that a journalist recorded the speech made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Uren) and that steps are currently being taken to have transcribed the recording which will endorse the remarks that were made by a number of honourable senators last evening. I should imagine that Senator Walters would be the last person who would want to enter this debate today, considering what she had to say during the course of the debate last evening.

Senator Withers:

– I should think that that would apply to you more than to her.

Senator GIETZELT:

– I have looked at the Senate record of the debate, Senator Withers, and the statements that she made. Let us remember that she denied making certain statements which the Hansard record shows that she did in fact make. At page 2862 of Hansard- I am sure that we can take it as being a true record of the debate- I am reported as having said:

I am told that the ceremony was designed to pay tribute to those who had fallen in World War II and to those who had fallen subsequently in Timor.

At a later part of my speech I said:

I can assure this Senate that Mr Uren paid tribute to Australian troops who fell during World War II and to the loss on the day of the invasion of East Timor, as well as on 16 October, when Australian journalists died doing one thing, that is, carrying out an obligation to report to the world what was happening in East Timor.

I can understand that Senator Withers may not have heard me say that because I can recall that at the time I was making that statement he was speaking to, I think, Senator Chaney.

Senator Withers:

– Would you repeat that statement; I did not hear it then.

Senator GIETZELT:

– Yes. I said:

I can assure this Senate that Mr Uren paid tribute to Australian troops who fell during World War II and to the loss on the day of the invasion of East Timor, as well as on 16 October, when Australian journalists died doing one thing, that is, carrying out an obligation to report to the world what was happening in East Timor.

Senator Withers:

-You are now admitting the whole thing.

Senator GIETZELT:

-I am not admitting it at all. I am saying that we paid tribute to those Australians whose death took place on the day of the invasion. Senator Walters, who quite coincidentally had a copy of Mr Uren’s speech in the chamber only a few moments after Senator

Harradine raised the matter, said- this is why I think she has to be nailed to the mast on this matter.

This speech was made at the wreath laying ceremony and it will prove that Senator Gietzelt was not telling the truth when he said that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition had said that it was in commemoration of the Australians who had fallen in the Second World War.

I repeat that I had said:

I am told that the ceremony was designed to pay tribute to those who had fallen in World War II and to those who had fallen subsequently in Timor.

I took exception to what Senator Walters said and raised a point of order in relation to which I said:

Mr Uren did have a prepared speech but he did not refer to it.

Senator Walters said:

I am not accusing Senator Gietzelt of anything.

If accusing me of not telling the truth is not accusing me of anything, I do not know what is the meaning of those words in the English language or what the dictionary defines as an accusation. After Senator Georges made some reference to this matter today Senator Walters was on her feet saying that she did not say that it was a speech. I refer her to the last few lines on page 2863 of Hansard. Senator Steele Hall said:

It was not given. It is a quite useless exercise.

Senator Walters then said:

This is a speech by Mr Tom Uren, Deputy Leader of the Opposition, at a wreath laying ceremony.

Senator Withers:

– That is how it is headed.

Senator GIETZELT:

- Senator Withers, of course, is trying to suggest that the speech, which it would appear was circulated in a limited fashion -

Senator Withers:

– After the ceremony.

Senator GIETZELT:

– After the ceremony, certainly. But on many occasions I have read -

Senator Withers:

– He ought to be ashamed of himself for circulating a speech that he did not make.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator GIETZELT:

- Mr President, am I to be permitted to speak or am I to be subjected to constant harassment by Government supporters? Every so often we read in the newspapers speeches which have been embargoed by the Leaders of the various Parties- in particular by the Leaders of the Government Parties. The Prime Minister has gone to a function with a prepared speech and not delivered that speech but spoken off the cuff and has been reported as such, as well as having reported the speech which he circulated prior to going to the function. It is a common practice in the parliamentary arena. I have seen references made to that on several occasions in the last few months in relation to Mr Fraser as well as in relation to Mr Lynch, Mr Anthony and Mr Sinclair. They have had prepared speeches circulated through the system to which Senator Withers referred and to the Press, and made different speeches on some occasions on which they have been invited to address a particular conference and so on.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Mr Snedden did it in New York.

Senator GIETZELT:

– That is right. Of course, Senator Walters has made the imputation in her contribution to the debate not only that I misled the House but also that I was not telling the truth. I think that she ought to be asked to withdraw that imputation because at no stage did I mislead the Senate. I admitted that Mr Uren had made references to those who had fallen in Timor during World War II and to those who had been killed subsequently as well as to those East Timorese people who had died. When I was in East Timor the East Timorese people took me to a spot in the hills around Dili where the Australian Government has erected a memorial and constructed a swimming pool as a permanent record of the Australian people’s recognition of and gratitude to those East Timorese- the 50 000 of them-who died during World War II in protecting the Australian troops during the period of the occupation of that area by the j apanese. Therefore I seek an assurance from Senator Walters that she is not accusing me of misleading the Senate and of not telling the truth. If she is not prepared to give it, Sir, then I seek your guidance.

Senator Walters:

-Mr President, Senator Gietzelt has asked for an assurance -

The PRESIDENT:

-Order! I must point out to you, Senator Gietzelt, that a point of order must be taken at the time of the proceedings on the matter to which you are objecting.

Senator GIETZELT:

– I did take a point of order, Mr President, and Senator Walters denied making the statement. She said:

I am not accusing Senator Gietzelt of anything. He seems to be very sensitive about this and I am beginning to wonder why he is so sensitive.

But the record shows that she did make the accusation that I was not telling the truth and, as she said that she did not say it, I had to wait until the Senate Hansard was available today before I could ask you, Sir, to have the record put straight.

Senator WALTERS (Tasmania)-Mr President, I seek leave to reply to Senator Gietzelt ‘s remarks.

The PRESIDENT:

– I call Senator Walters.

Senator WALTERS:

– I would like to apologise to Senator Gietzelt on that matter. I did suggest that he was not telling the truth. As to the reason for my doing so, I am afraid that I did take into account the fact that Mr Uren had circularised his speech following the occasion of the laying of the wreath. I did not for one moment presume that, as this speech was circularised following the laying of the wreath ceremony, Mr Uren would try to deceive members and senators by giving incorrect information on what was the substance of his speech. Senator Gietzelt also implied that there was limited circularisation. It was far from limited. The speech went through the ministerial document service. If this is typical of the speeches circularised by the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition- they circularise speeches which cannot be substantiated and which the next day they deny making-how often can we place any reliability on statements from Opposition members?

Senator STEELE HALL:
South Australia

– I want to refer only briefly to my short and not very effective intervention in the debate late last night. I rise, firstly, to tender an apology to Senator Walters because I may have implied that what she was doing was improper. I do not comment on the wisdom of what she did. That is her responsibility. I confine myself in these remarks to the fact that when Senator Walters asked for the incorporation in Hansard of Mr Uren’s speech I rose to inquire as to its source and authenticity. Whether it was a matter of Standing Orders or the confusion at the time, Mr President, you prevented me from proceeding with that inquiry. Being unable to establish the authenticity of the speech, I joined the group which refused leave for its incorporation. I had no idea that the speech had been circulated by the Government document service. Had I known that, of course, I would not have intervened. I proceeded throughout my few remarks on the basis that it was something else procured by the honourable senator. I tender an apology to Senator Walters if I implied that she may have done something improper. I again say that the wisdom of what she did is her responsibility.

Senator HARRADINE:
Tasmania

– We have seen this morning a blatant attempted cover-up of the misuse by some members of this Parliament of the Stone of

Remembrance at the Australian War Memorial for their own propaganda. This is a serious matter, and that is why I raised it in the Senate last night. I am not alone in my view that Stone of Remembrance was misused. A letter from Mr D. W. R. Scoggins, the President of the Australian Capital Territory Branch of the Rats of Tobruk Association, which was published in this morning’s Canberra Times, states:

I found it difficult to believe that, as shown on ABC-TV on Tuesday and reported in your newspaper yesterday, a group which included several prominent Federal Parliamentarians could have so misused the Stone of Remembrance at the Australian War Memorial on Tuesday.

Ex-servicemen regard the Australian War Memorial as a memorial to Australian servicemen who fell in wars in which Australia has been involved. For commemorative purposes, the Stone of Remembrance is regarded as the focal point. To use it as a setting to commemorate incidents in which we have not, as a nation, been involved is inappropriate to say the least.

If such misuse is taken as a precedent we can expect to see it used by any group which feels it has some cause to place before the public, thus debasing it as a memorial. Where will it end? Will the Stone of Remembrance become a platform from which political doctrine will be disseminated? Not if exservicemen can stop it!

Rightly or wrongly, we have been involved in wars or warlike activities in the past but I have not seen any attempt on the part of those who participated in the above-mentioned event to do anything to commemorate Australian soldiers lost in these activities.

Where were they on 1 1 November? The letter continues:

Considering the date of the incident and the debt we owe to the U.S.A. for past help, it would have been more appropriate if a wreath had been placed there in remembrance of those lost at Pearl Harbour.

D.W.R. SCOGGINS President

A.C.T. Branch, Rats of Tobruk Association

I did not have the honour, because I was not old enough, to fight in the last world war.

Senator Gietzelt:

– You could have fought in Korea or in Vietnam.

Senator HARRADINE:

– I did my national service and, had I been old enough, I would have been willing to fight in any of these circumstances to defend democracy. I say to Senator Arthur Gietzelt that what I have been doing is trying to rid the trade union movement of the members of the pro-communist Left who sought to white-ant it during the war while other people were overseas.

I rise today to point out that this is a cover-up. We even have tapes entering into it nowWatergate tapes, perhaps. All that we can do is try to go by the official record. Senator Walters’ only fault was that she believed the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the other place, Mr

Uren, or alternatively that she believed the official record of this Parliament. The Canberra Times reported that the wreath laying ceremony was a memorial service in respect of the Timor invasion. It stated:

  1. . people gathered at the Stone of Remembrance at the Australian War Memorial yesterday for a wreath-laying ceremony to mark the first anniversary of the invasion of East Timor by Indonesia.

Where did the Canberra Times get those words?

Senator Gietzelt:

– Ask them. Do not ask us.

Senator HARRADINE:

– I will tell the honourable senator. Those are the very words at the top of Mr Uren’s statement. I read them:

Speech by Tom Uren, M.P., Deputy Leader of the Opposition, at a wreath laying ceremony to mark the first anniversary of the Indonesian invasion of the Democratic Republic of East Timor . . .

They are the same words as were used by the Canberra Times. I ask again: Where did the Canberra Times get those words? Obviously it got them from the heading of the prepared speech by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives, Mr Uren. If honourable senators were so upset about misrepresentation by the Canberra Times, of course there are parliamentary procedures they can adopt. Honourable senators regularly say that they have been misrepresented by the Press. Did Senator Arthur Gietzelt, Mr Tom Uren or Senator Justin O’ Byrne stand up yesterday, before the matter was raised by me last night, and say that they were misrepresented?

We see the real reason. We see that the original verbal request, made to the Director of the Australian War Memorial on behalf of the Australian East Timor Association, was to hold a ceremony at the Memorial to mark the invasion of East Timor. That was the original purpose. Then, of course, to get around the provisions in the Australian War Memorial Act, the request was made to lay a wreath at the Memorial ‘in memory of Australian fallen in Timor in World War II’.

Senator O’Byrne:

– That is right.

Senator HARRADINE:

– Somebody said: That is right’. Opposition senators stand condemned by what they said last night. Senator Gietzelt said both last night and this morning that that was the purpose of the service but it was also to commemorate the persons who lost thenlives in the recent conflict in Timor.

Senator Gietzelt:

– What is wrong with that?

Senator HARRADINE:

– There is nothing wrong with having a memorial or a service in memory of those people except that the Stone of

Remembrance is the focal point to honour the Australian war dead. That is the point at issue. No amount of talk and cover-up by the people from the Opposition side who have entered this debate can gainsay that. We have had the story that there was an embargo. An embargo? It is the first time I have heard anybody putting an embargo on a statement after the occasion. That is ridiculous. That is what has been suggested.

Senator Gietzelt:

– Cannot you hear?

Senator HARRADINE:

– That is what has been suggested.

Senator Gietzelt:

– I was not talking about that.

Senator HARRADINE:

– The record will show that Senator Gietzelt introduced into his comments this morning as an excuse for this particular document being distributed that it could have been a problem relating to an embargo.

Senator Gietzelt:

– I did not. I did not mention the document was embargoed. You want to get your facts straight, senator.

Senator HARRADINE:

– I am sorry if I misunderstood. I regret that I understood the matter incorrectly. The issue that is involved here is: Are we going to believe what we receive through the normal processes of distribution from this Parliament and are the people going to believe when they read in the Commonwealth Record that a speech has been made that the speech was made? This is another matter of quite a degree of significance. I am pleased that I raised this matter last night because I hope that in future the Stone of Remembrance will not be misused. I hope that by raising this matter it will give confidence to those people who objected to this misuse, including the Rats of Tobruk Association, that it will not be misused again.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– I would just like to draw the attention of the Senate to the fact that there was a pressman present at the memorial service.

Senator Webster:

– Who is he?

Senator O’BYRNE:

- Mr Tom Connors.

Senator Webster:

– Is he the one who reported it?

Senator O’BYRNE:

– He is working for the Melbourne Age at the moment.

Senator Webster:

– Is he the one who reported it?

Senator O’BYRNE:

– He took a tape of it. I think that perhaps if this nauseating humbug from Senator Harradine, whose only object is to obtain -

Government senators interjecting-

The PRESIDENT:

-Order! The Senate will come to order.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– I was saying before I was rudely interrupted that the nauseating humbug that we have just heard falling from the lips of Senator Harradine, whose purpose is to gain cheap publicity for himself, could be quite easily refuted by a transcript of the tape being made and circulated in the Senate. I suggest to him in all decency, if he has any spark of honour in him, that he see Mr Tom Connors and hear the tape. Then he will know what was said at the memorial service and then he will keep his mouth shut.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I just want to make a few remarks because I think the whole question is getting out of focus. This matter was raised last evening as, I thought, an attack upon the trustees, the directors or those in control of the Australian War Memorial, for permitting a misuse of the War Memorial and also an attack on their impartiality.

Senator Chaney:

– Oh, what nonsense.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Let us examine the statement that was made that the War Memorial was allowed to be used to commemorate Fretilin forces or Timorese forces but not the anniversary of the Hungarian uprising. This is where the extreme political views including jealousy and hatred come into this matter. Of course, that naturally brought in Senator Walters on the side and a number of Government supporters who said that the service should not have been permitted. But they completely forget the fact that this Government is opposed to the invasion of Timor. I would have thought that in loyalty to their Government they would not have come into this debate criticising the fact that someone wanted to recognise the anniversary of the invasion of Timor. In the papers which Senator Withers tabled today there is the disclosure that there was no breach of responsibility by the directors of the War Memorial. They were given an assurance. The Memorial was made available on the condition- which they uphold- that the purpose of the Memorial was the recognition of Australian soldiers who took part in the Second World War. There was an allegation that at the service there was a speech made purely to commemorate the invasion of Timor and nothing was said about Australian soldiers who took part in the Second World War.

A number of honourable senators in this place have got up and said that that was not so. One suggestion that someone had told a falsehood was withdrawn and an apology was given. No one will disagree with those honourable senators who have said that this did not happen on the day and say that they are incorrect. Therefore there was no breach of the condition on the use of the War Memorial on that particular day.

Senator Withers:

– That is a matter of judgment.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Unless you are calling senators on this side liars, because they have said that the purpose of the service was expressed in that speech. We now find a Press release for a speech circulated by Tom Uren that would seem to be in breach of the purpose of the Memorial. It is obvious that he was told after preparing the speech of the granting of the permit and he complied with the conditions.

Senator Withers:

– Why did he circulate it after he made the speech?

Senator Gietzelt:

- His staff did, just like your staff do a lot of things. Do you circulate everything, senator, or do your staff do it for you?

Senator Withers:

– Nonsense. Not very efficient.

The PRESIDENT:

-Order! Senator Cavanagh has the call.

Senator Gietzelt:

– You know as well as I do that staff do a lot of the work.

Senator Withers:

– Why are you so touchy about the whole business?

Senator Gietzelt:

– I want the record to be right.

Senator Withers:

– Oh, nonsense. You have been caught out.

Senator Gietzelt:

– You are trying to make more out of it than he is.

Senator Withers:

– Why does he not withdraw the speech?

Senator Gietzelt:

– Why should he withdraw?

The PRESIDENT:

-Order! There are far too many interjections this morning. When an honourable senator has the call he should be permitted to make his speech and the next speaker may then make his comments.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-Yes, Mr President, I sympathise with you in your arduous duty to try to keep order in this debate. One would expect better behaviour from someone such as the Leader of the Government who is continually interrupting. The only question that remains is that Tom Uren or some of his staff permitted to be circulated a speech which was not the speech he made at the ceremony and it has now gone into circulation. There has been no breach of any conditions that were laid down by the War Memorial trustees. Therefore all of this is simply a myth. There is no grievance at all. The grievance on which people want to focus attention is the invasion of Timor.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Pursuant to standing order 127, which requires debate on motions of this type to be interrupted 2 hours after the meeting of the Senate, the debate is accordingly interrupted. The Senate will now proceed to consideration of the orders of the day.

page 2901

ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS (NORTHERN TERRITORY) BILL 1976

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 8 December.

Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Bill 1976

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I have not had a chance to talk to the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle), but we are prepared to group together the consideration of our amendment to clause 70, our proposed new clause 70a and our amendment to clause 71. We shall speak to each of those amendments, then deal with the 4 remaining amendments together, speaking to each one separately, and then have 2 votes. That might help to expedite matters.

Senator Guilfoyle:

– The Government would be quite happy to proceed in that way.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator DrakeBrockman) Can you identify those clauses with which you will be dealing?

Senator KEEFFE:

– I will be dealing with clause 70, proposed new clause 70a and clause 71 in the first group and I will then deal with the second group.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I want to get the situation straight. With the concurrence of the Minister for Social Security, Senator Keeffe is seeking to take together clause 70, proposed new clause 70a and clause 71. Does the Committee agree to following that procedure? There being no objection, it is so ordered.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I move:

Leave out clause 70, substitute the following clause:

( 1 ) Subject to this section, an Aboriginal is entitled to enter and remain upon Aboriginal land if his presence on that land would not interfere with the use or enjoyment of an estate or interest in the land held by a person, not being a Land Trust or an Aboriginal Council.

Subject to this Act and except as otherwise provided by the regulations, a person other than an Aboriginal shall not enter or remain on Aboriginal land unless he is the holder of a permit, in writing, issued to him by or on behalf of the Land Council for the area in which the land is situated.

Penalty: $1,000.

  1. Before the making of regulations for the purposes of sub-section (2), the Minister shall consult any Land Council in the area of which is situated any Aboriginal land to which the regulations, if made, would apply and shall, when considering the making of the regulations, take into account any views on the matter expressed by the Land Council.
  2. A person who is on Aboriginal land (whether in accordance with a permit or not), other than a person who is on the land in accordance with regulations under sub-section (2) or in accordance with paragraph (5) (a) or is one of the traditional Aboriginal owners of the land, may be required to leave that land by a person authorised on their behalf by the Land Council for the area in which the land is situated, and the person on whom such a requirement is made shall comply with the requirements within a reasonable time.

Penalty: $1,000.

  1. Where a person, other than a Land Trust or an Aboriginal Council, has an estate or interest in Aboriginal land-

    1. a person is entitled to enter and remain on the land for any purpose that is necessary for the use or enjoyment of that estate or interest by the owner,
    2. a permit shall not be issued to a person under subsection (2) with respect to the land if the presence of the person on the land would interfere with the use or enjoyment of that estate or interest by the owner; and
    3. a permit issued under sub-section (2) with respect to the land shall be expressed to impose on the holder of the permit a condition that he will not interfere with the use or enjoyment of that estate or interest by the owner.
  2. The holder of a permit to enter and remain on Aboriginal land shall comply with any condition referred to in paragraph (5)(c) or otherwise imposed on him as such holder by the issuing authority.

Penalty: $1,000.

  1. In proceedings for an offence against sub-section (2) or (4) it is a defence if the person charged proves-

    1. in the case of an offence against sub-section (2)-that-
    1. his entry or remining on the land was due to necessity; and
    2. it was not practicable to apply for the necessary permit; or

    3. b ) in the case of an offence against sub-section ( 4 )- that his remaining on the land was due to circumstances outside his control.
  2. 8 ) Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this section, the law of the Northern Territory relating to travelling stock on pastoral leases applies to and in relation to Aboriginal land used for pastoral purposes’.

The new clause that we seek to insert into the Bill is virtually the same as that contained in the Bill introduced by the Labor Government in 1975. The argument adopted by the then Opposition in 1975 in relation to this clause was that land councils were too remote to exercise the issuing of permits and that complementary legislation would presumably make the same delegation. I wonder then why we cannot leave it to Aborigines to make the decision as to who is to be delegated to issue permits and how that responsibility is delegated, rather than leave it to the remote white, non-assimilated and possibly- I say this calmly this morning- rather racist dominated Country Party members of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. The retention of the power by the Australian Parliament and Government was also recommended by Mr Justice Woodward and supported by the Senate Select Committee on Social Environment. I think that is quite an important aspect of the matter. I move:

That the following new clause be inserted in the Bill: 70a. TO THIS SECTION, WHERE Aboriginal land adjoins the territorial sea, or internal waters of the Commonwealth, appertaining to the Northern Territory, that part of the territorial sea or internal waters so appertaining that is within 2 kilometres of the boundary of the Aboriginal land shall, for the purposes of section 70, be deemed to be part of that Aboriginal land.

) This section has effect subject to the obligations of the Commonwealth under international law, including obligations under any agreement between the Commonwealth and another country or countries.

Regulations made for the purposes of sub-section 70 (2) may make provision for the exemption from the provisions of that sub-section, in its application by virtue of this section, of persons on board ships included in a prescribed class of ships, either absolutely or subject to conditions.

Where-

a court convicts a person of an offence against section 70 in its application by virtue of this section; and

at the time of the offence, the person was on board a boat that was carrying fish, the court may order the forfeiture of that fish or of the proceeds of the sale of that fish.

5 ) Any property ordered by a court to be forfeited under sub-section (4) becomes the property of the Commonwealth and shall be dealt with or disposed of in accordance with the directions of the Minister. ‘.

Proposed new clause 70a, which formed part of the 1975 Bill, concerns the territorial sea adjoining Aboriginal land. Sub-clause (1) of proposed new clause 70a reads:

Subject to this section, where Aboriginal land adjoins the territorial sea, or internal waters of the Commonwealth, appertaining to the Northern Territory, that part of the territorial sea or internal waters so appertaining that is within 2 kilometres of the boundary of the Aboriginal land shall, for the purposes of section 70, be deemed to be part of that Aboriginal land.

Recently I talked with the Yirrkala people on their home ground, and this is what they said:

To us, the sea means as much as the land. We have songs, dances and sacred stories which goes from the land to the sea. We have had so many problems, particularly in coastal homeland centres, with prawning boats and other foreign vessels coming into shores without informing Aboriginal communities. We would allow this only in emergency cases.

The Yirrkala people speak for a great many people who are situated in areas close to the coast adjoining Arnhem Land and other areas where they live not only beside the sea but also with the sea. If determination over those areas is given to the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory undoubtedly it will exploit the waters adjoining Aboriginal land, and it may or may not give Aborigines access to any water at all.

Senator Kilgariff:

– What a lot of rot.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I hear another interjection from Senator Kilgariff. Perhaps he has not found out that the inland sea near Alice Springs dried up about 10 million years ago. As a manager of Henley on Todd no doubt he has had a lot of experience with water. The third amendment is to clause 7 1 , which reads in part:

  1. Sub-section (1) does not authorize an entry, use or occupation that would interfere with the use or enjoyment of an estate or interest in the land held by a person not being a Land Trust or an Aboriginal Council or other incorporated association of Aboriginals.

I move:

Leave out sub-clause (2).

Clause 7 1 prohibits Aboriginal entry if it interferes with the use or enjoyment of an estate or interest. Mr Justice Woodward made recommendations which, if adopted, would permit reasonable access. Sub-clause (2) of clause 71 could be used to deprive Aboriginals of the use of land, especially if a person with an interest in that land does not wish to have Aborigines on his land. Those amendments are all important. If honourable senators opposite still believe that there are Aborigines in this country who do not want the type of amendment which the Labor Party is moving, I shall try to change their minds by quoting again from a selection of telegrams which have arrived this morning. The first telegram is from the Borroloola mining venture. I will not read the full context of the telegram because it is rather long. It reads in part:

Aboriginal veto provisions on mining in Land Rights Bill meaningless until known who already holds exploration leases and terms of Commonwealth agreement with Mt Isa Mines over Borroloola claim are clarified. Do not allow a Bill which mocks integrity of Australians in acknowledging Aboriginal rights to land.

The next telegram was sent by the Bertossi family of Dunwich in Queensland, and it reads:

Fully support Labor ‘s effort on land rights.

The President of the Aboriginal Advancement Council in Perth said:

Keep up the fight.

The next telegram also came from Western Australia, and it reads:

Keep it up. No part of Australia was excluded from agreement with Bonner’ s original motion.

A very delightful telegram came from 2 little Aboriginal children, a little boy and a little girl. The telegram reads:

You are fighting very hard for our future Uncle Jim. Please keep going.

That telegram is signed by Pana Malu and Kali Bellear. Even children were listening in to the broadcast of our proceedings yesterday. I leave those amendments with the Committee for its consideration. I hope that one or more of them will be carried. If the Government indicates that it will accept the three of them, we will be delighted.

Senator MELZER:
Victoria

– I rise to support Senator Keeffe’s amendment to clause 70.I listened all day yesterday to the debate on this Bill. At some stage I have got to protest that the Government seems determined that in no way will it brook interference with mining interests. If mining interests cut across Aboriginal interests, then it seems that the mining interests must prevail. This Bill safeguards those interests closely. Clause 70 forbids even Northern Territory legislation to interfere with the rights of mining companies. Clause 70 (2) states:

  1. a person is entitled to enter and remain on the land for any purpose that is necessary for the use or enjoyment of that estate or interest by the owner of the estate or interest; and
  2. a law of the Northern Territory shall not authorise an entry or remaining on the land of a person if his presence on the land would interfere with the use or enjoyment of that estate or interest by the owner of the estate or interest.

When that part of the Bill is read in conjunction with a question asked of the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources (Senator Withers) by Senator Keeffe in the last few weeks I find it most disturbing. It seems to me to give a real picture of what the Government is trying to do with the land rights Bill. Senator Keeffe asked:

  1. Are any Aboriginal reserves in Australia located within prospective mineral areas; if so, have any mineral leases and/or authorities to prospect and/or temporary reserves been granted for areas within these Aboriginal reserves; if so, how many have been granted in the past 5 years.

These are the areas we are now discussing, the use and enjoyment of which are referred to in clause 70 of the Bill. Senator Keeffe went on to ask:

  1. If the answer to (1) is in the affirmative, where are (a) these mineral leases and/or authorities to prospect and/or temporary reserves; (b) how large is each of them; (c) when were they granted; (d) for how long were they granted; and (e) to whom were they granted.

In answer to that question the Minister supplied material showing that in Arnhem Land there were 10 groups and companies covering an area of 6 1 87 square miles and 1 9 exploration licences, alhtough only four are nowin existence. The Minister also said:

There has been only limited intensive exploration of Aboriginal reserves in the Northern Territory and it is not possible to delineate prospective regions. However, some areas of some reserves are known to have significant potential.

One wonders for how long exploration licences will be out of existence and how long it will be before the licences that were granted are renewed and more licences grantedin those sorts of areas if they have significant potential. We have all heard stories about how people have found extensive mineral deposits in those areas but have not yet found them officially. It makes a farce of Aboriginal land rights if this sort of entry to land can be made without any reference whatsoever to Aboriginal land councils.

In the Daly River area in the last few weeks a significant lead-zinc mineralisation find has been made by Aquataine, a French company. Four licences are already in existence. They were granted to Reynolds Australian Mines Pty Ltd, which is a foreign company, to Esso, and to the Dampier Mining Co., a subsidiary of Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd. Other licences are also held in that area. In other areas outside Arnhem Land- good potential areas for uranium and natural gas- h ow long will it be before the 1 8 existing licences are renewed and more are granted? This Bill gives automatic renewal of licences in Groote Eylandt for 21 years with the right to further renewal. I can see no reason to suppose that similar arrangements will not be made for all other areas, again without any reference to Aboriginal land councils. To say that Aboriginal land councils are too remote seems to me to be living in the dark ages. It does not seem to pay due regard to what a land rights Bill is supposed to do. After all, Aborigines may be remote but they would not be granted land rights if they were living in the heart of Melbourne.

The amendment which the Opposition proposes gives the right of permit of entry to Aboriginal land councils. It became more and more obvious during the debate yesterday that land in or near towns or where towns might be would not be included in land rights. It is becoming more and more obvious that where mining interests hold sway any land, so long as it is land that nobody wants for any purpose whatsoever, will be made available for land rights. If land rights mean anything at all the right at least could be given to the Aboriginal people that Aboriginal land councils may issue permits for entry to Aboriginal reserves.

Senator CHANEY:
Western Australia

– I want to make a brief contribution following Senator Melzer’s remarks. I think there is some misunderstanding on her part about the actual provisions of the Bill. It is only in those areas where there are existing rights that the consent provisions do not apply. In cases where exploration permits have expired, fresh consents would be required if exploration permits were to be granted over those areas. There are limited areas- details of them have been given and the honourable senator referred to them- over which the consent provisions are not applicable. The simple principle that is being followed, as I understand it, is that the Bill does not interfere with those rights that exist now.

Senator Robertson:

– Except the Aboriginal rights.

Senator CHANEY:

-That is not so. The whole tenor of the Bill is that Aboriginal rights take subject only to those rights which are presently in existence. That is perfectly in accordance with the section of the Woodward report I cited earlier in the debate. Sub-paragraph (xx) of paragraph 708 of that report states:

All existing rights of mining and petroleum companies will be preserved by the new legislation . . .

That principle has always been in the legislation. It has always been a Woodward recommendation. Senator Melzer’s misunderstanding was that in those areas which at some prior time had been subject to exploration permits which had expired, there would be no need for the consent provisions to apply. If that is what she was saying, it is incorrect.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I agree with Senator Chaney but the point that he misses is that the Bill extends permits beyond existing contracts. If there is an existing permit for mining which does not have to receive approval, there is a right to extensive mining of other kinds in the area which also does not have to receive approval or consent. Where a company has a mining lease and has to fulfil a current obligation that lease can be extended to other mining of the area in respect of which there is no contract in operation at present.

Senator CHANEY:
Western Australia

– There is an element of misunderstanding in Senator Cavanagh ‘s speech. The amendments moved and put through the Senate on the

Government’s initiative yesterday provide that there is an existing obligation to effect renewals and extensions under certain circumstances. It is the preservation of an existing legal obligation that is taken into account by the amendments; it is not the creation of fresh rights for which no legal right exists at present.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– It should be clarified that clause 70 provides that persons may not enter and remain upon Aboriginal land except in accordance with the Act or as provided under a law of the Northern Territory. It is expected by this Government that the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly will introduce an ordinance to provide that persons such as policemen and public servants acting in the course of their duties, candidates for elected office and members of the Australian Parliament or the Legislative Assembly, will not require entry permits and that Aboriginal communities may authorise the entry of other persons. Provisions also should be made for the removal of persons from Aboriginal land where their continued presence is unacceptable. Sub-clause (2) of clause 70 provides that a person is entitled to enter a particular area of Aboriginal land without a permit where such entry is necessary for the use or enjoyment of an interest granted over that area of Aboriginal land. It also protects the holders of an interest in Aboriginal and from having their use or enjoyment of that interest in Aboriginal land interfered with by the presence on that land of persons to whom entry permits may be issued under a law of the Northern Territory. Sub-clause (3) provides a defence against proceedings which may be instituted under this clause.

The Government is not able to accept the amendments or the proposed new sub-clause. We believe that we have dealt adequately with entry requirements in clauses 70 and 71 of this Bill. Also it has been stated clearly in clause 24 that land councils should be given responsibility for the administration of the permit system. Guidelines have been provided to ensure that any legislation takes account of traditional practices. As we have been saying throughout the whole of this debate, clause 73 deals with the matters with which the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly will deal under its ordinances. In our opinion these things render unacceptable the amendments from the Opposition and the proposed additional sub-clause.

Question put:

That the amendments (Senator Keeffe’s) be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Senator the Hon. T. C. Drake-Brockman)

AYES: 25

NOES: 34

Majority……. 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clauses 70 and 71 agreed to.

Clause 72 agreed to.

Clause 73 (Reciprocal legislation of the Northern Territory).

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– The Opposition is opposed to this clause. It is a clause concerning sacred sites, entry onto Aboriginal land, conservation of wildlife and control of waters adjacent to Aboriginal land. It is an abrogation of the Federal responsibility for Aborigines which was specifically granted to the Commonwealth in the 1967 referendum. The assurances that have been given by the Australian Government that the complementary legislation covers all of those matters are quite useless and for that reason the Opposition drafted a number of amendments to cover the general matters referred to in clause 73. We are opposed to clause 73.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– I wish to speak briefly on this clause. I did not have the opportunity of speaking in the second reading debate because of the limit on the number of speakers, but I indicate now that I agree with what was said then by Senator Bonner, Senator Chaney and Senator Baume and take the same view as they do with regard to this Bill generally.

Clause 73 is an important clause and I want to say a few words about it. It sets out the circumstances under which complementary legislation is to be framed. It sets out a framework for it. The Opposition is not suggesting any improvement or alteration of it; it is merely opposing the clause. The clause is a valuable one to the extent that it sets out that essential framework.

I have had great reservations about the situation of complementary legislation. I recognise that the 1967 referendum result puts the prime responsibility on this Parliament to carry out these matters in relation to the Aboriginal population and we cannot abdicate from that responsibility. I do not think we have abdicated from it because this clause sets out not only the framework but also sets up the committee to supervise the way in which this complementary legislation comes about. It sets out that it is the duty of the parliamentary committee to see that it is properly done by the Northern Territory legislature.

I see the legislature as representing a relatively small population in the Northern Territory and its record on Aboriginal legislation to this date has not been altogether satisfactory. However, we must wait and judge in the next year or two how it operates the powers which it has been given under this Bill. If we do not like what the Northern Territory legislature does we can disallow the ordinances it puts forward. In addition, we have the committee as an additional protection to ensure that there is a bona fide exercise by the Northern Territory legislature of the powers given under this Bill. I believe that important matters such as sacred sites, persons going onto Aboriginal land and waters in the proximity of Aboriginal residences, have to be watched very closely.

We must not let down the Aboriginal population of the Northern Territory and I do not believe we will.

In my opinion this Bill has been a great exercise. There have been provisions which have been considered in great detail. It is all very well for the Opposition to say that it will oppose this clause and hope that it will be thrown out, but what a mistake it would be if we were to be in accord with that. I believe that careful scrutiny of the way in which this clause is framed and the way in which we look at the operation of complementary legislation will ensure that we do justice to our Aboriginal population.

Senator BONNER:
Queensland

– I cannot go along with the Opposition in wanting to delete this clause. I agree with many of the reasons stated by Senator Missen. The clause states in part:

  1. . but any such Ordinance has effect to the extent only that it is capable of operating concurrently with the laws of the Commonwealth, and, in particular, with this Act . . .

As far as I am concerned those words meet the situation, particularly in view of the fact that a parliamentary committee will be set up. I have nominated to be on that committee and am sure that there will be others of my colleagues, apart from Opposition senators, who will also be nominating to be on that committee. That committee will ensure that the spirit of this Bill is preserved by the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I am amazed by Senator Bonner, I really am. Clause 73 does not do what Senator Missen said it does. It is a repudiation of the responsibility that was given to the Australian Parliament in the terms in which the 1967 referendum was carried. The Opposition has moved a number of amendments which would have brought that power back into the hands of the Australian Parliament. They are the powers which the Government has so carelessly thrown away to somebody else. It is a repudiation of the 1967 referendum which led the people of this country to believe that the Australian Government at last had enough backbone to take responsibility for a problem which had existed for over 200 years. This parliamentary committee is regarded as the star in the eastern sky by honourable senators opposite- shining and glowing. It is thought that it will solve every problem.

I suggest that the setting up of that committee is a funkhole for honourable senators opposite. That is all it amounts to. It is something that they can hide behind because they do not want to take responsibility. Like honourable senators opposite, we will be clutching at straws but I hope we do not all sink together. It is true that with the defeat of our original amendment we, like the Government, now will have to rely on that committee because I have no faith in the terms of clause 73. 1 think it will be politically prostituted in the Legislative Assembly in Darwin and the responsibility for it will be on the heads of honourable senators opposite.

Senator BAUME:
New South Wales

– The record of performance in the Northern Territory with relation to some matters affecting sacred sites has been appalling. History bears that out and I will return to this subject in a minute. It is quite fallacious for Senator Keeffe to draw from that the conclusion that the only right and proper way for the situation to be remedied is for the Commonwealth to exercise its power. The Commonwealth has always had the power and until this minute it is the Commonwealth which has possessed the only executive power. The total responsibility for the failures that have taken place lies with Commonwealth administration and the honourable senator wishes those failures to be perpetuated. The Legislative Assembly has never had any executive power but it will acquire executive power on 1 January.

There are 3 requirements for effective protection of sites of significance, rights of entry and some of the other matters referred to in the clause. The first is that the complementary legislation should be adequate. The second is that the staff should be available to make it operate effectively. The third is that the enforcement provisions should be adequate and that enforcement should in fact take place.

It is a fact that there has been in the Northern Territory since 1955 an ordinance in the nature of subordinate legislation which relates to the protection of sacred sites- the Native and Historical Objects Preservation Ordinance- and it is generally acknowledged that that ordinance is defective. One of the urgent requirements, and I say this hoping that this debate will be read in many places including the Northern Territory, is that this ordinance is improved and updated. I should like to place on record that the Territorians were amongst the first to acknowledge that a new ordinance was needed. An amendment was moved- I think my colleague Senator Kilgariff will help me if I am wrong- in June this year to try to improve that piece of legislation. Dr Letts has indicated that he wants a new ordinance. I imagine that nothing should be allowed to stand in the way of the provision of effective subordinate legislation. If the Northern Territory has no drafting capacity, then let us provide the Parliamentary Counsel and do the drafting, if necessary. Let there be nothing to stand in the way of the first requirement, which is effective subordinate legislation. Nothing in what Senator Keeffe has offered suggests that such subordinate legislation should not exist and that it should not serve, when it is passed, to enhance rather than diminish protection in a number of these areas.

Dealing with the question of staff, the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly does not employ staff. Staffing in the Northern Territory has been in the hands of the Commonwealth. In a statement by Dr Letts in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, and I can provide the Hansard reference if it is required although I do not think there is any doubt about it, he suggested that 40 per cent of the tribally oriented Aborigines in Australia probably live in the Northern Territory. I should not think that was a grossly inaccurate assessment. But if we look at the number of site recorders, and there have to be site recorders for the effective implementation of an ordinance which deals with protection of sacred sites, although the Northern Territory has 40 per cent of the tribally oriented Aborigines it has only 5 per cent of the site recorders in Australia. Only 3 site recorders out of the 60 site recorders we can identify in this country are to be found in the Northern Territory.

Senator Kilgariff:

– I wonder why?

Senator BAUME:

-The reason is that the Commonwealth has not provided the resources to enable more site recorders to be employed. The three who are there are employed by the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies. Victoria can find salaries for 13 site recorders, New South Wales for 10, Queensland for 13, Western Australia for 10, South Australia for 7, Tasmania for 1, and the Australian Capital Territory for 1, but there are only three in the Northern Territory. I simply make the point that no staff means no enforcement. I hope that when the subordinate legislation operates adequate arrangements are made for staffing of these positions. The ordinances on sacred sites, for example, which was passed in 195S and is subordinate legislation, has resulted in only 6 sites being designated. The operation of that ordinance is dependent entirely upon the Commonwealth providing the staff and the back-up resources.

If I could speak briefly now about enforcement, it is here that Senator Keeffe ‘s argument really falls apart. He seems to suggest that if the Commonwealth keeps control things will be better. I say that the Commonwealth has always had control and things could not be worse. The Territory will be getting some executive power for the first time from 1 January, and it is up to us to give the Territorians a chance to do a better job. I remind honourable senators that the examples of what has happened under Commonwealth supervision are pretty horrendous. At Mount Saunders near Gove, where a gap 15 ft by 6 ft was driven into the cliff face by bulldozers during mining operations, Commonwealth supervision in the executive sense operated. I could give more details if I have to come back to it. Senator Bonner will remember the questions he asked about Quail Island. Two groups of Aboriginal people claim Quail Island as part of their dreaming and their hunting ground, but for years it has been used as a site for bombing target practice. Has it been used by the Northern Territory authorities? Of course not. It is in use by Commonwealth authorities, the Department of Defence. Senator Cavanagh will remember what I thought was a careful and generous answer he gave in this place last year to Senator Bonner, who raised the possibility of doing something about that situation. But it was a Commonwealth matter that Quail Island had been used in that way.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I doubt very much whether there is any Aboriginal claim to Quail Island.

Senator BAUME:

– We know that Aborigines are claiming the right to go back to Quail Island. In his answer, Senator Cavanagh drew attention to his concern that there might be unexploded shells there, and he referred to safety. I am not objecting to his answer; I am saying that Commonwealth activity, the kind of control Senator Keeffe wants perpetuated, did not do much good to the people of Quail Island. I refer to Top Springs and point out that when the road from Katherine to Wave Hill was being constructed carved stones were crushed for gravel by the Department of Construction, another Commonwealth department whose activities resulted in the destruction of material important to the Aboriginal people. The Department of Construction established a gravel pit. It was removed at the request of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs but some of the carved stones now form part of the road surface.

In the report on the National Estate, and I refer the Senate to paragraph 5.44, it is stated that when the Department of Civil Aviation- not a Northern Territory instrumentality but another Commonwealth Department- wanted to surface an airstrip in Arnhem Land it used shells and ash from one of the largest Aboriginal shell mounds recorded in Australia. I will quote from the report on the National Estate:

In spite of specialist advice to the Northern Territory administration-

That is Commonwealth Northern Territory administration- that the practice should cease … the same material was used for the same purpose, together with the destruction of other mounds some kilometres distant The use of midden material for roads, filling and even lime burning has been recorded from many areas throughout the continent.

The point is that there is no validity to the claim that the Commonwealth has always protected or could more effectively protect some of the sites.

Finally, I must say that until recently, when I read the Northern Territory Newsletter, I was not aware that the executive power involved would be passing to the Northern Territory on 1 January. It is only fair to realise that a new situation exists, that a new capacity will flow to the Territory, and I believe it is appropriate that the provisions in this clause should remain.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

- Senator Baume claims that my argument falls apart. It is rather sad that he has not got an argument at all. Some of the things to which he referred have been known for a long time, of course, but it is obvious that the mining lobby is desperate to maintain some sort of public esteem and has compiled a whole new list for him.

Senator Baume:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman. I find it offensive to have it suggested that anyone from any lobby has compiled a list for me.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator DrakeBrockman) Offensive to you?

Senator Baume:

– Yes, offensive to me.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Perhaps Senator Keeffe might rephrase it.

Senator KEEFFE:

– What is offensive?

Senator Baume:

– I told the Chairman. You should be listening.

Senator KEEFFE:

-I did not hear what Senator Baume said, Mr Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN:

– You inferred that somebody prepared a list for Senator Baume.

Senator Baume:

– That any lobby had prepared a list for me is an offensive statement.

Senator KEEFFE:

– My, my, we are getting touchy. I will withdraw it if we are that touchy. I return to the argument. Frankly, the argument that has been put up by Senator Baume in his defence of clause 73 and in his violent opposition to allowing the Australian Government to have any control over Aboriginal affairs-that is what it comes down to- places him in the situation where for some moral reason or other he has his back to a brick wall. I can assure Senator Baume and anybody who is thinking like him at the moment that that brick wall wil crumble and they will go down with it, mortar, dust and all. I will not use the word ‘falsehood’ but it is whistling in the dark if honourable senators opposite think the Minister will apply the power of veto. Apart from the committee that the Government Will set up, it is placing tremendous importance on the power of veto.

I have heard the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) almost like a broken record at public meetings say: ‘But I won’t allow it. I’ll veto it’. But when the pressure goes on Ministers it is only very infrequently that they apply the power of veto. I have no doubt that when this law is passed into operation and pressure goes on to that section of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly- I will not use the word ‘lobby’ because apparently it is offensive to Senator Baume- which fully supports the multinational mining companies in their bulldozing activities in Aboriginal traditional lands, the Minister will not be able to apply the power of veto. I think that we have to be realistic and acknowledge that the Bill that is being passed through this chamber, unaltered by any of our proposed amendments, has been designed by the powerful mining interests. If honourable senators opposite are realistic and truthful with themselves I think that they also must believe that. Putting up an opposition which does not even ring true with the submissions that the Opposition is putting is a great tragedy for every Aboriginal person in Australia.

Senator KILGARIFF:
Northern Territory

-Briefly, I should like to commend Senator Baume for his speech regarding this clause. It is refreshing in this place to find that somebody other than the 2 Northern Territory senators understands the situation and is prepared to stand up for the Northern Territory. Northern Territory people and their representatives in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly have a high track record so far as Northern Territory Aboriginal matters are concerned. Over the years, as I have pointed out in this debate, on many occasions they have been the first to introduce legislation relating to Aborigines. They have led the way. But despite this, despite the efforts of the people in the Northern Territory, people in both Houses of Parliament and people generally in Australia have used the people of the Northern Territory as a kicking horse. The people in the Territory have had no means whatsoever of defending themselves. As I have said before, the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly has been purely a legislative figure without any executive functions whatsoever. Throughout the years the Commonwealth has been responsible for the administration of the Northern Territory. If anyone has complaints about what has happened in the administration of the Northern Territory I suggest that he should look not in the Northern Territory but in Canberra. Senator Keeffe referred to the proposed committee and said that he looked upon it as a funk hole.

Senator Keeffe:

– Do not misinterpret what I said.

Senator KILGARIFF:

– I am only using the term. I understand Senator Keeffe said ‘funk hole’.

Senator Keeffe:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman. It is out of order for Senator Kilgariff to say that.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator DrakeBrockman) Order! Senator Keeffe, I think the best thing for you to do is to get up after Senator Kilgariff has sat down and explain your position.

Senator KILGARIFF:

– I am doing no more than saying that Senator Keeffe used the term funk hole’. I do not know in what sense he used it. It does not interest me at all, nor does it interest the people of the Northern Territory. Regardless of this, the proposed committee will be of the utmost importance to the people of the Northern Territory. Why is this? It is because it will give them an opportunity to discuss the matters. I shall not continue on this matter because I made my points earlier in the debate and I shall leave it at that. However, before I sit down I once again put the point that the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly has overseered to the best of its ability the laws that it has passed. But the Assembly has had little effect because the people of Australia have not allowed it to develop politically. Our present Liberal-National Country Party Government is now allowing the Assembly to develop politically and on 1 January next year the transfer of powers will be made to the Northern Territory. Give the Legislative Assembly and the Northern Territory people the responsibility and I can assure honourable senators that the Territory will go from strength to strength and all the various matters that concern honourable senators, I suggest, will be of no concern when they see the Legislative Assembly pick up the ropes of responsibility. I mentioned yesterday as an indication of the good faith of the Assemblyperhaps I read it too early in relation to another clause- a message which refers to reciprocal legislation. The message refers to a motion moved in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly on 18 November 1976. It states:

The Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory today, on the motion of the Majority Leader, deleted from the Territory Parks and Wildlife legislation sub-clause 3 of clause 122 referring to the prohibition on Aboriginals using vehicles and firearms for hunting.

The principles which we seek to preserve -

This is the Legislative Assembly executiveare that Aboriginal people should be entitled to hunt on thenland for traditional purposes such as food and ceremonial reasons, even where protected animals are involved, and, on the other hand, we seek to ensure that wildlife is not exploited commercially by any ethnic group.

Surely there can be no kick about that. The message continues:

The removal of this provision is an indication of the good faith of the Legislative Assembly in its efforts to secure the best possible legislation for the Aboriginal people and the whole community. It is further evidence of our desire to approach all questions of Aboriginal advancement and welfare in the spirit of consultation and co-operation.

If honourable senators want the Northern Territory to develop and the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory to be well looked after I suggest they accept this invitation to consult with the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, the people of the Northern Territory. Perhaps then we will be able to continue to look after these people. There is much to be done. But that is not the fault of the Territory; it is the fault of those people who have refused to give executive government to the Territory.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– That was another amazing little outburst. I was critical a while ago and I said that the Government was going to hide behind the proposed committee. But I do not like being quoted out of context in the way Senator Kilgariff did. I do not think one can use a weak fence and try to prop it up as an excuse for all the shortcomings of this Bill. This proposed committee will really have to work 24 hours a day if it is to supervise the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly under its present political composition because most of the people who sit in that Assembly today have no sympathy at all for Aborigines, and honourable senators opposite know that. The gun ordinance that was introduced a few weeks ago was one of the most despicable pieces of intended legislation ever produced. It was getting square on the blacks. Now Senator Kilgariff is talking about the good faith shown by the Assembly in withdrawing the ordinance. That is not a sign of good faith; that is just a sign that the Assembly is saying: ‘We will take it home for the moment. Just wait till we get our hands on some power and we will bring it back’. That is what I fear will happen. What can be done? The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) will not exercise a power of veto. He will not have a political confrontation with those of his own kind because he will be in an awkward position. There will be people behind him saying: ‘Let us cop it . I remind Senator

Kilgariff-he talked about that great place of democracy- that he is one of those who opposed the election of senators for the Northern Territory when the Labor Government proposed it.

Senator Kilgariff:

– That is a lie.

Senator KEEFFE:

– The honourable senator probably changed his mind somewhere, so I shall leave that remark on the half basis.

Senator Missen:

– By half lies.

Senator KEEFFE:

-Most of the people of the honourable senator’s Party opposed it.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator KEEFFE:

– Prior to the suspension of the sitting I was repudiating a couple of statements that were made by Senator Kilgariff. I point out to him that I think that the Northern Territory is a delightful place and that the people of the Northern Territory are delightful people. The only complaint I have about the Northern Territory is that the Country Party dominated Legislative Assembly is not doing the right thing by either the Territory or Australia. I refer now to a couple of other points he made. Senator Kilgariff endeavoured to point out how the Northern Territory had led the way in Aboriginal affairs and how it was the acme of democracy. The new powers that the Northern Territory will be getting in January are 95 per cent the result of the efforts of the Labor Government in this Parliament. For many years before the Labor Government came to office the Northern Territory was not able to get local control of any type. That was refused to it by successive conservative governments prior to 1 972. The powers that are now to be handed on are being handed on as a result of the setting up of a joint committee concerning the Northern Territory by the Labor Government in its period in office. That is all I have to say on this clause.

Senator STEELE HALL:
South Australia

– This clause has evoked a great deal of public interest I am sure that all members of this chamber have received a great deal of representation on it I want to say, but briefly, that I am not expressing the concern which I feel about this clause because of any pre-determined belief in the efficiency or otherwise of the particular body referred to- the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. I am expressing it because of the general behaviour of the States in relation to responsibilities which have some connection with federal jurisdiction. I believe that it is true that the States or the representatives of the States generally are very often too close to the people to make the hardest and most difficult decisions.

This has concerned me in relation to the implications of this clause.

I know that the situation is complicated in the sense that the Legislative Assembly is only now beginning to come of age, as is evidenced by the debates and the contributions from this side of the chamber, including those of Senator Kilgariff. My concern is that if the Legislative Assembly in the Northern Territory adopts the standards generally of State governments throughout Australia it may not fulfil its obligations. That being so, I could support this clause only on the basis of formation of the committee of oversight to survey the scene and the attention that the Assembly gives to its responsibilities, which are of course those of the Federal Parliament. It is a delegated responsibility, although I realise that it is only partly delegated in that the Federal Parliament has the ability to disallow those positive moves which the Legislative Assembly makes.

The matters which concern those of us who are concerned with or about this clause are matters of inaction on the part of the Legislative Assembly. I could in no way support this clause except for the establishment of the oversight committee. I only wanted briefly to say that. That has been my experience and observation up to even as late as this week when, I think, the Queensland Government has been obdurate and uncooperative with a Federal Minister in regard to a matter concerning the advancement of Aboriginal affairs. There is plenty of evidence of the fact that those who are closest to the scene are more likely to operate from a position of self interest. This is a dangerous condition when, of course, the responsibility constitutionally is entirely that of the Federal Government. In this instance it is very much so because of the present status of the Territory with which we are dealing. Having said that, I support the clause on the basis that I have the fullest of confidence in the Parliament being able to put together an oversight committee which will report here after an active survey of the Assembly’s activity in this area.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

-In addressing himself to this clause prior to the suspension of the sitting- I was listening to him in my room- Senator Kilgariff criticised the Whitlam Government for not giving executive powers to the Northern Territory. I would like to remind Senator Kilgariff, as Senator Keeffe did a few moments ago, that it was the Whitlam Government which set up a joint parliamentary committee to look into executive powers for the Northern Territory. We were frustrated in our efforts to set up that committee by Senator

Kilgariff’s Party. The functioning of that committee was held up for at least 6 months because the members of the Liberal and Country Parties in this chamber could not agree as to who was to represent the then Opposition on that committee. We had to go through a winter recess without the committee being set up. The person who kicked up all the fuss in this Parliament did not attend 100 per cent to the work of the committee when he was appointed to the committee. I have mentioned this previously in the Parliament.

Senator Jessop:

– One hundred per cent?

Senator McLAREN:

- His attendance was not 100 per cent. I should think that his attendance for committee work would not even have been 50 per cent. Senator Keeffe and I religiously stuck to our duties to bring about a fully elected Legislative Assembly in the Northern Territory and to give it certain powers. Senator Kilgariff has now criticised the Whitlam Government for not giving the Northern Territory executive powers. The matter goes back a bit further than that. As Senator Keeffe mentioned earlier, Senator Kilgariff’s Party and the Liberal Party, which were then in Opposition, did not want to give representation to the Northern Territory in the Senate. They fought such a proposition tooth and nail. Senator Jessop, who is sitting on the other side of the chamber, had the temerity to stand up in this chamber and say -

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– What clause are you on?

The CHAIRMAN:

- Senator McLaren, I would like you to deal with the clause that is before the chamber.

Senator McLAREN:

-That is what I am endeavouring to do, Mr Chairman. As happened yesterday, I would not have come into this debate but for the accusations that were made about the Whitlam Government by supporters of this Government. Their criticism has to be replied to in the debate on this clause. There is no other way in which it can be done, Mr Chairman. Senator Kilgariff claimed that the previous Government would not give executive power to the Legislative Assembly in the Northern Territory. This matter comes under clause 73 which refers to reciprocal legislation of the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory Legislative Assembly is now a fully elected body and now has certain powers because of the actions of the Whitlam Labor Government, not because of the actions of a previous Liberal-Country Party Government. That must be put on record. This is the only clause in relation to which I can deal with it. If Senator Kilgariff had not come into this chamber and made certain claims I would not have risen. Having been a member of the committee which came down with the recommendation that the Northern Territory be given a fully elected Legislative Assembly, I think that I am entitled to stand up for the Whitlam Government and say what it did in this respect.

I have pointed out, in relation to this clause, that we were frustrated in our efforts to give the Northern Territory certain powers and we were also frustrated in our efforts to give it representation in this chamber. Senator Kilgariff was elected to this chamber because of the Whitlam Government’s actions. It is because of its actions that he has been able to come into this chamber and criticise the Labor Opposition- wrongly soabout things that he said the Whitlam Government should have done. It did everything that it could possibly do to give certain powers to the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. At the joint sitting after the double dissolution -

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

- Mr Chairman, I seek your advice on a matter that I raise in the context of the Standing Orders. The Standing Orders require an honourable senator who is on his feet in the Committee stage of a debate to relate his remarks to a clause of a Bill. I have not heard one word from Senator McLaren that indicates that he even understands what are the elements of this clause. I suggest that the Standing Orders should be applied and that he should relate his remarks to the clause with which the Committee is dealing.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I think that you are right, Senator Sir Magnus Cormack, but I must say in fairness that when Senator Keeffe objected to what was said by Senator Kilgariff I said that he should take the opportunity of rising and replying to the matter the next time he received the call. I remind Senator McLaren that we are dealing with a particular clause. I do not want a speech that would be made in a second reading debate.

Senator McLAREN:

– I take notice of your remarks, Mr Chairman. Of course, Senator Cormack does not like anyone on the Opposition side of the chamber to rebut the unfair claims that are made from his side of the chamber. As I said, this is the only clause on which I can rebut what Senator Kilgariff said. If Senator Cormack was fair and just in his remarks in trying to prevent me from saying what I am saying, why did he not rise to his feet and object to what Senator Kilgariff said? If I am outside this clause, so too was Senator Kilgariff. If Senator Cormack had not intervened I would have finished my remarks by now. I was going on to say we had to have a Joint Sitting of both Houses to give the people in the Northern Territory Senate representation. The legislation was passed with all Country Party members except one voting against it.

Senator Baume:

– Who was that one?

Senator McLAREN:

– The one was Mr Calder.

Senator Baume:

– Of course it was Mr Calder.

Senator McLAREN:

– I was going on to say that, but Senator Baume had to rush in where angels fear to tread. After that decision was taken the Liberal Party challenged it in the High Court, to try to prevent the people of the Northern Territory from electing senators. That should be placed on the record. I give Senator Kilgariff his due. He gave evidence to the joint parliamentary committee. In response to my questioning of Senator Kilgariff, I well recall him saying that he was in favour of Senate representation and that he was making strong representations to his Party to allow the Senate representation legislation through. But, of course, Senator Kilgariff was locked into his Party and his Party did not do what he said. I have said what I want to say. Despite what honourable senators opposite have done to try to prevent it from going on the record, it is now on the record.

Senator BONNER:
Queensland

– I did not intend to enter this debate again, but I have been prompted to do so after hearing the cackling of Senator McLaren- which, I suppose, because of his background, is appropriate -

The CHAIRMAN (Senator DrakeBrockman) Order! I remind the Committee that parliamentary language is characterised by good temper and moderation. I suggest that we remember that.

Senator BONNER:

-Thank you, Mr Chairman. I bow to your ruling. This clause gives certain responsibilities to the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. Because it is in keeping with the Liberal-National Country Party philosophy of co-operative federalism, I think it is appropriate. We are giving the Legislative Assembly certain powers in relation to the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory. I believe it is quite right that we should do that, because we have placed certain safeguards on it. I said earlier that it is written into the Bill that no ordinance of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly in this area can operate except concurrently with the laws of the Commonwealth as set out in the Bill we are debating at the moment. On top of that we are setting up a joint parliamentary committee to look at this legislation.

I am very disturbed by some of the comments that have been made on the Opposition side of the chamber, because at the moment the Legislative Assembly happens to comprise LiberalNational Country Party members. I am just wondering whether the Opposition is conceding that it is possible that the Australian Labor Party will never have a majority in the Legislative Assembly. If at some future time it happens to have a majority, honourable senators opposite are condemning people of their own political faith. They are saying that even they would not adhere to the spirit of the Bill that we are debating at the moment. I think it is rather foolish and rather stupid of the Opposition to say that no Legislative Assembly would be able to carry out these responsibilities of its own accord or of its own wishes, because of feelings it has for the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory, regardless of the safeguards which are implicit within this Bill and the committee that will be exercising an oversight of the whole legislation. ‘

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I am brought into the debate now. I have been very quiet today. After listening to the remarks of Senator Bonner, I wonder how much honourable senators understand the Bill. As Senator Baume- it may have been Senator Missen-said earlier, there will be problems if the clause is defeated and not replaced with something. Senator Keeffe put down 3 amendments which have been defeated. His amendments were in accordance with Australian Labor Party policy and in accordance largely with the recommendation of the Woodward report that entry to sacred sites be controlled mostly by the land councils for the Aborigines in the Northern Territory. The land was a gift and therefore the Aborigines should have it. The Government policy now is to hand too much power over to the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. Whatever may be the political flavour of the Assembly in the future, it is a body that will have control, The question is whether it should have control in preference to the Aborigines having control. hat is the whole point at issue.

We are opposing the clause in anticipation that if it is defeated it will be replaced with something desirable. If it is not, we will be back to where we are now, with both the Commonwealth and the Legislative Assembly having power in regard to this question. With the power that the Legislative Assembly is acquiring, it will have the right to protect sacred sites. We are told that, because we as a Commonwealth behaved badly in the past and did not do our job when we had the authority to do it, we cannot be trusted in the future. Senator Kilgariff some weeks ago, when speaking of the achievements of the Legislative Assembly, told us that the Legislative Assembly did pass legislation to preserve sacred sites and that, although it is true that at that stage it had preserved only one site, it was a start. This shows the difficulty of handing power over to a new body to carry out what is desired. I do not know whether it is right word, but I think the use of the word ‘funkhole’ has some meaning with reference to the committee that is being set up. It immediately suggests that we do not trust the Legislative Assembly when we say that we want an overseeing role m respect of the legislation. Those who sit on the Government benches are relying purely on the committee to make up for the betrayal that they are perpetrating through this legislation. Everything rests on the committee. The onus is on the members of the committee to provide justification for what is happening with respect to Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory at present, while no alternative to the clause is presented now, the alternative has been presented. The matter will have to be looked at if the Opposition succeeds in deleting the clause.

Clause agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The Committee has already given Senator Keeffe permission to take his last 3 amendments together. I suggest to the Committee that we take the remainder of the Bill as a whole and allow Senator Keeffe to talk to his amendments too. Is it the wish of the Committee that we take the remainder of the Bill as a whole? There being no objection, it is so ordered.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– It has been a very long and trying debate. For us on the Opposition side and the Aboriginal people, of course, it has been a very disappointing one. I propose an amendment to clause 74. 1 move:

Leave out clause 74, substitute the following clause:

( 1 ) Subject to sub-section (2), this Act does not affect the application to Aboriginal land of a law of the Northern Territory to the extent that that law is capable of operating concurrently with this Act.

The regulations may provide for the exclusion or modification of a law of the Northern Territory in its application to Aboriginal land ‘.

The Tanami Desert was part of the original 1975 Bill. It also was part of the 1976 Bill that the Liberal-National Country Party Government brought down in June. Among the recent 42 amendments the Tanami Desert was eliminated from the Schedule. In respect of Schedule 1, I move:

After the description of land set out under the heading Santa Teresa’, insert the following:

page 2913

QUESTION

TANAMI

All that piece of land in the Northern Territory of Australia containing an area of 37 529 square kilometres more or less: Commencing at the intersection of the meridian of east longitude 130 degrees 28 minutes S3.96 seconds with the parallel of south latitude 21 degrees; thence west for a distance of 16 093 metres; thence north to the parallel of south latitude 19 degrees 51 minutes 16.69 seconds; thence east to a point north of the western corner of Pastoral Lease 594 (Willowra); thence south to the said western corner; thence southeasterly, southerly, westerly and again southerly by southwestern, western, northern and again western boundaries of the said Pastoral Lease to the southwestern corner of the said Pastoral Lease; thence southerly by the western boundary of Pastoral Lease 634 (Mount Barkly) to the southwestern corner of the said Pastoral Lease; thence westerly, northerly and again westerly and southerly by pan of northern, an eastern, again a northern and a western boundary of Pastoral Lease 590 (Mount Denison) to the most western southwestern corner of the said Pastoral Lease; thence westerly by pan of the northern boundary of the Yuendumu Aboriginal Reserve as notified in Northern Territory Government Gazette No. 24 of 28 May 1952 to the northwestern corner of the said Reserve; thence northerly, westerly, again northerly and again westerly by an eastern, a northern, across a stock route, again a northern, again an ‘ eastern and again a northern boundary of Pastoral Lease 802 (Mount Doreen) to the most northern northwestern corner of the said Pastoral Lease; then northerly and westerly by part of the eastern boundary and the northern boundary of Pastoral Lease 764 (Chilla Well) to its intersection with the meridian of east longitude 130 degrees, 28 minutes 53.96 seconds; thence north to the point of commencement.’.

I understand that it has been said that the Tanami Desert was included in the 1976 Bill because it was a printer’s error. This is not what the Warlpiri people say. They claim that certain people need a large section of that area for their own enrichment, financially of course, and they are not Aboriginal people. The Opposition’s final amendment seeks to leave out Schedule 2 headed ‘Ranger Project Area’. I move:

Leave out the Schedule.

The Opposition wants to delete Schedule 2 from the Bill because we believe it puts the Ranger area into the category of the Borroloola area. In other words, this would give the miners a clear run down the straight. The Tanami Desert story is best told in a letter written by Miss Mary Laughren from Yuendumu in the Northern Territory and published in today’s issue of the Canberra Times. I will quote several paragraphs from it because I think they sum up pretty well the attitude of the local Aboriginal people. It reads:

As a resident of the Yuendumu Aboriginal Reserve (Northern Territory), I wish to protest at the L/CP moves to omit the Tanami Desert Wildlife Sanctuary from the schedule of lands to be given to the Warlpiri people, a great number of whom own (in the Aboriginal way) tracts of land of great religious significance in this area . . .

The omission of this area from the Bill is especially insidious in the light of the recent Law on National Parks and Wildlife Reserves Section 122 (3) enacted by the Northem Territory Legislative Assembly forbidding entry by motor vehicle or the carrying of firearms for hunting.

As we have heard, that is not likely to become law at the moment. The letter continues:

If Tanami is excluded from the land rights Bill, the Warlpiri people’s religious duties to visit their sacred sites will be denied and the area of land on which they can hum, still a significant source of their food, will be drastically reduced.

The L/CP in the Northern Territory is trying to limit Aboriginal people to the tiny tracts of land now occupied by Aboriginal reserves. Yuendumu, 2200 square kilometres, supports approximately 1200 Aboriginal people and over 100 non-Aboriginals.

I think it is pertinent to remind the Senate at this point in time that the great bulk of Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory live on a minimum area of land and the very small white population lives on the maximum area of land. I continue with the letter

The pastoral property of Mount Doreen to the west of Yuendumu, 6SS3 square kilometers, supports one nonAboriginal family and a handful of Aborigines as does Mount Denison to the east, 2709 square kilometres.

The Tanami Desert Wildlife Reserve is 37 529 square kilometres. The Northern Territory statistics on land partition between whites and blacks in non-urban areas are probably not very different from those cited in criticism of South Africa.

That is a very true statement and it bears out what I said a few moments ago. The letter continues:

Aboriginal reserves such as Yuendumu are economically unviable and will remain so. People are condemned to live on hand-outs and this is destroying them.

Despite the myths of Aborigines living like lords on the dole and pensions, the real situation is that there are no jobs for most of the young people leaving school and because they have not been employed they are ineligible for unemployment benefits.

Big numbers of idle, frustrated, disillusioned young people can only result in moral abuses, violence and degradation.

That applies to whites as well as to blacks. There will be precisely the same trouble this year with all the school leavers in the metropolitan areas. The letter continues:

Traditionally, Aboriginal people lived in small groups, viable economic units based on their food-gathering economy. Their society, like any other, cannot stand the strains of dense population based on an unviable economy.

If the L-CP persists in its moves to deny to Aboriginal people title to significant areas of their traditional lands then it can consider itself responsible for the destruction of the Aboriginal race-a charge which the South African Ambassador to the UN might well like to take up in answer to the hypocritical statements of Mr Peacock and the Australian Ambassador to the UN.

I believe that sums up fairly adequately the feeling that I have in this regard. I believe it sums up the feeling that the Aboriginal people have too. I want to make a few final remarks before this Bill is disposed of. The people who have helped me with it have been really tremendous in the compilation of the amendments moved in the Committee stage, including the advisers. If all or any of our amendments had been carried it would have brought the Bill back to something like a real land rights Bill. Today, when the final bell is rung down on this Bill, will be one of the saddest days ever known in Australia’s history-a day on which by a combination of the forces of darkness the Aboriginal people are again denied the justice that we have denied them for the last 200 years.

I was upset a while ago when Senator Bonner was passing some criticism of one of our amendments to a previous clause. He has taken very little interest in this Bill. If he had been here at some stage yesterday he would have heard me say that I was not opposed to institutions, organisations or people in the Northern Territory but I did say that under the present political control we cannot expect the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly to carry out the spirit of this legislation, let alone the legal side of it. He said: ‘What will happen if there is a Labor Party there? ‘ If there were a Labor Party in office in the Northern Territory I would not be nearly as worried because at least it would do the major part of carrying out the responsibilities under the legislation. The Labor Party has a history even in our short period in government of giving justice to the Aboriginal people in this country and that is more than the party to which Senator Bonner belongs has ever shown in the whole of its history. It is perpetuating and continuing that in every way on this occasion.

It is a sad day for democracy too, when the Australian Government which was elected 361 days ago with one of its main promises of greater things for the Aboriginal people repudiates that promise in this Bill as it has repudiated promises in every other piece of legislation it has produced in the past 11 months. Now the Government finds itself pressured to the extent that it is now about to pass into law skeleton legislation nicknamed the ‘land rights legislation’. This legislation is only a shadow of what it ought to be. It is those who sit opposite who have to lIve with their consciences. I hope they do not have too many nightmares over this legislation.

I finally want to say that the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory fear the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. They fear its ordinances. They fear everything associated with it. They have never had justice from either the present Legislative Assembly or any of its predecessors. On that note I let my case rest and I hope these final 3 amendments will be carried as just one tiny symbol of justice to the Aboriginal people of Australia.

Senator BONNER:
Queensland

-I am bound to rise to my feet on this occasion because Senator Keeffe has said that he and his party are disappointed and the Aboriginal people of Australia are disappointed. I question the right of Senator Keeffe to say that, because Senator Keeffe does not represent all Aborigines. He does not represent the feelings of all Aboriginal people in this country. As a matter of fact, he certainly does not represent my feelings on this particular issue or the feelings of those who support me. I can only say that much of what Senator Keeffe has said in relation to my party is a lot of poppycock. The Labor Party has done no more or less than the Liberal-Country parties have done. All government have been at fault in relation to Aboriginal affairs.

Yesterday Senator Keeffe asked the President of the Senate to set a precedent because he desired to play some tapes. At this point in time I am tempted to ask you, Mr Chairman, to set a precedent and allow me to get into the centre of this chamber and do a corroboree because I believe that today I have something to celebrate and that is the final passing of a land rights Bill that will do much for the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory, those people of whom I am a part.

I am proud that this Bill has finally come before this chamber and will finally be brought into law. That is much more than the Labor Party has ever done. Senator Keeffe talks about the Liberal Party not doing very much for Aborigines. Let us look at those honourable senators who sit on the other side of the chamber. Which one of them is representing the Aborigines? There are certainly no Aborigines among them. They would not give an Aborigine the opportunity of contesting a seat which could be won by the Labor Party. They have never done that in the whole history of the Labor Party, and I do not believe that they are ever likely to do it. Let them put their money where their mouths are. Let them have elected an Aboriginal representative as a member of the Labor Party, whether it is sitting on this side of the chamber or on the other side. I think it will be a long time before the Labor Party will be on this side of the chamber, let alone having an Aboriginal representative.

The only seat that the Labor Party has ever allowed an Aborigine to contest was a blue ribbon Liberal seat. It knew very well that the Aborigine did not have a chance of winning. That happened in Queensland. That is what the Labor

Party did to Kath Walker. It did it to the late Harold Blair in Victoria. They are the only Aboriginal people whom the Labor Party has ever allowed to contest a seat, and they were blue ribbon Liberal seats. It is sheer hypocrisy.

I proudly represent in this chamber the Aboriginal people and the Liberal Party of Queensland and of Australia. I want to pay tribute at this stage to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the Honourable Ian Viner, who worked very hard to draft a Bill which will finally bring to the Aboriginal people recognition of their rights in Aboriginal affairs and in land rights. I pay him great tribute. I pay tribute also to all my colleagues who have proposed amendments which have made this Bill a good, workable Bill. It is a Bill which I know the Aboriginal people will accept. I accept it. I will work to ensure that the implementation of the Bill is carried out in the best interests of the Aboriginal people. I will be looking to see whether Senator Keeffe is a member of the proposed Aboriginal joint committee. I think it will be disappointed. I hoped that Senator Keeffe would at least have had the courage to nominate to be a member of that committee. As I understand it, he has declined to do so.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I feel that I have been invited to rise to speak as a result of Senator Bonner’s remarks. I think that Senator Bonner is very embarrassed at the position in which he finds himself in relation to this Bill. As I have always claimed, if anyone has destroyed himself it is Senator Bonner over this Bill. During the second reading debate I pointed out that there was a tendency to judge one’s interest in Aboriginal affairs by one’s utterances. At that time I challenged Government senators to state the activities in which they had engaged. For Senator Bonner to say that Aboriginal interests are not represented on this side of the chamber is entirely unfair. Senator Keeffe has spent many more years looking after the interests of Aboriginals and raising them in this chamber than Senator Bonner has been politically active in Aboriginal affairs.

Senator Bonner must face the challenge that I think every Aboriginal who represents Aboriginals in this place, especially a member of the Liberal Party, must face when his loyalty to his people conflicts with his loyalty to his party. That is what has occurred on this occasion. He found that his loyalty to his Party was in conflict with his loyalty to his people. His people had to be sacrificed. He downgraded himself in the eyes of the Aboriginal people. He has tried to seek publicity today by suggesting that he would perform a corroboree in the Senate chamber. He did that in the hope that it will make newspaper headlines tomorrow.

Senator Bonner spoke about the efforts of the Labor Party on behalf of Aboriginals. We have allowed Aboriginal candidates to stand in reasonably safe Labor seats. If Senator Bonner knew anything about Aboriginals he would know about Sir Douglas Nicholls who, on the recommendation of the Labor Party, holds a much higher position than does Senator Bonner.

He was appointed to that position mostly as a reward for his continuous years of service to the Aboriginal people.

Senator Missen:

– Not the Labor Parry?

Senator CAVANAGH:

-The Aboriginal people. On the recommendation of the Labor Party, he is now the successful Governor of South Australia. That shows that the Labor Party has confidence in the capabilities of Aboriginal people. It is regrettable that over the last few days the one Aboriginal person with whom we are associated in this Parliament has destroyed somewhat that confidence. Nevertheless, we hope that we shall continue to have confidence in the Aboriginal people and that Aboriginal people will see Senator Bonner for what he is. I think that he is a true Liberal Party member. When a conflict arises between his Party and the Aboriginal people, his loyalty is to his Party. Let me point out just who has the interests of Aboriginals at heart. Senator Keeffe has moved for the deletion of clause 74 and for the insertion of the following new clause: 74. ( 1) Subject to sub-section (2), this Act does not affect the application to Aboriginal land of a law of the Northern Territory to the extent that that law is capable of operating concurrently with this Act

  1. The regulations may provide for the exclusion or modification of a law of the Northern Territory in its application to Aboriginal land.

The purpose of that amendment again is to try to preserve the rights of Aboriginals. It seeks to modify the law so that Aboriginal law will not be overridden by the white man’s law enacted by the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory. We are told that the Aboriginal representative in this place will reject that amendment. He is going to regard as being superior to the Aboriginals of the Northern Territory the law of the Legislative Assembly.

As I have said in the past, the Labor Party has a greater interest in Aboriginals than has the Liberal Party. As I have just been reminded, I visited the Kimberley area in Western Australia. The mayor of one town in that area is now an Aboriginal candidate for the Labor Party to represent the Kimberley district. His name is Ernie Bridges. After he wins the seat at the forthcoming State election he will be the Labor Party’s representative in the Western Australian State Parliament. So we are concerned about Aborigines. We have promoted their cause more than has any other party. Nothing was done for them until we took office in 1972. For Senator Bonner to denigrate what we have done for Aboriginals and to claim that he is the champion of Aborigines when he has neglected them all along the line, is simply false.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK (Victoria) (2.53)- I wish to enter the debate for a moment. I think that I should make the observation that I have known Senator Cavanagh ever since he entered the Senate. I am sure that Senator Cavanagh would acknowledge that I have always treated him with the greatest of courtesy and respect for the quality of mind that he displays from time to time in the Senate. However, I think he has abdicated that favourable situation by the remarks that he has made in relation to Senator Bonner who sits in front of me. There may be an implied rebuke in the words which I am now going to address to you, Mr Chairman, but both Senator Bonner and Senator Cavanagh are doing less than justice to the people whose cause they seek to espouse by describing the Aboriginal people as anything else but what they are, namely, citizens of Australia. So when Senator Bonner, for example, talks about the Aboriginal people as ‘my people’, he is not talking about his people; he is talking about our people. They are our people. When Senator Cavanagh tries to draw distinctions between 2 peoples-the native people who originally occupied this country and those who now occupy it- it is a dissent from the concept which is embraced by most Australians, namely, that all people who live in this country are Australian citizens.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Yes, but not treated the same; not treated as Australians.

Senator SIR MAGNUS CORMACK:

-We have problems with other ethnic groups in Australia besides the Aboriginal people and we also have to solve social problems. On the concluding stages of this Bill I beg that honourable senators do not now draw distinctions between Australian citizens in an objectionable way.

Senator BONNER:
Queensland

– I feel bound to rise to my feet again to answer Senator Cavanagh who stated that I followed directly the Party fine. That is quite inaccurate. As I have proved since coming into this chamber in 1971, I am quite capable of bucking the Party line. I have done that on occasions. I want to state categorically something I have stated many times over the years since I have been a senator I see my responsibilities as a senator representing the State of Queensland, first and foremost to God, secondly to my nation, thirdly to my State and fourthly to my Party, but interwoven through this sequence is my love of race and my burning desire to do whatever I possibly can to advance the cause of my own race of people.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– I rise simply to indicate that the Government does not accept the amendments of the Opposition. Clause 74 of the Bill is intended to show that local ordinances relating to matters such as water control, soil erosion, bushfire control and disease prevention shall apply to Aboriginal land. With regard to the proposed amendment, the Government does not believe that it is in the interests of future cooperation with the Northern Territory that a regulation should be able to change or exclude a Northern Territory law. The Tanami Desert is deleted from the schedule consistent with the policy that claims to all lands other than the reserves and mission areas should be considered by the Land Commissioner. Following the remarks of Senator Keeffe it is of interest to know that the Tanami Desert area is of no economic significance being largely a spinifex desert unsuitable for grazing. It is acknowledged that it is of significance to traditional Aboriginal landowners of the area. It is understood that a claim for this area has already been prepared. An additional schedule has been added to describe the Ranger project area which will be exempt from the consent procedures of the Bill referred to in clauses 40 and 41.

May I say at the concluding stage of the Bill that we do not regard this as the saddest day in history as Senator Keeffe does. We believe that with some generosity of spirit it could be acknowledged m the Senate today that this Bill is of significance to Aboriginal people. It is a Bill which has for the first time put down the acknowledgement and recognition of their rights to traditional land. If, as a result of passing this Bill, we are able to move further in our understanding of the needs of Aboriginal people and our desire to help them achieve the life which they themselves desire I believe that a great step forward has been taken on this occasion. It could be regretted that at some times emotion has been shown from either side of the Senate as we have dealt with this somewhat sensitive legislation but as I regard Senator Bonner as a valuable member of my Party I feel sure that people widely through Australia also regard him as a valuable member of the Senate. It is in the spirit of recognition of achievements of people who have entered this place that perhaps we join together in feeling that this is an important day. This is an important piece of legislation.

I should like to thank all those who have contributed to the debate. In some cases they have placed on record their reservations to the legislation as it now stands. In other cases they have given us a greater understanding of the needs of Aborigines wherever they may be. In these terms I believe that progressively we will be able to make additional movement towards an understanding of the needs of Aborigines. I think that this is a collective responsibility of all those who sit in this place. I should like to pay tribute also to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) who has been responsible for achieving this legislation, to the officers of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and the head of the Department, Mr Dexter, and in particular to our very patient adviser, Mr Long, who has been with us in the Senate throughout this debate. We now move to the final vote on the amendments that have been moved by the Opposition. As I have indicated they are not acceptable to the Government.

Question put:

That the amendments (Senator Keeffe’s) be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Senator the Hon. T. C. Drake-Brockman)

AYES: 25

NOES: 34

Majority……. 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendments negatived.

Remainder of Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Aboriginal Councils and Associations Bill (No. 2) 1976 and States Grants (Aboriginal Assistance) Bill 1976 reported without amendment, and Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Bill 1976 reported with amendments; report adopted.

Third Readings

Bills (on motion by Senator Guilfoyle) together read a third time.

page 2918

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Interim Report

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

– I present the interim report of the Standing Committee on Science and the Environment covering its inquiry into the impact on the Australian environment of the current woodchip industry program. I seek leave to move ‘That the Senate take note of the report’.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator JESSOP:

– I move:

That the Senate take note of the report:

The Senate, on 28 November 1974, resolved that there be referred to the Standing Committee on Social Environment the following matter:

The Impact on the Austraiian Environment of the current Woodchip Industry Program.

The Standing Committee on Social Environment embarked upon an investigation of this reference during the Autumn Session of Parliament 1975. Considerable progress had been made by the time the inquiry was brought to a halt by the dissolution of Parliament on 11 November 1975. On 25 March 1976, in terms identical to the original resolution, the Senate resolved that the matter of the environmental impact of the woodchip industry be referred to the Standing Committee on Science and the Environment created on 2 March this year. During the course of the inquiry 125 witnesses were examined at public hearings held on 14 separate dates in 8 different towns or cities. A total of 241 written submissions were made to the inquiry. The Committee also made field inspections of the areas of present and proposed woodchipping projects in New South Wales, Tasmania, Victoria and Western Australia. The final hearing in the inquiry was held in Canberra on 1 8 October 1 976.

It was the original aim of the Committee to present its report in full before the end of the Budget Session 1976. The Committee adopted this timescale, mindful that the Harris Daishowa export licence expires at the end of 1977 and that contractors and others associated with the woodchip project at Eden would be anxious to have adequate notice should any findings of the Committee have repercussions entailing action on their part with respect to commitments beyond the expiry date. Unfortunately the complexity and range of topics to be considered, coupled with the sheer bulk of evidence to be sifted, have delayed completion of the final report. It is anticipated that it will be ready for tabling early in the Autumn Session. Meanwhile contractors, their dependants, and indeed a considerable segment of the community in Eden are facing some uncertainty as to recommendations of the Committee which could have an important influence on their future. The Committee accordingly has resolved to make known certain of its conclusions and recommendations, particularly with respect to Eden.

It is impossible in this brief interim report to summarise the voluminous, complex and sometimes highly technical evidence that has been put before the Committee. This detail will be set out in the final report currently approaching completion in draft form. The Committee therefore requests that full debate be deferred until such time as the final report can be tabled and detailed examination made of bases of the Committee’s findings. It is emphasised that the conclusions and recommendations in the interim report represent no more than a small part of the findings of the inquiry. Furthermore they are presented in the report in interim form. By this is meant that, whilst it is not anticipated that the import of any of them will be reversed or altered, the manner of presentation may well be different in the final report.

As most honourable senators will be aware, considerable controversy surrounds the woodchip industry. Its critics, no less than its defenders, include many reputable persons well qualified to speak on the sometimes highly technical matters coming within the ambit of the inquiry. The Committee accordingly has been faced with a difficult task in reaching its interim findings. This task has not been made any easier by the lack of detailed, researched information which pervades the whole area of ecological and environmental study in Australia. Having examined and weighed the evidence presented to it, the Committee concludes unanimously that, even though clearfelling for woodchips poses a number of environmental problems, curtailment of the current woodchip industry program is not warranted at this time.

The Committee considers that some of the more immediate environmental problems are well recognised and are capable of being acceptably minimised by the proper application of management prescriptions currently laid down by the various State forest authorities. The Committee is not satisfied that these management prescriptions are being correctly observed at present. This poor observance is in part a result of the structure, traditional attitudes and limited resources of the forest industry and forestry authorities. The Committee is particularly concerned at the relative lack of professional and research expertise in the harvesting sector of the industry. Other environmental problems, particularly those relating to soil nutrients, wildlife preservation and conservation of genetic characteristics, are less well understood, and require further research to identify their true nature and magnitude. Results of this research should be applied not only to overcoming the problems but also to improving overall management of the forests for wildlife and recreation, as well as timber production.

The Committee sees overall benefits to the community from an increased use of the currently burnt sawmill and silvicultural residues as a source of woodchips. However, approval of schemes to make use of this material should ensure that it is restricted to genuine waste and that forests are not encroached upon merely to maintain or increase chip supplies.

The Committee is concerned at the potential for environmental damage represented by the present absence of control over felling operations m private forests. It is also disturbed at the small area of private forest to which positive regeneration measures are applied. In Tasmania, in particular, a serious problem for the future can be discerned unless appropriate corrective action is taken soon.

The total environmental impact of woodchip operations cannot be fully assessed at this time because of the large number of inadequately researched factors to be taken into account. Empirical observations, coupled with experience and some research, tend to indicate that in the sort term, present operations in relatively restricted areas are acceptable provided environmental prescriptions are observed. However much less confidence is felt with respect to long term effects. The Committee accordingly considers that no new projects involving the clear felling of forests specifically for woodchips should be started until such time as the doubts concerning long term effects on the environment can be resolved.

The inquiry has highlighted for the Committee the inadequate recognition given by planning authorities to the full range of factors needed to ensure adequate conservation of Australian fauna and flora in parks and reserves. Detailed examination of these factors is required in the context of the need to set aside areas of forest for wilderness, intensive forestry, and a complete range of community uses. This entails effective multi-disciplinary land use planning on a national scale.

In this connection the Committee has had drawn to its attention the potential of the Nadgee Nature Reserve near Eden as a wildlife conservation and scientific reference area, provided the Merrica and Nadgee Rivers flowing through it, have their catchment areas securely protected from alteration by woodchip operations. The Committee accordingly considers that review of the reserve boundaries would be most timely.

I again emphasise that the points I have just mentioned do no more than sketch a few of the issues dealt with in the full report now approaching completion. They are being made public now in order that a few urgent decisions may be made in the light of the Committee’s findings. In view of this I ask that detailed comment be held back until the full range and depth of the matters considered by the Committee can be revealed at the tabling of the final report. In conclusion I record my personal and the Committee’s appreciation of the efforts of the staff in enabling the presentation of this report to be made.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– by leave- As Deputy Chairman of the Committee and a senator from the State in which we first grasped the nettle in respect of the woodchip industry, I endorse the statement that has been made by the Chairman of the Committee. We tried to develop arrangements for coexistence between conservationists and developmentalists. It is true that we have laid down stringent rules and I think in his concluding remarks the Chairman indicated that there was an obligation on the State Government of my political complexion to recognise the plunge that we are taking and to ensure that good faith is kept with all concerned. The Committee agrees that the employment syndrome is paramount in the timber industry, particularly at Eden. As mentioned in conclusion 9- and it was reinforced by recommendation-we expect that there will be prompt action from the New South Wales Government to transfer land to add to the Nadgee fauna reserve.

It is obvious that there is a pattern emerging in the strong effort to get co-existence to ensure that we do have this forest enclave concept. It is like any industrial dispute. If each side does not make simultaneous concessions somebody can say that he has been sold out. I know that various interpretations were placed on the first Fox report but I conclude by saying that when we come back in February I will be disappointed, although I do not think I will be, if the New South Wales Government has not met its part of the bargain in relation to the subtraction of land because under cross-examination by me it was revealed that the Eden operators can live in a reduced forestry region. It is on those grounds that I support all that Senator Jessop has said. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2920

QUESTION

JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND DEFENCE

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK (Victoria) I present the report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on its inquiry into the boundary between Australia and Papua New Guinea, and move:

That the report be printed.

I merely wish to draw the attention of the Parliament to the fact that this Committee has examined this problem for a period of 8 months and, lest it be thought that there is some inorganic decrepitude in this, I assure honourable senators that there is none. I seek leave to have the balance of my remarks incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

The speech read as follows-

In May of this year the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence decided to investigate the boundary between Australia and Papua New Guinea. A sub-committee was appointed to carry out this investigation which to some degree was restricted as the question is already the subject of negotiations between Australia and Papua New Guinea. The subcommittee received evidence, some of which was heard in camera, from a number of witnesses including departmental officers, academics and a number of private citizens.

As part of its investigations the sub-committee visited the Torres Strait area and held public hearings on a number of islands including Yam, Saibai and Thursday Island. As a result of this visit the sub-committee felt it had gained a valuable insight into the attitude of the average Torres Strait Islander regarding any proposals to change the existing border. The report contains a number of quotations of evidence from representatives of the Islanders made to the subcommittee during their visit.

As part of the investigation the Committee considered material relating to the establishment of the 1879 line under the Queensland Coast Island Act of 1879 which delineated islands around the coast of Queensland, including those in the Torres Strait which should be considered as part of Queensland. Since that date this line has commonly been regarded as marking the boundary between Queensland and Papua New Guinea. The report was accepted by the Committee with reservations by Mr R. Jacobi, M.P., and Dr P. Klugman, M.P., who each had certain separate reservations. These are attached to the report as separate statements.

The Committee’s recommendations include: The Torres Strait Islands should remain part of Australia; that the Government should, as soon as feasible, make a statement in Parliament setting out its position on the Torres Strait boundary; if a protected zone is established in the area freedom of passage for Australians and Papua New Guineans should be guaranteed, mining and drilling in the seabed should be prohibited until agreement is reached between all interested parties and new commercial ventures should not be permitted in the area unless they are compatible with the environment; competent counsel should be provided to the Torres Strait Islanders if required by the people of Torres Strait.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2920

PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

-I present the Ninth Report of the Publications Committee.

Report- by leave-adopted.

page 2921

INTERPARLIAMENTARY UNION CONFERENCE

Senator YOUNG:
South Australia

-by leave- I lay on the table the report of the Australian delegation to the Sixty-third Interparliamentary Union Conference held at Madrid from 23 September to 1 October 1976.

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 2921

AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENTARY SEMINAR

Senator DAVIDSON:
South Australia

-I present the report on the Third Australasian Parliamentary Seminar held in Canberra, Sydney, Townsville and Brisbane in September 1976 and seek leave to make a brief statement relating thereto.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator DAVIDSON:

-The summary report which I have tabled serves to give a further indication of the value of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association to both the Commonwealth of Nations and the parliamentary system generally. As Chairman of the Steering Committee which had the duty of preparing the program for the Third Australian Parliamentary Seminar I noted with appreciation the enthusiastic support for the Seminar given by Commonwealth countries in our area of the world and the practical response from the Australian parliamentary community. A major part of the Seminar was related to the area of parliament and government and leaders in the discussions included Ministers of the Crown from both Commonwealth and State Governments. Associated with them were such people as political scientists and heads of departments, as well as administrative officers of Australian political parties. The matter of subordinate legislation and its influence on the legislative functions of Parliament was of considerable interest to the Seminar. The work of the Senate Committee on Regulations and Ordinances was outlined and explained. The always important matter of communicating the decisions of Parliament to the people was an item on the program. A forum discussion between members of Parliament and representatives of the media brought a sharing of views and an exhange of concerns in this complex area. The role of parliament in the developing nations prompted a series of thoughtful questions and answers and emphasised one of the values of the seminar. Members of the Senate were major contributors to the seminar and they shared with parliamentary officers in the provision of valuable material for study and discussion. As you know, Mr President, the presiding officers of this Parliament and of the Parliaments of New South Wales and Queensland extended leadership and hospitality and also made major contributions to deliberations. All in all, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association’s sponsorship of such a seminar has demonstrated, I am sure, the responsibility the Association has in regard to contributing towards a strong parliamentary system.

page 2921

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LEGISLATION

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans ‘ Affairs · LP

– For the information of honourable senators, I present the report of the Interdepartmental Committee on Policy Proposals for Freedom of Information Legislation, together with the text of a statement by the Attorney-General relating to that report.

page 2921

COPYRIGHT LAW COMMITTEE

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans ‘ Affairs · LP

– For the information of honourable senators, I present the report of the Copyright Law Committee on reprographic reproduction, together with the text of a statement by the Attorney-General relating to that report.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– by leave- I move:

That the Senate take note of the papers.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2921

COMMISSIONER FOR COMMUNITY RELATIONS

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– Pursuant to section 46 of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, I present the first annual report of the Commissioner for Community Relations for the year ended 30 June 1976, together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs relating to that report.

Senator ROBERTSON (Northern Territory) by leave- I move:

That the Senate take note of the papers.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2922

ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS (NORTHERN TERRITORY) LEGISLATION

Senator KILGARIFF (Northern Territory) by leave- I wish to make a statement which is not to be taken as a reflection in any way on the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle), who has handled the Aboriginal land rights legislation in the Senate. I refer to page 2799 of Hansard of yesterday, 8 December, when in reply on the second reading debate in answer to my speech it was said:

The Minister, Mr Viner, has replied to the telegram quoted by Senator Kilgariff, and those who signed it attended a meeting of the Land Council within the last 2 weeks. After a full day’s discussion with these people and a detailed explanation of the amended Bill they indicated that they were satisfied that the Bill did not conflict with Aboriginal custom.

In referring to this land rights meeting at Amoonguma, I take it as most serious that what I presume must be departmental advice is so inaccurate and false. In my statement I indicated I was a mere spokesman for these Aboriginal people, who categorically state they were given no voice at the meeting, and were ‘talked over’ by both Mr Geoff Eames, solicitor with the Central Land Council, and by a member of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. The result of this meeting, a substantial group of Aboriginal people say, was not unanimous as the principles of the Bill conflict with Aboriginal law. One highly respected Aboriginal person said ‘he was bushed’ when listing those who listened with disquiet.

I request that some recognised person in authority investigate the matter, or that the Minister give a reference to the proposed joint parliamentary committee on the Aboriginal Lands Right (Northern Territory) Bill, to review what this substantial group of Aboriginal people will consider is a falsification. I have given prior notice to the Minister of this statement, and I believe that these people have been sorely tried and the matter should be reviewed.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– by leave- I was aware of the statement to be made by Senator Kilgariff and I now wish to comment that the remarks made during the debate yesterday on the Land Council meeting and recorded in Hansard were not misleading. The people who signed the telegram a few days earlier expressing concern about aspects of the Bill did attend the Land Council meeting. Some of them expressed their concern again at the Land Council meeting and discussed the issues with the other delegates throughout the meeting. In the afternoon a departmental officer explained the amendments which the Government has made and, in particular, the clauses which ensure that traditional owners are in a position to control what happens to thenland. Those who had sought details about the Bill and its protection of traditional customs had ample opportunity to express their views, and they did so.

At the conclusion of the meeting it was suggested that a message of support for early passage of the Bill should be sent to Canberra. Some who signed the earlier telegram also signed the brief message to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) indicating that they were satisfied with the explanation that the legislation recognises and protects the operation of Aboriginal law and custom in relation to land. Others said that they were also satisfied but did not wish to sign the message because they wanted first to be able to speak to their absent colleagues, who had not heard the explanation. Senator Kilgariff has requested that this matter be reviewed by the Minister or by the Committee. I will refer the matter to the Minister and draw his attention to the remarks made by Senator Kilgariff.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

-by leave-I thought that with the defeat of the Opposition’s amendments to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Bill the matter would rest. I did not know that a statement was going to be made by Senator Kilgariff. His suggestion that the matter should be referred to the proposed standing committee I suppose should be supported, but it is regrettable that this series of incidents has occurred. It goes right back to the division that has been caused in an area by none other than Pastor Albrecht. I am not going to rehash the matter, but it is a shame that it has happened. Although the departmental officer has not been named, I think everybody associated with Aboriginal affairs knows who it is. It is a slur on his character, and he is probably one of the most senior and most competent officers of the Department.

So that the matter can be properly investigated at a later date, so that the people who signed the original telegram can be cleared- there were about thirty of them; half of them changed their minds and did not want to be associated with it and the other half wanted more time to talk to their people- and for the sake of justice to the Aboriginal people, to the senior departmental officer and to others concerned, I hope that somewhere along the line a reference will go to the standing committee which is yet to be appointed. If there are grievances, and obviously there are, Senator Kilgariff is the only one who is able to clear himself because he has the opportunity in this forum to do so. Nobody else can do that. Perhaps by taking evidence the committee will enable the 30-odd Aborigines and the senior departmental officer to clear themselves.

page 2923

ROYAL COMMISSION ON AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a statement made in the other place by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) on the Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

The statement read as follows-

The Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration, under the chairmanship of Dr H. C. Coombs, presented its report in July of this year. In announcing the submission of the report at that time, I said that the Government would study carefully and give thorough consideration to the recommendations made by the Commission on the principles for more efficient administration. The necessary machinery has since been established for this purpose and decisions on recommendations will be announced progressively. For purposes of our examination of the Commission’s report, the Government decided that its recommendations could be grouped in five main categories on the following basis:

  1. 1 ) matters requiring Cabinet consideration, by reason of their implications or the likelihood of legislation being required if they were to be implemented;
  2. ) matters which relate to the subject matter of other inquiries, and which will need to be taken into account in the Government’s consideration of the reports of those inquiries;
  3. matters relating to the allocation of functions among Ministries and to possible changes in administrative arrangements;
  4. 4 ) matters having implications for particular Ministers and departments;
  5. matters having implications for most or all Ministers and departments, or requiring follow-up by the Public Service Board.

Action has been put in train in relation to each of the 5 categories. In particular, I have asked that Ministers let me have their views on the Commission’s recommendations which have both specific and general relevance to departments and authorities under their control. I have also suggested that their consideration of the Commission’s report could be regarded as a useful starting point for a wide-ranging examination of the efficiency and effectiveness of administrative procedures. In response to my request, the Public Service Board has completed its initial examination of the matters specifically referred to it and I will shortly be announcing the nature of the further action which it has in mind.

The Government has now taken initial decisions on a number of the Royal Commission’s recommendations. The Government has approved in principle the Commission’s recommendations for implementation of a system of efficiency audits. Officials have been asked to report on the details of how such a system might be implemented. The Government has also agreed that the Public Service Board should continue its management improvement functions, including efficiency and staff utilisation reviews, in general accordance with its present responsibilities under the Public Service Act. The Government has also noted the particular significance which the Royal Commission attached to integrated forward estimates of both financial and manpower requirements. In this regard, I mention that the Government has previously agreed with proposals by the Treasurer that forward financial estimates should be collected for the three years 1977-78 to 1979-80. The development of the Department of Finance will enable these to be pursued with great vigour. The Public Service Board has also been progressively developing a comprehensive system of forward manpower estimates. Whilst noting the complexity surrounding many of the issues involved, and the Commission’s view that development of a satisfactory process might take several years, the Government has decided that action should proceed immediately for detailed examination and report on the Commission’s proposals.

A number of other decisions taken by the Government will, I am sure, be of interest to Public Service staff organisations. In particular:

  1. We have authorised the Public Service Board to commence discussions with staff organisation, departments and statutory authorities, and in Joint Council (the joint consultative body presently operating under the Public Service Act) and to report to me on the manner in which the Royal Commission’s recommendations both for expanding the jurisdiction of the Joint Council, and for creating consultative councils within departments and authorities, might be implemented.
  2. Approval has been given for drafting to continue on legislation to give effect to changes in the disciplinary provisions of the Public Service Act, in accordance with recommendations which resulted from a review of those provisions by the Public Service Board, in conjunction with the Joint Council.
  3. The Public Service Board has been asked to report to me as soon as possible on a number of Royal Commission recommendations relating to promotion processes in the Australian Public Service, after consideration of those matters has been finalised in the Joint Council and after the Board has completed all necessary consultations with staff organisation. The Government strongly supports the Commission’s recommendations on promotion by merit.
  4. The Government has agreed that the Public Service Act should be amended at an appropriate time to abolish the present 10 per cent restriction oh the annual intake of non-specialist graduate recruits into the Australian Public Service.
  5. The Government has endorsed the view of the Public Service Board that the present distinctions between the Third and Fourth Divisions of the Public Service were becoming increasingly irrelevant and the Board has been asked to consult with staff organisations on possible changes in the divisional structure and to report to the Government.
  6. The Board has also been asked to consult with staff organisations on the possible elimination of inappropriate distinctions between permanent officers and temporary employees in the present employment arrangements under the Public Service Act and to report to the Government.
  7. The Board has also been asked to continue its detailed examination of the desirability of developing arrangements under which the whole or much of Commonwealth Government civilian employment would be treated as one entity for a number of purposes.

The Government has also accepted the Royal Commission’s recommendation that a practice should be established permitting the Leader of the Opposition, before a general election, to confer with the Public Service Board and the Secretary to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, and permitting shadow Ministers to confer with the heads of relevant departments. Guidelines have been developed covering the conduct of these discussions and I have informed the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition of them. Following are the guidelines in question:

page 2924

GUIDELINES FOR PRE-ELECTION CONSULTATION WITH THE OPPOSITION

The Government has also accepted the Royal Commission’s recommendations that there should be guidelines governing the briefing of members and Party committees by public servants and the handling of requests for information by members of Parliament to departments and authorities. The Government has endorsed draft guidelines for these matters and I have referred them to members of the Government Parties. I am writing to the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition informing him of the guidelines endorsed so that he may do likewise with members of his Party. Following are the guidelines in question:

page 2925

GUIDELINES TO APPLY TO APPEARANCES BY PUBLIC SERVANTS BEFORE PARTY COMMITTEES

page 2925

GUIDELINES RELATING TO ACCESS BY MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT TO PUBLIC SERVANTS

In response to the Royal Commission’s suggestion that greater attention is required to the provision of more realistic objectives for staff training and development activities, the Government has decided that all departments should be asked to review their overall arrangements in these areas. In the light of those reviews, the Public Service Board has been asked to review the nature of its own role in relation to training and personnel development matters and to report its findings to the Government by mid 1977.

The Government did not take up the Commission’s recommendation that the special statutory provisions for the appointment of exservicemen in section 47A of the Public Service Act be not re-enacted when the Act is amended. We do not believe that there should be any suggestion of a lessening of the Government’s special concern for veterans who served their country.

The Government has noted that the Commission highlighted the proliferation of Commonwealth statutory authorities, particularly in recent years. For its part, my Government endorses the Commission’s conclusion in favour of adopting the departmental form of organisation for government agencies unless a clear necessity can be demonstrated for the functions concerned to be carried out by a body which is wholly, or in some desired way, separate from ministerial and departmental administration. In conformity with this approach, we have decided that formulation of broad guidelines for the creation of statutory authorities would be desirable. Accordingly, a working party of officials is to be established to prepare a guideline document as soon as possible for the Government’s consideration. We would expect that the guidelines ultimately approved by the Government would be applied not only in circumstances where creation of a new statutory authority was being proposed, but also for purposes of assessing whether existing statutory bodies continued to satisfy the guideline criteria. This would not preclude Ministers from proposing particular structural arrangements where they felt there were worthwhile advantages to be gained.

As reflected in the terms of the decisions which I have now announced, my Government is conscious of the need for consultation with staff organisation on matters arising from the Royal Commission’s recommendations which have major industrial relations implications. Such consultation will take place with the peak councils of the staff organisations and with other bodies as appropriate. Legislation introduced recently on appointment of Permanent Heads of Public Service departments and on early retirement, followed the Government’s acceptance of the main thrust of the Commission’s recommendations on these matters.

Because of the wide-ranging terms of reference of the Royal Commission it was obviously not in a position to prepare detailed implementation plans for its recommendations. I believe that we have made substantial progress in our initial examination of the report and have set in train work to prepare such detailed plans. I have no doubt that, when implemented, these reforms will lead to a more efficient administrationa matter which should be of concern to all Australians.

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I move:

Debate (on motion by Senator Wriedt) adjourned.

page 2926

TRADING STOCK VALUATION ADJUSTMENTS

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Industry and Commerce · LP

– I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a statement made in the House of Representatives by the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) dealing with trading stock valuations.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

The statement read as follows-

The purpose of this statement is to inform the House of the further decisions that have been taken concerning the system of trading stock valuation adjustments foreshadowed in the Budget Speech. With the indexation of the personal tax system, the Government has already seen to it that inflation can no longer act as a silent and unlegislated tax on personal income. This represents the most far-reaching reform made to the Australian system of personal income tax in our time. It has been introduced at a cost to the Revenue during the current financial year of around $ 1,050m, equivalent to $1,2 10m in a full year.

By doing this the Government fulfilled, in the space of 6 months, an election commitment that was to be met over a period of 3 years. At the time of the last election the Government also promised to reduce the burden of income tax on firms and companies which, because of inflation, have had to find increasing amounts of working capital to maintain business activity. During our predecessors’ term of office the capital base of the free enterprise sector was substantially eroded by high rates of inflation. In other words, inflation, acting through the taxation system, was not only the instrument whereby resources were transferred in an arbitrary way from individuals to the Government but also, because of its impact on companies, a central element in the weakening of the free enterprise system that took place under our predecessors. Inflation, in precise terms, adds to the burden of taxation on business enterprises which have to replace goods that constitute their trading stocks, at constantly increasing prices, out of profits which, calculated in the conventional way, are fully subject to income tax.

Under existing income tax rules full taxation is imposed on business profits that, for obvious reasons, are not available in a wholly liquid form and that are, to an increasing extent, being tied up in goods held as trading stocks. To put it in another way, businesses are paying taxes out of what amounts to no more than paper profits and this has limited, and in many cases depressed, the general level of business activity within the economy. As a first step in putting an end to this problem, the Government has decided that the impact of inflation on trading stock financing should be taken into account in assessing the taxation liabilities of business enterprises. In effect, a special income tax deduction, measured by reference to the annual increase in the goods component of the consumer price index will be allowed to firms and companies holding eligible trading stocks for business purposes.

Honourable members will know that, under provisional standards issued by the professional accountancy bodies in Australia, accounting profit will be measured in terms of current, and not historical, cost concepts. In relation to trading stocks, the full current cost price of goods sold by a firm will be charged against its profits so that its financial statements will reflect changes that take place both in the price structure of the goods and rises in general price levels. The trading stock adjustments, to be made for income tax purposes, are designed to protect business working capital against erosion by inflation in broadly the same way as current cost accounting that is now being taken up by accountants.

For two major reasons, the income tax adjustments will be measured by movements in the general price level and not on specific price changes. First, the adjustments are intended to compensate for inflation-caused cost increases and not to reflect changes that may occur even when money values are stable, in price structures of particular goods. Second, the use of the general index will provide a standard basis of measurement of price level changes that can be applied uniformly in the income tax assessments of businesses dealing in goods.

Having described briefly the nature of the problems that the new income tax stock valuation adjustment are designed to resolve, I turn now to the adjustments themselves. The annual adjustment for a firm or company will be made by way of an income tax deduction calculated as a proportion of the taxation value of its trading stock of goods on hand at the beginning of the year of income. The proportion of the stock valuation to be allowable as a deduction will be based on the percentage increase, June quarter to June quarter, in the goods component of the consumer price index. The scheme is to be phased in and for 1976-77, the first income year for which the adjustment will be allowable, the proportion will be one-half of the percentage increase in the goods component of the index. The stock valuation figure will be that adopted by the firm or company for income tax purposes, as long as no stocks are valued at a figure in excess of true cost. Income tax valuations in excess of cost will have to be converted to cost for the purposes of the adjustment.

An important matter is the range of trading stocks to which the adjustment is to apply. This has been considered carefully by the Government and it has been decided that goods held, and properly accounted for as trading stock for income tax purposes, will be within the scope of the new allowance. Accordingly, the cost price of such property as land, buildings, construction work in progress, shares, other securities and other legal rights, including industrial property such as patents and copyrights, will not be subject to adjustment.

In a business of primary production, or other business in which livestock is held as trading stock, the adjustment will be calculated generally by reference to the cost values adopted for income tax purposes so that where a standard cost has been ascribed to natural increase the adjustment will be a proportion of that figure. In this connection, I add that it is not proposed that a deduction will be available in respect of the cost of race horses and other animals used or bred for sporting or domestic purposes.

Inquiries have been received as to how the scheme will operate where a company has, with the approval of the Commissioner of Taxation, adopted a substituted accounting period in place of a year of income ending 30 June. Whether such companies balance earlier or later than 30 June, the rates of tax applying in their assessments are those usually announced in the Budget Speech each year, for application to companies generally. It has been decided that, where a company balances on a date other than 30 June, the increase in the general index between June quarter and June quarter used for the purposes of the stock adjustment will be applied to the relevant value of the trading stocks held by the company at the beginning of its accounting period. There will not, therefore, be any special index for these companies

Difficult questions arise where, during a particular year of income, a business changes hands, the interests of the proprietors in a business change, or the scale of operations of a business is substantially reduced. Generally speaking, it is not proposed that an income tax adjustment be available for a business in the income year in which it is brought to an end. However, where a business is terminated on the death of its proprietor, a special proportionate adjustment will be allowable. Furthermore, if the trustee and beneficiaries indicate that the business will be carried on, a special proportionate adjustment will also be available in the assessments based on income derived by the estate.

Where the scale of operations of a business is substantially reduced during a year so that the value of closing stock is less than its opening stock value, the adjustment will be measured by reference to the closing stock value, as the purpose of the scheme is to assist businesses which want to preserve the same level of operating capacity. If the shareholders or proprietors in a business change during a year but it is established that the same business is carried on for the rest of the year by the new owners, the ordinary adjustment will be allowable. In the case of a business carried on by a sole proprietor or partnership, the adjustment will be apportioned on a time basis between the old and new owners. In a year in which a firm or company commences business and first acquires goods as trading stocks, a proportionate adjustment based on its holdings of stocks will be made. Finally, if a business conducted by a company is taken over by an associated company, as in the course of a group reorganisation, the adjustment will generally be apportioned between the two companies on a time basis, but with provision for the deduction to be allowed to the company acquiring the business where there is agreement that this be done.

Honourable members will be aware that some protective provisions will be needed to ensure that the new scheme of stock adjustments is not misused for tax avoidance purposes. I do not think it appropriate at this stage to lay undue stress on this aspect, other than to say that our examination has led us to conclude that safeguards, in wide terms, will need to be written into the law to ensure that neither the cost price of trading stock nor its opening value is overstated for income tax purposes. Other safeguarding provisions will be available to the Commissioner in situations where an unusually or unnecessarily large volume of trading stock is held at the beginning of an accounting period with a view to maximising the stock adjustment. As foreshadowed in the budget speech, amending legislation to provide for the trading stock valuation adjustments will be introduced during the Autumn sittings and will give full particulars of the new system.

The details that I have announced today will enable individual firms and companies to assess the changes that will be incorporated in legislation next year. By giving details of the new scheme now there will, as well, be an opportunity for the government to take into account public discussion and informed comment before final enactment of the proposals.

page 2928

DEFENCE SERVICE HOMES AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Bill returned from the House of Representatives without amendment.

page 2928

STATES GRANTS (RURAL ADJUSTMENT) 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 Cotton) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Industry and Commerce · LP

– I move:

I seek leave of my colleagues in the Senate to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

The speech read as follows-

The purpose of this Bill is to provide Parliamentary approval for the execution on behalf of the Commonwealth of an agreement between the States for a Rural Adjustment Scheme. The details of the scheme are set out in the agreement which is contained in a schedule to the Bill and in a schedule to the agreement.

This scheme has emerged from recommendations of the Industries Assistance Commission which conducted an inquiry into the broad issue of reconstruction and adjustment in the rural sector. The proposals of the Industries Assistance Commission have been the subject of a series of meetings between the Commonwealth and the States at both official and ministerial level.

The scheme combines the various forms of rural adjustment at present provided under separate legislation, namely the Rural Reconstruction Scheme, the Dairy Adjustment Program and the carry-on scheme for beef producers, into one comprehensive scheme. The scheme also introduces a new form of assistance called household support which, for the first time, will extend help to those farmers, who have exhausted their cash and credit, while they consider whether or not to move out of farming.

Rural industries prosper or decline as technology changes, as buying patterns of export markets change, and as currency values vary. Much of the adjustment which is necessary to the long term economic situation in the rural sector has occurred, and will continue to occur, autonomously. The Government believes however that it has a responsibility to assist the adjustment process by providing the financial means to ensure that resources continue to be used in those industries, where their earning power is greatest and, at the same time, provide welfare assistance to those farmers so seriously affected by circumstances that they are unable to remain in the industry.

It is an historical fact that the percentage of Australia’s work force employed in the rural sector has decreased significantly in recent years. The number of farms has fallen and their average size has increased. Economic circumstances have required farmers to amalgamate, diversify, and vary the proportion of their various inputs. This has meant that while some farmers were able to remain and develop more profitable enterprises others found it necessary to transfer to other employment.

Two of the forms of assistance available under the existing Rural Reconstruction Scheme to assist farmers who are potentially viable are to be continued in this new scheme. Debt reconstruction assistance is designed to help the applicant whose prospects are sound but who is unable to obtain finance to carry on and is thus in danger of losing his property or other assets. The assistance may provide for a rearrangement of composition of debts to allow more time for payment. Money may be advanced for repayment of all or part of the debts and for carry-on expenses, livestock and further property development.

The farm build-up provisions are designed to encourage amalgamation of properties which are too small to be economic under current conditions. Finance may be provided either to the owner of an uneconomic property to buy adjoining land to build up his property, or to an adjoining owner to enable him to purchase an uneconomic farm. Grants may be made at the discretion of the State Administering Authority to cover, in whole or in part, losses sustained in the disposal of assets included in the purchase price of the property which are not useful for the build-up property.

Under the Dairy Adjustment Program, assistance is available for the restoration of an uneconomic property to economic viability by improving the effective use of an existing farm without adding to its area. Assistance of this kind will be extended to the whole farm sector under the farm improvement provisions of the Rural Adjustment Scheme. To be eligible for such assistance the applicant must be in the position where he is unable to obtain finance on reasonable terms from any other normal source. He must also be able to demonstrate that his existing farm has been, but is not now viable, that the property is of sufficient size and the proposed improvements are of such a kind as to offer sound prospects of restoration to long term commercial viability if assistance under this scheme were provided. Farm improvement assistance may take the form of advances for plant, livestock, carry-on expenses and further property development intended to restore the economic viability of the farm, either in the existing form of production or in another form of production. Grants at the discretion of the State Authority may be made to cover, in whole or in part, losses sustained from the reduction in value of assets which are either not useful or are less useful because of the changed pattern of farm operation. Such grants will be kept to a minimum and will be made only where the changed pattern of farm operation is, in the opinion of the Authority, essential to the restoration of long term commercial viability.

Assistance for debt reconstruction, farm build-up and farm improvement will take the form of loans on such terms and conditions, including interest rate, as the State Authority considers appropriate. The maximum repayment term will be 30 years. State Authorities administering the Scheme will have the right to review the interest rate on individual accounts at any time. They are required to review the terms of repayment including interest rates at regular intervals with the objective of encouraging the borrower to transfer to commercial credit as soon as circumstances permit.

There are occasions when a particular rural industry encounters a severe market downturn or similar eventuality and assistance is required to enable many of its producers to carry-on pending the recovery of the industry’s fortunes. If such assistance is not available many producers, particularly young men getting themselves established, suffer permanent financial damage and the country’s productive capacity suffers along with the individual. The events which have occurred recently in the beef and dairy industries provide examples of this situation. It was therefore decided that the Rural Adjustment Scheme should include a standing facility to enable loans to be made for essential carry-on purposes in times of severe market downturn or similar situationbut excluding circumstances covered by natural disaster arrangements- in those rural industries where the Commonwealth and States agree from time to time that it is necessary.

The Commonwealth and the State will agree on the terms and conditions of the assistance to be provided in particular circumstances and the facility will be activated by notice to that effect in the Commonwealth Gazette. Carry-on assistance available at present to beef producers and dairy farmers under industry schemes will be continued from 1 January 1 977 under the terms of the new Rural Adjustment Scheme.

As I said earlier, the carry-on assistance is designed to assist the producer who has reasonable prospects of long term commercial viability. In making its assessment of the applicant, the State Administering Authority will have regard to the farmer’s asset structure and will make its assessment on the assumption of a market recovery to the long term trend. The applicant must also be in a position where he is unable to obtain carry-on finance on reasonable terms from any other normal source.

Household support is a new form of assistance designed to provide help for up to one year to farmers who are judged to be non-viable and who have insufficient resources to meet living expenses and who are in need of assistance to alleviate conditions of personal and family hardship while the farmer considers whether to adjust out of farming. A farmer will be eligible for such assistance if he is assessed by the administering Authority as being non-viable in the long term, is unable to obtain financial assistance from any other normal source and will suffer personal and family hardship if not assisted.

Assistance will be provided for a period of up to one year sufficient to raise the applicant’s estimated future net income from all sources to the level of payment which would be applicable to him if he were eligible for unemployment benefits. In those cases where a demonstrable effort has been made to move out of farming an extension to two years may be allowed at the discretion of the administering Authority. Advances are to be paid to the farmer at intervals decided by the Authority but not longer than 3 months. Prospective income for each period will be assessed by the Authority on the basis of a declaration made by the applicant.

Where it would take some time to assess an applicant’s entitlement interim assistance may be granted by the Authority as a loan provided there is prima facie evidence of urgent need and unavailability of alternative sources of finance. If the Authority subsequently determines that the applicant has a viable enterprise, the interim assistance will be regarded as carry-on finance and would, of course, be repayable.

At the end of the first period of 6 months for which a farmer receives household support, the assistance he receives may be converted to a grant. If the farmer adjusts out of farming within three years of the rime he first received household support, any advances made to him and not already converted to a grant may be so converted. If he does not adjust out of farming within 3 years of first receiving assistance any advance made to him and not already converted to a grant will be repayable to the Authority.

A farmer who is eligible for household support and who is prepared to adjust out of farming may, at the discretion of the Authority, receive in lieu of household support assistance, a lump sum payment of $3,000 less any household support assistance paid to him prior to adjusting out of farming. For the purposes of the household support provisions of this scheme, a farmer will be regarded as having adjusted out of farming when, in the judgment of the Authority, he has effectively disposed of his productive resources.

The other form of assistance provided to farmers who are judged to be non-viable and are obliged to leave the industry is rehabilitation assistance. Such assistance is provided at the discretion of the administering Authority and may be converted to a grant also at the discretion of the Authority. The Authority must be satisfied that the applicant will suffer financial and personal hardship if not assisted under this provision. The maximum loan will be $5,000. Eligibility for rehabilitation assistance is not affected by the farmer having already received assistance under the household support provision.

The Rural Adjustment Scheme is essentially a joint Commonwealth/State operation. Broadly the Commonwealth will provide the funds for the scheme while the States will be primarily responsible for the detailed administration of it in accordance with policies agreed between the Commonwealth and the States. Funds for the general components of the scheme, that is, debt reconstruction, farm build-up, farm improvement and rehabilitation will be advanced by the Commonwealth to the State; eighty-five per cent in the form of a loan and 15 per cent in the form of a grant. The loan component will attract interest at the rate of 7 per cent per annum initially, although this is subject to review if the long term bond rate changes substantially. The loan component will be repayable over 20 years including a 3-year principal repayment holiday.

The funding of household support will be the responsibility of the Commonwealth. Carry-on assistance will be funded on a cost sharing basis between Commonwealth and States to be agreed on each occasion that the facility is used. The existing 50-50 cost sharing arrangement between the Commonwealth and the States will be maintained for dairy and beef carry-on assistance at least until 30 June 1977.

The Commonwealth will share equally with the States administration costs up to 2 per cent of the value of approvals in each year for all forms of assistance, except carry-on, the administration costs for which are included in the cost sharing arrangements.

The financial assistance to be provided each year for debt reconstruction, farm build-up, farm improvement and rehabilitation, will be determined by the Commonwealth before the commencement of the financial year after a meeting of Commonwealth and State Ministers which will review the circumstances relating to the financial year and consider submissions made by the States. The amount to be made available by the Commonwealth to a State for the purposes of carry-on assistance will be determined at the time that the Commonwealth and the States agree that the provision of such assistance is warranted. Household support assistance will not be subject to prior allocation of funds; States will recoup from the Commonwealth funds used for this purpose.

For the period 1 January to 30 June 1 977 the Commonwealth Government has agreed to provide for a total approvals program of $20 million for debt reconstruction, farm build-up, farm improvement and rehabilitation purposes. Individual State allocations are New South Wales $5.6m, Victoria $4.75m, Queensland $3.4m, South Australia $2. 75m, Western Australia $3.25m, Tasmania $0.25m. This approvals program will be reviewed by the Commonwealth and the States in February 1977. Beef carry-on and dairy adjustment funds not committed at 3 1 December 1976 will continue to be earmarked for these purposes.

The assistance measures provided for in this Bill have been subject to rigorous examination. I believe they are economically justifiable and socially desirable. The scheme will be subject to review annually and will undergo a major review in 4 years time. The Government will not hesitate to make changes in the scheme where the need for such changes becomes apparent. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Senator Gietzelt) adjourned.

page 2931

BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION LEGISLATION

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Senator Carrick) agreed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1976, the Broadcasting Stations Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1976 and the Television Stations Licence Fees Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1976 being put in one motion at each stage, and the consideration of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole.

page 2931

BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1976

Bills received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Readings

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I move:

I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. 77te- speeches read as follows-

Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1976

The Bill now before the House provides for a number of major structural changes in the Australian broadcasting system. It follows the Government’s consideration of a report prepared, by the Postal and Telecommunications Department following its recent inquiry into the machinery and procedures for the control, planning, regulation, licensing, funding and administration of the system. This Report was tabled in both Houses of Parliament on 9 November 1976.

One of the main purposes of the Bill is to disband the Australian Broadcasting Control Board and to transfer its licensing, public inquiry and regulatory responsibilities to a new statutory authority to be known as the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal.

A further important change in the administration of the broadcasting system is the transfer of the Board ‘s planning responsibilities to the Postal and Telecommunications Department.

The Bill also provides for the establishment of a Broadcasting Council to be made up largely of representatives from the national, commercial and public sectors of broadcasting. This Council will meet on a regular basis to consider and comment on all plans for the development of broadcasting services which are prepared by the Postal and Telecommunications Department.

All of these administrative changes have the objective of redefining the responsibilities of the Government and its instrumentalities in broadcasting matters to enable the system to respond more effectively to changing conditions. These changes involve, among other things, new programming needs and new technologies.

It has been felt by the Government for some time that there is now a need to separate the quasi judicial functions of licensing, and the conduct of public inquiries, from those responsibilities involved in the planning, regulation and other aspects of broadcasting administration.

To the present time these responsibilities have been vested in one authority- namely the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. As a result the Board has on many occasions been placed in the rather invidious position of being both ‘judge and jury’ in a number of important areas of its administrative responsibility. Under such conditions the separation of conflicts of interest, the preservation of a continuously objective outlook and the avoidance of ad hoc or sporadic development of the system through diverse and fluctuating demand on staffing and other resources, have become problems of increasing intensity.

Until further legislation is introduced in 1977, the legislation contained in this Bill is transitional in nature and transfers the present responsibilities of the Board to either the Tribunal or the Department. Pending an early public inquiry by the Tribunal into the concept of a greater degree of self-regulation’ by the industry itself- as proposed in the Report of the Inquiry- the Tribunal will also become responsible for the administration of the present programming and advertising standards as presently laid down by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board.

It was not possible, in the time available in this session of Parliament, for Parliamentary Counsel to draft all the necessary legislation to implement the decisions of Government in the licensing area.

It is intended however that the Tribunal will ultimately assume the present Ministerial responsibilities to grant, renew, suspend or revoke licences, as well as impose conditions on licences or impose penalties. It will also be granted all the powers presently available to either the Minister or the Australian Broadcasting Control Board for the administration of the ownership and control provisions applicable to broadcasting licences.

In this way there will be very substantial ‘depoliticisation’ of the licensing process. Determinations on questions of licence grants and renewals, as well as the administration of licence conditions, will no longer rest with the Minister. These responsibilities will, in the future, be vested in the new Tribunal.

In placing the responsibility for the functions involved in the planning of the Australian Broadcasting System within the Postal and Telecommunications Department, the Government has adopted the following philosophies: The Government is responsible for the establishment of overall communications policy, and one essential component of that responsibility is the development of strategic policy for the Australian broadcasting system; the Postal and Telecommunications Department is already carrying out an advisory role to the Government to assist it in the processes of policy formulation; the Department is in the most favourable position to consult and liaise with other government departments and instrumentalities on proposals for major broadcasting developments; the Department is the most appropriate body to issue Green Papers’ which outline the Government’s thinking on broadcasting development proposals, and to summate public and industry comment and debate on the issues involved; there should be a new degree of ‘open-ness’ in the planning process which will be achieved by the establishment of a Broadcasting Council through which the detailed plans of the Department will be subject to comment by all three sectors of the broadcasting industry.

The translation of Government strategic broadcasting policy into detailed plans for implementation is a natural extension of the processes of policy formulation. It is therefore highly preferable, and more cost effective, for the same authority to develop a high degree of specialisation, and provide the continuous effort which is essential to the planning and researchsocial, economic and technical, etc.- of the broadcasting system.

The Bill makes it quite clear however that while part of the planning process will involve the investigation of social issues and programming needs, this important overall planning responsibility cannot be interpreted as permitting the Secretary of the Department to direct stations either individually or collectively, in matters of program content.

Clause 13 of the Bill covers a series of important new provisions which enable the Minister to grant licences to operate public radio and public televisions stations. These provisions envisage the development of a new public sector of broadcasting which will provide programs for community, special, minority or other interests, in response to demand.

Neither the Broadcasting and Television Act, nor the Wireless Telegraphy Act provides specifically for the licensing of public stations. Although a number of educational, ethnic and Une music stations have been licensed under the Wireless Telegraphy Act, the provisions of this Act in their present form are not regarded as satisfactory for this purpose.

Under the provisions of this Bill, public broadcasting will be established as a recognised sector of our broadcasting system. The Bill also makes it very clear that the establishment of new stations in this sector will require the same process of public inquiry as is required for the grant of new licences in the commercial sector. Furthermore, Section IIIB stipulates that, wherever appropriate, the provisions which apply to commercial stations in the principal Act will also apply to new public stations which are licensed under the provisions of this Bill.

I turn now to the question of the revised composition of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. The Government has taken the view that, as the services of the Commission are, in fact, national services, which cater for all the people of Australia wherever they may reside, there should be representation on the Commission from all 6 States. At present there is an imbalance of State representation with some States having no representation at all.

In addition there is recognition of the considerable interest which is being taken in the improvement of programs for children as well as those of more specific interest to women. Considerably increased attention is also being given to the social consequences of broadcasting, and it has therefore been decided to increase the minimum number of women on the Commission to at least two.

The Government decisions in this area have led to the desirability of providing some flexibility in the number of members who may be appointed to the Commission, so that during the implementation of the Government intentions, the present Commissioners can all serve out their remaining terms of office.

Accordingly the Bill provides for the Commission to consist of not less than nine and not more than eleven Commissioners. Because of the intention to retain all existing Commissioners, it will now be necessary to deem certain of the present Commissioners as representing a State, and this has also been provided for in the Bill.

The new legislation also provides for the Commission to be given much greater flexibility in its staffing arrangements. The creation or reclassification of positions within the Commission and the determination of salaries or salary ranges below that of the lowest level of Second Division, will no longer require the approval of the Public Service Board.

There is also provision for the setting up of a Joint Consultative Committee to facilitate formal consultative machinery and a high degree of cooperation between the staff and management of the Commission.

Two other provisions of the present Act which require Ministerial approval for contracts entered into by the Commission where they are in excess of $100,000, will, under the provisions of this Bill, now require Ministerial approval only when such contracts are for amounts of $250,000 or more.

It will be appreciated by honourable senators that none of the new provisions relating to the ABC can in any way be considered as a threat to the independence of the Commission. Indeed, greater administrative autonomy is given in some areas. The Government is committed to the preservation of a free and independent Commission, accountable to the people through the Parliament, and there are no moves by the Government to vary this concept.

Finally, I would reiterate that the legislation contained in the Bill is transitional only, so that from 1 January 1977 the present functions and responsibilities of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board can be allocated to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal and the Postal and Telecommunications Department. It also gives effect to decisions which have already been made by Government in relation to the ABC, and to provide for the licensing of public stations.

Extensive amendments to the existing legislation will be necessary to fully implement the Government’s decisions on these and other matters dealt with in the Report of the Inquiry. These amendments will be embraced within a new Broadcasting Act and a new Radio Frequency Management Act to replace the outmoded Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 and the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1905. However, Parliamentary Counsel will be unable to complete the drafting of this legislation for several months.

In the meantime the interim legislation contained in the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill now before the Senate will permit a number of the more important structural changes to be implemented without undue delay. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Broadcasting Stations Licence Fees Amendment Act 1976

The purpose of the Bill to amend Section 6 of the Broadcasting Stations Licence Fees Act 1 964 is to omit from sub-section 3 a direct reference to the Australian Broadcasting Control Board in relation to the future application of sub-section 106 (2) of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942. The amendment is a machinery one which deals with the accounting period on which broadcasting station licence fees are to be assessed, and is consequential upon the structural changes to the Australian broadcasting system dealt with the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1976. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Television Stations Licence Fees Amendment Act (No. 2) 1976

The purpose of the Bill to amend Section 6 of the Television Stations Licence Fees Act 1964 is to omit from sub-section 3 a direct reference to the Australian Broadcasting Control Board in relation to the future application of sub-section 106 (2) of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942. The amendment is a machinery one which deals with the accounting period on which television station licence fees are to be assessed, and is consequential upon the structural changes to the Australian broadcasting system dealt with in the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1976. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Button) adjourned.

page 2934

FOREIGN PROCEEDINGS (PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN EVIDENCE) 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 Veterans’ Affairs · LP

– I move:

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

The speech read as follows-

The purpose of this Bill is to make certain amendments to the Foreign Proceedings (Prohibition of Certain Evidence) Act 1 976. The Senate will recall that this Act was passed as a matter of urgency on 18 November 1976 because proceedings were then pending in the Supreme Court of New South Wales to take evidence for the purpose of proceedings in a court of the United States of America. In the course of the debate in this chamber and in another place, attention was directed to some aspects of the Bill which appeared to deserve further consideration. At the time there was a need for the Bill to be passed into law without delay, but with the approval of the Attorney-General, I indicated that the Government would give close consideration as soon as possible to the matters that had been raised and introduce an amending Bill to correct any deficiencies.

The Government has now been able to give the matter further consideration and has concluded that the amendments provided for in the present Bill are desirable. The principal change provided for in the Bill is the abolition of sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Act. This subsection provides that the validity of an order of the Attorney-General is not to be subject to challenge in any court. The argument has been advanced that provisions of this kind are not generally desirable and should be confined to those situations where they are really necessary. In the context of the present Bill the Government has concluded that this provision is not strictly necessary and its repeal is accordingly provided for by the present Bill. The Government has concluded moreover that the Parliament should be able to disallow an order made by the AttorneyGeneral in the same way as it would be able to act if the orders were made by regulation. The Bill accordingly provides for an order to be tabled and to be subject to disallowance by either House in accordance with the procedure under the Acts Interpretation Act which applies to regulations.

There are two grounds provided in section 4 upon which the Attorney-General may act in making an order under section 5. One is that a foreign tribunal is exercising jurisdiction in a manner that is contrary to international law or comity; the other is that an order is desirable to protect the national interest. Logically, an order made on the first of these grounds should be confined in its operation to the particular foreign tribunal that is breaching international law or comity. As this is not the position under the existing Act the Bill provides for it to be so. Different considerations apply, of course, where an order is made on the ground of national interest. In such a case it is appropriate that the order should apply to all foreign tribunals and not be confined to any particular tribunal. That is now the position under the Act.

Another matter that was the subject of comment when the legislation was being debated by the Senate related to the definition of a foreign tribunal. Doubts were raised as to whether this definition might cover the Privy Council. In view of those doubts the Bill provides for an express provision to make the position clear. Under this provision ‘foreign tribunal’ is not to include the

Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the exercise of jurisdiction in respect of appeals from any court in Australia. Two other amendments to ensure the legal effectiveness of the legislation are proposed. One avoids a distinction under the existing Act between an order that has been served and one that has been deemed to be served. The other provides that where a person is prohibited from making evidence available to a tribunal in Australia, the tribunal is not to be able to require a person to act in contravention of the order. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Button) adjourned.

page 2935

CUSTOMS TARIFF LEGISLATION

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Senator Durack) agreed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of the Customs Tariff Validation Bill (No. 2) 1976 and the Cutoms Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1976 being put in one motion at each stage, and the consideration of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole.

page 2935

CUSTOMS TARIFF VALIDATION BILL (No. 2) 1976

Bills received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Readings

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans’ Affairs · LP

– I move:

I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

The speeches read as follows-

Customs Tariff Validation Bill (No. 2) 1976

This Bill provides for the validation until 30 June 1977 of duties collected in pursuance of Customs Tariff Proposals Nos. 23 to 26 introduced into the Parliament during this Session and not covered by Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1976 now before the Senate. The Bill is essentially a holding measure pending the introduction, anticipated for the Autumn Session, of a Customs Tariff Amendment Bill to enact the tariff changes contained in the Proposals. I commend the Bill.

Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1976

The purpose of the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1976 is to incorporate in the Customs Tariff Act 1966 changes to the tariff which have occurred since the last amending Bill was passed during the Autumn sittings of the Parliament in May this year.

This Bill contains seventeen schedules and brings before honourable senators for their consideration those tariff changes introduced into the Parliament at various times by Customs Tariff Proposals Nos. 7 to 22.

In the main the changes give effect to decisions by the Government in respect of the following reports of the Industries Assistance Commission and the Temporary Assistance Authority:

Aerospace Industry;

Aluminium and Articles Thereof, etc.;

Cellulose Acetate Flake;

Commercial Motor Vehicles, Parts and Accessories;

Filament, Fluorescent and Other Discharge Lamps;

Hosiery;

Knitted and Woven Apparel;

Motor Vehicles- Import Restriction;

Other Electronic Equipment;

Paints, Varnishes and Lacquers;

Precision Ground Steel Ball Bearings;

Railway and Tramway Locomotives, Rolling Stock, etc.;

Spectacle and Sunglass Frames, Sunglasses;

Superphosphate Production;

Telecommunication Equipment;

Welding Consumables and Flux Cored Solder;

Orange Juice;

Paper;

Sheets and Plates of Iron or Steel; and Thick Plywood.

The last 4 reports named were those made by the Temporary Assistance Authority. The Bill also contains changes resulting from the biennial review of the system of tariff preferences for developing countries.

Honourable senators may recall that at the time the Tariff Proposals were introduced in another place a comprehensive summary in respect of each Proposal was circulated to Senators setting out the nature of the changes in duty rates and the origin of each change. A consolidation of these summaries has been prepared and copies may be obtained from the Bills and Papers Office.I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Senator Button) adjourned.

page 2936

JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS

The PRESIDENT:

– I inform the Senate that I have received the following message from the House of Representatives:

Message No. 227

The House of Representatives transmits to the Senate the following Resolution which was agreed to by the House of Representatives this day, and requests that the Senate concur and take action accordingly:

  1. 1 ) That a Joint Select Committee be appointed to examine and report on-

    1. the operation of provisions of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 relating to the identification of traditional owners of Aboriginal land and the means of establishing the views of such owners to the satisfaction of the relevant Land Council;
    2. the adequacy of provisions of the laws of the Northern Territory relating to entry to Aboriginal land, the protection of sites of significance, wildlife conservation and entry to seas adjoining Aboriginal land, and
    3. any other matters referred by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs.
  2. That the committee consist of the 5 members of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs nominated by the Prime Minister, the 3 members of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs nominated by the Leader of the Opposition, and 3 Senators nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate and 3 Senators nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate.
  3. That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
  4. That the committee elect as Chairman of the committee one of the members nominated by the Prime Minister or by the Leader of the Government in the Senate.
  5. That the committee elect a Deputy Chairman who shall perform the duties of the Chairman of the committee at any time when the Chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee, and at any time when the Chairman and Deputy Chairman are not present at a meeting of the committee, the members present shall elect another member to perform the duties of the Chairman at that meeting.
  6. That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to any such sub-committees any of the matters which the committee is empowered to examine.
  7. That the committee or any sub-committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to move from place to place and to sit during any adjournment of the Parliament.
  8. That 7 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee, and a majority of the members of a sub-committee constitute a quorum of that subcommittee.
  9. That in matters of procedure the Chairman or Deputy Chairman presiding at the meeting have a deliberative vote and, in the event of an equality of voting, have a casting vote, and that, in other matters, the Chairman or Deputy Chairman have a deliberative vote only.
  10. 10) That the committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources.
  11. That the committee or a sub-committee have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it.
  12. 12) That the committee report by 31 May 1977 and that any member of the committee have power to add a protest or dissent to any report.
  13. That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.

    1. M. SNEDDEN, Speaker

House of Representatives, Canberra, 8 December 1976

Motion (by Senator Withers)- by leaveproposed:

  1. 1 ) That the Senate concurs in the resolution transmitted to the Senate by message No. 227 of the House of Representatives relating to the appointment of a Joint Committee on the operation of the Provisions of the Aboriginal Land Rights ( Northern Territory) Act 1 976.
  2. That the provisions of the resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders.
  3. ) That the foregoing resolutions be communicated to the House of Representatives by message.
Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

-On behalf of the Opposition I say that we approve of the establishment of the joint parliamentary committee comprising the members nominated from the House of Representatives and 6 members from the Senate, but we intend to move an amendment to the terms of the message transmitted which is important and which I hope the Government will accept. I move:

At end of paragraph (1), add “, subject to the following modification:

Paragraph (1), sub-paragraph (b), leave out the subparagraph, insert the following sub-paragraphs:

the operation of laws of the Northern Territory which affect Aboriginal land, in particular laws relating to:

entry to aboriginal land,

protection of sacred sites,

wildlife conservation,

entry to seas adjoining aboriginal land,

roads upon aboriginal land, and

right of entry upon pastoral properties; (ba) the effect of mining operations, including exploration and prospecting operations, on Aboriginal land or land which is claimed by Aborigines; and’”.

The proposed amendment is quite major but nevertheless not inconsistent with the terms of the message. The Opposition is asking for a slight rearrangement of the first paragraph of the terms of reference, which refers to the adequacy of provisions of the laws of the Northern Territory relating to entry to Aboriginal land, the protection of sites of significance, wildlife services and entry to seas adjoining Aboriginal land. The Opposition seeks the inclusion of two further references, namely, roads upon Aboriginal land and the right of entry to pastoral properties. Those matters are significant omissions from the Government’s motion. Both of them, under the terms of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Bill 1976, will still be subject to ordinances drafted and put into operation by the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly.

This will not put us in the position where we will have to debate the wisdom or otherwise of whether the Legislative Assembly ought to have this power. What we are endeavouring to say in our amendment is that if we are prepared to look at those 4 areas then it is not inconsistent with the spirit of the message before us to add two further areas for examination. If the Government feels that it cannot accept the amendment, perhaps it might be able to come up with some other suggestion that will enable both of these areas to be examined.

The Opposition also wants to add a further paragraph in relation to the effect of mining operations, including exploration and prospecting operations, on Aboriginal land or land which is claimed by Aborigines. We are not opposed to the terms of sub-paragraph (c) in the original terms of reference, which relates to any other matters referred by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Of course, a few moments ago we had a minor debate over an Alice Springs episode. I think that there would be agreement on both sides of the chamber that this would be a reasonable sort of thing for a committee of this nature to look at. I regret that it is necessary to establish the committee. Nevertheless, in view of the composition of the Bill and the manner in which it has been carried, obviously the Committee could act as some sort of overseeing organisation or, in the long term, some sort of safeguard.

The Opposition is also of the opinion that its amendment concerning sub-paragraph (c), which relates to the effect of mining operations, is a very important one. Acceptance of the amendment in this regard will not put the Government into a hole in any way. If that is added to the terms of reference and if the Committee or the Government feels that a further reference is necessary, or if the Opposition is able to get a reference through this chamber to the Committee, it will make it very easy for a proper investigation then to be carried out by the Committee. There will be problems. I do not know whether they are going to come from the Legislative Assembly or mining companies endeavouring to act unilaterally or whether there will be Aborigines who feel aggrieved because of something that mining companies do. No attempt is being made to lay a political trap for the Government. That was never the Opposition’s intention when it sought the insertion of this amendment. We are not looking for a political confrontation. We are trying to be cooperative. I sincerely hope that the Government will accept the amendment.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Services · Victoria · LP

– I accept the spirit in which the amendment was moved but I must indicate that it is not acceptable to the Government. The amendment would substitute reference to ‘the operation of laws of the Northern Territory which affect Aboriginal land’ for reference to ‘the adequacy of provisions of the laws of the Northern Territory’ relating to particular matters. The Joint Select Committee on Aboriginal Land Rights is to report by the end of May. In this period it will be the making of laws of the Territory and not their operation which can be examined by the Committee.

The amendment proposes adding to the list of Territory laws those relating to roads upon Aboriginal land and right of entry upon pastoral property. The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Bill provides for Aborigines to control the making of roads on Aboriginal land. It will be for land councils to exercise powers under the Bill and Northern Territory laws will not affect their rights. The Bill does not deal with rights of entry to pastoral properties. These are covered in the Northern Territory Crown Lands Ordinance, which guarantees Aboriginal rights of entry and movement on pastoral leases and all pastoral leases carry a reservation in favour of Aborigines. Since the Committee is being appointed to examine the matters covered in the Bill it is inappropriate to refer to it a matter not covered.

The amendment also proposes additional reference to the effect of mining operations on Aboriginal land or land claimed by Aborigines. It should be pointed out that the Bill gives Aborigines power to control exploration and mining operations on their land and the reference is considered unnecessary. The reference covers matters of great importance and complexity which could not be adequately dealt with by the Committee in the time available. The terms of reference outlined in message No. 227 also provide for the Committee to examine and report on any other matters referred by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. This will allow additional references to be made if considered appropriate. The amendment proposed is therefore considered unnecessary.

Senator KEEFFE (Queensland)-by leave-I regret that the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) has rejected the amendment out of hand. My Party felt it was in quite low key and, in fact, would have contributed to a greater in-depth study of the problems that are going to be encountered. I do not know whether the Minister is trying to bury her head in the sand. I am sure that she has merely been misguided on this matter. Her reasons for not accepting the amendment may appear to be valid but they are not valid. There are so many loopholes in the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Bill that there will be escape clauses everywhere. I have tried in a state of sweet reasonableness to persuade the Government to accept this amendment. In view of its outright rejection of the amendment, it appears that the rather rude statements that were made earlier today about the setting up of the Joint Select Committee on Aboriginal Land Rights were in fact true. The Committee is not going to have any teeth. It is going to be used as a smokescreen to hide things that should be investigated. It could quite easily be used as a funk hole by the Government to hide something that it does not want to come out into the light of day.

Quite frankly, I do not know where this Government is going. I am absolutely amazed that a reasonable amendment of this nature should be rejected out of hand. It would have been much more feasible for the Minister to say: I would like to have a look at the amendment and see whether it can be incorporated’. The right of entry to pastoral properties is one matter that ought to be investigated by the Committee, otherwise the Government is not fair dinkum in establishing the Committee. Absentee landlords in particular, who have minions as managers, frequently mistreat the Aboriginal people and forbid them entry to properties where there are traditional sites. I do not think that anybody who has lived in the far north- whether it be in my State, the Kimberleys or the Northern Territorywould be able to deny that those things happen, because they do. This would have provided an excellent avenue for those people who feel aggrieved, particularly Aboriginal people, to make a submission to the Committee for proper investigation. But the Government is now going to sweep this matter under the carpet because it does not want things like this investigated. Such an investigation might embarrass it.

The subject of roads upon Aboriginal land is a subject on which I think people on the other side of the chamber as well as people on this side of the chamber have had many misgivings and lots of worries. There are established roads which go through traditional areas and there are roads which are yet to be established. One of the big problems, of course, will be the road from Katherine to Yirrkala or Gove. When it is finally made into a road of some significance it will go through some country which in the minds of the Aboriginal people is very valuable. The Yirrkala people have said to me on more than one occasion that they want the right to put rangers on that road and that they want those rangers to have the authority to refuse admission to some people if such refusal is felt to be in their best interests. In addition, they want their own people to be the rangers because at the moment, as anybody living in the Territory can tell you, permits are given by white people at Nhulunbuy to those who want to wander on to the Yirrkala reserve. There is no discrimination. There is no attempt to vet the people who go there. They go there with thousands of rounds of ammunition and damage property and kill wildlife. As I said yesterday, it is these people who do most damage to the game upon which many Aborigines are forced to rely for food.

I come finally to the effect of mining operations. With great respect to the Minister, I say that I do not think the Bill is adequate in making provision for protection. I feel that there are so many open ends and loopholes in the relevant clauses of the Bill as it stands that Aboriginal people will not get a fair crack of the whip, if I may use that slang term. Had the proposed term of reference relating to mining operations gone before this Committee, people who felt that they had not been treated properly and who felt that they had some grievance, apart from being able to go to an arbitrator, would have had one avenue open to them. Parliamentary committees usually are pretty informal organisations. A subcommittee usually can sit down with the Aboriginal people and find out what their real grievances are. The proposed term of reference would have been one further pipeline from this forgotten group of people back to the Government. It would have provided one more opportunity for there to be dialogue between the clans and the Government of Australia. I regret very much that the Government has seen fit to reject what I believe to be a highly important amendment which would have complemented and strengthened a committee that we are to set up anyway.

Senator KILGARIFF:
Northern Territory

– I welcome this motion agreeing to the establishment of the Joint Select Committee on Aboriginal Land Rights. The Aboriginal Lands Rights (Northern Territory) Bill is a major piece of legislation. It is probably the most important piece of legislation that has been passed in the Senate for quite a long time. As it has a very strong Federal flavour, it will have a tremendous impact on the Northern Territory. However, I do not wish to pursue that line. As one who will be a member of the Committee- I appreciate the opportunity of being on the Committee- I believe that it can do much as it is a committee of review. I believe that many people in the Territory will wish to give their point of view. I am particularly interested to see within the terms of reference mention of traditional owners and traditional land. I believe very strongly that there is insufficient knowledge of the land owning clans and Aboriginal law in the Territory. As I have said before, if any legislation before the Federal Parliament or the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly affects Aboriginal people, traditional lands and land ownership, we must look closely at the Aboriginal laws. I can assure the Senate that if we pass a law that conflicts with their law it will not work.

This Committee will go into the Territory and it will see many people, particularly Aboriginal people. Over the last few years many government or parliamentary committees, experts in this field and experts in that field have bombarded the Aboriginal people. They have become extremely bewildered by the increasing number of people who come to see them. They have described these people as whirlwinds, because they move in with much noise and dust, they disturb the community and they leave. As this Committee will see much of the Aboriginal people, I ask that it go into the Territory quietly, take its time and not hear these people in sophisticated surroundings. I support the motion. I suggest to Senator Keeffe, who has moved an amendment, that the term of reference allows other matters to be referred by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, to the Committee will enable other matters to be put before the Committee if there are sufficient people of the opinion that this should come about and right is on their side.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2939

QUESTION

THE TARIFF

Ministerial Statement

Debate resumed from 7 December, on motion by Senator Cotton:

That the Senate take note of the statement.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The statement put down by the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Cotton) 2 days ago on the question of tariff reductions by the Government is one on which it would not be appropriate to have a lengthy debate today. I do not intend to speak at great length on it, but it is important for the Senate to appreciate the significance of the statement in relation to the whole question of Government policy at present. I think it would be fair to say that if Tweedledum and Tweedledee were to be installed respectively as Prime Minister and Treasurer they could not improve upon the Government’s mismanagement of the Australian economy at present. In 12 months this Government has taken the Australian economy from a state of recovery to a dramatic downturn. I can recall saying in this chamber in April this year that it would be unreasonable and, indeed, unfair to suggest that an incoming government could find its feet and get itself set on its own course in a matter of three or four months. All incoming governments inherit problems, as the Labor Government did in 1972, from their predecessors. It would be idle to suggest that the present Government did not inherit problems also. But we are way past that stage now.

It is now 12 months since this Government came to office. We have seen it, by deliberate policy actions, bring about a downturn in the economy, an increase in unemployment and a reduction in private investment. This has been mainly because the Government has been determined to implement policies rapidly and far more quickly than the economy has been able to adjust to them. The position we see now, after 12 months, is the result of the Government’s own policies. That is the point that should be emphasised. It is not just the Opposition saying this. All sections of the community are saying it. Above all- this is a matter which is most relevant to this statement- the business community is saying it. We only have to look at the figure for total new investment in the September quarter. It fell by 6.3 per cent from the figure for the June quarter. Last year, despite the difficulties which the Labor Government itself was experiencing then, private business investment increased by 1.5 per cent. It was not a dramatic increase, but nevertheless it clearly illustrates that at that time the business community had more confidence in the Labor Government’s policies than it has now in this Government’s policies.

The statement on devaluation indicates the complete and total uncertainty of what the Government is doing. It just does not know what to do next. It is in a state of confusion as to the type of float that it has now embarked upon. One

Minister calls it a dirty float. The Treasurer (Mr Lynch) does not seem to agree with that. He seems to think it is some variation of it. The taking of this action is not relevant to the exchange rate adjustments and it will not solve the economic problems. The cuts that have been made as a result of the Government decision are virtually non-existent. For example, the tariff cut on black and white television sets is the only part of the cuts which will have any immediate effect and I do not think that is going to have much impact on the economy, much less restimulate confidence in the business sector of the community.

As to the lifting of quotas on completely built-up and completely knocked-down motor vehicles, the Government’s decision is allegedly to retain the notion that 80 per cent of the Aus.tralian car market will be preserved for Australian manufacturers. This means that the moment car imports reach 20 per cent of total registrations quotas will again be imposed. The Government’s statement is in fact contradictory. It is adding to the confusion in the business community about what is Government policy, and this is the real crux of the problem. The business sector does not know what to expect next. One’s mind can certainly go back to the days of Sir John McEwan when great promises were made about substantial reductions in tariffs over a whole wide range of areas but they never eventuated because in his day, and it continues on today, that very high protection was continued. Without arguing the merits or otherwise of whether Sir John McEwan ‘s philosophy was right, at least there was a consistency about it. This Government now finds itself in this ad hoc position of virtually taking these decisions quickly, erratically, with the commercial world completely at a loss as to what the Government’s intentions are.

Again here today in the stock valuation statement that has just been put down by the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Cotton), of which he gave me a copy earlier, we find a very similar position to that relating to the investment allowance earlier this year. We were told that the investment allowance was the thing which would bring confidence back to the business community. It was only a matter of a couple of months after the initial statement that the Government had to make another statement clarifying what it meant by the investment allowance. In this trading stock valuation adjustment scheme that has been announced today we find again some very grey areas which the business community will only need to think about over the ensuing months until such time as legislation is brought down; but it is of no incentive to the business community at all and maybe even when the legislation is eventually brought forward it will remain a matter of doubt then as to whether stock valuation adjustments will be of real benefit. On the face of it, yes, there would be merit in the scheme, but we will need to see the details of it before we can make any definitive judgment.

In view of the pressing nature of legislation this afternoon I know that nobody would want me or anybody else to speak at length on this or any other legislation. The only other comment I would make is that insofar as devaluation is concerned we do have the problem of the competitive position in which we find ourselves. In respect of our competitors on the world market such as Canada and South Africa where there are possible devaluations- New Zealand has already devalued- whatever advantages which may accrue to us can be lost so very quickly. It would seem that the Government in its disarrayand that is the only word that could be genuinely used about the current pOliCY of the Government- is not thinking its way through any of these actions and is jumping from one train of thought to another in the hope that somehow it will bumble through.

In respect of devaluation, in respect of the tariff adjustments which have been announced and in respect of the trading stock valuation adjustments, none of them has been properly thought out; none of them will give any real benefit to the business community who are the people whom the Government must consider instead of adopting this attitude of saying nice things about representing the free enterprise system. I am quite sure that the businessmen of Australia are sick of hearing about the free enterprise Government. They want some evidence that it is a government that is prepared to help the business community and is prepared to give it confidence again to get the economy moving. I daresay that when we come back here next year the position unfortunately is going to be worse and we Will be seeing more ad hoc decisions from this Government in an attempt to rescue itself from the quagmire into which it has already got itself.

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Industry and Commerce · LP

– I think Senator Wriedt has not really made it clear whether he is in favour of substantial tariff reductions across the board. I do not think he would be. I do not think he wants unemployment to grow more than it is today as a legacy of the actions of his Government The honourable senator talked about stock valuation. I appreciate the fact that he has just got the statement. I do not think we will refer to that at any great length. He talked about the fact that the recovery is gone. I might commend to him certain facts which could be worth looking at later when he has more time. I suggest that he look at the economic growth rate tor the 12 months ending December 1975 which is almost nil; look at the national accounts for the year ending June 1976 where the growth rate is clearly and discernibly established in the Australian economy; wait until the figures come out in December and see what the real trend line is; read the address of the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia which was put out quite recently; and get away from reading the morning newspapers and the comments every day, every lunch time and every night from people who have, to say the least, a very incidental view of events.

We have had all kinds of things but I had turned up some of the remarks of Mr Davidson of the Age who is regarded by some people as an expert. I have said before here that temperature taking of the economy and its trends every day, morning, afternoon and night, is the most useful way I know to destroy it. There is a long-term trend to be dealt with and one has to work forward on a straight line. The comments of economic journalists have been most interesting over the last three or four years. I have read a lot of them. Mr Davidson of the Age said in September 1974 under a comment about the then devaluation that it was a risk worth taking and that it would lead to upsurge in capital inflow; it would lead to a growth in domestic money supply; and it would allow business men to carry on with their growth in real investment. Then of course he at the same time gave a lecture to the then Government on how it should run its affairs. We are all used to getting these daily lectures from people who do not have the responsibility of government.

We are fortunate on occasions when we have people like Senator Wriedt who have been in government and who understand the complexities, but a lot of people who have never been in government are able to lecture on these matters with the greatest of authority. On the other hand we had the devaluation of not more than a fortnight ago. In writing about another devaluation on 29 November Mr Davidson said that it is a mortal blow to the credibility of the Fraser Government and it does ‘great harm to the material welfare of most Australians’. It would be useful for us all if he were to read his own remarks of, say, a little over 2 years ago because one cannot say one thing one day about devaluation and say something different the next day. These are the sorts of things we live with all the time. I understand that. Senator Wriedt understands it. Most of my colleagues on both sides of the Senate understand it.

There are one or two things that might be said very briefly before I turn to a positive proposal. It has been said by various experts outside the Parliament and the Government that the Government should reduce tariffs right across the board. This is it, a simple answer boys; knock it all off. What is the answer to that? Before devaluation protection accorded to Austraiian industry had been eroded most significantly. We have had the effects of massive wage increases in the cost structure generally, a net revaluation of the dollar, across-the-board tariff cuts and specific tariff reductions for particular industries. We hold the view- we said it quite clearly in the statement and we have said it publicly; the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has said it and I have said it- that to reduce tariffs through a further acrosstheboard action would simply take us back to the pre-devaluation situation of inadequate protection with consequent disruption, loss of confidence and growing unemployment. We are already trying to improve on the unemployment figures.

I think it will also be agreed, if the matter is studied carefully, that we have made some very substantial inroads on to the overall complexity of tariff by-law and primage and reduced very substantially those areas which are now subject to British preferential tariff and other matters of by-law and primage. In the end it will be a tidier, less complicated scene in the whole tariff area. We do not expect the adjustments to which the statement refers to do anything more than increase employment. All I can say at the moment, if we are talking about daily comment, is that according to telegrams, letters and telephone calls which are coming in, businesses are beginning to re-employ people. I cannot say to what extent that is occurring. I would need another 3 months to determine that. But that is the information which is coming into the office all the time. If anybody has a particular problem we will use the Temporary Assistance Authority, as occurred during the term of office of the Labor Government and of previous Liberal-National Country Party governments, to move on the particular area of concern. Somebody has said in the journals- it was not said in this Parliament because the Parliament often tends to be better informed than are many people outside the

Parliament- that the tariff cuts are not legal. They are legal. That has been clearly established.

The situation in relation to the motor vehicle industry is made quite clear in the statement. Imported completely built up motor vehicles of the passenger type will remain subject to a 45 per cent ad valorem tariff. The net devaluation of 15 per cent has meant an increase in protection to that industry theoretically of a tariff of 70 per cent. In those circumstances, that should be more than adequate to cover the Australian manufacturers’ position. If, on the other hand, it is shown not to be adequate- we doubt very much that that will be the case- we can move in relation to the 80 per cent and balance up the undertaking we have given and which the Opposition would want us to give to support Australian industry, investment and employment.

We have talked about our position in relation to the multilateral trade negotiations. We believe that we will have no problem in negotiating in Geneva. Indeed, we believe that in relation to certain areas of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, we have been allowed for too long to become the victim of a situation which needs some tidying up. The new move gives us no problems, in our view, bilaterally with Papua New Guinea and New Zealand, although we will have to continue to work very closely together. As far as we are concerned, margins of preference should be adequate in regard to the tariff reductions for developing countries. However, we are studying that situation very carefully. As these matters develop and as positions become established, we will once again report to the Parliament.

I think perhaps I might cite one or two figures, not at all in answer to Senator Wriedt ‘s remarks- I think he understands things better perhaps than a lot of other people- but in answer to those people who have been very vocal and, in some cases, quite vicious about the need for across-the-board tariff cuts. What we have done is quite simple. We had to cut them across the board by a certain amount. The 25 per cent across-the-board tariff cut took effect on 19 July 1973. At that time 1.4 per cent of the workforce was unemployed, and at the same time 1.2 per cent of the manufacturing workforce was unemployed. So, in effect, at that time unemployment in manufacturing was 14 per cent below that of the total workforce. In August 1974, 2 per cent of the workforce was unemployed, and at that time 2.3 per cent of the manufacturing workforce was unemployed. So as one looked at that pattern proceeding right through until about June of this year, increasingly one got to the situation of unemployment in manufacturing industry as such moving from 14 per cent below the structural level of the general workforce to 15 per cent above that level. That is fair evidence of the effect of across-the-board tariff cuts being made to the whole of the Australian tariff structure.

As I have said before- I think the Senate understands this- it is a complex and difficult area. It is made more complex because we are no longer in a fixed exchange regime in which we can limit ourselves to a fixed tariff regime. We are in a situation where the exchange rate will move much more frequently with much smaller margins. It argues for a different sort of relationship to protect Australian industry whose costs are such that it will be eroded or destroyed by unrestricted imports.

The other thing one might say is this: We have heard the wonderful comments about increases in costs because of a decrease in the number of imports. Allusions have been made to the proposition that if we opened the world to free imports the consumer price index figure will be reduced; because we are preventing imports from coming in to the extent that they might in a free trade position, the CPI will increase. There is clear evidence, which is being accumulated more and more with a view to making it public, that an increase in imports of clothing and textiles- there have been massive increases in imports of clothing and textiles- has done nothing whatsoever to decrease the price of clothing and textiles to the consumer. Therefore, if that is a proposition based on actual fact, one cannot argue that increased imports will do anything at all for the CPI. They may in fact make it a great deal worse. In fact, the best case that one can make in economic management in this area at the moment is by protecting Australian industry and its workforce. To utilise its under-utilised capacity will do more to reduce costs than is possible by means of increased imports, the benefits of which do not flow through, from experience, to the Australian consumer. Hence the effect on the CPI. This is a critical matter for the Senate to consider.

I wish to put forward a proposal which is the result of the thought I have given to this subject. I believe that the Senate can do a very useful job for Australia in the context of the current scene and the changing scene that is flowing out of the altered balance between tariffs and the more volatile exchange position. I believe that the Senate Standing Committee on Trade and Commerce could usefully take up, in the public interest and in the interest of the Senate, what I call an overall monitoring position. I believe that many things that are said by people have a very great influence on confidence and expectation, and often such statements are basically totally inaccurate. It could be very useful if the Senate Committee could say to a particular person: ‘Please come along and explain to the Committee what it is that you mean, because if what you say is true we are very concerned. Establish with us the bona fides of what you say. Let us take evidence on this matter’.

Accordingly I put forward the proposition that the Senate Standing Committee on Trade and Commerce might play a useful role if it were to look at the effects of currency alterations and the changes in the protection that is available for manufacturing industry in relation to employment, inflation and the general price of manufactured goods and if it were from time to time to come back to the Senate and give its opinion. I believe that such an exercise would be useful to the Australian Government and to the Parliament. It is a particular function that the Senate might take up. I realise that it might have the effect of stopping people from making excited noises overnight or in the small hours of the morning, but I am arguing, in a changed scene, for a more balanced, objective study of the whole matter. I believe that the Senate Standing Committee on Trade and Commerce could perform that function very usefully for us. Therefore I seek leave to move a motion for the reference of a matter to the Standing Committee on Trade and Commerce.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator COTTON:

-I move:

  1. 1 ) That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Trade and Commerce for inquiry and report: The effects of (a) currency alterations, and (b) changes to manufacturing industry protection upon employment, inflation, including prices of manufactured goods.
  2. That the Committee report to the Senate on these matters every 3 months from the commencement of the opening session of Parliament in 1977.
Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

-Senator Cotton indicated to me earlier this morning his intention to move the motion which he has just moved. We had a brief discussion about it. I do not know whether some misunderstanding has arisen, but it was my impression that I was to discuss this matter with my colleagues this afternoon to determine our attitude. I have discussed it with some of them, but it was my understanding that Senator Cotton and I were to meet again and talk about the position prior to his moving that motion in the Senate.

Senator Cotton:

– I am happy to make such an adjustment. I was under the impression when I looked at you that you indicated it would be all right.

Senator WRIEDT:

-Can this matter be deferred until perhaps a later hour in the day so that we can consult on it?

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Industry and Commerce · LP

– I am perfectly happy with that suggestion made by Senator Wriedt. I formed the impression that Senator Wriedt was in agreement with my moving that motion at this stage. He and I have had a discussion about the matter. There is no reason why I should not now seek leave to continue my remarks at a later stage in order to allow Senator Wriedt time to give a little more thought to this matter.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2943

DAIRYING INDUSTRY RESEARCH AND PROMOTION LEVY AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 30 November, on motion by Senator Cotton:

That the-Bill be now read a second time.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– The Senate is being asked to give its assent to the Dairying Industry Research and Promotion Levy Amendment Bill 1976. The Opposition is prepared to support this amending legislation. It is some 6 months since the Senate previously had an opportunity to discuss the dairy industry. Whilst there have been some changes in the industry we are still faced with a critical position due to the problems which are inherently part of the structural problems that face the Austraiian dairy industry. The Bill is designed to put beyond any reasonable doubt the power of the State milk authorities to impose a levy on whole milk or butterfat. I understand that the need for the legislation arises because of some doubts that were cast upon the ability of the Australian Government to request the States to impose the levy procedures. There was some delay in the implementation of the previous legislation as well as in the payment of the levy. In addition to the doubts that were cast upon the legislation by the dairy authority in New South Wales there has been a similar negative reaction from the authority in Queensland which refuses to have anything to do with the collection of the levy. We are unable to understand whether this reluctance is part of the general behavioural pattern in Queensland to say no to any Australian

Government initiatives in whatever area of legislation.

The levy is used to finance the research activities of the Dairy Research Committee and the promotional activities of the Australian Dairy Corporation. The funds collected under the terms of the Act to which this Bill relates are expended on specific areas of scientific, technical and economic research and the publication of such information and activities. In 1975-76 income gained from the butter fat levy was over $774,000 each for the dairy produce fund and the sales promotion fund. The processed milk manufacturers and the Government export market development grants scheme also add to the funds available for research and promotion. When we consider the problems that exist in the dairy industry generally we can see how important it is for Australian Government initiative and for the support of the State milk authorities and State governments. It is vital that there be no hesitancy in the powers of the Commonwealth to vest State authorities with the power to collect the levies. It is in the interests of the industry, the Commonwealth and the States. However, the Bill ‘s presentation can be described only as inadequate for the general problems that face the dairy industry. I am obliged to say that in the circumstances of the problems facing the industry, the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) makes Nero look a little like an amateur when it comes to fiddling. Nowhere in the legislation we dealt with in the autumn session or in this session of Parliament have we really come to grips with the basic problems of the industry.

Apart from a cursory second reading speech prepared by his Department, the Minister made no comment in the other place on the Bill or the dairy industry. It was left to another Minister, the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development (Mr Newman) to move the third reading of the Bill. This epitomises the Minister’s lack of interest in the dairy industry. On many occasions the Minister has been rhetorical about a number of deficiencies in respect to the dairy industry which he laid at the door of the previous Government. It is fair to say that the Minister is pretty good at diverting people’s attention from his own lack of activity. It might be recalled that he spent a fair bit of time attacking the Japanese and threatening them by suggesting that there would be some retaliatory action against them for cutting back on beef imports. I want to read a telegram that was sent to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) who was good enough to pass it on to me. It was from the Vice President of the Victorian Branch of the Australian Fishing Industry Council. It drew attention to the proposal by the Minister for Primary Industry to trade off Australia’s fish resources in exchange for increased beef quotas to Japan. It states:

This branch objects to the use of resources diplomacy in relation to the fishing industry and sees this action as being the thin end of the wedge, allowing in future, further ‘trade offs ‘ of fish resources to protect other export industries. We hope that you will make known your objection to this blatant sacrifice of one industry to protect another.

Having regard to answers to questions that have been given in this place and elsewhere about devaluation, it would appear that a number of farmers have been lulled into believing that there will be very great benefits as a result of the Government’s decision on devaluation. Devaluation will now be sold as some sort of unlimited joy to Australia’s primary industries and as a solution to the dairy industry’s problems. If only it was true that devaluation would help the dairy industry.

I wished to ask the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry (Senator Cotton) a question this morning concerning the reference of the Minister for Primary Industry to the fact that in his view devaluation would have the effect of increasing farm incomes by some $150m. Unfortunately I was not able to do so. I am sure that Senator Cotton would agree with me that the concern of the dairy industry is access to markets. I wanted to find out whether the Minister’s statement was a mathematical statement or whether it related to overseas markets. If that were so, then the revaluation decision would considerably reduce income to farmers as the devaluation decision was taken only several days ago. It must be asserted and it cannot be contradicted that the proportion of dairy produce in world trade has always meant a more than disproportionate effect in any changes in supply and demand. Devaluation will lift the prices for dairy products if contracts have been written in other currencies but the main problem for dairy exports is that markets are closed to us and will remain closed until there are shortages in the northern hemisphere.

Devaluation has the capacity to add to farmers’ costs in both the short and long term. The short term benefits for some industries may well be eaten into by freight rates. The 1975-76 report of the Industries Assistance Commission contains tables which deal with the invisibles of which freight charges play a significant part. These are matters which ought to be the concern of those interested in the problems facing the rural sector because there is no doubt that freight charges will rise as a result of the devaluation decision. The overall effect of devaluation on rural industries will be different for different industries. I concede that point but I do not believe that the dairy industry will benefit much from the decision. It is interesting that supporters of the Government in the other place who had the courage to speak on this legislation stressed the plight of this industry. Few of them spoke without attacking the Government. Any member or senator in this Parliament representing dairy farmers or having any knowledge of the problems facing the dairy industry, cannot feel happy with the Government or the Minister.

The Minister puts forward a minor Bill on the dairy industry one year after his Government came to office. We are waiting for the Government to come forward with some substantial legislation that really will help the dairy industry. Reluctantly, the Government agreed to the underwriting of exports on a basis that would cost it little or nothing. Tardily, the Government agreed to about half of the Industries Assistance Commission’s recommendations on rural reconstruction. The Minister rather cynically called for another IAC report on the dairy industry, despite the fact that he had in his possession a report by the IAC on the dairy industry which had been requested and which was delivered in October 1975. So, it was a stalling measure on the part of the Minister. It was a measure designed for no action at a time when we needed action to tackle the problems facing the industry. It can only mean that more and more dairy farmers, particularly those in disadvantaged sectors of the industry, will go on to the dole and will have to be restructured out of the industry. If the recommendations in the first IAC report are read carefully, one can see that an alert Minister could have asked his Department to come up with a plan for the industry without the time wasting involved in another report. The Minister and the Government have shown little leadership; in fact, one can readily assert that they have shrunk from their responsibilities.

Let us look at problems in the dairy industry with which the Liberal Party and the National Country Party have failed to come to grips. For the first 2 months of the current dairying season -July and August- national butter production was down by 33.3 per cent and cheese production was down by 32.3 per cent. These figures are largely a result of the drought in southeastern Australia. It should be remembered that butter and cheese production was down in every State. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics expects the national milk production to decline by 12 per cent to 5560 million litres- the lowest level in 23 years. Yet we still have a problem with the distribution of our production quotas. Production of butter is expected to be down by 22.3 per cent on last year’s figures and skim milk powder by 19.8 per cent. In the face of cost rises in excess of 30 per cent in the last 3 years and given the decline in production, the gross value of dairy products is projected by the BAE to fall dramatically. The value of butter will be down by $30m; cheese, by $3m; and processed milk products, by $3m. The only compensation for this will be an expected rise of $ 10m in the value of domestic milk used for human consumption and now some possible new short term benefit arising out of the devaluation decision.

State governments are moving to share this revenue which had been so unfairly denied to some producers of milk- typically, in my State of New South Wales in Country Party areas where that Party sold out the dairy industry by using the carrot of a subsidy while its Liberal colleagues maximised profits under zoning legislation. Now even the Victorian Government, which was of the same political complexion as the New South Wales Government until 1 May, looks like spreading some of the revenue available on the domestic market to all of its producers so that there will be some possibility of the dairy producers receiving a more equitable return for their labour.

Let us make no mistake about the dairy industry and the cause of its problems. As a result of production incentives in the post-war years, we have allowed resourses to flow into this industry. The result has been that too much production has taken place. A decision was made in the postwar years to expand agricultural production, first for humanitarian purposes and then to gain foreign exchange. Part of this problem relates to the subsidy situation which is synonymous with this Government’s agricultural policies in the post-war years. The Labor Party is being painted as being opposed to subsidies, come hell or high water. AH we have said is that subsidies have distorted the allocation of resources between and within industries. They have done little to produce long term stability or efficiency within subsidised industries. Worse than that, subsidies on production inputs have done nothing for welfare problems in industries; they have simply benefited those who have needed them least. Poverty reports show that in the dairy industry we have some of the worst social problems of those who are living just above the poverty line.

The subsidy to the dairy industry by way of the butter and cheese bounty was $29m in 1955-56, but it dropped to $27m in 1956-57. By the end of 1972- 73, that subsidy, plus devaluation compensation for the years 1969 to 1972, had amounted in the years 1955 to 1973 to the colossal sum of $563m. Between 60 per cent and 70 per cent of this money has gone to Victoria- the most efficient butter producing State. Other States were actually paying money to Victoria via equalisation schemes when the Labor Government decided- and correctly so- to phase out the subsidy. If the men now in Government were genuine about their protests at the Labor Government’s action, let them now advocate subsidies or act to restore the former inequitable system.

As well as subsidies and restrictive legislation preventing the free enterprise production of margarine, Australian dairy farmers have enjoyed some protection on the domestic market. I believe that much of this protection is deserved and unavoidable. But the facts need stating so that the same old myths are not perpetuated. Due to a decision of the Government, for years Australian taxpayers and farmers subsidised British housewives by the provision of cheaper butter than we could buy in Australia. In other words, the Australian consumer subsidised overseas buyers. In domestic terms, Australian consumers also have subsidised the dairy industry by paying a high price for all dairy products, given import parity prices. I emphasise that I am not opposing what has happened, what is happening and what will happen; but I point to the fact that the process I have described led the BAE, which was given the task of making an objective assessment, to make calculations on the effective rate of protection to the dairy industry in its submissions to the first LAC inquiry into the industry.

As the Minister will well know, the industry is virtually 2 producing industries, with milk going either to a fluid milk market or to a manufacturing milk market. The effective rate of protection for the fluid milk sector in the years 1971-72 to 1973- 74, State by State, was as follows: New South Wales, 364 per cent; Victoria, 395 per cent; Queensland, 236 per cent; South Australia, 95 percent; Western Australia, 179 percent; and Tasmania, 328 per cent. The overall rate for Australia was 243 per cent. For the manufacturing sector in the same years, the effective rate of protection, State by State, was: New South Wales, 45 per cent; Victoria, 42 per cent; Queensland, 41 percent; South Australia, 28 per cent; Western Australia, 37 per cent; and Tasmania, 39 per cent. The overall rate for Australia was 41 per cent. If one allows for the proportion of milk going to the 2 main end users, the effective rate of protection for all milk in the years 1971-72 to 1973-74 was: New South Wales, 192 per cent; Victoria, 76 per cent; Queensland, 122 per cent; South Australia, 69 per cent; Western Australia, 1 14 per cent; and Tasmania, 48 per cent. There is a range in the figures to allow for various means of calculation. It can therefore be said that the dairy industry has been well and truly protected and has not lived in the environment of the wool and beef industries which have had to stagger from one difficult season to another. If one considers the level of protection given to fluid milk producers in New South Wales and the price disparity between fluid milk and manufacturing milk, one can see how wicked were the actions of the last LiberalNational Country Party Government, in the decade it was in office.

In a survey of the dairy industry by the BAE for the years 1 967 to 1 970, the following regional prices for milk were quoted: Region 1, the north coast, 17c per gallon; region 2, the Hunter region, 3 1.7c per gallon; the metropolitan region, 40.7c per gallon; region 4, the far south coast, 23.5c per gallon; and region 5, the inland region, 20.6c per gallon. Surely the questions of equity and the allocation of resources must arise when we have such a vast difference in the price structure. The average price paid for fluid milk was 47.2c per gallon and for manufacturing milk 16.1c per gallon. Region 1 is the north coast, and we know which political party represents the people in that area in the State and Federal parliaments. The same disparity in milk prices has continued for many years.

So we had a situation where Federal LiberalCountry Party governments were telling the dairy industry what good fellows they were, knowing that two-thirds of the subsidy was going to Victoria and little or nothing to the north coast, the far south coast and the inland butter producers in New South Wales and in Queensland. While State Liberal-Country Party governments denied access to the north coast, far south coast and inland milk producers, the richer metropolitan producers were getting the cream of the markets. That is why we say that inadequate attention has been given to the industry and that it has been betrayed by the inactivity of the Liberal-Country Party Government.

The argument has been put that the higher price was needed to guarantee fluid milk supply all year round. Whilst this is true to some extent it is certainly not true to the extent that zoning and quotas were practised. The inequitable aspects of the practice of this policy were aided and abetted by former New South Wales Liberal and Country Party Ministers who themselves held quotas for considerable periods of time and were cutting the throats of dairy farmers in non-quota areas. It is no wonder that the milk issue in New South Wales became such a burning issue in the last New South Wales State elections. The dairy farmers in these areas were betrayed and are still being betrayed by the failure of the Federal Government to come up with a worthwhile plan to solve the problems facing the industry. I wonder how much longer it will be before dairy farmers wake up to what has happened.

The Bill, which we support, relates to research and promotion. It is certain that in the past, and until recent times, the industry has been so structured that promotion was either not encouraged, positively discouraged or bungled to the detriment of the industry. The industry unfortunately has always resisted change. Any industry that is unable properly to look at itself, which allows itself to be fragmented and which has squabbling among its own leaders as well as being saddled with an impotent and irrelevant government and having an outdated industry structure would be in the mess that the dairy industry is in. Just as the Country Party failed to serve the interests of its own dairy farmer supporters, industry organisations over the years have failed to serve their industry and it is about time that those members in the industry, the rank and file of the organisation, realised it. We hear a great deal about the need for the rank and file to assert themselves in the trade union movement. It is equally important for the rank and file dairy farmer to start to assert in his own interests his objectives so that those who represent him politically and in his own organisations can tackle the task of reconstruction of the industry. I am not saying that there have not been men of goodwill in the industry. Of course there are men of good will in it and in the Government and in the organisations, but the dispute between the various organisations, particularly in Victoria over the years, and the dispute between the quota and non-quota holders in New South Wales, have done nothing to help the general interests of dairy farmers. I hope that honourable senators opposite will accept that as a fair comment.

I was amazed to read the findings of the Victoria board of inquiry into the activities of various people and organisations who were elected supposedly to help the industry. At best from a reading of that evidence one is entitled to draw the conclusion that a lot of self-interest and even corruption has existed in the way the industry has kept itself divided and in the interests of those who gained from that division. We have farmer representatives on the Equalisation Committee saying that they were representing the Committee and not the farmers. Yet time and again representations are being made by farmers seeking to be represented on the boards and committees concerned with different sections of agriculture. I am sure they are there to represent the rank and file viewpoint and to represent the best interests of the industry. We had individuals on these various committees utilising the knowledge gained to further their own interests. In less polite circles this would be referred to as insider trading. We all have heard comments in this place over recent years about how detrimental that is to the general interests of the stock exchange.

When the Labor Government was in office between 1972 and 1975 it moved to eliminate some of the impediments to sensible industry organisation by the establishment of the Australian Dairy Corporation comprising people of expertise. Unfortunately, the same conservative people, the same conservative forces who had impeded industry progress set about whiteanting that organisation and the individuals in it. It is a matter of great regret that that organisation which has the very important task of trying to get some understanding within the industry has had its efforts hamstrung by some of those individuals to whom I have referred. Unfortunately, the Queenslanders have been successful in hamstringing some of the most capable industry people who have been endeavouring to put the interests of the industry above self-interest.

Despite all the promises in the election last year and all its huffing and puffing when in Opposition, the Government now must be described as procrastinating on the dairy industry. As I said 6 months ago, the plight of the industry arose out of the problems of the European Economic Community which were known. A report was presented to the Parliament in 1961. In the short time we were in Government we tried genuinely to put the industry into more order, to get a better understanding of what was facing the industry. We had an Industries Assistance Commission inquiry into the industry and would have acted on the findings of that inquiry had we not been dismissed by the same conservative forces which have kept the industry divided and which place self-interest above the interests of the nation and the interests of the industry. I believe from discussions which I have been having with farm leaders in recent times that the farmers are beginning to wake up to the fact that they have been conned into supporting a Government that has not taken any basic structural initiatives to solve the difficulties that the industry is facing. The IAC report which was delivered in October 1975 would have been acted upon by a Labor Government and I cannot understand the reluctance of Mr Sinclair and Mr Fraser, and those who make the decisions in this Government, to implement all the recommendations of that report.

Another report was delivered some months ago- again it has not been acted upon- setting out the long term situation of the dairy industry. So the ball is in the Government’s court and it is about time it kicked it into play and we got some legislation that will go some way towards introducing stability and prosperity in the industry. That is what the dairy farmers want and while they may be at one another’s throats in the realisation of those objectives, it is up to governments, particularly the national Government, to take the initiatives which are necessary to put the industry on a firm and stable basis.

Senator ARCHER:
Tasmania

-This Bill is a small Bill to remove any legal doubts regarding the imposition of the Commonwealth levy on whole milk and butterfat which is produced in Australia and subsequently vested in State milk authorities. Its purpose is to rationalise the operations of the dairy research and promotion organisation. While dairying has never been one of the glamour industries, either rurally or on an overall economic basis, for many years it was the most dependable occupation in Australia. It was very much the basic unit in the Australian rural field. However, over the last 8 yean the number of dairy farmers has dropped from the order of 70 000 to less than 30 000, and in my own State from 3200 to 1700. The industry did progress until about 1972-73, and it depended very heavily on the results it obtained from the advantages of good research and good development. It went through a period from about 1 939 when there was much improvement genetically, the quality of stock improved, artificial breeding became the thing, fertilisers of all sorts were tried, proved and used, new types of pasture grasses and developments were introduced, irrigation became very much a part of dairying, there were new types and developments in forage crops, rotations, ensilagemaking, lot feeding, changes in milking methods, and improvements in dairy hygiene. As the cost squeeze grew in the late 1960s and early 1970s, there were more cows, larger farms and increased capitalisation.

Throughout that period the farmer did absolutely everything right; there is no denying that.

The problem was that the market had been traditional and the industry had built itself entirely on a traditional market and traditional thinking. All the research which had been done was entirely production oriented. There were many factories all over Australia and they were all the same. They were aU oriented to the production of more milk and the making of butter. Although there were signs that that might not continue, the signs were not read at that stage, and by the time action was needed there were real problems. Suddenly it happened. The United Kingdom and the European Economic Community had slipped away. The home market had started to change considerably. Costs had gone mad, competition from overseas had become extremely severe, and the debt structure had increased alarmingly. Even then, most farmers, most factories and most farm advisers believed that the problems were temporary.

Added to that were the problems that arose with last year’s season. At a time when it looked as though rationalisation was going to take place, there was one year of higher prices and immediately, as a means of recouping some of the losses, the number of cows showed a dramatic increase in the main dairying areas. People who would normally have sold off a lot of culled cows kept them. The immediate result in the first year was that because they had more stock they had less hay. That was followed by a fairly bad winter when all the reserves were used up. As we know, the price of cattle then feU and the price of butter and milk fell. The farms in the southeastern area of Australia were all overstocked and at that stage all the farmers were short of money. They have not, did not and could not apply superphosphate, and they had used all their hay. Then there was a drought period of proportions we had not seen for many years which coincided with a complete market collapse, and a disaster situation, which hopefully we are corning out of, took over.

As a result, the supply has been reduced this season. The cows all came in badly and production has been down. The loss markets we have been supplying over the last few years will not be supplied to the same extent as at present and, accordingly, the return per lb to the dairyman will be quite a lot higher than it otherwise would have been, although the overall income will be very low. The devaluation will assist in some measure and hopefully we will now enter a period of some stability. It would appear that there has been some improvement in the beef market, and there is no doubt that the dairy and beef industries are tied together to some extent. I believe that dairy beef is the biggest single area in which dairy research should be engaged upon. There would be no question of the dairy industry wrecking the beef industry by over-supply, because with a total cattle population in Australia at present of about 34 million, fewer than 2.5 million are dairy stock. With selective crossbreeding of stock which will produce quick growth and early maturity, the farmers can, with care, improve their productivity quite substantially in that area alone. Basically, farmers are traditionalists, and even in their breeding pattern with the sorts of bulls they use they are unlikely to make changes quickly. But there is a need to change if change is needed.

Up to this point I have been talking about the front end of the problem, but I do not think that that is particularly where the problem is. If we look at the area which counts, that is the consumer end, we cannot but agree that that is where the industry’s shortcoming lies. There have been insufficient results from that portion of the dairying research budget which has been spent on consumer orientation. The Dairying Research Committee is made up of 10 membersthe Chairman of the Australian Dairy Corporation, 4 members representing Australian dairy farmers, one member representing butter and cheese factories and factories processing whole milk and whole milk products, and 4 members representing respectively the Australian Agricultural Council, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, the Australian Department of Primary Industry and the Australian Dairy Corporation. Respectfully, if I were looking for the cause of the problem I would start right there. No one on that Committee represents consumer interests in any way, and if we are to be concerned about the production of a product that people want and its marketing in a way that people want it presented we have to ask the people who know.

I have read the reports of the Committee from 1972-73 to 1975-76, and they show a vast list of projects on which money has been spent. The figures show that in 1968-69 $767,834 was spent on dairy research; in 1969-70 the amount was $675,646; in 1970-71, $792,301; in 1971-72, $800,134; in 1972-73, $821,373; in 1973-74, $836,860; in 1974-75, $872,982; and in 1975-76, $912,657; making a total of $6,479,787, or $6.5m. That amount has been spent in the last 8 years. Nearly all of it has been spent on the technical side of dairying, on production and on problems of manufacture. Very little of it has been spent on the factor that really counts- the getting of the product into the market. The money that is spent by the Dairying Research Committee is spent under 3 basic headings: Dairy farm research, manufacturing research, and marketing and economic research. In relation to manufacturing research, under the heading of ‘New Foods’ the Committee’s report states:

Milk Products as Ingredients in Foods

Recombined dairy products and dried whipping cream were tested for acceptability and storage.

More recently efforts have been diverted towards the development and evaluation of milk compounds as ingredients in other foods.

New Dairy Foods

This project concentrated on the development of a wide range of products for the local market including quarg spread, chocolate confection, processed cheese spread, flavoured butter and recombined milk yoghurt.

That is the only reference in the report to production. Under marketing and economic research only 3 items were mentioned. They were a continuing research survey on household demand for cheese, the adjustment and management in the dairy industry in Tasmania and new dairy foods. In relation to dairy foods the report states:

A program was devised to obtain market information on new forms of dairy foods as a guide to commercial processors and the Department’s researchers with the long term objective of increasing consumption of dairy products. During the project the Divisional Foods Group of the Queensland Department of Primary Industries established communications with commercial marketing organisations which will be of benefit to the development and marketing of new products in the future.

That was all the report said on that subject and that does not tell me enough about what is happening as regards increasing the marketability of dairy products in Australia or overseas. There has been a further decline in the consumption of butter in Australia and a preference towards margarine, the consumption of which is up 22 per cent. I do not think that the market is being given what it is looking for. I believe that if one carried out a survey one would find out what people are looking for. Then we could see about supplying the demand. A survey of this type should be done right now. From my own investigations it seems that the first requirement that people have in this area is for something to put on their bread. Secondly, it needs to be spreadable. Thirdly, it needs to be packaged in the sort of container that can sit in the middle of the table. Basic and fundamental as that sounds, I think that if we provided butter in that form the sales of butter would immediately increase. More research needs to be done on the spreadability question. I know what is happening. I have read all sorts of reports about tilings that the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and other bodies have been doing to improve the spreadability of butter. This research has been going on for some time. I understand that there may even be some legal complications at present over an international product. All I am saying is that for the amount of money spent, the time that has been taken and the condition of the industry at large, insufficient has been produced. Whatever the cause, the results are not there.

The industry is involved completely in the present situation. I understand that there will be a meeting of all sections of the dairying industry here in Canberra next week again to try to make sure that when changes are made they will be to the advantage of all sections of the industry. These do not need to be only straight political decisions; they have to be decisions that are acceptable to the industry and with which the industry will go along in a way that will be to the lasting benefit of the industry. We know that there is to be a reframing period. We know that there have to be further changes. The industry knows that. But the actual extent of these changes and the shape of them are not clear yet. It is all very well to get expert advice from people who will never have the opportunity to put the advice into practice, but it is far more important that the industry should know where it is going and should participate in the decision making.

For instance, the cheese manufacturers have done a lot towards increasing their market, as the figures will show. But they too have problems. Representatives of the industry have given me several instances where they have gone to a lot of trouble and expense to produce a variety of cheese in Australia which, once established, is superseded by an imported variety which has been subject to subsidised production and subsidised export. In many cases the imported cheese has been produced under production standards which may be questionable when compared with the standards under which Aus.tralian manufacturers operate. I support the Bill. I look forward to some changes after its implementation.

Senator PRIMMER:
Victoria

-My contribution to the debate wm be rather short and, I hope, somewhat sweet. The purpose of the Dairying Industry Research and Promotion Levy Amendment Bill, as has already been said, is to put beyond aU doubt the legality of the research and promotion levy struck on aU milk produced in Australia. The New South Wales Dairy Industry Authority has questioned the legality of the Dairying Industry Research and Promotion Levy Act and that is the reason why this amendment to the Act is necessary. Knowing the dairying industry for the vindictive industry it has been over the years, if it were proved by a court of law that the Commonwealth levy were invalid such proof would lead only to a backward step being taken for the whole industry in Australia and to an increase occurring in the factionalism that has been part and parcel of the industry since it was established, and which of course still exists.

Frankly, despite the efforts of governments and people of goodwill throughout the Commonwealth, inside and outside the industry, I believe that factionalism and parochialism will exist until the industry is some day organised on a national rather than State basis. It is now history that this factionalism in my own State of Victoria resulted for years in the existence of 2 dairy organisations, each believing it was putting forward the right theory for the future of the industry and the people within it. Each of those factions had other factions within them- a whole milk faction and a milk for manufacture faction. Thanks to the Victorian Government that system was done away with by the amalgamation of the 2 State bodies. However, not to be denied, another faction concerned with the allocation of quotas for liquid milk has sprung up over recent months. People who had a vested interest in maintaining the status quo feared that their future was threatened and they formed an organisation known as the Milk Producers Association. Despite the small numbers of people involved these people were extremely vocal and became a rather militant pressure group within the industry.

As has been detailed by my colleague the shadow Minister for Agriculture, Senator Gietzelt, and as we all know, the problem has been caused by the variation in prices between what was obtainable in the liquid milk market and what was obtainable in the milk for manufacture market. I suppose that it has been highlighted by the stockpile of dairy products in the European Economic Community, in particular, in recent days. Dairy farmers in other countries who are totally uneconomic by any measure of Australian dairy standards have been able to use their political muscle to win subsidies from governments which rely on the dairy industry to stay in power.

However, there seems to be a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel. There are now indications that governments, particularly in West Germany and France, may be starting to flex their own muscles. I believe that the writing is on the wall for the attitude that has prevailed within those 2 countries in relation to high subsidies for dairy products. Perhaps within 5 years- within a decade at the outside, anyhow- those uneconomic dairy farmers will be forced into the same cold, hard world of marketing and world parity prices as their Australian and New Zealand counterparts have had to contend with for years. When that day comes 1 believe that the money for which this Bill provides- money for research and promotion; money that has been spent by the Australian dairy industry- will be money well spent.

Some questions have arisen in my mind in relation to funds that have been expended over the years by people involved in research. I do not think that sufficient work has been done in this area. Money has been expended right, left and centre for production unlimited. Like the farmer in every other branch of the Australian agricultural industry, the Australian dairy farmer is a fairly efficient sort of chap. He is capable of producing milk in the same way as his counterparts are capable of producing beef, wheat or wool. There is no worry about that in Australia. The dairy farmers are an extremely efficient, hardworking group of people who, despite everything that nature and society can throw at them, can still produce. Therefore I believe that to some extent the money that has been expended on research for production, particularly the money that has been expended in recent years, is money that could well have been expended in other areas. Over the last 15 years some 22 000 dairy farmers in Australia have left the industry. Despite that, those who have remained, because of efficiency and the capital that has been poured into the industry, have been able to hold production at about the same level. I think that that is an indication of the efficiency of the Australian dairy farmer.

I think that certain questions should be asked of the researchers, They include: What will be our share of the world markets in, say, 5, 10, 15 or 20 years? How many producers will we want? What size herd will be required to make a farm viable? Can the traditional family farm survive? I somehow doubt it. Will any person acting alone be able to raise the deposit required for the purchase of a farm? How many young people today can look forward with any hope of working towards ownership of a dairy farm, where the capital investment is at least $100,000 and that is for a farm which may or may not be viable at the end of a decade? Is there really any need for the traditional pattern of striving towards ownership to remain? Is it really necessary for a person who has a desire to till the soil to attempt to own it in order to fulfil that desire- in effect, to live poor and die rich?

Senator Wright:

-What is the alternative?

Senator PRIMMER:

– Can we evolve cooperatives and co-operative farming? That is a question that has been thrown around the industry. I noted with some satisfaction that Senator Wriedt, when he was Minister for Agriculture, made moves within his Department for an examination of the question of co-operatives and cooperative farming in Australia. I suggest that this is an area in which some research might be done. It is all very well for Senator Wright to poohpooh and carry on but he is not concerned about the future of the dairy industry if he is still thinking in terms of the traditional family farm. If he knew anything about the industry he would know that the family farm is a dying institution and that if farmers are to survive, particularly those in the dairy industry, some other pattern must be evolved.

Senator Wright:

– You would not know whether milk comes from cows or out of bottles.

Senator PRIMMER:

– I would know more about dairy farms than Senator Wright. He would not know which end of a cow to bail up or which end of a bull to dehorn. Quite frankly, I believe it is time that some of the ad-hockery was taken out of this industry in particular and I suppose agriculture in general, otherwise we will have the situation where another 22 000 dairy farmers will walk off their farms over the next 15 years and we will finish up without an industry or with a situation where those who are left in the industry are poor and broken down, as was brought to light by the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Poverty- the Henderson Committeewhich was referred to by Senator Gietzelt.

I believe that the more recent report of the Industries Assistance Commission gave some indicators or pointers- provided some glimmer of hope- to the future of the dairy industry. Unfortunately the conservative element of the industry, particularly in the manufacturing section of the industry, has done its utmost to decry, destroy and vilify the IAC’s report, as it did when the Australian Labor Party was in government and set up the Australian Dairy Corporation. Those people screamed socialism and, as a result, frightened thousands of conservative dairy farmers away from the approach that the Australian Dairy Corporation was taking at that stage. I understand that the Ministers for Agriculture have set up a working party of State and Federal departmental officers to study the report. I also understand that that working party was to have come back with its report about a week ago and that, as a result of that report from the departmental officers and also the feed-back that the industry is receiving from farmer organisations and farmers themselves, the matter will be discussed at the next meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council, which I believe is to be held in February. Hopefully some progress will be made from that point.

I was interested to read an article in the Victorian Farmer of 23 November of this year in which some doubts were cast in relation to the time factor concerning the results of the report and future legislation. The article reads:

Even presupposing the Federal Cabinet can get the agreement of the States in February to whatever course is proposed, there will be very little time left to get legislation through Federal Parliament in the autumn session and implemented in time to launch a new marketing scheme from July 1, 1977. It is believed, however, that Primary Industry Minister, Ian Sinclair, is going ahead with the drafting of legislation for a new levy Act of the type necessary for the implementation of Stage 1 of the IAC scheme and this will be ready for swift introduction once a decision is made.

Meantime, the Australian Dairy Farmers Federation has decided its attitude to the IAC scheme.

The ADFF decided it wanted both Stages 1 and 2 of the report implemented on July 1, 1977, with the Dairy Corporation handling the administration, except for revenue distribution (equalisation), which it wants controlled by a subsidiary company of the ADC.

I suppose that the dairy industry of Australia once again is looking forward to some action by the Federal Government in the hope that the future can be made somewhat brighter.

One of the more depressing features of the industry over recent times is the very low underwriting which the Federal Government made to the industry at the start of the financial year. Wherever I have travelled in Victoria the matter has been raised with me. The Victorian section of the industry asked for underwriting at 55c per lb. The Federal Government underwrote only to 50c per lb. The dairy farmers themselves feel that there was no reason why the Federal Government could not have underwritten at 55c per lb. It would have given them some hope at a time when prices were at an all-time low. The President of the Victorian Farmers Union was critical-as far as I know, he still is very criticalof the Liberal-National Country Party Government over that action earlier this year. In a Press release in Melbourne on 26 July he said:

It proved the Government was posing as the farmers’ friend. Its true policy is to neglect, abandon and ruin with harsh unrealistic and unwarranted policies . . . Rather than help efficient dairyfarmers survive the Government’s policy is to squeeze them out in droves with malicious premeditated callousness and cruelty, dished out by insensitive bureaucrats.

Another glimmer of light for the dairy industry in Victoria was the recent announcement that the Victorian Government has agreed to restructure the industry in that State and to establish a totally new industry body. One could go on and talk for a great deal of time, but I presume that honourable senators would like to get out of this place this week. For that reason I will make my remarks on this action rather terse and brief. As I said earlier, the great problem that has been confronting the Victorian industry is the question within the industry of who has had milk contracts to supply the lucrative metropolitan milk market and who has had to supply the rest of the milk for overseas markets, where prices at times could only be described as disastrous.

I note with a great deal of satisfaction that the Minister for Agriculture in Victoria has agreed to phase out milk contractors. I wonder about the diamond studded handshake they Will receive when they move out. I can agree that any person who bought into a property which held a milk contract over the last 5 or 6 years should receive some form of compensation. I cannot, for the life of me, see why a person who has had a milk contract for 100, 150 or 200 gallons for 30 or 40 years should receive $250 a gallon for that contract. That is what I referred to as a diamond studded handshake. Of course, there is only one place from which the money can come, and that is the industry itself. What it largely means is that the ‘have nots’ are paying again to the ‘haves’. As I said, the concept is good, but I am rather regretful that people who battled along for years within the industry at low prices should now be expected to buy out their share of the liquid milk market at a rate of $250 a gallon.

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– I rise to make a few brief comments in support of the Bill, which is designed to remove some legal doubts regarding the imposition of the Commonwealth levy on whole milk and butterfat that is produced in Australia and subsequently vested in State milk authorities. The debate affords an opportunity to focus attention on the present difficulties of one of our great primary industries. Before coming to a few of those difficulties and dealing with them very briefly, I want to spend a little time dealing with the subject matter of the Bill, which is market research and promotion. It is true to say- I think our friends in the Opposition have said this-that the area of market research and promotion of manufactured dairy products has been neglected in the past; but the present depressed situation in the industry, which is due to the build-up around the world and in Australia of surplus dairy products, particularly skim milk powder, demands that for the good of the industry improvements in marketing techniques be considered an urgent necessity. So, it is pleasing to see a Bill of this nature so that we can focus some attention on the position.

I do not want to go to any great length about this, but I think it is true to say that in Victoria in particular too much attention has been concentrated on skim milk powder, because it is a cheap throughput for the factory and there are no problems with it, and not enough attention has been given to diversification of manufactured products. Whilst I do not suggest that this is the sole cause of the present disabilities of the industrywe know that the build-up of skim milk powder in overseas countries has had a great deal to do with it-I do suggest that the manufacturing area of the industry is now at a stage where it should look at diversification.

There are 2 matters to which I would refer briefly. One that comes to mind very readily has been mentioned already. It is the spreadability of butter. In contrast to its main competitor, margarine, which is readily spreadable and thus has an immediate marketing advantage, butter is unspreadable when taken from the refrigerator. We all know the problem there. I suggest that this is an area in which research may well pay useful dividends. My colleague, Senator Archer, has properly referred to the investigations by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in this area. I do not want to delay the Senate today by speaking at length on the problem. The fact is that the problem exists. It is one with which the research and promotion authorities under the legislation should grapple and hopefully come up with solutions.

Coupled with this, we can look at cheeses. Here again I think there is a great need to look at the widening of manufacture in cheeses to incorporate the unusual and more sophisticated types of fancy cheeses, as there appears to be, and there is a great increase in consumer demand for these types. It behoves the manufacturing sector of the industry to take up these points in an endeavour to improve the marketing output of the manufactured product. I have spoken, on a number of occasions in the Senate this year, of the depressed state of the dairy industry. I know that I have referred to it in at least 2 previous speeches. As we know, the industry is particularly depressed in both Victoria and Tasmania. I do not wish to take up the time of the Senate today by repeating anything I said in earlier debates.

I suggest that, whilst there has been good government initiative in the industry by way of price support, there will be no real improvement until demand is increased. As I have said, the research and promotion areas which this legislation supports are vital to the survival of the industry. In this regard I refer to Senator Primmer’s remarks. He mentioned a 50c per lb price support figure, which we on the Government side agree was insufficient. For some time now it has been 60c per lb. This is still not sufficient. What Senator Primmer did not say is that the fixing of this price support is a matter of co-operation between State and Federal governments. The current scheme is to operate until 1 January next, which is very close to us. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) has made it quite clear to the States on a number of occasions- he did so at a recent meeting with all the State Ministers in Sydney- that the Commonwealth is prepared to honour its continuing commitment. As I understand the position and as it was reported later, the State which stood out at the Sydney meeting was New South Wales, which has a Labor Premier. The Minister replied to a question in the other place yesterday on this very point. He said that, provided he can get co-operation from the States, he will extend this very necessary support to the industry until 30 June next. By that time it is to be hoped that legislation arising out of the first stage of the Crawford report will be available for a restructuring of the industry. The Crawford report has highlighted the position of the Australian Dairy Corporation as the marketing authority. This Bill will enable the Corporation to continue its work in the fields of research and promotion.

I will now refer to a great problem in this industry. I am sorry that the shadow Minister for Primary Industry has left the chamber. He went back to the year, I think, 1955. 1 will bring him up to date by referring to the year 1971-72. The great problem of this industry was that in that year the subsidy paid to the industry amounted to $39.882m but it has dropped to $ 1.275m in the year 1975-76 which represents a decrease of 4000 per cent. It is quite obvious to us and even to blind Freddy who seems to be quoted around this place these days -

Senator McLaren:

– You want to be careful of the Blind Institute. Mr Hayden got into trouble over that.

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

-I am not talking about seeing eye dogs. I said that there has been a 4000 per cent decrease in subsidy which no industry, dairy or any other industry, could sustain. Those figures were produced by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in a publication headed Public Authority Finance: Federal Authorities. Let me compare the position of primary industry with that of secondary industry. I do not mean to be critical but I think it is fair to look at the situation when people say, as they do around Australia, that the farmer- primary industry- gets all the subsidies. That is simply not true. According to the Industries Assistance Commission subsidies paid to manufacturing industries in Australia amounted to $2,000m in 1971-72. A comparison of the dairy industry and secondary industry figures over the past 3 years when Labor was in office reveals that secondary industry is far more heavily subsidised than is primary industry; and of course, the dramatic drop in the subsidy by 4000 per cent has had a very crippling effect on the dairy industry. As to secondary industry, it was recently said by the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) that the taxpayers are subsidising the shipbuilding industry to the extent of $20,000 a year a man, and in the motor car industry there is a subsidy of $4,000 for each employee in the industry. That gives a vivid picture of the disproportion between this sector of primary industry and the various parts of secondary industry.

I have a deep feeling of sympathy for the people involved in the dairy industry. These people work for long hours for a return which in many cases is well below the average minimum wage. I think there is a gleam of hope for the industry in the devaluation which was announced by the Government some days ago. In reply to a question in the other place yesterday the Minister cited a figure from the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. He said that it is expected there will be an increase of about $9m in receipts for the industry as a result of the change in currency values. He went on to say:

In addition, there is a quite significant improving in demand for dairy products in various world markets.

I think one can have some optimism about the future of the industry. I trust that the Minister will keep a watch on the implementation of the Crawford report in the coming months and will ensure that the industry gets the necessary price support which it is at present getting. As the industry moves forward I hope that we will see better times in the years ahead.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– The Senate is debating the Dairying Industry Research and Promotion Levy Amendment Bill. As has been pointed out by previous speakers, the purpose of the Bill is to amend the Dairying Industry Research and Promotion

Levy Act of 1972-76 to remove any legal doubts regarding the imposition of the Commonwealth levy on whole milk and butter fat which is produced in Australia and subsequently vested in State milk authorities. Senator Tehan said that the Minister- I take it he was referring to the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Sinclair- said just a few days ago that he is prepared to cooperate with the States if the States will cooperate with him to do certain things to assist the industry. I am going to point out during the course of my remarks that that must be a change of heart on the part of the Minister because he has not been prepared to co-operate with the State of South Australia on a certain matter to which I referred in this chamber on 3 November, and to which I will refer again later.

When Senator Gietzelt delivered his speech on behalf of the Opposition as the shadow Minister for Primary Industry he said that the Minister for Primary Industry makes Nero look like an amateur when it comes to fiddling. Senator Gietzelt could have gone further and said that the whole Government makes Nero look Uke an amateur when it comes to fiddling, having in mind the fiddling that has taken place with the monetary system in this country over the last week. He went on to say that apart from the cursory second reading speech prepared by the Minister’s department, the Minister made no comment on the Bill or the dairy industry in the other place. I have checked up and read Hansard. Senator Gietzelt was quite right in saying that the Minister for Primary Industry contributed nothing apart from his second reading speech to this piece of legislation.

Both the Government speakers in the course of their remarks mentioned the fact that devaluation is going to assist the dairy industry. I remind them of the statement made by Senator Gietzelt who said that the devaluation will lift prices for dairy products if contracts have been written in other currencies, but the main problem for dairy exports is that markets are closed to us and will remain closed until there are shortages in the northern hemisphere. He said that the devaluation will add to farmers’ costs in both the short and the long term. Of course I, too, made that statement here when I was speaking last Thursday on fruit growing reconstruction legislation that went through. I said devaluation could have a reverse effect; that is to say, devaluation is going to put less in the pockets of the wage earners. They are the people in the main who are the best customers for dairy products, so if the wage earner is going to have less to spend he will spend less on dairy products. This is the very thing that I said in relation to the canned fruits industry.

There have been some lengthy quotations from the report of the Industries Assistance Commission and particularly the report of the Dairying Research Committee which was tabled in this Parliament today. As Senator Gietzelt pointed out, the Minister has called for another IAC report on the dairy industry after being in possession of the report of the IAC on the dairy industry which the Labor Government requested and which was delivered in October 1975. That is the report to which both Senator Tehan and Senator Archer referred. As Senator Gietzelt said, the fact that the present Government has through its Minister called for another report is only a delaying tactic to hold up any decision that it might contemplate in the future to help the dairy industry. When the party I support was in office and Senator Wriedt was Minister for Primary Industry we set up what was known as the National Rural Advisory Council. The resources commitee of the Whitlam Labor Government met regularly with this council which used to come to Canberra twice a year. We would sit down and talk about the problems facing all aspects of primary industry. But what did this present Government do when it came to office? It was hardly a week in office when it disbanded the National Rural Advisory Council. So I do not know how consultations are carried out now with the people from the industry.

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

-They did not help you very much.

Senator McLAREN:

– Of course the Council helped the industry. There is no question about that.

Senator Wright:

– They would regard you as something like a god.

Senator McLAREN:

- Senator Wright is interjecting again. He interjected during the course of Senator Primmer ‘s remarks. I made a note of the interjection that Senator Wright made when Senator Primmer was talking. He said that Senator Primmer would not know anything about the dairy industry. I would just like to remind Senator Wright, for his information, that right up to the time when Senator Primmer was elected to the Senate he was a practising dairy farmer in the south-western district of Victoria. He knows more about the dairy industry than Senator Wright would ever know. I can vouch for that, because I also come from that area. I went to school with Senator Primmer. Senator Primmer’s father was a dairy farmer and Senator Primmer followed in his footsteps. I well know

Senator Primmer’s interest in and his knowledge of the industry.

I agree with what was said by Senator Archer, I think it was, namely, that the dairy industry has always been struggling for its existence. When I as a young fellow was going to school with Senator Primmer in the small town of Koroit, which had a great dairying industry, we used to see regularly in the Koroit Sentinel, which used to be published every Saturday, advertisements for lads to work on dairy farms. The advertisements were for 5 bob a week and keep, all the bull calves, and time off to go to church on Sunday. I took on one of those jobs. That is how poor the dairy industry was then. Of course, many dairy farmers are still in that position. They cannot afford to pay any more than that. I have had personal experience of that, because I took on one of those jobs. I received 5 bob a week and keep, and all the bull calves. If I was lucky, when the truck came around every Thursday on sale day, I would get an extra 2 bob. I was always hoping that the cows would drop a bull calf instead of a heifer calf because that meant I would get another 2 bob on top of my 5 bob.

Honourable senators on this side of the chamber have a greater personal knowledge of the dairy industry than has Senator Wright. Senator Tehan, I think it was, interjected and said that the National Rural Advisory Council was of no value at all. I dispute that. By saying that, Senator Tehan is ridiculing people like Mr Heffernan, who is a man of great repute in primary industry, and all the people who made up that Council. Senator Archer made some reference to the Dairying Research Committee. He mentioned some of the people who were members of it. One of those people who represented the dairy farmers of Australia, Mr Bob Sample, is well known to members of the Labor Party, because we had many discussions with him when he was trying to improve the industry and bring some better value into it. He used to come to this Parliament quite often and we had discussions with him. So we were well aware of the problems that existed. As I said, we did many things to try to help the dairy industry.

As I have just mentioned, we submitted to the Industries Assistance Commission a reference on the dairy industry. The report of the IAC was tabled in the Parliament on 23 October 1975. That report contained some very interesting findings. I intend to tie in those findings with what the present Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) ought to be doing but which he is not doing. In appendix 3.3 which is to be found on page 146 of the report, the IAC talks about the demand for butter. Of course, that is one subject in which we are mainly interested under this Bill. As honourable senators on the Government side of the chamber have said, we have to try to promote butter to create greater sales. The IAC report stated:

Consumption of butter in Australia has been declining almost continuously since the early 1950s. The rate of decline has been most pronounced in the 1970s. By contrast, cooking margarine consumption has shown a strong upward trend since the early 1960s.

Available evidence suggests that the principal use of margarine in home use in the early 1950s was for cooking purposes, however, throughout the 1950s the percentage of margarine used for spread purposes increased from 0.5 lb per person to 1.5 lb per person in 1961. This trend towards increased consumption of margarine is evidenced further by consumer surveys which suggest that the percentage of Sydney households using margarine as a spread has grown from ten per cent in 1957 to 35 per cent in 1967 and to a very high coverage of74 per cent in 1974.

The Commission undertook a study of the retail demand for buttter to establish the factors that influence butter consumption, in particular to assess the impact of increased availability of margarine on butter consumption. This study suggests the following conclusions:

These are the conclusions that the IAC reached:

Increased availability of table margarine reduced the consumption of the main substitutes, i.e., butter and cooking margarine.

Butter consumption was affected less than cooking margarine consumption by increased availability of table margarine.

Migrant families consume less butter and more cooking margarine than equivalent Australian-born families.

Families with more adolescents consume more cooking and table margarine than butter.

Consumers in the middle-age groups tend to consume relatively more butter than margarine.

As the price of butter relative to cooking margarine increases butter consumption declines.

That is what the dairy industry is very concerned about. It is so concerned that the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, in conjunction with the South Australian authorities, set about developing a spreadable commodity which was known as dairy blend. I raised this matter in the Senate on 3 November in response to a request that I had received from Dr John Cornwall, who is a member of the South Australian Legislative Council and who has lived for a great part of his life in the south-east of South Australia. He is a veterinarian by profession and he is well qualified to speak on the dairy industry. He was concerned that the present Government, through its Minister for Primary Industry, was not prepared to do anything to help market that product in Australia. I want to read to the Senate the answer that was given to Dr Cornwall by Mr Chatterton, the South Australian Minister for Agriculture in the

South Australian Legislative Council, on 19 October when Dr Cornwall posed a question in relation to dairy blend. Mr Chatterton said:

I, too, am concerned that the South Austraiian product known as ‘dairy blend’ is not yet available to the public. It was produced by research officers of the Agriculture and Fisheries Department at Northfield. The patent on dairy blend is held jointly by the State Government and the Commonwealth Government. The responsibility for placing dairy blend on the Australian market is in the hands of the Australian Dairy Corporation.

I might interpose here and say that I believe, as do other honourable senators on this side of the chamber, that Mr Tony Webster is doing a magnificent job on behalf of the dairy industry, in his position on the Australian Dairy Corporation. Mr Chatterton went on to say:

The problem that has arisen over the Swedish patent for a similar type of product has meant that the Dairy Corporation has not proceeded with the marketing of this product in Australia. That was the situation more than 12 months ago. I have raised the matter with the Commonwealth Minister for Primary Industry in Canberra on a number of occasions to try to clarify the situation and to get the product moving on to the Australian market. At the Agricultural Council meeting in Bundaberg last August, Mr Sinclair said that he would look into the matter. When I again asked him about it the other day, when there was an Agricultural Council meeting in Sydney, he told me that he thought the Dairy Corporation Ought to proceed with the marketing of the product and take its chances in connection with any legal challenge over the question of the Swedish patent I am in the process of writing to Mr Sinclair asking him to confirm that decision and asking whether the Australian Government would in any way support the Dairy Corporation if it was faced with a legal challenge and who would bear the costs, and other details of this sort. I hope to have a letter from Mr Sinclair shortly.

Senator Tehan said just a few moments ago that the Minister was prepared to co-operate with the States if they were prepared to co-operate with him. This is a perfect illustration of the State of South Australia and the Austraiian Dairy Corporation seeking co-operation from the Minister in regard to marketing a product which, if it gets on to the market, in my view, will outsell margarine products. I checked yesterday with the office of the South Australian Minister for Agriculture to see whether any reply had been received from the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Sinclair. As of about 1 1 a.m. yesterday, he still had not replied. So the Minister says one tiling to the Australian Agricultural Council- he was actually promoting the idea that the Agricultural Council ought to do certain things- but when the hammer comes down he will not even answer a letter from the South Australian Minister. So that is the sort of co-operation we get. The dairy industry ought to be made aware of that situation. Before I conclude my remarks I want to quote an article written by John Holland which appeared in the Melbourne Age of 1 December and which carries the heading ‘Butter Aims for Soft Sell’. The article stated:

The Australian Dairy Corporation has asked the Federal Government for the rights to produce and market a softer and more spreadable butter.

The butter is considered a possible dairy answer to margarine, which is quickly increasing its share of the ‘spreads’ market.

The butter has been developed over the past few years, mainly by CSIRO, but is yet to properly reach the marketing stage.

The Chairman of the Corporation, Mr Tony Webster, said yesterday that patent rights to the butter- a blend of butter and vegetable oils- was held jointly by the South Australian and Federal Governments.

That is the matter to which I have related my remarks. I hope that Senator Tehan who is a member of the National Country Party will bring some pressure to bear on Mr Sinclair to see that he answers the letter written to him by Mr Chatterton from South Australia and that he will at least be prepared to come to the aid of the Australian Dairy Corporation with financial assistance if there is a challenge to the marketing of this product on the Australian market.

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Industry and Commerce · LP

– in reply- It will be noted that while there has been an interesting discussion the Bill is not opposed by the Opposition. Of course, it is supported by the Government. It is a simple Bill. It sets out to do a simple thing which has been referred to, I think, by 3 senators. Opposition senators stated that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) did not respond to the Dairying Industry Research and Promotion Levy Amendment Bill. The Minister considered that the points raised in the debate on this Bill were general and had been covered by the speakers in the debate. They did not necessarily call for any clarification. I believe it is correct to say that nothing raised in the debate this evening was of a contentious or death-defying character which called for me or the advisers to go into any matter in great detail. I cannot say any more except that if anybody wants any clarification beyond this perhaps we could go into the Committee stage and deal with any matters item by item.

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

Sitting suspended from 5.58 to 8 p.m.

page 2957

BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1976

Second Readings

Debate resumed, on motion by Senator Carrick:

That the Bills be now read a second time.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-The Senate is debating cognately 3 Bills, two of which are more or less of a consequential nature. The other one, the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1976, is of fundamental importance to the broadcasting system in Australia. On behalf of the Opposition I move the following amendment to the motion for the second reading of that Bill:

At end of motion, add but the Senate is of the opinion that the Bill should be withdrawn and redrafted because-

there has been inadequate time for proper public consideration of the Government’s proposals in relation to broadcasting;

it fails to establish a proper basis for public broadcasting in Australia; and

it is inconsistent with the principles enunciated for the structure of broadcasting in Australia by the report of the Postal and Telecommunications Department on Australian Broadcasting’.

I move this amendment because in its terminology it draws attention to the concern of the Opposition, and indeed the concern of many members of the public, about the haste with which this legislation has been introduced. In our view the legislation was conceived in haste and has been born defective. In the time available to me I want to explain why we express that view.

I say that it has been conceived in haste because the original prime purpose of the legislation was to dispose of the existing Australian Broadcasting Control Board and to dispose of the existing Australian Broadcasting Commission, and to do so before 1 January 1977. There is no other explanation of the way in which this legislation was produced and the speed with which it was brought before the Parliament. The first draft of the amendment which I have moved contained specific reference to the position of the Australian Broadcasting Commission and the fact that this legislation compromised the integrity and independence of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. That paragraph has now been deleted. It has been deleted because the amendments made by the Government in the House of Representatives removed some of the worst features of the attack on the Australian Broadcasting Commission which this Bill represented.

I take this opportunity to congratulate members of the Government Parties, particularly the senators, who screwed their courage to the sticking place and brought about the changes in this Bill which the Government introduced in the House of Representatives and the changes in the Government’s attitude. I am sorry that members of the Government Parties had to behave in this revolting manner in order to draw the attention of certain Ministers in this Government to the fact that a significant section of the Liberal Party, in spite of things which have gone on in the past year or so, does perhaps understand the nature of a pluralist society, does perhaps understand that Australia is such a pluralist society whether they like it or not, and does perhaps understand the role of a national broadcasting service in a society of that kind.

That action of Government back benchers produced the most extraordinary comment from the responsible Minister, the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Eric Robinson). He made the comment afterwards that there was really no revolt; that it was just an expression of opinion from Government back benchers who are more in touch with the public than is the Government. That is an extraordinary comment for a Minister to make after 12 months in office. But I am pleased that back benchers are more in touch than Ministers in the Government and that they took the action they did. I say that that is very important because I regard it as important that this country should be governed by a Prime Minister and a government which understands the nature of a democratic pluralist society. It is quite clear that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and some of his Ministers just do not understand that and that they do not want a society in which there is free and critical discussion of public events and particularly of the policies of the Government of the day. What happened in the ranks of the Government was that for a moment there was a retreat from polarisation of politics in this country in the stand that back benchers made. I congratulate them on what they did.

To illustrate the proposition which I have just put- that Government Ministers and the Prime Minister do not understand the nature of a pluralist society- let me go back to 10 March this year when the Prime Minister, in a remark which I suppose was meant to be smart, said: ‘The media will have to become the de facto Opposition in Australia’. That was a joke- if one may call it a joke- at our expense. But one is entitled to ask what he really meant. There are plenty of examples of the fact that the media perhaps are not a very good Opposition, de facto or otherwise, in this country. One example appeared in Alan Reid’s recent book, where it was recorded that Sir Robert Southey, a former Federal President of the Liberal Party, wrote to the then Prime Minister, Mr McMahon, in 1972, referring to the Melbourne Age, and said:

  1. . all I am really sure of is that whoever the real enemy is in the Age, and I think it is probably Perkin, he must be brought into line or circumvented.

I am much less concerned about the Herald and the Sun, for the Herald is reasonably trustworthy -

He can say that again- whilst Oakes of the Sun is less damaging than Barnes. I know that Henry Bolte has very strong links with the Herald, and I wonder whether you have spoken to Henry about this, or whether I ought to do so myself. In straightening out the Press, it is much more important that this should be done thoroughly, than that it should be done in a hurry.

That is really a classic revelation of the old boy network as it works in the media. That is an example of the situation, as I understand it, in relation to the Press. So, when the Prime Minister talked about the media being the de facto Opposition in Australia, he obviously was not talking about the Melbourne Herald. From events which have taken place this year, it might be said that it was not his intention to be talking about the Australian Broadcasting Commission either, because the original intentions of this Bill were certainly to make sure that it would not be the Australian Broadcasting Commission that was in any sense the de facto Opposition in Australia. Let us look at the situation of the Australian Broadcasting Commission in the light of what has happened this year and since this Government came to power. We had repeated assurances from the Prime Minister and the Minister for Post and Telecommunications that there was no intention to interfere in any way with the integrity and independence of the ABC. One suspects that they might have spoken with forked tongues. That is a horrible thing to say about a responsible Prime Minister or a responsible Minister of the Government. But the words were very different from the actions.

I want to refer to some of the actions taken in the course of this year in relation to the integrity and independence of the ABC. In January of this year the Australian Broadcasting Commission made a request for supplementary budget assistance from the Government. It was refused. In May there was a $1.7m wage increase which the ABC was forced to incur as a result of the national wage case. It asked the Government for supplementary assistance for that, and it was refused. In May, the ABC budget was reduced in real terms by $4m- ‘cut to the bone’, in the words of the Chairman, Sir Henry Bland. In August, national wage increases cost the ABC another $1.2m. The Government refused to pay those increases to the ABC- the only statutory authority of the Federal Government which did not receive that payment. Only last week Senator Carrick, the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications in the Senate, in answer to a question from Senator Chaney about this matter, said that his understanding was that that money had been paid to the Australian Broadcasting Commission. That is a misunderstanding, as I pointed out to the Minister at the time, and it is one of the tragedies of the Government’s attitude to the Australian Broadcasting Commission that even the Minister who in this place represents the Minister responsible for the Commission does not know the situation of Australian Broadcasting Commission funding. Even now we are waiting for Sir Henry Bland to make the much vaunted approach to the Government for additional funds for the Australian Broadcasting Commission. Questions have been asked about it in this place. It is like waiting for Godot.

We are told frequently that the Minister and the Government respect the integrity and independence of the Australian Broadcasting Commission and are not concerned to interfere with Australian Broadcasting Commission programs in any way. Of course, the easiest way to interfere with Australian Broadcasting Commission programs, and the effects have been dramatic, is by cutting off the funds of the ABC, and that has happened throughout the year. There have been other examples of interference. For example, on 19 August 1976 a letter was sent to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications from the Prime Minister, Mr Malcolm Fraser, which said:

My dear Minister,

I would be grateful for your comments on an attached transcript of a TDT program in Melbourne which was passed to me by Peter Nixon.

Yours sincerely, Malcolm Fraser

That was on 19 August this year and the This Day Tonight program transcript was attached to the letter. It was a transcript of the program which was monitored presumably by Australian Reference Services Pty Ltd on whose letterhead the transcript is typed. That would seem to me to be a legitimate cause for asking what is the business of the Prime Minister in sending letters to his Minister about the contents of programs on the Australian Broadcasting Commission. What action did he expect his Minister to take if he believes that the Australian Broadcasting Commission is an independent body?

Senator Walters:

– Can he not ask quesions?

Senator BUTTON:

– Yes. He can ask questions and he can answer them. The Prime Minister’s attitude, and I am sure that Senator Walters will appreciate this, is further illustrated when at the beginning of this month in a pathetic defence of his own position in relation to the ABC the Prime Minister accused the Commission of cutting drama and public affairs programs instead of making cuts elsewhere. That even stirred Sir Henry Bland into making a spirited riposte to the Prime Minister and that occurred and was reported in the Press early last week.

Senator Walters:

– That shows the influence which the Prime Minister has over the ABC, does it not?

Senator BUTTON:

– I am trying to make a few significant points, Senator.

Senator Walters:

– You are not doing too well, Senator Button.

Senator BUTTON:

-I do not really want to be bothered with Senator Walters for the moment and if she would be good enough to listen to the Prime Minister’s reply to Sir Henry Bland perhaps she will understand what I am talking about. In what must be regarded as a monumental statement for a Prime Minister to make, he said:

I very much welcome the statement by the Chairman of the ABC, Sir Henry Bland. I am glad that the Australian Broadcasting Commission has now made it plain that the ABC is master of its own programming, and that the Government does not, and cannot, direct the ABC in relation to its programming content.

The Prime Minister said that after receiving advice from Sir Henry Bland to keep his nose out of the ABC’s business. He came out and said that he was glad the Chairman of the ABC had now made it clear what his function as Prime Minister is- to keep his nose out of the business of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. That is precisely what the Prime Minister was saying in that statement.

Senator Young:

– You have to use logic, Senator.

Senator BUTTON:

-Senator Young can tell me about the logic later. It will be fascinating. This sort of situation has gone on throughout this year. The highlight of this saga of discontent which has possessed the ABC throughout this year was one other matter to which I have constantly referred in this place; that is the total misconception which the Chairman of the Aus.tralian Broadcasting Commission has of his role as chairman. There can be no more clear example of the misconception of his role than what happened last week in relation to this precise matter. I refer to some of the things which the Chairman said last week and which were reported in the Press this week in relation to the Australian Broadcasting Commission, Firstly in Launceston, referring to Radio Australia, he said that it should not be able to broadcast material which contradicted Government policy. He continued:

If the Government has a policy- a foreign policy-of course Radio Australia cannot put out programs in direct opposition to it.

He could not care less personally if the Australian Broadcasting Commission had no current affairs programs. That position of the Chairman was properly repudiated by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) in the House of Representatives last week and by Senator Carrick this morning in answer to a question from Senator Davidson. That is the public view of the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission which has to be repudiated by Government Ministers. Secondly, the Chairman said in a statement which is bordering on the psychopathic:

I don’t want to start a discussion on this but I suppose the Philistines would probably prefer current affairs to orchestras. On the other hand as one who has had to listen to many people for so often I couldn’t care less if there were no current affairs programs.

This is the second comment which the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission has made publicly which represents a total misconception of his function as Chairman and representative of that body. Thirdly, he said that the general view was that State of the Nation was a bad program. How he would assess the general view I would have the greatest difficulty in saying and I am sure that he would too. Then he went on to talk about Alvin Purple which seems to have stirred him up a bit over the last few months. He now says, after trying to sell it to commercial television 2 months ago:

It ought to be burnt. Anyone engaged in marketing, which is, after all, what we are in a certain way, could never afford to market a program that 30 per cent of the people did not want.

Good God! He ought to ask some of the commercial competitors of the Australian Broadcasting Commission if that is to be a criterion for marketing. The point about all these matters is that they illustrate the attitude of the Chairman and a tragedy for the Australian Broadcasting Commission and the Australian broadcasting scene generally. I have raised them simply to make it clear that I do not blame Sir Henry Bland for that because, as I have said before, when he was appointed he said:

I did not think I was cut out for this job but the Prime Minister of Australia insisted that I take it.

Where there is any criticism of Sir Henry Bland and his role as Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, let it be made clear that the buck stops on Malcolm Fraser ‘s desk. The Government will have to bear Sir Henry Bland for 3 years and every time there is some embarrassment about him let it be remembered that the buck stops on Malcolm Fraser ‘s desk.

There are one or two other matters to which I wanted to refer but I conclude my remarks in relation to the Australian Broadcasting Commission by saying that there is a lack of understanding among certain Ministers as to what it is all about and there is a lack of understanding by the Chairman as to what it is all about. It is no good Senator Carrick getting up in the Senate time after time and telling me that Albert Monk thought Sir Henry Bland was a great man. I do not care whether Albert Monk thought Sir Henry Bland was a Christmas pudding. It does not matter to me and it does not affect my view of whether he is a proper and responsible person to be Chairman of a great national broadcasting service.

So much for the Australian Broadcasting Commission. I have mentioned these matters because it is in pursuit of this ideological obscurantist goal that this legislation has been introduced. This legislation is a mishmash of policy which is designed to cover up its basic intention, now abandoned, to restructure the Australian Broadcasting Commission. We on the Opposition side do not dissent for a moment from the concept of a new structure for broadcasting in Australia. The Opposition criticises the haste of the Green inquiry. After all, an equivalent inquiry conducted in Great Britain by Lord Annan is going to take 2 years, with a much less complex broadcasting structure. The Department here was expected to do it in 2 months, and it has not done a bad job. But the Government has failed conceptually where it has departed from the basic structure which the Green inquiry recommended. Not only has there been haste in implementation, but there has been a failure to make the Green report available to people. Senator Withers has failed in this Senate to answer a question which he has now been asked twice about how many copies of the Green report were available for concerned members of the public to read. That sort of thing suggests haste and a very powerful motivation to get the whole matter cleared up by 1 January, to get rid of the Broadcasting Control Board, and the Australian Broadcasting Commission as it was.

There are certain clear defects in the structure set up by this legislation. For example, the Broadcasting Control Board is abolished. That Board had 2 very basic functions, apart from its technical function. Those functions were, first of all, the quasi-judicial one of granting the renewing licences. That function will now be vested in the new Tribunal- a sensible proposition, we believe. The other function which the Broadcasting Control Board had and which it recommended to the Green inquiry that it should not have in conjunction with its quasi-judicial jurisdiction was the administration of the standards which are laid down. No proper body has been set up by this legislation to administer the standards which the new Tribunal may set as a result of inquiries it conducts. If one looks at the relevant clauses, a totally unbalanced mishmash is emerging.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It is a council on which the commercial interests will have a majority.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– If it is formed.

Senator BUTTON:

-I will allow my colleagues to debate that question.

Senator Young:

– You had better do your sums on that one. You are very cautious, and wisely so.

Senator BUTTON:

-I thank Senator Young for his interjection and his patronage. I am quite aware of what the Broadcasting Council is about, and perhaps we can debate that later in the Committee stage. This legislation does not establish it; that is the point I am making. It is a defect in the structure recommended by the Green report.

In concluding my remarks on the second reading of this Bill, let me say that the Opposition is not opposed to a new structure for broadcasting in Australia, but we think it is being done with indecent haste. The Government has fallen over itself to achieve a result, which it has now abandoned. What is left of the legislation is a mess, and it is a discredit to the Australian people and to broadcasting, which is a great and important institution in this country. Its importance cannot be over-emphasised. We in this Parliament should be searching for a system which provides quality, diversity, vitality, and a representative structure for an industry which is of vital importance to the country. In the Committee stage of this Bill the Opposition will be moving amendments which it thinks will bring about a better result in achieving the sorts of objectives for which, in all honesty, I believe all members of the Senate should wish. I commend to the Senate the amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Bill.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

-We have listened to a very angry speech. Senator Button is very angry about this Bill, and it appears that, to use his negative phrase, he is particularly angry that the amendments which have already been made to this Bill have removed most of its worst features. He badly regrets the absence of what he considers are the worst features of the Bill and he is very angry as a consequence of that. He even went on to talk about the people who are on my side of politics in the Government parties and who have, as he said, had to act in a revolting fashion to achieve changes. What Senator Button, as a member of the Labor Party, would not understand is that the Liberal and National Countries Parties do act positively. They do represent opinions and they are listened to in this Government. When they are concerned about a Bill they can come forward and put their views across and be listened to. Of course, when a Minister does something so outrageous as to say that the back benchers are expressive of opinion and are more in touch with the public, to Senator Button that is something outrageous, something terrible. On the other hand, we happen to think that it is what the back benchers are here for. That is the whole crisis, and it is the difference between the Parties which make up the Government and the Opposition Party. 1 do wish the Labor Party would come at some time or another to a state of age, to a realisation that they also ought to act in such a way as to represent opinion. If some features of a Bill are not acceptable to the public, then the Opposition can properly talk to members of the Government and properly convince it and, on occasions, effect some amendments to a Bill.

The Bill before us does a number of things. What Senator Button failed to mention was that it is a transitory measure. It is a Bill which makes certain changes in our system, but it is not the last word. If one reads the statement of the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Eric Robinson) one will see that he acknowledged straight away that there will be a second stage. There has to be further discussion. There has to be further inquiry to obtain the best possible situation in the structure of broadcasting and television in this country, and that has not been achieved as yet.

Perhaps one could deal first with the Australian Broadcasting Commission as part of the whole structure of broadcasting. Senator Button seems to have a very dubious view. He is very unhappy with Sir Henry Bland and his views and he is apparently very unhappy that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has expressed views about certain activities of the ABC and that Sir Henry Bland and the Board have not changed their views accordingly. It is hard to know exactly what Senator Button meant by that. Does he think that the Board ought to accept the Prime Minister’s statement when he says, as an example, that he thinks the program State of the Nation ought to continue? The Prime Minister is not alone in that. A number of senators on this side of the House wrote to Sir Henry Bland and to others and said: ‘ We too think it is a useful series. It is not a costly series. We think it should be continued’. But we do not expect our views necessarily to be taken up. We believe that they will be given proper regard. Neither the Prime Minister nor Ministers nor ordinary members of this Parliament expect to be in a position to dictate to the Board of the ABC; nor is it right that they should be able to do so. They are just one part of the public and they are entitled to their views.

So far as the ABC is concerned, I make a different criticism of it. In my view, and I am expressing a personal view, if there is anything wrong with the ABC it is a certain gutlessness in the organisation. There are certain things, I am sure, which ought to be improved in the bureaucracy of the ABC, and I think some of the cuts ought to take place there. But above this is an organisation which, if one reads the Green report, is held to be a fairly good organisation but one which, if it needs improving, needs improving in relation to establishing its own independence of activity and creating in regard to current affairs a much more full-blooded and forthright attitude. Some of my colleagues might not agree with that. They are sometimes upset by the way in which they are treated in programs on the ABC, but quite frankly I believe that, if it has a weakness, it is in the somewhat timid and pallid attitude of its interviewers. There is too much subservience to politicians, an inadequacy of really full-blooded public crticism which would make politics in this country more interesting.

I think that the British Broadcasting Commission does this better. The BBC is more ready to poke fun at institutions in Britain, and I think it is healthy. In this country we have cartoonists in our newspapers who are the lifeblood of those newspapers, who can encapsulate in a few words or in a few strokes interesting things about the politics of the day. I think that is a healthy thing. But unfortunately there is some lack of full.bloodedness in our radio and television. I hope that the independence of the ABC will be preserved. Honourable senators on this side of the chamber are determined that the independence of the ABC will be preserved. In the platform of my own Party there is an absolute commitment to maintain the independence of the ABC. But I hope also that the ABC will accept the responsibilities that that involves and will in fact conduct full-blooded discussions that are useful. Senator Button referred to the statement on the ABC which Sir Henry Bland made recently, as reported in the Age of the ninth of this month. In the statement he said:

On the other hand as one who had to listen to so many people for so often I couldn’t care less if there were no current affairs programs-and I could put up with a lot more orchestras.

That is his personal view, not necessarily the view of the Commissioners of the ABC who make the decisions in these matters. I suppose he is entitled to his view, but I do not agree with that view about current affairs. I believe that we need in Australia better current affairs programs, that are more incisive and more determined to examine public figures. We all put ourselves on trial. We are entitled to be questioned and we are obliged to answer questions. Therefore, we need better current affairs programs. On that subject I disagree with the personal view of Sir Henry Bland.

I believe that under this Bill before us there is a preservation of the integrity of the ABC: Any thought that might have been held, that by removing or changing the Commissioners there was likely to be interference with the integrity and the terms of appointment of the ABC Commissioners, is now removed for all time. The Government has made certain decisions which are reflected in this Bill. It has decided that there ought to be a geographical representation throughout the country; there ought to be Commissioners from all States. That was not a recommendation in the Green report, which took a different view. The Government is probably wise in insisting that there ought to be representation from all the States. Then there is somebody to whom criticism can be directed and who is concerned to see that the ABC is also catering for the listeners and viewers in all States.

Senator Ryan:

– The Government has power to do that without introducing special legislation.

Senator MISSEN:

-It has power to do it. But that provision is now enshrined in the legislation and it will come about. That has not come about in the past. I think that is probably a useful change. It will occur without there being any restriction or any existing term of office of the Commissioners of the ABC. Senator Button did not bother to deal in any way with the terms of this legislation. Let us see what the Bill does. Of course it creates the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. Senator Button took the view that it is a sensible function to place in a quasi judicial tribunal the rights which were held, as well as on some other powers, by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board previously, and that the Tribunal will operate as a quasi judicial body in dealing with licences- the creation and change of licences- and, if necessary, the removal of licences where the rules are not complied with. In addition to the establishment of the Tribunal there is a proposal for the establishment of a broadcasting council- a council to represent views, but of course it will not be given powers to determine or to dictate the nature of the industry. The Bill also provides that broadcasting planning will be determined by the Postal and Telecommunications Department.

Much of the legislation before us is transitory legislation covering only part of the situation that needs to be dealt with at this present time. It is based upon the Green report. I do not place any absolute importance on the Green report which was prepared by a very competent officer very quickly but after consideration of some 650 submissions or more. One does not know what submissions were weighing particularly in Mr Green’s mind. But reading that report one gets a pretty clear understanding of the needs of the broadcasting and television system. The report has a lot of sense in it and must be of great value to the Government in its determination. It is not a report which is God. It does not determine everything but it is something which the Government obviously has been concerned to look at in order to find useful proposals.

There are other features that are obviously in a second stage. I think it is useful tonight for us to talk for a few minutes about the great concern that we must have as to the future of broadcasting and television in Australia. If we change the system we must be concerned with how it may change. The Age of 9 December reports on the results of a survey of what people think about the regulation of the industry. The results were released by Mr Myles Wright, the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. It is significant that as regards the question of selfregulation namely, regulation by the industry itself- it is seen from this survey that fewer than one in four people believe that the control of television content should be left with television stations. I urge the Government to consider the opinion expressed in the survey and to be most cautious of the suggestion which the commercial television stations are pushing; that there ought to be self-regulation, leaving to them the determination as to what programs should be televised.

One of the first things that will be done by the Tribunal will be to consider the question of selfregulation. I think we are entitled at this stage to say that one should be careful of the possibilities there. In my opinion the commercial programs that have been on television and radio are something of a wasteland at present, and have been for many years. Television and radio broadcasting licences are very valuable things. They give to people tremendous responsibilities and abilities to influence the minds, hearts and lives of people. Therefore, they should not be given with the greatest of ease. I am not over-convinced that there ought to be any great consideration to leaving the question of profit as the only determination in the operation of stations.

Over the years we have had quite an argument, among other things, about Australian content in television. The Vincent report, which I have never believed was given sufficient credence in Australia, which endeavoured to increase the Australian content in television. That is very low. It is much lower than it should be. I know that efforts have been made by means of point systems and other things to increase Australian content and I do not think these methods have been altogether wise. But I would be most concerned if, in the changes we make in television, we allow the television stations to please themselves as to what they should televise. If a station wants to buy some second-rate American production which has gone through the hoops and is available for $5,000 instead of spending $30,000 to produce something in Australiaif the test is profit- the test of profit will tell all the time and the station will go for that cheap product. I do not think the stations should be in a position where they may do that. Further, I think we have to watch with great care, in any changes that occur, what happens in relation to children’s television in Australia. This has worried many people over the past few weeks and I have received many messages on it. One came from 8 Liberal parliamentarians of the Victorian Upper House who are all well known to me. They are concerned with the situation of children’s television in Australia. In a telegram to me they had this to say on self-regulation:

The television industry has demonstrated for 20 years its total inability to cater for children’s needs in their prime viewing time. Self-regulation will be a further abrogation of Government responsibililty to bring out the long overdue reform. Children’s television can no longer be left to change and the commercial hunt for ratings. lt was signed by the Hon. Peter Block and 7 other members of the Victorian Parliament. I cite that as only one example. That is not a satisfactory situation. There has not been for many years a situation in relation to which we can be satisfied with what the children in this community have had inflicted on them, because of the profit motive. Therefore I take this opportunity- not that it is closely related to the Bill but because the Bill is one that affects a change and because we are in a fluid situation where we have to look at certain changes- to say thai I think that we should be most vigilant to ensure that we are going to get something better out of this, something which uses the potentiality of television and radio and which does not let it slip into a matter of profit only. I believe that there is great importance in the need for vigilance by people in this community in this area. I acknowledge that, as a member of Parliament, I have taken inadequate interest and paid inadequate attention to radio and television as one of the things which are the responsibility of this Parliament. I hope that there will be a change in this regard. I believe that this Bill provides for some quite useful changes. It is a transitory measure. It does provide for the creation of a tribunal which can proceed. It does make some provisions for a temporary purpose. I believe that we must realise that in this transitory stage we are going to have to stand by standards, to stand by things which we want to see improved and to ensure that the community, in whose trust we are vested with power, will see that it does get out of all this a better system of radio and television. I support the Bill. I think it has useful provisions but I think that it is only the beginning for us all of a much greater and more useful interest in the radio and television industry.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The Senate is debating the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1976. My colleague Senator Button has moved an amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Bill for the inclusion of the following words: , but the Senate is of the opinion that the Bill should be withdrawn and redrafted because-

  1. there has been inadequate time for proper public consideration ofthe Government’s proposals in relation to broadcasting;
  2. b ) it fails to establish a proper basis for public broadcasting in Australia; and
  3. it is inconsistent with the principles enunciated for the structure of broadcasting in Australia by the report of the Postal and Telecommunications Department on Australian Broadcasting’.

That is the report commonly referred to as the Green report. I support the amendment.

This Government has now been in office for 12 months- a third of the time that the Whitlam Labor Government held office. It has enjoyed a majority in both Houses of the Australian Parliament. It has not been frustrated by amendment or rejection of the legislation that it, as a government, has put forward. It has had every opportunity to get on with the job. It has done nothing but put the clock back and the economy in reverse. If I might say so in respect of its policy in regard to broadcasting and television, its indecision and its waffling in the first instance and then, in the twilight of this Parliament, its extreme haste to introduce this legislation and then having introduced it, to make substantial amendments to it surely indicates as much as anything else could indicate that, unfortunately, this country is being run- not governed but run- by a bunch of amateurs.

Because I was Minister for the Media in the Labor Government for 2lh years of the 3 years that it was in office I would in normal circumstances wish to say a great deal about this Bill and about the way in which this Government is failing in its administration of broadcasting, especially, if I might say so, in the way in which, by this Bill, it appears to be building a super bureaucracy of various tiers into the broadcasting system. But because we are in the twilight of the present parliamentary session I do not intend unnecessarily to take up the time of the Senate this evening. The main points that I wish to make are these: Firstly- and I say it personally with some pride- the record of the Whitlam Labor Government in broadcasting and television was outstandingly progressive. The Labor Government did more for broadcasting and television than all other governments combined did before we came into government. That, I know, is saying a lot. But I believe that the record speaks for itself.

Secondly, this Government by its actions and by statements by its Ministers, obviously does not understand the pluralist society about which my colleague Senator Button spoke and does not understand the broadcasting, television and electronics industry and the problems confronting the industry. It is quite obvious that the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Eric Robinson) is locking himself away from those who influence the industry rather than being willing to go out and meet, confer and discuss with all sections of those engaged in the industry. Thirdly, the Green report is a departmental report that was written by departmental officers and, wittingly or unwittingly, they have made recommendations which, when implemented by this legislation, I suggest will result in the building of a monolithic bureaucratic structure which in time to come will shackle the freedom of the broadcasters of this country. That, I fear, is the great failure of this legislation to those of us who are civil libertarians, as we all profess to be. That, I fear, is the failure of this legislation and this report.

Let me deal briefly with my first point. The Government of which I was a member and in which I had the responsibility for media matters was the most progressive government that has even been known insofar as broadcasting and television are concerned. Prior to coming to office in December 1972 we had been told by a series of conservative governments that the whole broadcasting spectrum was fully occupied by radio and television and that nothing could be done to break the hold that privileged and existing licensees had on the system that existed. Our forebears- the conservative governmentspreached competition but did not practise it. I was told when I first became Minister for the Media in the Labor Government that the spectrum was fully occupied and that there was no room for the development of further broadcasting or television stations in Australia. Indeed, our forebears had wanted those who had been given the privilege of broadcasting to retain the privilege in the form of, as it were, a cartel to the exclusion of all others. When Labor came to office in December 1972 not one new radio station, national or commercial, had been extended to the capital cities of Australia for 40 years. We were told that the whole broadcasting spectrum in Australia was completely and fully occupied. As Minister for the Media, I did not accept that situation in which there were 10 or 12 stations in Sydney and 8 or 10 in Melbourne while in comparable cities such as San Francisco and Los Angeles there were 50 or 60 stations.

Senator Jessop:

– Too many.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-My colleague says: ‘Too many’. There were insufficient in Australia. It was a situation that had been allowed to exist for 40 years. Not one single radio station had been added to the capital city broadcasting spectrum for 40 years. That, I suggest, was a scandalous situation in the administration of broadcasting and television.

Senator Jessop:

-What about the United Kingdom?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– If Senator Jessop wants to go into detail, he will realise that it has been only in the last two or three years that Britain has decided to go into the commercial sphere of broadcasting; that broadcasting in that country has been operated by the British Broadcasting Commission. I am talking about a country, Australia, that has operated on a dual system of national and commercial stations since broadcasting first came into vogue here in about 1927. For 40 years not one national or commercial broadcasting station had been added to the broadcasting band in the capital cities in Australia. That was the record of governments that had preceded the Whitlam Labor Government. That was despite the enormous increases in population, especially in the capital cities. As Minister for the Media in the Whitlam Labor Government, I decided that if the situation could be changed it had to be changed. I emphasise here and now that the Party for which I stand asserts that its policy is a belief in the dual system of broadcasting- national and commercial.

What did the Labor Government do? We put a new commercial broadcasting station into Canberra, where previously there had been a complete monopoly in commercial broadcasting. That broadcasting station, 2CC, only last week won an international award for merit of operation after it had been operating for a mere 2 years. We put a new commercial station into Adelaide. We put a new commercial station into the Mornington Peninsula in Melbourne. Whereas I was told at the time that it probably would take 3 years for that station to become commercially viable, within 5 months it was in fact viable and in the black, and now it has 10 per cent of the listening audience of Melbourne. We were putting another commercial station into the north-western area of Sydney. We were putting another commercial station into the provincial industrial city of Wollongong, where prior to the Labor Government, as in Canberra, there had been a complete monopoly in the commercial area. There is still a complete monopoly of commercialism there. I understood that the recommendations of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board concerning the granting of licences in the north-western suburbs of Sydney and in Wollongong are the subject of litigation before the High Court of Australia.

They are only some of the commercial ventures that we proposed. We were embarking upon a course of opening up the radio spectrum, of creating competition, of ensuring that people who had enjoyed a monopoly for 40 or 50 years no longer enjoyed that monopoly.

Senator Missen:

– Were you improving anything.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Let me come to that shortly. I intend to seek to have incorporated in Hansard a complete list of broadcasting and television stations- national, commercial and community- for which licences were approved during our 3 years of office. I suggest that Senator Missen look at the record that I tender in the form of an answer I have received to a question upon notice. The people of outback Queensland and of Western Australia will see from the list that we did more than any other government to open up the media for all the people of Australia. I seek leave to have the list incorporated in Hansard.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Coleman)- Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

  1. 1 ) to (4) (see attached tables):

The document read as follows-

Broadcasting (Question No. 456)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Which broadcasting and television stations were (a) approved of, and (b) went to air, between December 1972 and November 1975, either under the Broadcasting and Television Act or the Wireless Telegraphy Act.
  2. What was the date of approval in each case, and what was the date of going to air.
  3. Which of the stations are national, commercial, community or public stations.
  4. What is the area that each of the stations serve.
Senator Carrick:

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

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-We made use of the Australian Broadcasting Commission stand-by transmitters in Sydney and Melbourne to provide additional transmitters for the ABC. These transmitters had been allowed to stand idle over a period of years. They had cost the Australian people millions of dollars. They were called stand-by transmitters and were to be used by the ABC in an emergency. We used them to give the ABC additional broadcasting outlets. We did not dictate to the ABC how they should be used or the manner in which they should be used. We offered those facilities to the ABC as a resource. As a result, today we have radio station 2JJ in Sydney and radio station 3ZZ in Melbourne. Those stations did not cost the Australian taxpayer one cent of additional money.

Senator Young:

– In capital equipment?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– In capital equipment, they did not cost the Australian taxpayer one cent of additional money. Those facilities had been lying idle and costing the Australian taxpayer thousands, probably hundreds of thousands of dollars because they had been stood by for use in an emergency. Station 2JJ has 8 per cent of the radio audience in Sydney. At first we were told that no space was available on the spectrum for additional stations; but, as I have said, we decided to use the nation’s resources and to put the stand-by transmitters to work. Stations 2JJ in Sydney and 3ZZ in Melbourne and the use of those stations brought new challenges to the whole of the industry, national and commercial, as the whole of the industry will tell you today.

A series of conservative governments baulked at the introduction of frequency modulation broadcasting. It had been experimented with in Australia by the ABC as long ago as the early 1950s. A couple of frequency modulation transmitters were brought into Australia for experimental purposes. They were brought in, from recollection, by the Chifley Labor Government but when the Menzies Government came into office those FM experimental transmitters were scrapped. So far as broadcasting was concerned, while the rest of the world enjoyed the developments that were taking place and had taken place in frequency modulation, we were put 23 years behind the rest of the world because ofthe attitude of conservative governments which in the 1950s had cancelled the experiments that were taking place with frequency modulation. Australians did not know what it was all about. This great broadcasting facility was denied to the

Australian people. But as soon as the Senate standing committee that was charged with the responsibility of, amongst other things, making recommendations about frequency modulation broadcasting made its recommendations to the Senate committee I immediately took it to the Labor Cabinet. Within weeks of the committee’s making a recommendation to this Senate we had established the McLean committee of inquiry. Within 5 months of the committee’s making its recommendation to the Senate on frequency modulation broadcasting the Labor Government had agreed to its introduction in Australia, without doubt the quickest and most expeditious action by a government so far as any recommendation of a Senate standing committee is concerned. As a result, frequency modulation was introduced by the Whitlam Labor Government into Australia despite 23 years of procrastination by a series of conservative governments.

When I first proposed the introduction of community broadcasting stations or public broadcasting stations- and I well remember the time I made the speech on the subject early in 1973 at the Sydney Press Club- the critics of the day viewed the idea askance. The first 2 frequency modulation broadcasting station licences that were issued in Australia were in fact given to community or public broadcasters- the Fine Music Broadcasting Society in New South Wales and the Fine Music Broadcasting Society in Victoria. Come what may, those 2 stations have been outstandingly successful and now of course the Australian Broadcasting Commission has 4 frequency modulation transmitters as well.

The Whitlam Government also introduced ethnic radio broadcasting on an experimental basis. The Whitlam Labor Government also introduced colour television transmission. The Whitlam Labor Government also abolished wireless licence and television viewer licence fees, something that has not been done in any other country except, I think, Sweden and New Zealand. We led the whole of the world. We were catching up with what had gone on in other areas in the world and we were leading the world in development in the broadcasting spectrum. No other nation had a 3-tiered system of broadcastingnational, commercial and public broadcasting. If my friends Senator Lajovic or Senator Young like to relate ethnic broadcasting to a different area, we probably had a 4-tiered system of broadcasting.

As a government we made record amounts available to the ABC. Indeed, I think the first decision that the Whitlam Labor Government made was to make some $300,000 available to the Commission for the specific purpose of developing new program arrangements for television purposes. As a result of that initial $300,000-an additional $300,000 out of a total amount of $70m that had been made available up to that date to the ABC- great programs were able to be developed; programs like Seven Little Australians, Rush, Ben Hall and Power Without Glory. They are only some that I can recall. Ali of those programs are now being sold on the international markets throughout the world.

When we came into office the ABC was operating 80 medium-wave transmitters and -6 short-wave transmitters for radio. It was operating 52 transmitters and 38 translator stations for television. When we went out of office 3 years later the ABC was operating 86 medium-wave transmitters, 4 frequency modulation transmitters and 6 short-wave transmitters for radio, which was an overall increase of 10 transmitters for broadcasting purposes. In relation to television, as I have said, when we came into office in December 1972 there were 52 transmitters and 38 translators being operated by the ABC for television. In 3 years we had increased that number to 84 television transmitters, an increase of 32, and 54 translators, an increase of sixteen. So as I have said, no government did more for broadcasting or for television, particularly for the ABC, than the Whitlam Labor Government.

So far as commercial broadcasting and television were concerned, we imposed a requirement for the first time on commercial radio to broadcast a quota of musical programs of Australian origin and produced by Australian musicians. It was nil in 1 972. It was 1 5 per cent in 1975. As to all these pop groups running around the world today- and good luck to them- their initial opportunity was given to them because we as a government had determined that they should be given a right to have their product put on the air waves of Australia. We increased the quota for commercial television.

Unlike this Government, the Whitlam Labor Government got on with the job so far as broadcasting and television were concerned. True it is we were in government for 3 years, but I would suggest that probably for only two of those 3 years we were able to operate administratively in that regard. We knocked off in about March 1974 to fight the May 1974 double dissolution election. We came back here in August and had a joint sitting of the Houses of Parliament. The

Budget of that year, 1 974, was not able to be presented until September. We all know, as members of this chamber at that time, what went on in the last 6 months of the Parliament in 1975.

Nothing has been done since that time by the present Government, except to starve the Australian Broadcasting Commission of essential funds and to throw the commercial industry into convulsions and confusions. I said earlier that this Government does not understand the industry. That has been made quite obvious by the utterances that have been made by Ministers, from the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) down. Most, if not all, of those Ministers have had a barb at the ABC, as though the ABC should be their playtoy. As a matter of fact, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Withers, said on 24 March- this is reported at page 724 of the Hansard of that date- in answer to an interjection the following:

Do not raise the Australian Broadcasting Commission. You blokes have been leaning on it for years. It is full of your supporters and has been pumping out your propaganda year in and year out. That is not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of notoriety. The sooner it is cleaned up the better as far as I am concerned. It is rather remarkable that honourable senators opposite always rush to the defence of their friends. If all the people they defend are as objective as they claim them to be why do they rush to their defence all the time.

Senator Jessop:

– I seem to remember some words like that coming from the Opposition, too.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-My friend, Senator Jessop, seems to remember those words. I at least have cited them. I challenge Senator Jessop to cite something that any member of the Labor Government has said in that regard. I challenge any honourable senator opposite to indicate in one way or the other when we attempted in any fashion, manner, shape or form during the whole time that we were in office to interfere with the independence of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. Senator Withers has said that the ABC was stacked with Labor Party supporters. I said earlier that the present Government does not understand the media or the media industry. Government supporters forget that when the Labor Party was in office the ABC was almost as critical of that Labor Government as were Murdoch, Fairfax, Packer and the rest of them. I well remember when I was Minister for the Media the program Late Line, which was or is supposed to be Left Wine, knocking me and bagging me, I suppose, on the average of once a week. Somehow or other my critics were able to get time on radio or television.

Senator Jessop:

– You are a right winger; that is your trouble.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am not a right winger at all. I profess to be a radical in the Labor movement. If Senator Jessop wants to bag me with a nickname, then he can bag me. I am quite happy with any name with which he bags me, provided he bags me as being a member of the Labor movement. I am quite happy with that. I was knocked and bagged on an average of once a week. Somehow or other most of my critics seemed to be able to get time on ABC radio or television. They belted me and they belted me, and they also belted some of my other colleagues in the Labor Ministry.

Indeed, I remember one night shortly after the May 1974 double dissolution elections when the Department of the Treasury was trying to get the Labor Government to cut back on the funds being made available to the ABC. If I remember correctly, at that time Treasury was trying to get the Labor Government to cut back on those funds being made available to the ABC to the extent of about $ 10m. My colleagues who are in the chamber this evening, Senator Wriedt and Senator Wheeldon, will well remember that. I argued the case against Treasury on that occasion. I received the support of those colleagues I have named. I well remember my colleague Senator Wheeldon speaking on my behalf. That night when I went home I heard one of my most vocal critics saying on the ABC radio program Late Line that I had done nothing for the Commission, despite the fact that in Government I had been able to win that argument with Treasury. But I was not the only Minister to have that experience. I mention the incident only by way of illustration. That was the experience of many of my ministerial colleagues. The Government uses spurious arguments, because as soon as someone makes open and constructive criticism of it on the ABC, it automatically assumes that the ABC is against it.

I believe that this legislation has been drafted in haste. I believe that the Government should have made this report available for public consideration, not as a Green report but as a Green Paper, so that all sections of the community could have had an opportunity of expressing their opinions before its contents were put into legislative form. After all, that is the course of action the Government followed in the case of certain Public Service legislation. Legislation which is being introduced into the Parliament today will lie on the notice paper until the next parliamentary sessional period. I suggest that that would have been a very wise course for the Government to have adopted in relation to these proposed amendments to the Broadcasting and

Television Act. Therefore I have very great pleasure in supporting the remarks made and the amendment moved by my colleague Senator Button.

Senator YOUNG:
South Australia

– We have listened to quite critical, and sometimes highly critical, comment tonight from the Opposition, particularly that which accuses the Government of bringing in this legislation in haste. Is it the intention of the Opposition to continue to argue that there has not existed a need to change the present legislation? I remind the Opposition that when it was in government it introduced into the Parliament amending legislation in this area on 2 occasions. Fortunately the Labor Government did not have the numbers in this place to have that legislation passed. The legislation it introduced was not the type of legislation which would have been in the best interests of the electronics media of this country. However, I will not go into that matter tonight. I think it shows clearly that the Opposition, when in government, was very conscious of the need to change the existing legislation in this area. The Opposition has conducted inquiries on this subject. The Fraser Government conducted a departmental inquiry this year. It is as a result of that inquiry that we now have this legislation before us.

As the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) said in his second reading speech, he regards this legislation as being transitional legislation because many more things need to be done. When one looks at what has happened in the electronics media since the original Broadcasting and Television Bill was introduced into this Parliament, one realises that there is a great need for change. A great deal needs to be done by means of legislation in so many areas. Today we have not only the old amplitude modulation radio but also frequency modulation radio. Television is moving out of the very high frequency area into the ultra high frequency field. We have had such a great increase in the number of radio stations that they are greatly reducing the gaps left in the frequencies in the air waves. Air waves are a very scarce commodity. They are a commodity that belongs to the people of this country. Because of their scarcity we must make sure that there is planning and legislation to take the best advantage we possibly can to give the greatest benefit, the greatest spread of news and other things that come with the benefits, if properly used, of both television and radio for the people of this country. We can go further and look to the advances in technology that are taking place. We can look to what is happening in the field of cable television and so many other fields. There is a great need to get on with this revised legislation.

It is all very well for the Labor Party to say that this is hasty legislation. There are plenty of provisions within this transitional legislation, much of which will be positive legislation, that will bring structural changes that can only be of benefit. I was pleased to hear tonight even Senator Douglas McClelland admit that the Tribunal is a very good idea but, at the same time, I was surprised to hear him accuse the Government of establishing what he called a monumental bureaucracy. I only wish that he could have spelled out in detail what he meant by monumental bureaucracy. Quite frankly, I cannot see what he meant. Basically, 3 major changes are being made. We will no longer have an Australian Broadcasting Control Board. That will be replaced by the Tribunal. We will have a Broadcasting Council which will be a non-statutory body. The Commission will be enlarged from 9 to 1 1 Commissioners. I commend the Government for what it has done in this respect.

The Opposition has seen fit to try to play politics and make accusations but are members of the Opposition prepared to stand in their places and say that the States are not entitled to representation on the Commission? Is the State of Tasmania not entitled to a Commissioner? Is my own State of South Australia not entitled to a Commissioner? That is the position which applies at present. Dr Cass, when debating this legislation in the other place last week, stated that when he was Minister for the Media by the effluxion of time the Tasmanian representative on the Commission retired and he implied that he had to appoint a Victorian woman because he could not find a suitable candidate in Tasmania. I should like the doctor to go to Tasmania and make that statement. I am certain that I could go to Tasmania and find somebody competent enough to do the job, and I do not know many people in Tasmania. There is no recognition of the right and the need of a State to have representation on the Commission. This Government has seen fit to do that. It has also seen fit to state that there will be a minimum of 2 women on the Commission and to enlarge the Commission from 9 to 1 1 Commissioners.

No doubt the Opposition is very sorry tonight that the Bill does not provide for 9 Commissioners. Opposition senators would have loved to have levelled accusations at the Government that it was going to start hiring and firing and swinging axes. If Opposition senators care to read the second reading speech of the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Eric Robinson) they will see it clearly spelled out that no current Commissioner on the Australian Broadcasting Commission will be fired. I think that the Opposition is a little testy tonight because it has not had the opportunity to start having a shot at us about that. Criticism was levelled at the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) tonight by Senator Button when he led in this debate for the Opposition. He accused the Prime Minister virtually of playing politics. He accused the ABC of playing politics. He also went so far as to more or less imply, as Senator McLaren did, that the Government is screwing the ABC financially. It is unfortunate that there have been severe cuts in many departments and many bodies, including the ABC. This is a carry-over from economic problems that this Government inherited. I refer to the Minister’s statement on page 3329 of House of Representatives Hansard in regard to the finances of the ABC:

This year the ABC’s budget was decreased from S 1 38m to $129m, a reduction of $9m or about 6 per cent. This reduction was much smaller than the overall across the board cuts in the Budget which were of the order of 10 per cent . . It is known to the ABC and to Sir Henry Bland, as it is known to every other government instrumentality, that they can come back to the Government with a submission based upon costs which are unavoidable. Sir Henry is aware that his case will be considered on its merits when he chooses to send it to us.

I think that is important. There is an option that if the needs are such the Chairman of the Commission can go back to the Government and appeal. Criticism has also been levelled with regard to the limitations upon the aspect of who will be administering standards. The Tribunal is a quasi judicial body. As the Minister stated this is an interim measure at this stage but it will eventually be permanent. I think that what the Minister actually said should be put on the record in this chamber. I should like to quote from a statement by the Minister on 18 November which appears on page 2861 of House of Representatives Hansard:

In addition, and also as an interim measure, the Tribunal will, under the provisions of this Bill, assume the responsibilities of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board in administering the present standards of broadcasting practice. The Tribunal will be directed by me to hold a public inquiry into the concept of a greater degree of ‘self regulation’ by the industry itself as proposed in the report, based on minimum standards to be determined by the Tribunal. The Tribunal will also recommend whether the national sector should conform to such standards. The public will thus have the opportunity of expressing its view whether the ABC should be subject to the same minimum standards of broadcasting practice as the commercial and public broadcasters.

I think this is most important. Whilst many things have been said tonight, one thing that should be said in fairness is that the Government is giving the people the opportunity to say what they would like with regard to standards in programs, whether they be minimum or maximum, to give an indication to the Tribunal as to what those standards and the guidelines should be. There has been much concern- I myself have expressed concern- about certain standards of programs. I think that the public should be given the opportunity to judge. This is what this Government is prepared to do. Another responsibility that is to be given to the Tribunal will be the issuing of licences, something that at present the Minister himself does. The Opposition cannot accuse this Government of playing politics with the electronic media. It has gone further than any government in the past has been prepared to go. It has given more responsibility to an independent body. This is most important. I would only hope that in fairness somebody on the other side of the chamber would admit this and give credit to the Government where credit really is due in this very important area.

Another very important aspect of the legislationthe Opposition accuses us of being hasty in introducing it, but if the Opposition were honest it would have to admit that this is very necessaryrelates to technical planning, for which there has been a great need for a long time. There has been an absence of any co-ordinated planning of the use of the electronic media and the airwaves. I am very pleased to see that the proposals within this legislation spell out clearly that the Postal and Telecommunications Department now will be in charge of the physical and technical sides of research. This is most important, because in the past we have had an absolute conglomeration in this area. We have had a lack of communication. We have had duplication and waste of resources in this area. Now they will be centralised- I am not a centralist- in such a way that we will have a more effective situation with regard to technological advances and research, which has been and is badly needed.

I turn now to the Broadcasting Council. I suppose that this would be regarded as part of the monolithic bureaucracy that has been referred to tonight by Senator Douglas McClelland. The Broadcasting Council, whilst a non-statutory body, will act in an advisory capacity. It will consist of representatives of commercial, national and public broadcasting, as well as departmental representatives. It will act in an advisory capacity to the Minister and the Tribunal. With regard to the Broadcasting Council, I ask the Minister to clarify 2 areas for me. One is when this Council will be established and whether it will be established at the same time as the Tribunal, and the other is what the actual functions of the Council will be.

I also refer to public broadcasting, which has a very important part to play in our country today. While the previous Government was in power, although public broadcasting had my full support I was particularly concerned at the way in which it was being introduced on a willy nilly basis. It was done in such a way that we could have finished up with all sorts of problems for the public broadcasters. I want to make it clear in this chamber that I am not blaming Senator Douglas McClelland for this. He tried to go about this matter slowly and cautiously so as to give public broadcasting an opportunity to develop fully and, by experimentation, to develop properly. But it was after he left office that we suddenly had the great proliferation which concerned many people in Australia. This was able to be done in the past because these licences were issued on an experimental basis under the Wireless Telegraphy Act. I am pleased to see that the Minister, in the amendments that were proposed in the House of Representatives, has spelt out very clearly that public broadcasting licences will be issued on the same basis as commercial licences. This is very important. Those people who are in need will be able to express their needs and to do so in such a way that there will be a public inquiry. They will then know that they have been listened to responsibly and that those who have listened know that they are responsible people who wish to establish such a station.

Time is running out for me, and there are 2 more areas to which I will refer. There are quite a few areas on which I would like to have expanded tonight. I refer to 2 very important aspects of this new legislation which deal with the staff of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. I am very pleased to see that at last the staff of the ABC will be recognised in this legislation.

Senator Ryan:

– Where?

Senator YOUNG:

– It will be recognised in that there will be a consultative group on the same basis as the Council. That reference has been made in the legislation. It recognises that the ABC staff will be given the opportunity to discuss with management via its consultative councils. This will take in all arms of the staff. The staff association and anybody connected with the ABC will have the opportunity to have representatives sit down and discuss with management. This is an excellent idea. I hope that it will be encouraged and firmly established by the ABC.

Communication is one of the most important things. It is a very necessary part which perhaps has been overlooked in the past in some areas.

Finally, I refer briefly to another very important aspect, and that is the fact that the staff no longer will be bound by Public Service regulations. The ABC will now be able to negotiate salaries, the reclassification of positions and conditions. I think this is something that has been sadly lacking for a very long time. There is a lot of talent amongst the staff of the ABC. But there has been a lot of frustrated talent amongst the staff of the ABC because, under the old system, in many cases length of service had a greater import than ability and initiative and many of the brighter fellows were overlooked. This legislation gives many of these people an opportunity perhaps to move up the ladder more quickly than they would have in the past. It could give them the opportunity to branch out into so many fields in the ABC and make greater contributions to it.

As I said before, there are many more things I should like to say. I shall be having a few more things to say at the Committee stage. I commend the Government on this legislation, because it is a start. There is a lot more to do, but it is a start. It will give the Government the opportunity to get on with the job and to do something within the electronic media that has been needed for a long time. I look forward to the next legislation with interest, to see what proposals the Government will have for the betterment of the electronic media in this country.

Senator MELZER:
Victoria

– I am not prepared to wait until the next lot of legislation is brought forward by this Government. I want to know now what concern this Government feels for children and for children’s television in this country. I have not seen any evidence of concern either by this Government or by private industry in this area for children’s television.

Senator Button:

– The Government will put 2 women on the Commission.

Senator MELZER:

-Oh, yes, we will have 2 women on the Commission. Obviously women must be concerned about children, so we have a prerequisite for 2 women, God help this Government if 10 women turn up who are eligible for appointment. It would be in a terrible position. I must say that not all women feel all that much concern for children, and even fathers have some concern for children. But this Government keeps saying: ‘Leave it to the Australian Broadcasting Commission’. The Commission can do only what it can do on the money given to it by this Government. So the ABC is already cut and confined.

An advisory committee was set up by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. It set out 8 principles on which it thought children’s television in this country should be based. Those 8 principles were:

  1. The producer must have demonstrable interest in children.
  2. Children should be encouraged to take active pan in sports and hobbies through television.
  3. Programs should be designed for specific age groups.
  4. Programs should avoid lavish displays of wealth.
  5. Programs should not suggest that the good life comes from acquiring material things.
  6. There should be no stereo heroes and non-heroes in children’s programs.
  7. Precocity should not be encouraged.
  8. Conformity is not to be admired.

Those were the 8 areas in which the advisory committee advised the Control Board that something should be done about children’s television. In the Melbourne Age green paper for Friday, 10 December, in the time between 6 a.m. and 7 p.m.- the time when children could reasonably be expected to watch television- these were the sorts of programs that television in Victoria had listed, and I say ‘had listed ‘ because we have not got to 10 December yet: GTV9 had 6Vi hours of programs that could be called ‘designated for children’. That means that we have kindergarten programs, so called family comedies, educational programs put forward by the Australian Broadcasting Commission, and some other little programs designated as ‘education for children’ programs.

On GTV9 there appears 6 hours of programs that could be called designated for children, 5 te hours of those programs coming from America and one hour coming from Australia. On HSV7 half an hour is listed in that time for children and that is an American cartoon. The remainder of the time that could reasonably be called hours for children’s viewing is taken up by tennis. On ABV2 in relation to programs for children there is one hour and twenty five minutes from the United States, half an hour from Britain and half an hour from Australia. There are 3 te hours of educational television; that is, material put on by the Department of Education in Victoria, and it is repeated in the afternoon. On ATVO there are 3 te hours of programs from the United States of America and one hour from Australia. From them all we have cartoons for an hour at a time; we have family comedies- I am not sure whether honourable senators opposite watch television but McHale’s Navy and Gilligan’s Island, both of which must be 4200 years old, are the sorts of programs that go into that family viewing time- we have half an hour of documentary, with a question mark, and a half hour deemed children’s educational programs’. Is it any wonder that Australia is third in the world market for American films?

Many people such as those on the Australian Children’s Television Action Committee are worried about the current situation. Many more people should be worried about the current children’s television situation because these are the sorts of programs which our children are watching hour after hour, day after day. People such as those on the Australian Children’s Television Action Committee are worried because the Federation of Commercial Television Stations has never stuck to the standards which either the commercial stations laid down when they applied for their licence or which the Government since has attempted to lay down for them. All television stations promised at the time they got their licences that at least 70 per cent of their programs would be live and the best that any of them have done was 49 per cent, and that included football replays over and over again. I do not say that because I am a Victorian. I believe that no matter what code of football one watches this goes on ad infinitum.

When these stations applied for their licences they were very pious about what they were going to do for the people of Australia in regard to television, what they were going to do for the performers, musicians, actors and writers, and even occasionally for the children and women of Australia. When ATN Sydney applied for its licence it promised that 67 per cent of its programs would be live. In May 1966, 43 per cent was the best it had ever done. TCN Sydney promised that 60 per cent of its programs would be live. By May 1966 it had got to 43.1 per cent. GTV Melbourne promised that up to 65 per cent of its programs would be live. Yet by 1966 it had got to 44.3 per cent. HSV7 which had promised that 72 per cent of its programs would be live had got to 49.8 per cent. So much for the promises they made to writers, artists, actors and musicians in Australia. So much for what they promised the people of Australia in terms of live, real television that reflected their hopes and aspirations.

When we get to what they promised children in Australia it is a slightly different picture. ATN Sydney for its first year did not mention children’s television. Obviously children would be in bed, out of sight and out of mind. However, it did promise that by its third year educational, programs would occupy 1.75 per cent of its viewing time. TCN Sydney for its first year did not mention nor did it promise anything for children. GTV9 in Melbourne had nothing in its first or second years because, after all, one has to work up to these things. However, in its third year there were 30 minutes of children’s programs and, because we are all concerned with education just as we are concerned with motherhood, 30 minutes of educational programs in its first and second years and one hour in its third year. God knows what the one hour of educational television may have been. HSV7 promised 3 hours of children’s programs in its first year and 4 hours of educational programs but has never got to that point.

We can say ‘Why worry?’. There is a picture on the television screen and children watch television. It is most compulsive viewing. I love television. When I go home I cannot resist turning on the television set and watching whatever is on, although saying to myself how terrible it is; but I cannot resist watching the picture because I love television and films. So do children. To children it is a most compulsive medium. They turn on the television set, there are the pictures and they cannot help but take them in. No wonder the National Association for Better Broadcasting in America said:

TV has taught our children to kill before they have learnt to read.

That is where we come back to reality with a thump. Unfortunately we can cite only American figures because there are no Australian figures to cite. We are very much at a loss in this respect and I do not excuse my Government for not having done something about providing those figures. We should all be concerned that we do not know what effect television has on our children, because they are all our children. Figures show that in America a child sees every hour between 5 and 9 violent incidents such as murder, rape, assault, accident or a fight, although the real figures show that the chance of a person being involved in such violence on any day is 14 000 to one.

We have no figures for Australia but in September 1975 my staff and I took out figures for one week from the Age green paper on television. These showed that of the films that were shown during the hours children watched television, there were 57 hours of American films. These covered the spectrum from Sesame Street, which I think is a very good program, to McHale’s Navy and Gilligan’s Island and films that have been going around since the year dot. Of Australian films that were shown in the hours that children could watch television there were 29 hours- one hundred per cent from the ABCand they included films that are called educational; that is, put on by the education departments. Films that would be called women’s programs or would be shown at times when women would watch television comprised 5 hours of viewing time. They came from America and were soap box operas. Current affairs programs, which included the news broadcasts, from 4 television stations covered 22 hours. Films that came from the United States of America and were shown in peak viewing time accounted for 168 hours in one week. Sport covered 27 hours and religion, I am sad to say, covered 2 hours. So while I say I can use only figures from America, in Australia we have to admit that the films shown here in the main come from America. Because of the amount of films children watch in America, and I submit in Australia too because I do not think our children watch any less television than do American children, nor on the figures I have been given do they watch any less American television than do American children, a child is involved with violence 25 times a day, even though the American figures show that the chance of a person being involved with violence is only 14 000 to 1. The National Association for Better Broadcasting in America has said:

TV has warped the social attitudes of our entire society by saturating entertainment with sadistic violence.

In the 9 years a child grows between the ages of five and fourteen years an American child has seen the violent death of 13 000 human beings. That should be a matter of great concern to Australians and it should be the subject of some urgent study.

I welcome greatly the report this week that the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts is going to concern itself with the part played by television in children’s lives and education. It is obviously a matter of great importance. We should take note of the fact that the Journal of the American Medical Association stated:

In 1 46 articles in behavioural science journals representing SO studies of 10 000 children, all showed that violent viewing has produced increased aggressive behaviour.

As a parent who lets her children watch television, who knows her children enjoy television, who knows her children and she herself learn from television, I am concerned that this great power for learning should be treated in a proper way so that our children are not at a disadvantage in this field.

In America at the moment an 18-year-old has watched 15 000 hours of television but has spent only 1 1 000 hours in school, and I suspect that the figures are very much the same for Australia. Those figures are not necessarily bad but they are bad if the television our children see is setting them on the wrong path and is giving them the wrong incentives. That is what concerns me. Television is a great power for good. It is a great medium from which to learn, and I think we underestimate the intelligence and interest of our children. I have watched my children and I know that although the television screen mesmerises them, the programs they really enjoy are the programs that tease their imaginations, their powers to learn, their powers to investigate. Television in Australia is not doing enough of that.

I am concerned at the attitude of the commercial stations. There is no indication that they care two hoots about our children or about the power that television has over those children. For instance, commercial stations are not supposed to show trailers of adult films in children s viewing times, but they do it over and over again because I have seen them. There is a power to fine commercial stations who do that, but nobody has ever been fined. There is no reason to believe that under the system of self-regulation this Government is bringing in the television stations will behave any better. Up to this point of time they have shown that they have no standards and there is no reason to believe that they are going to acquire those standards overnight. Where will those standards come from? There is no material to show that the commercial stations care at all. The material they have put out has shown that they are concerned about the profits that might be made from advertisements on ABV2 but there has been no material from any of the commercial stations or commercial organisations which shows that they are concerned in any way at all about children or children’s television. Children are very persuasive of their parents in buying goods, and when one watches the programs between 3.30 p.m. and 6.30 p.m. and sees the advertisements that go on and the persuasion directed to a 12-year-old, who keeps insisting that her life will be blighted if she does not have a particular form of breakfast food, then one knows why the commercial stations are more concerned with advertisements shown during the times children watch than with the sort of material they put on. There is some glorious mind-expanding material which could go on for children in what is really a very great medium.

The Opposition believes that this is hasty legislation. We believe that the fullest opportunity should be given for real people to say how they feel this beautiful medium can be used. The fullest opportunity should be given for public debate, and yet I watched a program this week in which the relevant Minister was a participant and he kept insisting that the fullest possible public debate could be given, that a new body was being set up on 1 January to assist this public debate, but that new legislation would come down in February. Let us be realistic. We all know that in Australia January is the month that we all take off. I am happy to say that, because I think it is a great thing. We sit in the sun, we read the paper, we talk to our kids, we take a holiday. Nobody in Australia works in January, and I hope they never do. If we are going to have new legislation in February there will not have been an opportunity for real public debate on this issue. It is an area that affects our children and it affects our future, and it should have the fullest public debate. If we have to rush this legislation through now and rush through new legislation in February, then I question whether this Government is genuine when it says that it believes there should be the fullest possible public debate or that the Bills cover what our society needs by way of electronic media.

I am tempted to comment again on the two women who may be members of the Commission. May I say in passing that I think it is patronising nonsense, and I wonder what this Government will do if it finds that 8 women are eligible to sit on that Commission. It will have to bring through legislation providing for 2 men to sit on the Commission. I live for the day! In closing, may I say that I should like to see this Government show real concern for the proper use of radio and television and proper responsibility for spending the nation’s income in this area.

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

-This Bill is the first of two stages of a legislative program to implement fully the Government’s decision on the revised administrative structure, including the transfer to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal of the present ministerial powers relating to various matters associated with the renewal, suspension and revocation of licences and other matters concerned with changes in ownership and control. The new Broadcasting and Television Act will also include provisions for public inquiries on the renewal of licences. But we are dealing with the first part of the legislation, and this Bill has already received quite a lot of publicity in the Press and the various media. In my opinion, there has already been a large amount of public debate on the issues we are considering. As a result of that debate and as a result of responsible representations, the Government has seen fit to make amendments to the original Bill which satisfy me almost completely, although I imagine that some aspects of the Bill will be altered during the second stage of the Government’s legislative program. Before dealing with one or two aspects of the Bill itself, I should like to say that in my opinion the Australian Broadcasting Commission performs a unique service to Australia. The ABC brings to a national audience programs that are wide-ranging in character and certainly in my experience commands the respect and interest of viewers and listeners throughout Australia. I think this is particularly significant in the country areas because there are many areas of Australia even today that can receive only the ABC stations with acceptable clarity. Therefore I believe that for that reason the Commission performs a unique service. The programs are diverse and in most cases have reached a high level of proficiency. I refer to areas such as symphony orchestras, cultural areas, drama and ballet.

I think that we can be proud of the advances that have been made in those areas. That is why I was particularly concerned when I read of the possibility- I know it was only a possibility- of the Commission reviewing the question whether symphony orchestras ought to persist in Adelaide and other parts of Australia. I demonstrated my interest in that matter. I was also concerned to read of possible cuts to programs that are of particular interest to viewers. I refer to current affairs programs in particular. I realise that economic restraints within the ABC are just as desirable as in any government department. It is equally important to realise that the manner in which economies are effected is the responsibility of the ABC and is entirely outside political interference. I believe that members of Parliament have a responsibility when program changes are suggested and cuts are suggested to programs that are of particular interest to people whom we represent. I think it is within our sphere of duty and responsibility to communicate the feelings that are reflected by our electorates in relation to those matters.

For that reason I wrote to Sir Henry Bland to demonstrate my concern. This followed a question relating to the costs of various programs which I asked in the Senate of the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick). I wrote to Sir Henry asking him to reassess the reported cuts to current affairs programs and in the news department in particular. I have not received a reply to that letter as yet but I understand that the costs of the program State of the Nation, which attracts a large national audience, is $40,000. 1 understand that this program is broadcast ibr half an hour or so and gives a fairly good opportunity for a balanced argument to be presented.

Senator Messner:

– You get some good back benchers on that program.

Senator JESSOP:

-Yes, that is right. I could not help comparing the costs of some programs. I asked for the costs and I did a little homework on them. I hope the figures will be confirmed by the Minister in due course. The cost of the Alvin Purple series is in the vicinity of $500,000. 1 felt the cost of the 2 programs was a remarkable comparison. I question whether the value for money is there in some of these programs. The Age reported that Sir Henry maintains that the budget cuts will be good for the ABC. In an interview with the Commission staff journal Radio Active he said that he thought that the ABC and lots of other organisations have probably had it too good, and that reductions in funds are very good discipline. I believe there is a lot of sense in what was implied in that statement. But I cannot agree with the way it has been suggested that these cuts should be made. I should like to give an example.

Senator Wriedt:

– Let us take FM radio out of Adelaide for a start.

Senator JESSOP:

-I am not sure that I should reply to an honourable senator who is sitting out of his place. I shall come to FM later. I should like to illustrate the point I mentioned. A notice appeared in the ABC staff journal of 2 December stating that a working party had been set up by the ABC radio-television science technological department for the purpose of investigating the operation of portable stereo tape recorders in the field. I understand that submissions were invited from interested people within the ABC. This working party of 3 people was established in Sydney. Last week it arrived in Adelaide to deal with this investigation. The people in Adelaide had only just received the journal and of course not many of them were aware of the fact that this working party had been set up. The result was that only 2 people were able to be examined by the tribunal of three, which remained in Adelaide for 3 days and incurred expenses sufficient to enable a specialised television program of about half an hour to be made. I understand that this tribunal will go to the various States to examine that minor activity within the ABC. In my opinion that is an area in which some expenses could be cut. Why should 3 people go to Adelaide? Why could not the tribunal call for written submissions, or if it had to examine people personally, in various States, why could not only one person travel to those States.

Senator Wriedt:

– That is small beer.

Senator JESSOP:

-That is small beer, but it is only a small section of the ABC. I am just pointing to where economies could be effected. In a newspaper today is a report on Sir Henry Bland ‘s personal view and comments on the ABC. It states:

I couldn’t care less if there were no current affairs programs’.

He said Stale of the Nation ‘is a bit of a disaster’ and This Day Tonight ‘has been scraping the bottom of the barrel ‘.

Alvin Purple ‘ought to be burned’ and ‘The Nips’ have very good orchestras.

I do not know what we can determine from that but I suggest that as the Chairman of the Commission Sir Henry Bland perhaps would be advised to be a little more discreet about voicing his personal views in public because that can certainly put him in a difficult position. I personally agree that perhaps This Day Tonight has areas that could be improved. It is a program that I believe genuinely tries to provide some sort of a balance. There are some occasions when I get a bit cross. I see items that appear to me to be slanted in favour of the Opposition’s argument. But then again, there could be other occasions where the reverse would apply. From my point of view as an avid television viewer- not quite in the category of Senator Melzer- I am interested in current affairs debates and programs. I believe that more care ought to be taken to present a balanced view. I think this is the responsibility of those types of programs and I hope that that type of program will be able to persist.

I said earlier that some programs have reached a high standard. But that does not mean to say that I agree that all programs are beyond reproach. I have received representations concerning the program Late Line. I had occasion to write to the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, Mr Duckmanton -

Senator Ryan:

– Duckmanton is the general manager.

Senator JESSOP:

-That is right. My letter was directed to him and I called his attention to some aspects of this program that offended listeners and I was quite justifiable in doing so. Anyone who reads the transcripts of some of these programs will realise that much is left to be desired. It would not really break my heart if the axe fell on some programs of that nature. Senator Melzer referred to programs that are being shown on television in hours when children can view them. Some of them are certainly not what I would suggest is appropriate for children. In fact, Senator Hall told me that he was watching a program on television in Adelaide recently- I think it was last Sunday afternoon or the Sunday before- and he saw a seduction scene. That is pretty grim for young children to view. I believe that those things ought to be investigated. I share Senator Melzer ‘s concern in that respect. I support also Senator Missen ‘s statement earlier that some of the programs could be a little more aggressive and a little more on the British Broadcasting Commission side, where 2 points of view are put in a more aggressive and objective fashion. Senator Young, I think it was, mentioned the fact that the appropriation for the ABC had not been reduced as much as the appropriations for other departments- that it had been pruned by only about 6 per cent. This year the Commission has been voted $128m- $119m for operating expenses and $9m for capital costs. I understand that the Minister and the Government are giving consideration to making further moneys available to it.

I turn to one or two provisions of the Bill. I congratulate the Government on its decision to allow the current commissioners to complete their term of office but I am still a little worried about one or two aspects. I would like the Minister to have a look at the clause dealing with the public broadcasting service. Proposed section iiia reads:

Subject to this Act, the Minister may, on payment of the prescribed fee, grant a person a licence to operate a broadcasting station or television station for one or more of the following purposes . . .

Proposed sub-section (3) reads:

A public broadcasting licence or public television licence may be granted on such conditions, and in accordance with such form, as the Minister determines.

I understand that during the second stage of the legislative program it is intended that there be a transfer to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal of the present ministerial powers. I would like to know whether those provisions will have to be changed when the Tribunal has been established and, if so, whether the responsibility in those 2 areas- it could be reflected in other parts of the Bill- will be then transferred to the Tribunal and whether it would not be a good idea to suggest at that stage that a public hearing should Be conducted when licences are being considered.

Another point I would like to raise concerns the dismissal and vacation of office. This matter was set out in clause 37 ofthe original Bill. It has been amended to some extent in the Bill that we are considering. It is now referred to in clause 10. I would like to know who determines whether a commissioner ought to be dismissed and the modus operandi of this action. I realise that the Governor-General has the ultimate responsibility to declare the position vacant. But what would happen in the case of, for example, a commissioner who divulged confidences of the Commission and who perhaps saw fit to make public statements on matters of confidentiality? I think that those things are important. They are not likely to happen very often but I would like to have a ministerial comment on that matter.

Finally, I mention that there are still areas in South Australia that are not properly served by television. This matter has been the subject of comment by my colleagues from South Australia from time to time. I hasten to say that honourable senators on this side of the House do not claim the credit completely for what has happened in the area of Leigh Creek. I pay tribute to Senator McLaren, in case he is listening at the present time. I would hate him to misunderstand what I am saying. But I would like to say how pleased I am that the collective representations in this place are about to bear fruit. I understand that the building to house television at Leigh Creek will be completed by the end of this year, as a result of some assistance from the South Australian Government through the Electricity Trust, and that the equipment ought to be installed and working before the end of April. I would like to think that it will be a little earlier than that. I hope that the Minister will pay attention to the need for the provision of television to the Streaky Bay area and the areas surrounding Streaky Bay on the Eyre Peninsula. In recent times television facilities have been installed at Ceduna, but Streaky Bay, which is just some 70 miles away, cannot receive a picture because of topographical problems. I understand that experts from the Broadcasting Control Board are examining the Streaky Bay situation in particular. I hope that they will find an economic way of connecting that area to television. Perhaps it can be done per medium of the microwave link from South Australia to Western Australia.

That covers the points that I was anxious to make with respect to this Bill. I hope that the Minister will be able to clear my mind with respect to the queries that I have raised and that he will also pay attention to the need to provide areas of South Australia, particularly in the Eyre Peninsula region, with a more adequate television service.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It is reassuring to know that a fastidious aesthete like Senator Jessop has found himself in some position of criticism of the super Philistine, Sir Henry Bland. The leaks which have emerged- I do not know how they happened- in the last few days and which attribute to Sir Henry such expressions as ‘the Nips’, and ‘the Russkies’ seem to cast some doubt on the wisdom of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in selecting this man to head one of our more important cultural institutions. Perhaps that will give him some ground for reconsideration, such as he has had in recent days about the extent of his devaluation. I do not know whether he will have an opportunity to dispose of Sir Henry. I think I detected in the tone of Senator Jessop ‘s remarks that he was not completely sold on the wisdom of having Sir Henry in charge of the Australian Broadcasting Commission.

However that may be, it is reassuring also to hear from Senator Young that the Government acknowledges the fact that the air waves belong to the people. It is a matter of common knowledge in this town, this little closed community where nothing is secret for very long, that people such as Mr Jim Malone, the head of FACTSFACTS’ is a curious title for an outfit that has little to do with truth- which is the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations, and a man named Des Foster, who is the head of an organisation called FARB, which is the Federation of Australian Radio Broadcasters, and Mr Kerry Packer, who probably does not need to be designated, have been in and out of the corridors of power in the last few weeks, whereas people demonstrating on behalf of the ABC and on behalf of the survival of an elected commissioner of the ABC such as Marius Webb have to take their place out on the lawn. As far as I know, entrance to the corridors of power is not nearly as easy for them as it is for Mr Jim Malone, Mr Des Foster and Mr Kerry Packer. Nonetheless, I applaud the fact that the Government has been sensible enough to succumb to some sort of pressure and that it appears to have resiled from its original intention to sack Marius Webb and to hand pick a bunch of stooges to run the ABC. The Bill before us, while not all that we would want it to be, is not nearly as bad as it originally was intended tobe.

The legislation obviously was provoked originally by the most absurd prejudices of this paranoid Government. I can recall that during the election campaign one of the more primitive members of the coalition- a man named Nixon, who I believe is the Minister for something or other- was sounding off about the necessity to gag the ABC during the campaign. Fortunately, those who are a little senior to him in the scheme of things in this primitive Government did not fall for that proposition. Nonetheless, all of the prejudices of this Government in relation to the ABC emerged during the election campaign. Put simply, these people opposite believe that they are so entitled to favourable treatment from the media that any section of the media which acts with some sort of objectivity is accused of left wing bias. That is really the attitude of this Government towards the ABC. These people opposite believe that, because they do not own the ABC, because they cannot have the sort of tendentious treatment of the news and of opinion that they are guaranteed from people such as Murdoch and the Packers, the ABC is their enemy and therefore it has to be nobbled.

Fortunately- I pay tribute to the more intelligent people on the other side of politicsthis has not been able to triumph. Even though Mr Fraser has attempted to prevent leaks from coming out of his caucus- we all know that that is one of the more King Canutish propositions of politicians- we all know that the back benchers of his Party have prevented him from getting away with the sort of nobbling of the ABC that he would have liked. Just because Dick Carleton roughed him up one night, he thought that the ABC had to be treated as an enemy. I have been roughed up by Dick Carleton. Any politician who goes on television has to be prepared to have a rough handling. That is what it is all about. As Harry Truman said, if you cannot stand the heat keep out of the kitchen. These people opposite feel so entitled to be mollycoddled and protected and to be handled with kid gloves by all of the media that when they get a bit of a roughing-up they regard that aspect of the media as their enemies. This is the real reason why they wanted to nobble and hobble the ABC. Fortunately, to the credit of their back benchers, this legislation does not emerge in the form in which they originally intended it. This is some sort of a triumph for democracy, even in a period when democracy is in grave peril.

One or two aspects of the legislation fill me with misgivings. For instance, I would concede that the parliamentary draftsman is busy and cannot come up with a totally detailed Bill at this stage, but I always fear any governmental measures which claim the privilege of being transitional. I think of all the temporary structures throughout the capital cities of Australia. I remember that for one period during my law studies I lived in a temporary dwelling in Paddington in Sydney which had been built as a temporary dwelling in order to increase the accommodation available to the troops who were housed in the main troop centre in Paddington at the turn of the last century. It had remained as a temporary dwelling, and I was living in it ISO years after it was built. I hope that the statement this Bill is transitional in nature is not just an alibi and that the Government will get around to spelling out the details which will give flesh to this skeleton.

I fear that the Government really has not made up its mind about what it wants. It wants to know just how much it can get away with in interfering with the media in this country. It does not have to worry about the printed media. It knows that it has that sewn up. But this transitional thing, I fear, may be some sort of an alibi for keeping things in reserve in order for the Government to be able either not to do things it should do or to do things it should not do.

More even than that, I fear this talk about selfregulation. This idea that FACTS and FARBthese organisations that represent the private media in this country- are in some way capable of self-regulation is something that fills me with horror. As my colleague Senator Douglas McClelland, who had intimate dealings with these people over the period that he was Minister for the Media, knows these are not people who think in terms of any responsibility to the community. As Senator Melzer said, how they have fallen down on their responsibilities to provide anything in the way of programs for children. How they have perverted and resiled from any responsibility for educating the young or even giving reasonable entertainment for the young. How they cheated regularly on advertising time. They were always cribbing. They were always having to be rapped over the knuckles for cheating on the 1 1 minutes, 12 minutes or 13 minutes. As far as they are concerned, it is like the attitude that once was attributed to Lord Thomson- who, by the way, was a great man in the media compared with the Packers or anyone like thatnamely, that the news was something that you sandwiched between the advertising columns. What these people who are talking about selfregulation would like to do is to give us 40 minutes of trash sandwiched between 20 minutes of advertising every hour.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– And be licensed to do it.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-And be licensed to do it. These are the people who are seriously being talked about as being capable of self-regulation. In my estimation from studying their form they are not to be considered as people capable of self-regulation. I hope that this public inquiry which is to be held to determine whether they should be capable of selfregulation will expose them for the charletans that they are and that they will not be given any more freedom to exploit the Australian public.

We have been served ill by commercial television stations. One of our commentators said a few years ago- this was when it was only 16 years old- we have not had so much 16 years of television as one year repeated 16 times. Television gets no better. Television gets worse all the time. I have no faith in the self-regulatory intentions ofthe people whose aim is merely to make money out of trash. I hope that this television inquiry into self-regulation will expose the people in FACTS and FARB, and all the rest of them for the people they are, people who have no concern for the public welfare whatsoever.

If there is one thing that the Whitlam Labor Government did, and which would not have happened if there had not been a Whitlam Government, it was to introduce frequency modulation radio in this country. The forces which fought against the introduction of FM broadcasting in this country were very formidable and they were finally overthrown. We now have FM broadcasting which we would never have got if it had been left to a conservative government which has no interest in innovation, which has no interest in the improvement of the cultural and aesthetic opportunities in this country. I think that one of the great battles that will have to be fought in this country in the years ahead is the preservation of independent FM radio stations against the inroads of commercial stations which would like to grab all the FM frequencies and transform them into purveyors of the sort of trash that they give us on AM radio.

The same goes for public radio. This is a sphere I believe in which there is more demand for public vigilance than in almost any other sphere. I fear that this Government is amenable to the influences of the Philistines who want to monopolise our air waves. I fear that that is what was behind the campaign against the ABC which has already foundered, I believe, due to public vigilance and due to the activities of the ABC staff and of supporters of the Liberal Party who just would not wear this Philistine crusade. I hope that when the further and better particulars that we are supposed to get to make up for the transitional nature of this legislation come down that they will be thoroughly debated in this place and that everybody- and I do not mean only the people on our side of politics; I also mean people on the conservative side of politics- will be vigilant to ensure that the inroads which the Philistines of the coalition- by that I mean the Nixons and the people like him who really want all the media to be captive- to ensure that there will be vigilance on all sides of politics so that the electronic media at least do not become the captives of the people who already own the printed media.

Senator HARRADINE:
Tasmania

– Time is late and patience is getting short. I am no better equipped than anybody else to speak on this legislation, other than that of course along with other people I am a listener to radio and a viewer of the electronic media. I am a parent and I am concerned about the matters that Senator Melzer so fully and with expression detailed to the Senate. One of the greatest problems that has arisen since the report on Aus.tralian broadcasting is that there has been too much emphasis on the Australian Broadcasting Commission and not enough discussion on the other aspects of broadcasting and television in the private sector of the community. The Aus.tralian Broadcasting Commission is not a sacred cow. It should not be immue from criticism. By and large it does a good job, but it falls down very severely in some departments. That is a matter of judgment, but it should not be that every time somebody mentions something about the ABC people defend the Commission blindly. It should not be subject to control by the Government, but it should be as the people’s broadcasters subject to the people’s represenatives in this Parliament. Naturally it should have regard to the fact that it is so subject, particularly when the Parliament is considering the Estimates.

I asked certain questions in respect of the Estimates. I did not, I believe get satisfactory answers. I will be following that up in other ways. Too many people simply regard the ABC as a sacred cow. Unfortunately the debate on the Green report has centred on the ABC and not the matters of real importance; that is, the establishment of broadcasting within Australia that meets levels of excellence and standards that are acceptable broadly within the community. I might mention- and I take this opporunity to do thisthat not everything that comes out of Radio 2JJ or 3ZZ -

Senator Button:

-Or 3AW.

Senator HARRADINE:

– I am coming to the private sector directly. They in my view could well get a bigger pay. Not everything that comes out of Radio 2 JJ or 3ZZ is good. I was surprised to hear Senator Douglas McClelland laud those particular stations without qualification. I am sure that he did this out of loyalty rather than out of the fact that he would have the information, because if anybody knew he knew when he was Minister of the problems which the ABC had. I refer simply to one aspect and that is the interim report from the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on the humanitarian aspects of the Lebanon crisis. I raise this matter because I think it is important to raise it at this stage. In its report on the Middle East the Joint Committee reported to Parliament that it had received allegations concerning broadcasts on 3ZZ. Those allegations included a claim that a broadcast had favoured one faction in the Lebanese community whilst denying access to the President of the Victorian Chapter of the Australian-Lebanese Association. It was said that Arab language programs were offensive to the Jewish community and that there were calls on 3ZZ for demonstrations during Moshe Dayan’s visit.

The Committee reported that it was still receiving reports of dishonest agitation and that it had been unsuccessful in a request for tapes or transcripts from the ABC despite letters having been sent to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, Mr Eric Robinson. Senator Douglas McClelland said, I understand, that there was no capital outlay on the technical side as far as 3ZZ was concerned. I assume that that was related to transmitters. Certainly there has been significant capital outlay on studio equipment. That radio station is run by the Victorian Branch of the ABC, and the taxpayer contributed to that station to the tune of $600,000 last year. That is what its budget was last year. The public should be able to expect some proper return from that expenditure.

Despite its ostensible control by the ABC, 3ZZ is run by a small clique. It is run by a collective which claims that it is responsible for all policy decisions which affect the collective as a whole. All collective decisions are binding on all staff members. So much for the freedom of the reporters who work for 3ZZ. The Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, which has been unable to obtain transcripts or tapes of radio broadcasts on 3ZZ and which wrote to the Minister on 7 October about this matter, should be interested to know a certain fact, and that fact is that the 3ZZ co-ordinator, Mr Alex Butler, sent an interoffice memo to 3ZZ staff requesting that an exact copy of the transcript of any criticism made by persons appearing on 3ZZ should be given to the producer before the recording was broadcast and that if such criticism was in a foreign language a translation should be presented to the producer. If the staff of 3ZZ had followed that instruction, then the Joint Committee should surely now request copies of those transcripts and the Minister, Mr Eric Robinson, should insist that they be supplied to the Joint Committee. We are dealing with a situation which is referred to on pages 68 to 75 of the report of the Joint Committee. We are dealing with the concern expressed by the Joint Committee about the bias of that radio station and a number of other stations.

One of the programs broadcast by 3ZZ is called Alternative News. That Alternative News program is put together by people in the collective. What is broadcast is not necessarily the news but the views of those people. I understand that the Alternative News program is also broadcast on the Canberra Radio Station 2XX. It is compiled by the Congress for International Cooperation and Disarmament.

Senator Button:

– Oh, come on!

Senator HARRADINE:

- Senator Button said: Oh, come on!’

Senator Button:

-It is the word ‘collective’ which upsets you, is it not?

Senator HARRADINE:

– Not at all. I was on the International Labor Organisation’s Committee on the role of co-operatives in the economic and social development of developing countries, and the word ‘collective’ on that occasion did upset me, I must say, because the Russian employer delegates attempted to get us to delete the word ‘co-operative’ and insert the word ‘collective’. We as a worker group caucused and, having caucused, we expected the Russian worker delegate to vote in accordance with the caucus decision and in support of the principle of co-operatives rather than collectives. In the event, he voted in the ILO with the Russian employer delegates to delete the word ‘cooperative’ and insert the word ‘collective’. So I hope that that satisfies Senator Button.

It is interesting to note that this collective organisation boasts that 3ZZ stated in its summary of scoops that it reported on the Omega bases on the basis of a leaked document of a joint parliamentary committee. Here we have the ironical situation of the Australian taxpayer, through the ABC, funding 3ZZ to the tune of $600,000, and one of its functions is to present a news item which represents a breach of privilege of this Parliament. When a parliamentary committee wants some information it thumbs its nose at that committee. That is the point I want to get over tonight in respect of that matter. If the Joint

Committee is concerned that it cannot get information from 3ZZ in respect of the serious matters that it has raised, I would point out that a directive was given to the staff of 3ZZ to have the transcripts of any critical statements made available to the producers prior to those statements being broadcast. Yet 3ZZ thumbed its nose at that Committee, on the one hand, and boasts, on the other hand, that it scoops a document which was leaked in breach of the privilege of this Parliament.

I leave that matter to one side because I want to make a comment on access radio generally. The concept of access radio sounded allright in the first instance, but if the situation is analysed one finds that most of the ordinary people in Australia do not have access to access radio. They are too busy, of course, performing their own jobs. What the ordinary people want is to ensure that there are adequate standards and levels of excellence in the electronic media. But they are not getting that. They are certainly not getting it from the private sector. The legislation currently before the Senate seems to me, at all events, to take away the opportunities that are now available to an ordinary citizen to complain about standards. At the moment, section 16 of the current Broadcasting and Television Act states:

  1. 1 ) The functions ofthe Board are -

That is, the Broadcasting Control Board-

  1. to ensure that adequate and comprehensive programs are provided by commercial broadcasting stations and commercial television stations to serve the best interests of the general public.

I have looked through the amending legislation and, unless I have misunderstood it- I would be happy to receive guidance at the Committee stage- that provision does not appear. What is going to happen? What is the Government doing? Is it proposing legislation which takes away from the ordinary citizen his very limited rights to attempt to ensure that the standards which he considers to be acceptable are preserved? What about the people about whom Senator Melzer was talking so eloquently? Are they to be put in the interim period m a situation that was mentioned by Senator Douglas McClelland where they will not be able to complain about certain standards of the electronic media? I shall have a little more to say about that during the Committee stage. I hope the Minister will be able to give me some satisfaction in his reply.

I come now to my final points. One is the question of self-regulation. I agree with what has been said. It is ludicrous in the extreme to presume that those with vested interests in the electronic media are capable of self-regulation. It is just farcical. Secondly, even if I am the only one to do so I must come to the defence of Sir Henry Bland. I have known him ever since 1964-65 when he was head of the Department of Labour and National Service. I was introduced to him by Albert Monk, who had a high regard for his efficiency. I guess Sir Henry Bland is as good a person as anybody else to be Chairman of the ABC insofar as he is an Australian citizen, he has an acknowledged expertise in administration, and he is at least- he said- an avid listener and viewer of the electronic media. What qualifications should a chairman of the ABC have other than an appreciation or an understanding of the normal standards expected by the general community and that he be administratively efficient? Sir Henry Bland has those qualifications. I think it is unfair for this carping criticism to continue.

I wish to put in a plug for the ABC in my own home State. I suppose that if anybody has been on the receiving end of current affairs programs in my State I have. The people in my State will understand this. People in the outlying States prefer to have current affairs programs in those States fairly heavily weighted for local content. I raised this matter in a question to the Minister previously. I was very pleased when he undertook to pass it in. I wish to refer also to the ABC orchestra in Tasmania. I know that a clear statement has been given both by the Government and the ABC that there is no intention of taking away our orchestra but the Industries Assistance Commission and the Green report throw these things again into question. I must emphasise, on behalf of the people of Tasmania, how much the orchestra has meant not only to the adult public in that State but also to the children. I make this plea before the Senate that everything possible should be done to protect the ABC orchestra in that State.

Senator RYAN:
Australian Capital Territory

– The Senate is debating the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1976. The Opposition is opposing this legislation for a number of reasons. It is opposing this legislation partly because it is unsatisfactory in many respects but mostly because of the disgraceful events that led up to it. While the legislation is not particularly pernicious or sinister, the events that led up to it in its present form certainly are. Some of the contributions made by Government speakers to this debate have led us away from the context in which the legislation has come before us. I should like to take the opportunity of reminding the Senate how we came to have this Bill before us this evening. The hostility of the political parties in government at present to the Australian Broadcasting Commission is very well known. It was first stated in its most direct and crudest form during the election campaign. My colleague, Senator James McClelland, has referred to that. In the Senate early in the parliamentary session- I think it was some time in March- the Leader of the Government (Senator Withers) gave us a clear indication of what the ABC was to expect from the Fraser Government. The words of Senator Withers have already been quoted in this debate. I shall not quote them again. In short, he said that the ABC was full of left wing propagandists and the Coalition Parties were going to clean them up.

Following this stated intention the Government took action to do just that. It set up an inquiry into broadcasting, a fact to which in itself we would not have objected but it set up a secret inquiry into public broadcasting- almost a contradiction in terms, one might think. That same inquiry was to be a very quick inquiry. The public was to have no access to it. The industries involved were to have no access to it. The staff who work in broadcasting, commercial and public, would have no access to it. Indeed, it was a quick inquiry. It was finished in October. After a few weeks of uncertainty and leaks and denials from the Government that various things were in the report- which subsequently turned out to be in it- the report was tabled. Quickly following upon the tabling of the report and certainly after totally inadequate time for discussion of the report legislation was introduced last week into the House of Representatitves. I admit that it was not the legislation that is before us tonight. Very much worse and very much more sinister legislation was introduced. It would have been a precedent of lasting consequence in that it would h ave sacked all existing members of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. It would have wiped out with one blow a public institution which has been in existence for over 40 years. There were many other undesirable aspects in this legislation but the single aspect to which I have just referred caused such a public outcry from all sections of the community that that particular provision no longer exists in the legislation before us.

The legislation that was introduced last week by the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Robinson) was not based on the Green report. After the Government had gone to the trouble of commissioning this secret and quick inquiry and after the Green Committee had produced a report which, in fact, contained a lot of interesting and useful information and constructive suggestions for restructuring broadcasting in this country the Green report did not turn out to be the basis of the legislation which the Government threw out. There was very little indication of what the legislation was based on, other than the prejudice, paranoia and ideological hostility of the present Government to public institutions.

Criticism of the legislation was widespread. It came from a very broad cross-section of the community. I think that the number of petitions that have been presented in this chamber relating to the ABC would demonstrate that.

Debate interrupted.

page 2984

ADJOURNMENT

Supply of Stationery to Senators

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

At this point I should like to say that today Senator Colston asked me a question relating to the supply of stationery and office requisites to senators. Generally speaking, normal stationery supplies are available. However, the ordering of additional supplies of certain items has been curtailed temporarily. Provision was made in the year’s appropriation for amounts comparable with last year’s expenditure, which were considered to be sufficient to meet the costs associated with the supply of stationery for the general use of senators. Whilst the Department of the Senate provides all stationery for senators’ use in Parliament House, it should be realised that it provides only printed stationery for the use of senators in their electorate offices. Other supplies for those offices are the responsibility of the Department of Administrative Services.

Funds committed for office requisites to date are approximately the same as those spent in the full financial year 1975-76. The sub-item stationery’ includes the purchase of personalised stationery for senators. Purchases under this sub-item to date are approximately 24 per cent more than the amount spent in the full financial year 1975-76. An approach is now being made to the Department of Finance for the provision of additional funds to meet requirments for the remainder of this year. Every effort is made to have on hand adequate stores for the normal use of senators in their Parliament House Offices. Some senators have utilised personalised stationery at a greater rate than others. In certain areas, such as compliment slips, this is particularly apparent. In such circumstances there may be delays in providing new supplies, unless the Department of Finance provides the funds needed.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 11.3 p.m.

page 2985

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Directory of Services for Women (Question No. 880)

Senator Sibraa:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

Will the Minister reconsider her decision not to publish the proposed directory of services that are available to women in Australia.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

Information for a possible booklet dealing with issues of special interest to women was collected from various sources by my Department. Other Commonwealth Departments have responsibilities in some of the areas covered by the material and these Departments are currently examining the draft.

A decision on the future of the booklet will be taken when the views of other Departments are obtained.

Administration of Aboriginal Affairs (Question No. 993)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What action is the Public Service Board currently taking with regards to the administration of Aboriginal affairs by Australian Government Departments, including the Department of Aboriginal Affairs.
  2. Has the Public Service Board seconded staff from other Departments to assist in planning future Aboriginal affairs administrative arrangements. If so, who is involved.
  3. Which inter-departmental committees currently exist to investigate administrative arrangements relating to Aboriginal affairs administration by the Australian Government, and what is their composition.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 1) I have been advised that various areas of the Public Service Board are involved from time to time with aspects of the administration of Aboriginal affairs by Australian Government Departments- in particular, the Management Improvement Division, the Departmental Operations Division, the Personnel Management Division.
  2. No.
  3. Currently, there are no inter-departmental committees investigating administrative arrangements relating to Aboriginal affairs administration by the Australian Government.

Department of Veterans’ Affairs: Queensland Staff (Question No. 1018)

Senator Sheil:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice:

  1. How many ex-servicemen are employed in the Queensland office of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs.
  2. How many ex-servicemen have been assessed at the totally and permanently incapacitated pension rate prior to the normal retirement age.
  3. How many widows of deceased repatriation pensioners, employed by the Department at the time of their death, have been granted war widows’ pensions.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

  1. 1 ) Particulars of ex-servicemen and women employed in the Department are not kept as a primary record. However, a survey conducted in the Queensland Branch has indicated that there are 334 ex-servicemen and women currently employed in the Branch.
  2. and (3) Staff records do not contain particulars of pension assessments. It would be a major task, involving an examination of staff records against all pension files to extract the information required to answer these specific questions. In many thousands of cases staff records would have been destroyed. However, for the information of the honourable senator, the policy of the Repatriation Commission over the years until its staff was brought under the Public Service Act in 1947 was to give preference to employment of exservicemen and women. In fact, the Commission was required to give such preference by the terms of sub-section 2 1 (2) of the Repatriation Act at that time. In the light of this, it would be reasonable to expect that the proportion of former staff who have become eligible on thebasis of their accepted disabilities for assessment at the totally and permanently incapacitated rate could be higher than in other organisations of equivalent size. Apart from making this observation, I am unable to answer these questions.

Governor-General’s Staff (Question No. 1115)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What is (a) the name, (b) designation, and (c) salary and entitlements of each defence force officer who, since 1 1 November 1975, has departed from the Governor-General’s personal staff.
  2. To what posting did any such officer or officers move following his or her departure from the Governor-General’s staff.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) Since 1 1 November 1975 the only officers of the defence forces who have left the Governor-General’s staff are those whose normal postings have been completed.

Governor-General’s Staff (Question No. 1116)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What is (a) the name, (b) designation, and (c) salary and entitlements of each member of the Governor-General ‘s domestic and office staff.
  2. Have there been any resignations and departures from the Governor-General’s domestic and office staff since 11

November 1975. If so, for what reasons have the resignations or departures concerned taken place.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. and (2) Since 11 November 1975 one person has resigned, on marriage, from the Governor-General’s office staff. Four domestic staff resigned whose reasons are not known.

Governor-General’s Staff (Question No. 1117)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What is (a) the name, (b) designation, and (c) salary and entitlements of each present and past member of the Governor-General’s personal, domestic and office staff who took up duty after 1 1 November 1975.
  2. ) What position was held by each member referred to in ( 1 ) prior to his or her joining the Governor-General ‘s staff.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. and (2) Since11 November 1975, five domestic personnel and eight office personnel have joined the GovernorGeneral’s staff, including replacements and new staff for the Australian Honours Secretariat.

Katherine Meatworks: Proposed Transfer (Question No. 1198)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Northern Territory, upon notice:

Is a proposal to transfer the Katherine meatworks to Newcastle Waters being considered. If so, what will be the effects of such a move on all beef producers north of Katherine.

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

page 2986

No

Nabalco Treatment Plant: Water Samples (Question No. 1223)

Senator Robertson:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Northern Territory, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Are samples taken from the sea in the area adjacent to the Nabalco treatment plant at Gove.
  2. Will the Minister table the results of any tests taken in May of this year.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for the Northern Territory has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) No sampling is currently undertaken in the sea in the area adjacent to the Nabalco treatment plant at Gove. Sampling was carried out on a regular basis over the period August 1971-December 1974 in the Drimmie Arm area of Gove harbour. These samples were taken to monitor the level of industrial pollution associated with effluent disposal from the red mud ponds. During this period samples were also taken intermittently from the sea adjacent to the cooling water outlet pipes. Random samples of the discharged salt water used to cool the plant’s turbines are currently taken each week. However, these samples are not taken from the sea but from the cooling water drain itself.

Sea water sampling in Drimmie Arm is no longer considered necessary as works to provide recirculation of effluent have now been completed and, in any case, the effect of effluent on the sea water has already been studied. Surveillance of this area will continue by my Department to check on possible discharges. It is considered that sufficient is known of the conditions in the sea off the cooling water outlet to obviate the need for regular sampling there. It is known that any unacceptable discharges from the cooling water drain can lead to problems in the sea, and so monitoring of the cooling water would give the required information. Inspections of the cooling water drain and outlet will continue by the Department, and spot samples will continue to be collected and analysed pending the installation of the automatic monitoring recorder.

  1. Only one set of samples was taken in May 1976. The results are as follows:

Barramundi: Overfishing North of Northern Territory (Question No. 1226)

Senator Kilgariff:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Northern Territory, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Are allegations that there is overfishing and netting of barramundi in the north of the Northern Territory, as reported in the Northern Territory News of29 September 1976, correct.
  2. Does overfishing and netting of barramundi in gill nets in estuaries and coastal mud flats mean that barramundi are threatened with destruction, as alleged in the same article.
  3. If the allegations in (1) and (2) are correct, what action is being taken to protect the barramundi from destruction.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) The allegations that there is overfishing of barramundi in the north of the Northern Territory, as reported in the Northern Territory News of 29 September 1976, are not supported by analysis of statistical data collected for this fishery.
  2. An analysis of catch and effort returns provided by commercial fishermen, who are licensed to fish for barramundi along the coastal mud flats and the estuaries of Top End’ rivers up to specified closure lines, does not indicate that the overall barramundi stocks are under extreme fishing pressure or are threatened with destruction.

It is possible that some individual river systems may be under stress. However, if this is the case, it is certainly not apparent from current available information.

There is little doubt that illegal fishing in inland waters does occur periodically. However, such areas are patrolled by Fisheries Inspectors and in any case constitute only a minor proportion of the total waters habited by barramundi stocks in the Territory’s ‘Top End ‘.

  1. It is not considered that the barramundi stocks of the Northern Territory are being threatened with destruction at this stage. However, the following actions have been taken to ensure continuation of the species:

    1. My Department commenced preliminary tagging trials on barramundi in 1972 and the program has proceeded intermittently. No conclusive results have been obtained to date.
    2. A large scale joint CSIRO, Queensland and Northern Territory barramundi research program is programmed to commence in mid- 1 977, providing that a grant from the Fisheries Research Trust Account is approved.
    3. Recent amendments to the Northern Territory Fisheries Ordinance has (i) restricted the number of commercial licences that can be granted to barramundi fishermen for fishing inland waters; and (ii) increased the powers of Inspectors in respect to search and seizure of equipment suspected of being used in illegal fishing operations.
    4. Additional protective measures are being examined in conjunction with the Northern Territory Professional Fisherman ‘s Association.

Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs: Staff Ceilings (Question No. 1253)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice:

What is the projected staff ceiling for the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs as at 30 June 1 977.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

Please refer to the answer given by the Prime Minister to Question No. 1246, Senate Hansard 9 November 1976, page 1774.

Attorney-General’s Department: Staff Ceilings (Question No. 1263)

Senator Button:

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

What is the projected staff ceiling for the AttorneyGeneral ‘s Department as at 30 June 1977.

Senator Durack:
LP

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

As the Prime Minister said in answer to Question No. 2 1 8 on 18 August 1976 (House of Representatives Hansard, pages 332-337), it is not the practice to publish the individual staff ceilings set for each department.

Energy Production from Waste Material (Question No. 1289)

Senator Keeffe:

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

  1. 1 ) What steps are being taken in Australia to utilise garbage and other wates as an energy source.
  2. Which organisations are involved in this research, what level of funding is committed annually, and what are the results of such research programs, both in Australia and overseas.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. Australia already utilises waste material in various forms for the production of energy. In 1974-75, the latest year for which figures are available, about 2 per cent of primary energy consumption was provided by bagasse, the waste from sugar cane. A further 1.3 per cent was provided by wood, mostly waste material.

In Australia as elsewhere, most modern sewage treatment plants utilise the methane generated therein as fuel to provide steam and process heat for works use.

Some used lubricating oil is collected by the oil industry and blended into fuel oils. I am advised, however, that the lead anti-knock compounds found in the used oils can result in pollution problems being associated with the use of fuels from this source.

The production of energy by pyrolysis of domestic garbage has been investigated in Australia. I understand, however, that corrosive gases released during the combustion process can cause considerable technical problems, and as far as I am aware this process has not been utilised for energy production in Australia.

  1. Much of the information sought is either unavailable or not readily available, and I would not be prepared to authorise the diversion of the efforts of the Department of National Resources that preparation of a comprehensive answer to the question would require. I am advised, however, that research in Australia is carried out by the CSIRO and by some universities.

As far as the overseas situation is concerned, the results of recent research seem to indicate that the use of domestic garbage and similar wastes as an energy source is economically feasible in some situations. In areas of high population density, for example, utilisation of wastes for the heating of water for such applications as district heating may in some cases be economically feasible.

Primary Energy Input: Growth Rate (Question No. 1290)

Senator Keeffe:

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

  1. What is the projected rate of growth of Australia’s total primary energy input over the following periods: (a) 1976-1985, and (b) 1986-2000.
  2. How do these projected growth rates compare with those for (a) the United States of America, (b) the United Kingdom, and (c) the world average.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. (a) and (b) The former Departments of National Development and Minerals and Energy from time to time published forecasts of the demand for primary fuels in Australia, derived from surveys of present and planned fuel usage by the major energy consuming sectors of the economy. The most recent forecast was published by the Department of Minerals and Energy in August 1975, and it covered the period from 1974-75 to 1984-85. The average growth rate of primary energy consumption for Australia between 1973-74 and 1984-85 was estimated at the time to be 5.6 per cent per annum.

In considering the above figure it should be noted that the estimates were based on the best information available at the time. Difficulty in estimating the long term effect of the OPEC oil price increases in 1973 and 1974, however, made accurate prediction more difficult both for respondents to the survey and for those conducting it. The Department of National Resources is currently undertaking a new survey for the purpose of updating the estimates.

  1. (a) The United States Federal Energy Administration in its report National Energy Outlook published in March 1976 estimates that energy consumption between 1974 and 1985 is likely to increase by an average of 2.8 per cent per annum, assuming the continuation of current energy prices.

    1. The United Kingdom Department of Energy in a paper prepared for the National Energy Conference in June 1976 estimated that the demand for primary fuels between 1975 and 1985 is likely to increase by between 1.6 and 3.1 per cent per annum depending on the assumptions used.
    2. I am advised that rates of growth of world primary energy input covering the period 1976 to 1985 have been estimated by a number of agencies around the world, both within and outside Government. Growth rates commonly anticipated fall within, the range from 3.0 to 5.0 per cent per annum.

With regard to the period between 1986 and 2000, it is not possible to give projections for the world as a whole which would be precise enough to be useful. It seems generally to be assumed, however, that the growth rates in this period will be lower than those estimated for the period 1 976- 1 985.

Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament (Question No. 1305)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

What action has the Government taken to implement the Report of the Joint Committee on Pecuniary Interests of Member of Parliament.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

The Government has under consideration the question of pecuniary interests of Members and other groups covered by the Joint Committee’s report. As regards public servants and officials, proposals of the Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration are also being taken into account.

Ministers already make declarations to the. Prime Minister in a form which takes into account the recommendations of the Joint Committee. Ministerial staffs make declarations in a similar form.

Medibank (Question No. 1316)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Did the Medibank Review Committee undertake a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of all features of the Medibank scheme prior to making recommendations to the Government or changes to the scheme. If so, what form did the cost-benefit analysis take.
  2. Does the Government intend to undertake a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of all components of the current health insurance scheme after it has been in operation for a period of time. If so, when.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. No.
  2. The matter is under investigation.

Family Court Act: Orders for Reasonable Access (Question No. 1319)

Senator McAuliffe:

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

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that if the Family Law Court makes an order for reasonable access to the child or children of a separated couple where the wife has custody and the husband applies for access, the only way the husband can enforce this order is again to apply to the Court for it to enforce the order.
  2. Approximately what costs would be incurred in court costs, solicitor and barrister fees in initially obtaining an access order.
  3. Approximately what costs would be incurred in again applying to the Court asking it to enforce its order.
  4. If the wife continues to hold the Court’s order in contempt and denies the husband reasonable access to his children, what recourse does the husband have open to him that will not cost him large sums of money.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) to (4) The questions asked by the honourable senator seek an expression of legal opinion which, having regard to the Standing Orders, I am not obliged to provide. The honourable senator is, however, referred to sections 64 and 70 of the Family Law Act. The application of those sections to any particular set of facts is a matter upon which the person concerned should obtain legal advice from a private practitioner.

The cost of proceedings under the Family Law Act is governed bv the Family Law (Costs) Regulations. However, these Regulations enable a solicitor and client to agree not to be bound by the Regulations. It would be difficult to give an estimate of costs of any proceedings; such an estimate could be given by the solicitor concerned.

Legal aid is available from the Australian Legal Aid Office for access proceedings.

Molonglo Arterial Roadway (Question No. 1327)

Senator Knight:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What are the reasons for the proposed construction of the Molonglo Arterial roadway at this time.
  2. How does it relate to (a) current traffic planning; (b) future roadway construction proposals; and (c) general planning concepts and proposals for the Australian Capital Territory.
  3. Will the Minister provide information concerning expected future traffic flows on the Molonglo Arterial.
  4. Will the Minister indicate the anticipated effect on traffic flows on other relevant main roads if the Molonglo Arterial is not constructed.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. The reasons for the proposed construction of the Molonglo Arterial roadway at this time are, broadly: to allow Canberra to continue to develop in accordance with the strategy followed since the mid 1960s and reinforced by follow up studies in 1973; to allow the continued development of a rational transport system; to relieve traffic congestion which will be serious by 1980 when the roadway opens; to alleviate the adverse environmental effects of traffic intrusion into built-up areas of Woden and Inner Canberra, including the National Area and Civic; and to reduce air pollution build up in Civic by clearing traffic more efficiently.
  2. (a) Current traffic planning in Canberra is based on a Transport Policy’ formulated jointly by the National Capital Development Commission and the Department of the Capital Territory and announced by the previous Government in 1974. The policy was incorporated in Hansard of 10 November 1976.

In summary the policy provides for cyclists and pedestrians, efficient local bus services, development of an express intertown public transport system, discouraging the use of private cars for commuting, a parking policy to reinforce these provisions, and the development of a road network which provides a good level of service for freight and off peak car usage, and protects the natural and social environment.

The policy implies the development of a hierarchy of roads to provide for inter-town and intra-town traffic. This is a system of local roads, direct arterial routes connecting the neighbouring towns and peripheral parkways linking aU the towns. By allowing traffic between non-adjacent towns to bypass intermediate towns, the parkway system provides for easier access on the longer journeys within the metropolitan area and protects the environments of the intermediate towns from unnecessary intrusion by through traffic.

The Molonglo Arterial is an essential link in the parkway system.

Canberra’s traffic planning is aimed at developing a balance between public and private transport to provide an efficient yet flexible transport system. To promote public transport, action is being taken to restrict long stay parking, to charge for all parking and to improve the bus services. This will not obviate the need for the metropolitan road system noted above, and the two must be developed together. The Molonglo Arterial is therefore part of a total transport package.

The relationship between public and private transport was commented on by the Joint Committee on the ACT in its report on the 1975 hearings ‘. . . it is important that the . . . proposal to give emphasis to the use of public transport is maintained, otherwise the scaling down of the road may in fact create difficulties. A four lane arterial could become congested far more easily than the original six lane freeway proposal ‘.

Current traffic planning is based on an assumption that the Molonglo Arterial will be available for use in 1980. Failure to achieve this target will have serious implications for both established and newer areas of Canberra.

The Molonglo Arterial is thus consistent with, and a basic element in the success of, current traffic planning in Canberra.

  1. (b) Part of the Tuggeranong Parkway, the first stage in the parkway system, is already built. Two other parkways will join the Tuggeranong Parkway where it merges with the Molonglo Arterial. These are: the parkway which will run north along the western side of Black Mountain to the Barton and Federal Highways; and the parkway which will give access to the southern suburbs of Belconnen. Molonglo Arterial- Parkes Way provides the central link between the western parkways and the Eastern Parkway.
  2. (c) Canberra’s growth plan is based on the development of separate but interconnected towns. These are set in a framework which provides for growth yet leaves flexibility for a range of life styles as the city matures. The towns are seen as semi-separate entities, with each providing a range of residential, employment, and service facilities.

The concepts underlying Canberra’s transport policy are fundamental to this city structure and have been public knowledge for many years without drawing criticism. Briefly stated, the concepts are:

Each town is linked by a trunk public transport system on its own right of way. This runs along the most direct route between the centres of each town and within the towns feeder services operate from the interchange with the trunk route.

Private vehicles travelling between adjacent towns use direct arterial roads; those travelling elsewhere use the peripheral parkway system for speed and environmental reasons. This avoids the problems faced in most other cities where major roads carve their way through built-up areas.

The volume of traffic is controlled by restrictions on the availability of parking for commuters and road locations, and standards are designed to encourage easy movement of traffic thus minimising emission pollution.

The trunk public transport corridor is being established and is becoming an attractive commuter alternative- most of this route will be operating before the Molonglo Arterial is complete. This has been taken into account in the design and construction time for the Molonglo Arterial.

As well as providing access to Civic, Molonglo ArterialParkes Way is intended to link the western and eastern parkways, thus reducing inner city congestion and emission pollution from cross-town traffic.

The peripheral parkways have not been necessary earlier because there has been little traffic between non adjacent towns.

The development of Tuggeranong has necessitated their introduction and the establishment of the spinal intertown public transport system.

Hence one carriageway of the Tuggeranong Parkway was built from Kambah to the west of Black Mountain and special bus lanes were created on Yarra Glen and Adelaide Avenue,’ the main direct arterial road between Woden and Inner Canberra. The Molonglo Arterial linked to Parkes Way and one carriageway of a route to Belconnen would complete the presently needed parts of the parkway system to enable Canberra to continue to develop in accordance with the existing growth strategy.

  1. Future traffic flows on the Molonglo Arterial depend on the rate of population growth, the location of growth and other transport decisions which have yet to be taken (e.g. access to Gungahlin). It is estimated that for a population of 300 000 the peak hour flow in the peak direction could be about 3 500 vehicles per hour and the two-way 24 hour weekday flow about 45 000 vehicles per day.

When the road opens in 1980 peak flows should be about two-thirds of the arterial ‘s capacity of 4000 vehicles per hour in the peak direction.

  1. Even with the Molonglo Arterial operating, at the 300 000 population stage, Adelaide Avenue will be over capacity in peak periods and Belconnen Way will be at capacity. On Adelaide Avenue there will be a significant extension of the length of the peak and cars will tend to use residential streets to by-pass the congestion.

If the Molonglo Arterial is not constructed there will be significant increases in travel time, serious congestion and greatly extended peak conditions on Adelaide Avenue and Belconnen Way, and quite heavy volumes of traffic seeking alternative routes. Many residential streets in Woden, Deakin, Yarralumla, Forrest, Red Hill, Belconnen, North Canberra and the Australian National University will suffer the environmental ill effects of these diversions.

The bus lanes on Adelaide Avenue will be hard to maintain in the face of pressure from car drivers, and public transport services will suffer if these lanes are lost. There will be increased difficulty in gaining access to Civic and air pollution will increase markedly.

Molonglo Arterial Roadway (Question No. 1328)

Senator Knight:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What are the reasons for providing a tunnel section on the proposed Molongo arterial roadway.
  2. Where is the tunnel to be situated.
  3. What is the net additional cost involved in constructing this tunnel, as against construction of a surface roadway over the distance which is to be a tunnel.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for the Capital Territory has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question.

  1. 1 ) Mainly to preserve the integrity of the Australian National University campus in both physical and environmental terms. It also enables the preservation ofthe physical land form within the central area of Canberra and enables the provision of the Arterial in its least intrusive form.
  2. The 200 metre tunnel is to be situated completely within the present ANU boundary running east-west, approximately beneath the intersection of Liversidge Street and Lennox Crossing.
  3. Approximately $7. 5m.

Molonglo Arterial Roadway (Question No. 1330)

Senator Knight:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What areas of Lake Burley Griffin are to be filled in to provide for the construction of the proposed Molonglo Arterial roadway.
  2. What proportion of area of the Lake does this represent.
  3. Is the Minister able to give an assurance that this action will not affect current recreational use of the Lake and its shore.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for the Capital Territory has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Filling in Lake Burley Griffin is proposed in the following areas:

    1. Adjacent to Black Mountain between Acacia Inlet and Black Mountain Peninsula.
    2. In West Basin; west of the ferry terminal (at the request of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory).
    3. At the mouth of Sullivan’s Creek to form the embankment for a bridge crossing of that creek.
  2. ) Approximately 1 per cent of the Lake area.
  3. 3 ) During the construction stages there will be noise and visual intrusion, and restraints on pedestrian movement. When the work is completed the recreation value of the area will be improved. The proposed works include construction of a pedestrian/cycle path adjacent to the Lake. Access to the Lakeshore will be better than it is now, thus allowing greater recreational use.

Molonglo Arterial Roadway (Question No. 1331)

Senator Knight:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice:

Is information available concerning the possible impact of the construction and future use of the Molonglo Arterial roadway on the Canberra Botanic Gardens, including the proposed extensions to those Gardens. If so, does this information suggest that there will be any adverse effect on the Gardens or on their future development.

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

The arterial will not have any physical and environmental effect on the existing Botanic Gardens. The proposed extensions to the Gardens are to be contained within the Black Mountain Reserve and there will be no conflict with the Arterial. The extensions to the Gardens will be developed within the context of a known situation regarding the arterial. There is no evidence to suggest that the Arterial will adversely affect the adjacent flora.

Molonglo Arterial Roadway (Question No. 1332)

Senator Knight:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice:

  1. What consultations have been held with the community concerning the proposed construction of the Molonglo Arterial roadway in Canberra.
  2. What has been the outcome of these consultations in each case.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) As part of the Environmental Impact Hearing and the Gazettal Hearing conducted by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, all sections of the community were invited to comment and advertisements were placed in the local press to this effect. As part of the overall publicity, a display, including a model of the proposal, was mounted at the National Capital Development Commission ‘s Regatta Point Planning Exhibition.

Apart from Government departments and instrumentalities, consultations about the Molonglo Arterial and its Western Distributor offtake included the following groups:

ACT Advisory Council (and subsequently the ACT

Legislative Assembly)

Canberra Chamber of Commerce

Canberra Hospital

Australian National University

ANU Staff Association

ANU Students ‘ Association

ANU Research Students ‘Association

Academy of Science

Society for Social Responsibility in Science

Commonwealth Hostels Ltd

Hotel Acton Residents’ Group

Management of Lakeside Hotel

ACT Advisory Board on Tourism

page 2991

NRMA

Dobel’s Boat Hire

Canberra Cruises and Tours Ltd

Representatives of sailing clubs

Representatives of boating clubs

Representatives of Tuggeranong residents

The objections of those groups which remain opposed to the Arterial are primarily based on their views of the role of the private car.

Aboriginal Advancement Programs in Queensland (Question No. 1355)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What funds did the Queensland Government request from the Australian Government in (a) 1975-76, and (b) 1976-77 for programs of Aboriginal advancement.
  2. What funds did the Queensland Government receive from the Australian Government in (a) 1975-76 and (b) 1 976-77 for programs of Aboriginal advancement.
  3. What reasons did the Commonwealth advance for the difference between the amount requested and the amount received by the Queensland Government in (a) 1 975-76 and (b) 1976-77.
  4. To what funding was the Queensland Minister for Aboriginal and Islander Advancement referring when he alleged in the Queensland Parliament on 26 October 1 976 that further millions are diverted under Commonwealth policy to various organisations, many of which have been unable to exercise the degrees of economic management necessary to ensure maximum benefit from the funds provided’.
  5. Is Mr Wharton accurate in his claim, referred to in (4), of poor economic management on the part of some Aboriginal organisations in Queensland which have received Commonwealth funding. If so, (a) to which organisation was Mr Wharton referring, and (b) what steps are currently taken by the Australian Department of Aboriginal Affairs to ensure proper accounting of Commonwealth funding provided to Aboriginal organisations.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. The funds requested by the Queensland Government for programs of Aboriginal advancement were:

    1. 1975-76-$24.491m
    2. 1976-77-$3 1.440m
  2. The funds allocated to the Queensland Government were:

    1. 1975-76-$10.156m
    2. 1976-77-$8.304m
  3. In correspondence with the several Ministers in Queensland responsible for programs funded by the Commonwealth Government, explanations are given for decisions not to fund particular projects or to provide less than was sought for particular projects and programs. In allocating funds appropriated by Parliament to the various State Governments, regard is had to inescapable commitments, priorities and capacity to spend. In respect of 1975-76, a sum of approximately $1.7m remained unspent in the hands of the Queensland Government.
  4. The Queensland Minister for Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement was evidently referring to Commonwealth Government funding by Grants-in-Aid to various organisations.
  5. In some cases there have been problems in the management of funds, but overall I am satisfied grants to Aboriginal organisations are managed by them effectively.

    1. I do not know to which organisation Mr Wharton was referring.
    2. My Department provides grants subject to financial rules which accord with the requirements of the Treasury. Stricter compliance with these rules is being ensured by more careful control over the release of funds.

Investigations Into ‘Lockheed Affair’ (Question No. 1410)

Senator McLaren:

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

  1. 1 ) Is the Attorney-General aware of any investigations which implicate any Australian citizen in the ‘Lockheed Affair’.
  2. Are any Australian officers, or ex-officers, implicated in any such investigations.
  3. Is the Australian Government involved in any investigations either on its own behalf or in conjunction with any other nation.
  4. Is any action contemplated by the Government in respect of an Australian citizen.
  5. Will the Government be making public any information relating to the affair. If so, can the Minister say when this information will be made public.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Attorney-General has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1), (2) and (3) See my answer on 1 December 1976 to a question asked by the honourable member for Canberra.

  1. No.
  2. The arrangement between the United States Department of Justice and my Department for mutual assistance in connection with the Lockheed Aircraft Corporation matter and tabled in the House of Representatives on S October last requires that information made available pursuant thereto should be kept confidential and not disclosed to third parties or to government agencies having no law enforcement responsibilities.

Governor-General’s Staff (Question No. 1423)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What are the details of each occasion on which the Governor-General has been accompanied by a chef when travelling by VIP aircraft.
  2. Why was it necessary for the Governor-General to be accompanied by a chef on each ofthe occasions listed in ( 1 ).
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The Governor-General has two official residences, but only one domestic staff establishment. Appropriate members of the domestic staff travel on the same aircraft as the Governor-General between the two residences, as required.

Land Fund Commission (Question No. 1430)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How much of the additional $25 million allocated to Aboriginal affairs this year will be used to fund the Land Funding Commission.
  2. Can the Minister give assurances that the Land Fund Commission will be funded adequately to buy the land involved in the Northern Territory Aboriginal needs claims which are granted.
  3. Can the Minister give assurances that the Land Fund Commission will maintain its power to purchase land in all States for Aborigines and that it will be adequately funded in order to carry out this function effectively.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) No decision has yet been taken to allocate any additional funds to the Land Fund this year and the need for such funds will be considered in the light of a review now in progress.
  2. and (3) The Land Fund Commission has substantial funds at its disposal to meet costs involved in providing land to groups in the Northern Territory and elsewhere, and, as indicated consideration will be given to the provision of additional funds.

Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act and Aged Persons Hostels Act: Applications for Assistance (Question No. 143S)

Senator McLaren:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. How many applications under (a) the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act and (b) the Aged Persons Hostels Act were outstanding 1 2 months ago.
  2. How many applications in each category are at present outstanding.
  3. What was the estimated cost of funding these applications.
  4. How many applications are at present outstanding in each category.
  5. 5 ) What were the criteria in determining the priorities for allocation.
  6. What criteria will be adopted for determining priorities among remaining and new applications.
  7. How many, organisations not included in the 3-year program were funded with architects’ fees.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

  1. 1 ) and (2) The following table shows the number of projects outstanding under the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act and the Aged Persons Hostels Act at 1 December 1975 and 1 December 1976.
  2. It is estimated that it would cost a total of $370m to fund all of these projects, i.e. $200m under the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act and $170m under the Aged Persons Hostels Act.
  3. See (2) above.
  4. In determining priority ratings of the various claims each project was examined in detail by a Committee comprising senior officers of my department, and consideration was given primarily to the needs of the aged in each area. Other factors that were taken into account include the extent, type and standard of accommodation that was currently available or under construction or planned; the expertise and capacity of organisations to conduct the type of accommodation in the best interests of residents; requirements of special groups, such as ethnic groups; the admission policy of each organisation in relation to founder donations; whether the house rules are not too restrictive; and availability of supportive services in the area.
  5. It is proposed to reappraise the 3 year program at the end of the 1977-78 financial year and, on present indications, it may be possible to then fund approvals providing an additional 1,400 beds using the same criteria to determine priorities in respect of applications now on hand. At this time the Government has not yet determined whether the 3 year program will be extended beyond 1979. However, it has established specific inquiries into the care of the aged and infirm and the co-ordination of welfare and health programs which will no doubt recommend on measures needed to further improve the effectiveness and efficiency of services in these areas.
  6. There are 82 projects outside the 3-year program for which the organisations have been reimbursed architects’ fees.

Gross Primary Energy Input: Forecast (Question No. 1448)

Senator Keeffe:

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

  1. What is the Government’s current forecast for the annual percentage growth of gross primary energy input in Australia.
  2. Does this forecast assume the implementation of a national program for energy conservation, as recommended by the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) See my answer to Question No. 1 290.
  2. The estimates concerned were prepared before the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry was established and, therefore, do not take account of any of the findings and recommendations in the First Report of the Inquiry as such.

When the program of work leading to the production of the estimates was undertaken, however, all quantifiable factors considered likely to influence the future rate of energy consumption were taken into account, and accordingly, allowance was made for what was considered at the time to be the likely rate of introduction of new energy conservation measures.

Department of Aboriginal Affairs: Research Grants (Question No. 1456)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Have grants for research been made to organisations and /or individuals from moneys appropriated to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs or appropriated for commissions, agencies or bodies for which the Minister is responsible. If so, to what organisations and to what individuals have such grants been made for each of the past five financial years, including 1976-77.
  2. What was the nature of the research for which each grant was made.
  3. 3 ) What information as to the nature of the research to be undertaken and the qualifications of the applicants was required.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) and (2) Yes. Details of research grants by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs are shown in appendices to the Department’s annual reports. The reports also include information on the research activities of Applied Ecology Limited. Information on the recipients and purposes of grants made by the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies are given in Newsletters of the Institute published twice yearly, which also include summary reports of field work in progress.
  2. Grants are approved on the basis of detailed statements of the nature and purpose of the research proposed and of the qualifications ofthe applicants.

East Timorese Residents in Commonwealth Hostels (Question Na 1462)

Senator Georges:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice:

  1. What assistance is being provided to East Timorese persons still living in Commonwealth hostels.
  2. Does the assistance include adult language learning courses and advice on employment.
  3. What is the total number of persons remaining in hostels and what is the rate, if any, of decrease during 1976.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. . Persons from East Timor still residing in hostels are provided with full board and lodging by Commonwealth Hostels Ltd at the subsidised rates which apply to assisted migrants. Those who are unemployed receive unemployment benefit (in some cases a special benefit is paid) and from this a weekly deduction is made partly to offset tariff charges. Other assistance given to them is provided by the migrant welfare service of Commonwealth Hostels Ltd and by the company’s migrant accommodation advisory service which assists them to find private accommodation in the community. Social service benefits, such as child endowment and maternity allowance, are also payable where appropriate.
  2. Yes. Timorese in hostels can attend language training classes and the facilities ofthe Commonwealth Employment Service are also available in regard to employment placement.
  3. On 30 December 1975 there were 1212 Timorese in hostels in five States. As at 29 November 1 976 this figure had reduced to 75 1 people. Figures for the various States are:

East Timorese Refugees: Residency Status (Question No. 1463)

Senator Georges:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice:

  1. How many applications were received for residency status from East Timor refugees.
  2. How many applications have been granted.
  3. How many are pending.
  4. Have any applications for visas to Australia been received from East Timor refugees now in Portugal.
  5. 5 ) How many of these have been accepted.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) 1 703 applications as at 3 December 1 976.
  2. 1092 applications as at 3 December 1976.
  3. 611 applications.
  4. Applications received to 25 November 1976 involved 1511 persons.
  5. 5 ) The applications are at present under consideration.

Cyclone Warnings (Question No. 1468)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Science, upon notice:

When does the Minister expect to receive details from the Bureau of Meteorology relating to cyclone warnings, which he agreed to obtain when replying to a question without notice asked by Senator Colston in the Senate on 9 November, 1976.

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

The Director of Meteorology has now informed me that the Regional Director of the Bureau of Meteorology in Queensland is aware of the views of the executive officer of the Queensland Motels Association, Mr Jim Pringle, in relation to cyclone warnings, as a result of discussions some time ago with him. The Director has also informed me that discussions had recently been held with the National Travel Association on this matter. Indeed, the Bureau’s officers have had many discussions with representativs of the tourist industry over recent years and are well aware of the problem. The Bureau has taken action to ensure that the wording of its warnings and information pamphlets is such as to minimise undue concern while ensuring that information vital to the safety of life and property is conveyed to the community.

There are two aspects to this matter: contents of warnings issued by the Bureau and disseminated via the media and other channels; material issued by Natural Disasters Orgaisation, State Emergency Services and the Bureau to educate the public with respect to cyclones.

The Bureau keeps a close check on the content of official tropical cylcone warnings in an endeavour to ensure that warnings disseminated by the media are in the form issued by the Bureau. Special attention was given to the question of content and terminology in warnings at a meeting among officers of the Bureau, Natrual Disasters Organisation and State Emergency Services in October this year. This meeting also discussed the form of educational material.

I would like to assure the honourable senator that the Bureau of Meteorology, in conjunction with the Natural Disasters Organisation and the State Emergency Services, makes continual reassessment of the effectiveness of the warning system. The bureau and other organisations concerned takes great pains not to unduly alarm people regarding tropical cyclones while taking all necessary measures to protect life and property.

Swine Influenza Vaccination (Question No. 1469)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice:

Has the Minister sought details of the deaths of at least 33 people in the United States of America that apparently resulted from the swine flu vaccination campaign in that country, as was urged by Professor Tony Basten, Head of Immunology at the University of Sydney and Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, reported in the Australian dated 16 November 1976. If so, (a) what information can the Minister provide to the Senate on this matter, and (b) have the results of the Minister’s inquiries necessitated alterations to plans to introduce an anti-swine flu vaccination campaign to Australia in 1977.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

Yes. Information recently received from the United States indicates that there is no evidence to suggest that the deaths of a number of people following immunisation with the swine influenza vaccine in America were caused by the administration of the vaccine. Chronic illness was present in all cases.

There are no plans to introduce an anti-swine influenza vaccination campaign in Australia during 1977. Planning, however, has been directed towards production and stockpiling of appropriate vaccine for use, if necessary, should there be evidence of swine influenza during the Northern Hemisphere winter of 1 976-77.

Great Barrier Reef: Damage Caused by Taiwanese Fishing Vessels (Question No. 1472)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Science the following question, upon notice:

Has the Australian Government been requested to provide assistance to the survey being carried out by a Queensland Government Fisheries Service Marine Biologist, Mr Bob Pearson, on damage being caused to the Great Barrier Reef by Taiwanese fishing vessels, referred to in an article in the Brisbane Sunday Mail dated 21 November 1976. If so, (a) what are the details of the request and (b) what assistance is the Australian Government providing.

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

It is my understanding that no request to provide assistance to the survey being carried out by the Queensland Fisheries Service on damage being caused to the Great Barrier Reef by Taiwanese fishing vessels has been received by the Australian Government.

Household Support Scheme (Question No. 1475)

Senator Colston:

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

When will the Minister announce full details of the household support scheme to be provided under the Rural Reconstruction Scheme.

Senator Cotton:
LP

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

Household support is one of the forms of assistance to be provided under the Rural Adjustment Scheme. Full details were included in the Schedule to the States Grants (Rural Adjustment) Bill introduced into the House of Representatives on 2 December 1976. Copies are available from the Bills and Papers Office.

Assistance for 1982 Commonwealth Games- Brisbane (Question No. 1481)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

Will the Federal Government provide financial assistance to the 1982 Commonwealth Games as was suggested by the Liberal Opposition Leader in the Brisbane City Council and reported in the Courier-Mail dated 16 November 1976. If so, what are the details.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

I have discussed the staging of the 1982 Brisbane Commonwealth Games with both Mr Bjelke-Petersen and Alderman Sleeman. The Lord Mayor gave me a copy of his Council’s study of possible sites and facilities which identifies three cost options. I have sent this study to Mr Newman, the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development for examination.

Subsequent to my meeting with the Premier, I wrote to him seeking full details of the proposals which his Government is prepared to support for the staging of the Games including provision for facilities, administration and accommodation.

When the Premier has forwarded this information to me, the Commonwealth Government will be able to determine the nature and extent of any contribution it may wish to make towards the staging of the Games.

Drug Education Programs in Queensland (Question No. 1493)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. What funding assistance has the Commonwealth Government made available to the Queensland Government for drug education activities in each year since 1970-71.
  2. ) On what projects have these funds been expended.
  3. Are there any specific qualifications or provisos on the expenditure of funds provided to the Queensland Government for drug education programs. If so, what are the details.
  4. Has the Australian Government provided any other assistance for drug education programs in Queensland. If so, what are the details.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

-The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) The funds allocated by the Commonwealth Government to Queensland each year since 1970-71 for drug education are:
  1. The funds have been expended on drug education activities as specified in the budget presented by Queensland to the National Standing Control Committee on Drugs of Dependence at the beginning of each financial year.
  2. 3 ) The only qualifications or provisos on the expenditure of funds provided to the Queensland Government for drug education programs are that Queensland must forward, at the end of each quarter, details of expenditure as well as proposed expenditure for the next quarter and submit at the end of each financial year an audited statement of expenditure.
  3. Yes, as part of the Community Health Program. This program which commenced in 1973, has encouraged the establishment of comprehensive, co-ordinated and integrated services in the pattern’s own neighbourhood, providing a range of diagnostic and treatment facilities, with back-up resources and support services aimed at reducing the level of dependency on institutional care. Component services of these integrated centres include programs of information and counselling to improve living habits, conditions and the environment that relate to disorders of health; direct preventive action; specific diagnosis and early treatment; and rehabilitative and supportive services for patients and their families.

The Community Health Program provides a block grant to the States towards capital and operating costs of approved community health service projects, the detailed allocation of funds being the responsibility of the State health authority. Commonwealth funds made available to the Queensland Government under this program over the years 1973-77 are as follows:

National Aboriginal Consultative Committee (Question No. 1497)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

With reference to the Minister’s Media Release dated 19 November 1976, entitled ‘Minister Meets with NACC Executive’, why is there a need to refer the recommendation of the Hiatt Inquiry into the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee to Cabinet for decision as a matter of urgency.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

-The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

I said on 9 November when tabling the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Role of the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee that it would be given careful consideration by the Government at an early date, and on 19 November I again indicated that my intention was to refer the recommendations to Cabinet for decision at an early date. Elections for the NACC were to have been held in 1975, but were deferred at the request of the NACC to September 1976. Further deferment was necessary to allow the Inquiry to complete its work. The NACC has expressed concern about the extension of the terms of office of its members who were elected for 2 years in 1973 and I want to avoid any undue delay in deciding the future of the NACC.

Torres Strait (Question No. 1499)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

Has the Minister ‘s attention been drawn to an article in the Brisbane Telegraph dated 24 November 1976, in which the Queensland Premier is quoted as stating that he was not surprised at allegations being made about Queensland undermining attempts by the Federal Government to negotiate a new sea-bed line between Australia and Papua New Guinea because (a) ‘the allegations emanated from Mr George Mye’, and (b) ‘only 3 weeks ago Mr Mye and 2 associates were taken down to Canberra’. If so, (c) what are the details of Mr Mye’s visit to Canberra, and (d) is the Queensland Premier correct in his implied allegation that the Federal Government is actively working against the Queensland Government through Mr Mye and others.

Senator Withers:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

  1. . The Minister for Foreign Affairs has seen the newspaper article referred to.
  2. A delegation of Torres Strait Islanders, led by Mr George Mye, visited Canberra on 20 October 1976 for discussions with the Prime Minister, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Mr D. Thomson, M.C., M.P., Member for Leichhardt, on possible future arrangements in the Torres Strait. These discussions were part of a continuing process of consultations which have taken place between the Commonwealth Government and the Torres Strait Islanders. The Commonwealth Government has attached the highest importance to keeping in touch with the Islanders on this subject. In September, a group of Commonwealth officials visited the Torres Strait to listen to Islander views, and to explain the negotiations with Papua New Guinea. Mr Mye and other Islander representatives came to Canberra in October; and the Prime Minister has only just returned from a visit to the Islands.
  3. The Commonwealth Government is also consulting with the Queensland Government on Torres Strait matters. There is no substance to any allegation that the Commonwealth Government is working against the Queensland Government through Mr Mye or anybody else.

Torres Strait (Question No. 1500)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

What action has the Minister taken to investigate claims by Mr George Mye, referred to in an article in the Brisbane Telegraph dated 24 November 1976, that the text of voiced by Torres Strait Islander representatives against the sea-bed line proposals during the Prime Minister’s recent visit to the Torres Strait Islands was prepared by a senior Queensland Government representative.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

I have not taken, and do not plan to take, any action.

Coburg Wildlife Sanctury (Question No. 1506)

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What is the present acreage ofthe Northern Territory Coburg Wildlife Sanctuary.
  2. Are any portions of this Sanctuary to be resumed for any other purposes.
  3. If the answer to (2) is in the affirmative, will any compensatory land additions be made.
Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 473 600 acres.
  2. No.
  3. Not applicable.

Australian Aid to Vietnam (Question No. 1520)

Senator Georges:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Can the Minister outline details of the Australian aid program to Vietnam for 1 976-77.
  2. ) What is the cost of items in the program.
  3. What plans have been undertaken for subsequent financial years.
  4. What projects funded by the Australian Government will commence in 1976, and when are they expected to be finished.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Australia is assisting the Socialist Republic of Vietnam in the development of the following projects:

    1. A Livestock Development Project at the Thai Binh State Farm.
    2. A Dairy Products Factory at Moe Chau.
    3. A Coal Industry Study Visit.
    4. Provision of equipment for the National Library.
    5. A segment of the WHO Medical program to Vietnam.
  2. The estimated costs of these items are:

    1. $2,320,000.
    2. $1,500,000.
    3. $5,000
    4. $8,000.
    5. $500,000.

In addition $17,000, being freight on a commodity shipment made in 1975-76, and $37,063, being carry-over costs incurred on projects in South Vietnam suspended due to the war, have been paid this financial year.

  1. The proposed program for the Socialist Republic of Vietman provides for an estimated expenditure of $2m each year for financial years 1976-77, 1977-78 and 1978-79.
  2. All the listed projects commence this financial year. Project (a) is spread over 5 years and project (b) over 2 years. It is anticipated that expenditure on the other projects will be completed this financial year.

Relations with Libya (Question No. 1525)

Senator Primmer:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Has an approach been made to the Australian Government by the Government of the Libyan Arab Republic seeking an exchange of diplomatic relations between the two countries.
  2. If the answer to ( I ) is in the affirmative, when was the approach made.
  3. 3 ) What were the terms of the reply to the Government of the Libyan Arab Republic and on what date was the reply sent.
  4. Is the establishment of diplomatic relations between the Governments of the Libyan Arab Republic and Australia under active consideration.
  5. What are the details of relationships established in the field of agriculture between the Governments of Western Australia and South Australia and the Government of the Libyan Arab Republic
Senator Withers:
LP

– The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: ( 1 ), (2), (3) and (4) The matter of direct diplomatic relations between Australia and the Libyan Arab Republic has been discussed by the two Governments through various channels since an initial Libyan inquiry in 1974, and is still under consideration.

  1. The South Australian Government and the Western Australian Government signed commercial arrangements in 1974 with the Libyan Government to establish 2 separate agricultural projects. The Western Australian arrangement was signed in June 1974 and relates to a cereal and livestock farming project near Tripoli Under the South Australian arrangement which was also signed in June 1974, a South Australian team is operating a pilot farm training scheme near Benghazi.

Maureen Ann Ritzell: Extradition Proceedings

Senator Durack:
LP

-On 3 November 1976 Senator Wheeldon addressed to me, as Minister representing the Attorney-General in the Senate, a question without notice concerning the refusal by the Attorney-General of a request by the Minister for Justice of Western Australia that proceedings be instituted to secure the extradition of a Maureen Ann Ritzell from Singapore. I referred the matter to the Attorney-General who has provided the following answer

In a letter dated 13 September 1976 the Minister for Justice of Western Australia requested me to initiate proceedings for the extradition of a Maureen Ann Ritzell from Singapore on charges of disobeying a lawful court order and child stealing.

The short facts of this matter are that Mrs Ritzell and her former husband, Mr Reardon, were divorced in Perth in November 1974. There were two children ofthe marriage and Mr Reardon was awarded custody of the child Elizabeth Ann, with reasonable access to her mother, and Mrs Ritzell was awarded custody of the child Andrew David, with reasonable access to his father. Mrs Ritzell subsequently remarried, and with her son, went to Singapore to live. It is alleged that Mrs Ritzell returned to Western Australia in August of this year and, on 20 August, picked up her daughter without Mr Reardon ‘s consent and left with the child by air for Singapore on the same day.

I understand that Mrs Ritzell has since left Singapore to travel to the United States of America. Her husband is an American citizen.

As I informed the Minister for Justice, extradition cannot be sought on the charge of disobeying a court order. Child stealing is an extraditable crime for the purposes of both the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Act and the Singapore Extradition Act and there appeared to be evidence that Mrs Ritzell has committed that offence. However, after careful consideration of the Minister’s request, I came to the conclusion that there were policy considerations that warranted declining the request in this case.

It is a general principle, one that has been accepted by Attorneys-General in successive Governments, that extradition should not be used as an indirect means of obtaining, or attempting to obtain, custody of, or access to, children. I endorse that principle and express the view that the determination of rights to children in circumstances Uke the present is properly a matter for civil proceedings by the parties concerned. Australia has previously refused requests by other countries for the return of fugitives where it was reasonably clear that the real purpose of the request was the recovery of possession of a child. It would, in my opinion, be undesirable for Australia to request extradition in circumstances where a Uke request made of Australia would be refused.

Mr Reardon ‘s prime concern is to have his daughter restored to him. Even if extradition of Mrs Ritzell is granted by the country in which she is found, the extradition would be of her, not the child.

I conclude, therefore, that the appropriate procedure would be for Mr Reardon to initiate custody proceedings and I wrote to him on 2 1 October 1 976 inviting him to apply to the Commonwealth for assistance to cover the legal costs and disbursements involved in taking such proceedings should he now wish to do so. I am informed by my Department that Mr Reardon has made an application which is now being considered.

Automatic Weather Stations, Queensland

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

– On 4 November 1976 Senator McAuliffe asked the following questions without notice:

Now that the cyclone season has arrived can the Minister inform the Parliament what are the functions of automatic weather stations on the Queensland coast such as the one located at Holmes Reef? How often is maintenance carried out at these stations? How many of these stations are situated between the Queensland and New South Wales border and the top end of Cape York? Have observation stations at Cardwell, Cooktown, Weipa and other locations been abolished as part of the Government’s cutback in spending? Is the Minister aware that this could create grave dangers, particularly for light aircraft in the cyclone season?

In my reply I undertook to obtain further information for the honourable senator. This has now been received by me and is as follows:

Automatic weather stations provide observational information for general analysis and forecasting and tropical cyclone warnings. Parameters observed are atmospheric pressure, air temperature, wind speed and direction, and rainfall. Observations are made every three hours.

There are eight automatic weather stations located on coral islands, cays and reefs between Cape York and the N.S.W. border.

Maintenance is carried out three times per year. One of these inspections always takes place justprior to the cyclone season. During the season running repairs are made subject to availability of funds and suitable transport. As at 4 November the automatic weather stations at Holmes Reef, Frederick Reef and Marion Reef were unserviceable, but will be recommissioned by a work party which departed on 2 December. This is later than usual due to unavailability of the regular charter boat.

No Queensland weather stations which are part of the tropical cyclone warning network have been closed due to cuts in spending. As a result no increased threat is posed to light aircraft through lack of observations.

Taxation Revenue Sharing Legislation

Senator Cotton:
LP

– On 2 November 1976 Senator Wriedt asked me a question without notice concerning financial arrangements under the taxation revenue sharing legislation. The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The honourable senator’s question relates to section 5 of the States (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976 which received the Royal Assent on 24 November 1976. This section of the Act provides the machinery required in order that the shares which the States and local government will receive under the personal income tax sharing legislation will reflect an understanding reached during Premiers’ Conferences between the Commonwealth and the States. That understanding was that the yield or cost of special surcharges or rebates applied, in appropriate circumstances, by the Commonwealth will not be included in the base figure from which the States ‘ and local government entitlements will be calculated.

This aspect of the tax sharing arrangements is designed to protect the States and local government from fluctuations in their shares which might result, for example, if for reasons of financial management the Commonwealth should decide to introduce a surcharge or rebate after, say, the States’ budgets have been framed and their expenditure commitments made. This feature of the arrangements is also fully consistent with the agreement that, if at any future time a State should wish to introduce a surcharge or rebate for its own purposes, such a measure would also be introduced without affecting the base amount of personal income tax shared between the 3 areas of government.

The honourable senator will recall that both Senator Carrick. and I emphasised, when introducing the legislation, that this section of the Act would certainly not be applied without proper consultation with the States.

Molonglo Arterial Road (Question No. 1329)

Senator Knight:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Will the Minister list all of the studies undertaken by or on behalf of the Government and its authorities concerning the construction of the proposed Molonglo Arterial roadway to link Parkes Way with the Tuggeranong Parkway.
  2. Will the Minister indicate, by way of summary in each case, the outcome of these studies.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for the Capital Territory has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) The following is a list of studies, reports, investigations and hearings relating to the roadway link between Parkes Way and Tuggeranong Parkway:

    1. Western Lakes Area- Engineering Report 1960-Rankine and Hill.
    2. Canberra Area Transportation Study Report on 1961 Surveys-March 1962 Rankine and Hill and De Leuw Cather.
    3. Canberra Area Transportation Study August 1963- Rankine and Hill.
    4. iv ) Engineering Report on City Traffic System- July 1964- Rankine and Hill.
    5. Acton Traffic Study-March 1964-Rankine and Hill.
    6. The Acton Peninsula Study-May 1965- William Holford and Partners, G. Maunsell and Partners.
    7. Canberra Land Use Transportation Study, General Plan Concept- January 1967- Alan M. Voorhees and Associates.
    8. The Acton Peninsula Study Supplementary Report-March 1966- William Holford and Partners, G. Maunsell and Partners.
    9. Freeways Connecting Woden and BelconnenJuly 1968-Rankine and Hill.
    10. A Road Connecting Canberra and Tumut Technical Evaluation- June 1968 NCDC, NSW Department of Main Roads.
    11. Acton Saddle MAJOR Road Link-June 1970- Maunsell and Partners.
    12. A Road System for Canberra City-July 1970- Rankine and Hill.
    13. Report on Subsoil Investigation, Acton SaddleMarch 1 97 1 -Ground Test Australia.
    14. Molonglo Freeway, Preliminary Engineering Report- March 1972 Rankine and Hill.
    15. Diamond Drill Holes Along Molonglo Freeway- 1972- Bureau of Mineral Resources.
    16. Joint Measurements in the South Black Mountain Area- Bureau of Mineral Resources.
    17. Memorandum- Climatic Conditions: Parkes Way Extension- 1 972- Bureau of Meteorology.
    18. Parkes Way Extension. Effects on Lake Burley Griffin Flood Levels- 1973- Commonwealth Department of Works.
    19. Memorandum- Assessment of Environmental Impact-1973-Department of the Capital Territory.
    20. Preliminary Survey of Possible Environmental Impact of Parkes Way Extension- 1973- Ecological and Resource Planning Consultants.
    21. Canberra Public Transport Study-January 1970- Maunsell and Partners, Alan M. Voorhees and Associates.
    22. Recreational, Landscape and Scenic Values- 1 973- S. R. Margules and Associates.
    23. Report No. V1629-1 Tentative Noise Impact Analysis- 1973 - Carr and Wilkinson.
    24. Molonglo Parkway- Environmental Assessment Assessment- 1 973- Rankine and Hill.
    25. Molonglo Parkway- Environmental Impact Statement- 1 973-NCDC.
    26. A Review of the General Plan Concept 1 973-Alan M. Voorhees Pty Ltd.
    27. Report on Molonglo Parkway, Canberra, A.C.T-1973-Professor F. W. Ledgar.
    28. Molonglo Parkway, Report on Environmental Aspects- 1973- Peter Spooner.
    29. Molonglo Parkway Proposal- A Report on the public inquiry into its environmental impact- 1973- Department of Environment and Conservation.
    30. Report on Site Investigation at Sullivan’s Creek - 1 973-Maunsell Geotechnical Services.
    31. Acton Saddle Tunnel, Lighting Report- 1972- Kotzman McDonald Associates.
    32. Acton Saddle Project, Report on the effects of sun glare on drivers using the Acton Tunnel- 1974- Maunsell.
    33. Molonglo Arterial. Acton Saddle Section; Electrical and Mechanical Services for Roadway Tunnel- 1 974- Simpson Kotzman and Partners.
    34. Molonglo Arterial. Acton Saddle Section, Design Report- 1 975- Maunsell.
    35. Molonglo Parkway Site Investigation- 1975- Department of Housing and Construction.
    36. Molonglo Arterial Canberra. Technical Paper No.2-1975-NCDC.
    37. Report on Proposals for Variation of the Plan of Layout of the City of Canberra and its Environs, Fifty-eighth Series- 1975- Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory.
  2. The conclusions of the more significant studies are as follows:

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 9 December 1976, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1976/19761209_senate_30_s70/>.