Senate
20 April 1977

30th Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. Senate
  2. 30th Parliament
  3. 1977

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

page 777

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Senator WITHERS:
Minister for Administrative Services · Western AustraliaLeader of the Government in the Senate · LP

- Mr President, I inform the Senate that the Deputy Prime Minister, the Right Honourable J. D. Anthony, left Australia on 13 April to lead the Australian Delegation to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development which has been convened in Geneva to negotiate a new International Sugar Agreement. Mr Anthony will also be having discussions in Washington with the new Administration. He is expected to return on 8 May. During his absence the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Senator the Honourable Robert Cotton, will act as Minister for Overseas Trade, and the Minister for Transport, the Honourable P. J. Nixon, will act as Minister for National Resources.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Honourable Andrew Peacock, also left Australia on 13 April for discussions in the Philippines, Thailand and Malaysia. He is expected to return on 26 April. During his absence the Minister for Primary Industry, the Right Honourable Ian Sinclair, will act as Minister for Foreign Affairs.

I also inform the Senate that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Minister assisting the Treasurer, the Honourable Ian Viner, left Australia on 18 April to attend the annual meeting of the Asian Development Bank in Manila. He is expected to return on 24 April. During his absence the Minister for Social Security, Senator the Honourable Margaret Guilfoyle, will act as Minister for Aboriginal Affairs.

page 777

PETITIONS

Australian Roads

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present two petitions, similar in wording, from 87 and 52 citizens of Australia:

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

Australia’s extensive road system is a national asset wasting because of inadequate Federal and State funding.

Commonwealth Government funding of roads has fallen over the last six years from 2.9 per cent of all Commonwealth outlays to 2.3 per cent.

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

That the Commonwealth Government’s long-term policy should be to provide 50 per cent of all funding for Australia’s roads.

That at a minimum the Commonwealth Government adopts the recommendations by the Australian Council of Local Government Associations for the allocation of $5.903m of Commonwealth, State and local government funds to roads over the five years ending 1980-81, of which the Commonwealth share would be 41 per cent as recommended by the Bureau of Roads.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petitions received and first petition read.

Pensions

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 4 1 citizens of Australia:

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

That the delays between the announcements of each quarterly movement in the consumer price index and their application as a percentage increase in age and invalid pensions is excessive, unnecessary, discriminatory and a cause of economic distress.

That proposals to amend the consumer price index by eliminating particular items from the index could adversely affect the value of future increases in aged and invalid pensions and thus be a cause of additional economic hardship to pensioners.

The foregoing facts impel your petitioners to ask the Australian Government as a matter of urgency to:

Require each quarterly percentage increase in the consumer price index to be applied to age and invalid and similar pensions as from the pension pay day nearest following the date of announcement of the CP1 movement.

Give an open assurance to all aged and invalid pensioners that any revision of the items comprising the consumer price index will in no way result in reductions in the value of any future entitlements to pensioners.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Income Tax

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

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

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

That the existence of a system of double taxation of personal incomes whereby both the Australian Government and State governments had the power to vary personal income taxes would mean that taxpayers who worked in more than one State in any one year would:

be faced with complicated variations in his or her personal income taxes between States; and

find that real after-tax wages for the same job would vary from State to State even when gross wages were advertised as being the same; and

require citizens to maintain records of income earned in each State.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that a system of double income tax on personal incomes be not introduced.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

The Clerk:

– Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:

Pensions

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

That the delays between announcements of each quarterly movement in the consumer price index and their application as a percentage increase in age and invalid pensions is excessive, unnecessary, discriminatory and a cause of economic distress.

That proposals to amend the consumer price index by eliminating particular items from the index could adversely affect the value of future increases in aged and invalid pensions and thus be a cause of additional economic hardship to pensioners.

The foregoing facts impel your petitioners to ask the Australian Government as a matter of urgency to:

  1. . Require each quarterly percentage increase in the consumer price index to be applied to age and invalid and similar pensions as from the pension pay day nearest following the date of announcement of the CPI movement.
  2. Give an open assurance to all aged and invalid pensioners that any revision of the items comprising the consumer price index will in no way result in reduction in the value of any future entitlements to pensioners.

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

Petitions received.

Television Services

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

That we the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia express great concern at the reduction in transmission power of the Wagin TV transmitter (Channel 8) resulting in poor and in some instances a complete fade out of TV reception over an extensive area surrounding Wagin previously satisfactorily served by this channel.

The undersigned petitioners request the restoration of this station to its former transmitting power.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Drake-Brockman.

Petition received.

Metric System

To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth objection to the metric system and request the Government to restore the imperial system.

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

Petition received.

page 778

SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL AFFAIRS

Notice of Motion

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

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

  1. 1 ) That the following 4 matters be referred to the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs for inquiry and report to the Senate:

    1. a ) Processing Law Reform Proposals:

To inquire into:

  1. Methods of ensuring that proposals for law reform by the (Australian) Law Reform Commission are implemented or are otherwise processed;
  2. The adequacy of existing machinery for the collection and assessment of proposals for law reform put forward by judges, commissions, committees and organisations or individuals: and

  3. The effectiveness of existing machinery for coordination of the work of the various law reform agencies in Australia.

    1. b) Delegation of Parliamentary Authority:

To review and consider the delegation by Acts of Parliament of administrative or discretionary authority whether by regulation, ministerial orders, instruments in writing or otherwise and how to preserve the power of Parliament to protect the rights and determine the obligations and remedies of individuals.

  1. c ) Priority of Crown Debts:

Review the right of priority of the Crown over other debtors in matters of bankruptcy, corporate liquidations or other cases of impecunious persons or corporations.

  1. d ) Parliamentary Scrutiny of Rules of Court:

Whether the rules of court of Commonwealth Courts should be made by judges by regulation or otherwise in what manner and whether such rules should be subjected to Parliamentary scrutiny.

  1. That the Committee report to the Senate on each matter as soon as possible but not later than the first sitting day in December 1977.

page 778

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 778

QUESTION

FEDERALISM POLICY

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs. Has the Government consistently maintained that the new federalism is a policy essentially of co-operation with the States and that the States were in agreement with that concept? Does the Minister recall saying on 8 April 1976, in answer to a question on the new federalism policy: ‘The Government would . . seek to persuade but it would not seek to coerce in any way at all ‘? I ask the Minister: Why is the Government now determined, as stated by the Prime Minister, to proceed with legislation to implement stage 2 of the policy despite the almost unanimous opposition of the States? Is it not now apparent that the Prime Minister intended from the beginning to force the States into new federalism, whether they agreed with it or not?

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

– In answer to the first 2 parts of the question asked by the honourable senator, I agree that the whole basis of federalism is co-operation. The record of transcripts of the Premiers’ Conferences of last year will show that the steps were taken by way of full cooperation and agreement. As usual, Senator Wriedt thoroughly misunderstands the situation. The Commonwealth is not attempting to coerce the States. If Senator Wriedt had paid attention to the outcome of the Premiers’ Conferences and statements issued he would know that the Commonwealth, through the Prime Minister, indicated to the States that whether a State decides to impose an income tax surcharge or to give an income tax rebate is a matter for the State itself and that the Commonwealth will in no way seek to influence the States in that regard. I make it perfectly clear that there is no intention to coerce the States into entering into that sphere.

Two States have indicated that they would welcome the facility of imposing a surcharge or granting a rebate. The Commonwealth, therefore, will introduce legislation to assist any State so inclined to impose a surcharge or to give a rebate. I repeat: The attempt by Senator Wriedt to suggest that this is Commonwealth coercion is nonsense. I repeat that the States themselves have, for the first time in years, been able to get a substantial increase in their revenues from the Commonwealth by way of a tax sharing arrangement and all States have been able to balance their budgets and all States, I think, have given substantial tax cuts. This year the States, rather than being compelled to make tax increases as suggested by Senator Wriedt, have, under federalism, for the first time been able to give tax relief. The Commonwealth at the same time under the new federalism has given total and full tax indexation, a policy which was recommended to the Whitlam Government and which was rejected by the Whitlam Government of which Senator Wriedt was in fact a Minister. Under federalism there has been a substantial decrease in taxation; under centralism there was an increase.

page 779

QUESTION

WORLD RHEUMATISM YEAR

Senator BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. I ask: Has 1977 been designated as World Rheumatism Year? In view of this, does the Minister know the extent and significance of rheumatic disease in Australian society? Is the Minister able to advise what pan Australia will play in promoting or hosting the main events of World Rheumatism Year?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · VICTORIA · LP

– I regret that I have no information from the Miniter for Health about the matters that have been raised in connection with World Rheumatism Year. I will seek the information from the Minister for Health and see that the honourable senator is advised.

page 779

QUESTION

INQUIRY INTO UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS

Senator GRIMES:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security and concerns the announced inquiry into unemployment benefits headed by Dr Myers. I ask: To whom will Dr Myers be reporting? Will the report be made public and tabled in this Parliament? What matters will the interdepartmental committee, which is currently investigating unemployment benefits, cover that Dr Myers does not have in his terms of reference? When is the interdepartmental committee expected to complete its report?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– A week or two ago we announced the formation of the Myers Committee to look at all aspects of unemployment benefits. Some discussion was held in the Senate with regard to the terms of reference and other matters related to that inquiry. Dr Myers will report to the Government. He will report I believe to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and to me as Minister for Social Security. The report will be made public to the Parliament. Dr Myers is conducting a public inquiry. 1 have no statement to make about any interdepartmental committee that is specifically looking at unemployment benefits. From time to time matters are raised between departments such as the Department of Social Security and the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations but I have not knowledge of a specific report which will be required from any committee or which will be tabled for public information.

page 779

QUESTION

NORFOLK ISLAND

Senator CHANEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister for Administrative Services aware of claims that recently discovered documents have confirmed that the Pitcairn Islanders who were resettled on Norfolk Island in 1856 were guaranteed ownership of all but 700 acres of the island and the right to internal self-government? Is the Minister in a position to say whether these claims are correct? Can the Minister further say how many Pitcairn descendants own land on the island and how many non-Pitcairners are now landholders? Does this mean that the land held by nonPitcairners should be restored to those people of Pitcairn descent?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

– I am aware of recent publicity given to claims relating to the rights of people from Pitcairn Island who settled on Norfolk Island in 1856. The Editor of the Norfolk Island News, a Mr Ed Howard, himself a recent arrival on the island, has claimed that there have been new discoveries of documents establishing certain ownership by the original Pitcairn settlers. I stress that the articles in the Norfolk Island News are Mr Howard’s interpretation. I am not aware of any legal expertise he may or may not posess, but I suppose he is entitled to his own interpretations. It is rather strange that he claims the documents to be new discoveries as they were presented to both Houses of Parliament in England in 1857 and have been part of public record ever since. In addition they are available either in photocopies or microfilm at various libraries and archives including the National Library in Canberra. These documents were considered at length by the Royal Commission on Norfolk Island. As honourable senators will recall, the Royal Commissioner, Mr Justice Nimmo, found that he had no doubt that the people who moved from Pitcairn Island to Norfolk Island in 1856 were given no legal right to the Island. The Judge’s reasons for that belief are set out in the report. Might I say that one wonders at what appears to be a carefully orchestrated campaign to whip up concern about the Nimmo Report which, amongst other things, recommends that residents of Norfolk Island pay the same taxes and receive the same benefits as other Australians.

Honourable senators may be interested to know that, at 30 June 1976, there were 859 persons on the Norfolk Island electoral roll. Of these, only 323 can claim Pitcairn descent. In respect of the land holding on the Island, I inform Senator Chaney that, according to the land index of the Island, 255 persons of Pitcairn descent own land on the Island. Five hundred and thirty-three persons of non-Pitcairn descent own land on the island. In addition, 52 companies own land on Norfolk Island. The number of absentee landowners of Pitcairn descent is 87 and the number of absentee landowners of nonPitcairn descent is 97. Clearly, the largest number of landowners on Norfolk Island are not the descendants of the original Pitcairners who settled there in 1856.. I ask again: Why is the present campaign being conducted? I conclude by saying that I think one can assume that, if this Mr Ed Howard is genuine in his assertions, he now should be claiming that the land owned by non-Pitcairners should be confiscated by the Commonwealth so that it could be restored to its rightful owners. If Mr Howard himself has acquired land, perhaps he will now return it to people whom he believes to be the rightful owners.

page 780

QUESTION

FEDERALISM POLICY

Senator WRIEDT:

-I direct a question to the Minister assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs. It follows the answer he gave to my previous question. In view of the fact that he has given an assurance that the Federal Government will not force stage 2 of the new federalism on to the States, does he agree that stage 2 is, in fact, an essential part of the Government’s new federalism policy? If the States do not opt for the personal income taxing powers that apply under stage 2, is the Minister saying, in effect, that the federalism policy will not come into effect, at least not in the foreseeable future? If that is the case, what alternative arrangements does the Federal Government intend to undertake for financing of the States?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– Once again Senator Wriedt shows a complete misunderstandingdeliberate or otherwise- of the situation. That part of stage 2 of the federalism policy which provides a facility for States to use a surcharge or rebate if they wish is not essential and not fundamental to the total working of federalism. Unlike the previous Federal Government, this Government has responded to all States, including Labor States, which asked for a number of things. They asked that the growth of their revenues be tied to a growth tax, preferably personal income tax. This Government has responded to those requests. As a result, the States are being given more abundant revenue-sharing than they were given by the Labor Government. They will be given prospectively more. As to the second part of the question, the States have always asked that they should have more facilities for imposing taxes themselves. They have said, for example, that their range of taxes in the past was not sufficient to give them flexibility.

This was one of the reasons why they wanted a growth tax. The States now have a wider armoury of taxes for their own use. Contrary to the general view, the States are not the small taxers or the small spenders. It should be clearly understood by the Senate and by the public that as at this point of time the States and local government combined spend and manage some 52 per cent of all public finance in Australia while the Commonwealth manages some 48 per cent. The States and local government are the majority spenders of public finance and public revenue in Australia. The States have a massive array of taxes and charges to use or not use. It is not for us to advocate increased taxation. Indeed, as a result of federalism, both the Commonwealth and the States have been able to cut taxes. The States, if they wanted to do so tomorrow, could choose indirect taxation or charges as an alternative to a surcharge. They are free to do so. I direct Senator Wriedt ‘s attention to the recent High Court judgment on turnover tax. It is quite competent for the States to impose turnover tax if they want to do so, and this goes very close to being something like a value added tax. So their armoury is pretty total now.

Senator WRIEDT:

– I ask a supplementary question. I draw the attention of Senator Carrick to what is contained in Budget Paper No. 7 which was presented by the Treasurer in respect of new federalism arrangements. On the basis of his answer in which he said: ‘No, stage 2 is not necessary’, I draw his attention to this statement by the Treasurer on page 1 4 of that document:

The tax sharing arrangements are to be introduced in two stages.

That is stage 1 and stage 2. 1 again ask the Minister: If his answer is correct, is the Treasurer wrong in his interpretation of the implementation of the tax sharing arrangements?

Senator CARRICK:

-No, Senator Wriedt is wrong- again. The simple fact is that the introduction of stage 2 as it affects surcharges or rebates is to provide an option for the States. The Commonwealth, by unilateral legislation, will make that option available and any State which so desires may use it or not. Several States have indicated that in the early future they may well legislate to make that option available to them as well. Whether any other State does so is a matter for that State. Therefore I repeat that stage 2, as it affects rebates or surcharges, is not essential; it is optional.

page 781

QUESTION

HOSTEL FOR AGED PEOPLE AT PORT AUGUSTA

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Is the Minister for Social Security aware of the proposal submitted by the Corporation of the City of Port Augusta which is currently being considered by the South Australian Housing Trust whereby up to fifty urgently needed hostel units for aged people could be provided in that city? Has the Minister examined this submission wherein it is proposed that the Housing Trust, which is empowered to build living units, could hold a certificate of title to that pan of the complex and the Corporation could build and own the administrative block which would provide kitchen, laundry and dining facilities for the tenants? Has the Minister noted that this establishment could be achieved with a Commonwealth contribution of only $ 120,000 and that under the present Act relating to aged and disabled persons homes the same accommodation would cost the Commonwealth in excess of $700,000? Can the Minister inform me whether the present Act permits this type of project to be funded? If not, in view of the present economic restraints on Commonwealth expenditure, would the Minister consider appropriate amendments to the Act to enable this project to be carried out as a pilot scheme for the rest of Australia? I believe this original concept would be an ideal way to expand the provision of accommodation for aged people in Australia.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– The project at Port Augusta has been brought to my attention. I understand that my State office has had negotiations with the organisation concerned. A complex arrangement has been envisaged. The difficulty at present is that we have 3-year programs for aged persons homes and hostels and all the funds available for those programs, or the vast majority of them, already have been committed to projects. I believe it would be known to honourable senators that 2 reports with regard to the care of the aged and the infirm are at present under study by the Government. A proposal such as the one put forward by Senator Jessop has very strong grounds for consideration. I believe that most people would recognise that in this country there is still a growing need for hostel units, nursing home accommodation and geriatric accommodation. Proposals such as the one brought forward by him are worthy of serious study. I am unable at this stage to talk of the commitment of funds for the project, but I assure the honourable senator that the proposal which he has outlined will have our serious consideration.

Senator JESSOP:

-Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question.

The PRESIDENT:

– Very well.

Senator JESSOP:

– Does the present Act provide for funding of that type of project? If not, will the Minister for Social Security give consideration to amending the Act?

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I am sorry that I omitted to answer that pan of the question specifically. The present Act would not permit funding in the terms outlined by Senator Jessop. That project and other projects that have been coming forward to us with regard to equity housing and other matters are under consideration. If any of them were acceptable or able to be implemented by the Government, any amendments required to the Act could be considered at that time.

page 782

QUESTION

PAYMENT OF UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT

Senator DONALD CAMERON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Has the Minister for Social Security received a telegram from the Pulp and Paper Workers Federation of Australia asking whether unemployment benefit will be paid to employees at Cellulose Australia Ltd, Millicent, South Australia, who are unemployed as a result of a voluntary redundancy scheme to commence next week? Can the Minister advise whether employees at the factory will be eligible for unemployment benefit for the one week in every four that they are not employed? When will the sender of the telegram be advised of her decision?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I am not aware that a telegram has been received on this matter. I will make inquiries during question time. If any statement with regard to the specific matter raised can be made, I will make it at the end of question time or as early as possible.

page 782

QUESTION

AIRLINE SERVICES TO TASMANIA

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. I preface it by saying that no doubt he is aware that commercial airline flights to and from Tasmania were entirely suspended for a period during the last few days, due to a strike by a section of the transport industry. That suspension isolated and inconvenienced a great number of people who had no other way of getting to and from the mainland, unless they were extremely strong swimmers. Is the Government proposing any action to ensure that certain services to Tasmania, such as airline services, are classed as essential services? Will associated unions be requested or directed to exempt Tasmania from strike action that isolates Tasmania?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I think all honourable senators and the community will be aware that in recent days an industrial dispute virtually cut off Tasmania from the mainland and caused considerable harm. I think all who reflect on this matter and who have any sympathy for the people of Tasmania will realise how vulnerable the Tasmanian people are to such industrial action and will deplore the nature of an action that can inflict hardship on people. I have no specific information as to whether the Government is contemplating particular action regarding the declaration of essential services or protection in that regard. I will refer the question asked by Senator Townley to the relevant Minister and seek the information.

page 782

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL ORGANISATIONS: AMENDMENT OF RULES

Senator HARRADINE:
TASMANIA

– I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations to a question which I asked him on 23 February 1977 and to a further question on the same subject I asked on 22 March 1977 which related to assurances given by Mr Street and by Mr Cameron to unions concerning amendments to rules. Such assurances were found to be completely worthless by a decision of the Australian Industrial Court 4 months ago on 23 December 1976. On 22 March 1977 the Minister promised to expedite an answer. Can the Minister please now advise what action the Government will take to set right the situation caused by the assurances given by the Government?

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

– I am aware of the questions Senator Harradine has asked and of the concern he has about this matter. I have passed the questions on to the Minister whom I represent. I have also had some discussions with the Attorney-General in regard to the matter. At this stage the Government is not in a position to say what action, if any, it is proposing to take. The matter is certainly under consideration.

Senator HARRADINE:

- Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question. It is now 4 months since the decision; when can I receive an answer to the specific matters mentioned in the questions I asked?

Senator DURACK:

– I am afraid I cannot add anything more to the answer I have given.

page 782

QUESTION

SOLAR ENERGY RESEARCH

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I ask the Minister for Science whether he has seen Press reports that the Premier of New South Wales has made a grant of $ 1.08m to Sydney University for further research into solar energy and that the New South Wales Government is to get some 50 per cent of any revenue resulting from such research. Are these reports correct? If so, can the Minister state the position regarding Commonwealth Government funding? Does the arrangement of the New South Wales Government leave the way open for the Federal Government to make similar arrangements in relation to Federal funding of the project? Can the Minister state whether the 50 per cent arrangements by the New South Wales Government also include the matter of control and whether the 50 per cent is 50 per cent plus or 50 per cent minus in relation to such control?

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

-The matter of research funds for solar energy has been raised in the Senate on several occasions. With the announcement by the Premier of New South Wales that he intended to provide $ 1.08m for the Sydney University research team, certain queries were raised by my Department about this matter. In response to the direct question raised by the honourable senator I mention that I have seen the report. I do not know all the facts relating to the arrangements which have been made by the State Government. Certainly no information has been received or tendered to the Federal Government about this matter. I think Senator Young, in his question, mentioned the Press report that the State Government had made some arrangement to share in the results from such research. It is very difficult to understand exactly how those results can be shared.

Basically, the funds which have been available to Sydney University have emanated through taxation revenue provided federally to the Universities Commission and then allocated to various universities. I imagine that the main volume of money in that area has gone to those researchers at Sydney University. I have mentioned previously that the Australian Research Grants Committee, which is basically organised by my Department, has assisted those researchers who are named for their work of excellence in solar energy. I have made a visit and seen the work. My understanding of the find as it was shown to me does not enable me to say whether it is of a unique nature. Researchers at the Melbourne University, for instance, have advised me that they looked at this proposition and set it aside some 5 years ago. Nevertheless, the attraction of research moneys from any source to assist research into solar energy use must be encouraged.

I noted that researchers at the University of New South Wales had commented critically that the Premier of New South Wales appeared to allocate the funds without taking into consideration work which may have been done in other universities, particularly in New South Wales. I am not aware of the likely cost of the application of the find by the Sydney University but if there has been an arrangement entered into I would encourage the Sydney University to forward the information. Perhaps the Premier of New South Wales could make clear the arrangements that he has made in regard to this matter. Certainly the Federal Government is very keen on energy research of any sort and solar energy has been one of the focal points of such research.

page 783

QUESTION

BAN BY OFFICERS OF DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY

Senator WHEELDON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for Social Security whether she is aware that a meeting, organised by the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association and the Australian Public Service Association, was held in Perth yesterday of officers of the Western Australian branch of the Department of Social Security; that proposals were put to the meeting that it should deplore what was described as the waste of financial and manpower resources involved in the working of continuous overtime and that in consequence thereof, among other things, there should be a ban on the working of all overtime in the Department of Social Security in Western Australia from midnight last night until the problem of understanding which is complained about has been corrected, a ban on the handling of ministerial and parliamentary inquiries from midnight last night and a ban on the collection and collation of statistics from midnight last night, and that a further meeting be held on 3 May at which further action can be considered. Does the Minister know whether these proposals were adopted by the officers of the Department? If so, have the bans been applied? What will be the consequences of such bans? What action does the Government propose to take?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I assume that the fine detail in the question is similar to the information that reached my office yesterday. I referred the matter to the Director-General for investigation and report. As yet, he has not reported to me on the consequences of the meeting that is alleged to have been held and of the statements that were made or of the message that I received. As soon as I have some information on this matter I will make it available to the honourable senator.

page 783

QUESTION

TELEVISION RECEPTION IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. Is it Government policy to ensure that the dual system of national and commercial television shall be maintained and be available to ali citizens? Is he aware of representations from and concern felt by many residents in the great southern and eastern wheat belts of Western Australia over the present poor television reception in these areas? Has his attention been drawn to the many petitions from residents of these areas that have been presented to the Senate? As the television medium reaches audiences of such size, with such influence on their opinions and attitudes as well as significantly affecting their way of life, how long can the Government remain indifferent to the pleas of these people for a standard of reception now enjoyed by a large majority of people in Australia?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-Senator DrakeBrockman has asked 4 questions. He has asked whether it is the policy of the Government that a dual system of national and commercial television service be available to the people of Australia. It is the firm policy of the Government to have such a service available wherever possible. I am advised that over 95 per cent of the people in Australia can now receive television signals from the Government funded national service and that this television coverage is closely followed by the commercial service. As to the second question, I am very much aware that some areas in Western Australia are receiving only poor or fringe signals and that people in those areas have made their complaints and requests clear. I am aware of the petitions that have been presented here.

My understanding is that the Postal and Telecommunications Department is carrying out as quickly as possible within its engineering resources the necessary field strength studies. Of course, it is dependent upon the funds available. A full review is presently being undertaken by the Department of the priorities involved in improving reception to areas such as the more remote areas of Western Australia, as part of the recently assumed planning responsibilities of the Department. Therefore I can assure Senator Drake-Brockman that the Government is far from indifferent to the problem and is taking steps to ensure that it is dealt with as expeditiously as possible and within the limitations both of funds on the one hand and engineering resources on the other hand.

page 784

QUESTION

PRICES AND WAGES FREEZE: CONFERENCE ON PROPOSALS

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. It refers generally to the price freeze and to the proposal, put forward yesterday by Mr Hawke and supported by the President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, that there should be a summit conference on the general Government proposals. I ask the Minister: In view of the fact that the conferences or some part of those conferences are now being conducted, can that be taken to indicate that the Government is increasing the ambit of its earlier proposals and will discuss the wider issues raised by the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and supported by President Moore? Also, has the Minister’s attention been drawn to the situation which developed in the United States of America in 1973 following the voluntary price freeze, when food prices rose by 20 per cent, wholesale commodity prices rose by 22.2 per cent and wholesale farm produce prices jumped by nearly 50 per cent? Is the Minister able to indicate whether that issue could be considered during any of these talks?

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

-I will try to be as helpful as I can on the fairly slender data available to me, as the discussions to which the honourable gentleman refers are either still going on or have perhaps just concluded. I do not know for certain what is the position. I will take the question as best I remember it. A lot of people have commented upon the prices-incomes policies, pricesincomes stand-offs and what people choose to call ‘prices-incomes freezes’, which is not a very good description; it is really a prices-incomes pause more than anything else. Such pauses work better when they are voluntary than when they are imposed, and clearly they work only for a certain period. Some comment has been made about the experience in the United States of America. Let us bear in mind that the inflation rate in the United States is now well below that of most other Western democracies. Let us think about that. Therefore we do have an Australian problem which I hope the Opposition understands, that the underlying rate of inflation in this country, whilst it has been coming down progressively, is still very high. Therefore I think that it is of consequence to us all that all employees, employers, governments and everybody else have a vital stake in trying to solve that problem.

The concert to have a voluntary pause reached by the Prime Minister and all the State Premiers was welcomed throughout Australia by most people who have a constructive view of their country and its problems. There have to be immediate gains in being able to achieve that sort of position. So much of this is due to the problems of the past, but the solution really lies in the hands of all of us, not in the hands of any one particular group. My only information about the talks that have been going on is that at the moment I am given to understand that the Austraiian Council of Trade Unions will not support the concert reached by the Prime Minister and the Premiers. If that is true, it will be a great pity.

Senator BISHOP:

– I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. It would appear that the employers generally have agreed to a summit conference and the Prime Minister and his Ministers are presently meeting with the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the peak unions. The Minister for Industry and Commerce will recall that I asked whether that indicates that discussions at such a conference will widen the present proposals put forward by the Government in respect of its wages and prices policies. Also, the Minister talked about the underlying factors of inflation. Would he like to expand upon what he means by ‘underlying factors of inflation’ in respect of what are in fact substantial trends in inflation?

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– I raise a point of order on this, Mr President. The device of asking supplementary questions is on the basis that the Minister has failed to answer the question asked by a questioner. Senator Bishop is using the device now to raise a separate and new question. I consider that he is not in order in doing so.

The PRESIDENT:

– The Minister may reply to the question.

Senator COTTON:

-I am indebted to my colleague Senator Sir Magnus Cormack because I would have had to say to Senator Bishop that he really is canvassing a substantially new area. I can only be of help to the honourable senator and my colleagues by answering questions on what I know. The honourable senator asked a series of supplementary questions based upon hypothesis, and as yet I am unable to help him with them. But he can be assured that if later I have more information that is of value he certainly will have a chance to get it.

page 785

QUESTION

PALESTINE LIBERATION ORGANISATION

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I do not have the basic information requested. I have a confession to make: I was not aware that the original part of the question was directed to me, although I am aware of the substance of the question. May I take the question on notice and seek leave to gain the information?

page 785

QUESTION

WOMEN’S REFUGES

Senator RYAN:
ACT

– My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security and follows a question on the subject of Queensland women’s refuges which was asked in the House of Representatives on 3 1 March by the honourable member for Petrie. I ask the Minister: Can she inform the Senate whether it is now the case that all State governments except the Queensland Government are funding refuges from Commonwealth block grants under the Community Health Program? What plans does the Minister have for ensuring the continued operation of the Brisbane and Townsville refuges and any other refuges, such as the one in the Australian Capital Territory, that are not receiving State grants? When will specific financial commitments regarding these refuges be made, bearing in mind the imminence of the end of the financial year and the fact that most of these refuges are now without funds?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I answer this question as the Minister representing the Minister for Health. It is a fact that all States, with the exception of Queensland, are funding women’s refuges from the Community Health Program funds which were given to them in the Budget of last year. As has been stated previously, the Prime Minister has requested the Queensland Government to fund the refuges which were the subject of funds given to them under the Community Health Program in the Budget. But I understand that that has not yet eventuated. As far as any new projects are concerned, at the present time the Government is in the course of Budget preparation and no new projects are under consideration as matters set aside from the Budget preparations. So any announcements of new programs other than those which are presently dealt with under the Community Health Program would be a matter of Budget announcement.

page 786

QUESTION

PARLIAMENT HOUSE SECURITY

Senator THOMAS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I direct a question to you, Mr President. I am concerned at the apparent lack of security arrangements existing at present in Parliament House. Last week during the Inter-Parliamentary Union meetings held at Parliament House people with direct business in Parliament House were issued with special passes to allow them to gain entrance. Would you, Mr President, give consideration to implementing the use of passes to ensure that the security arrangements in Parliament House can be improved?

The PRESIDENT:

– I can understand and appreciate the honourable senator’s concern that there should be adequate security arrangements in Parliament House. The question of the desirability of special passes being issued and being required to be shown by people with direct business in Parliament House is one that has been considered a number of times in the past and is still under consideration. Many other parliaments, including that of Great Britain, I understand, have, for security reasons, established a system of entry to their parliamentary buildings by pass only. The question of security arrangements in Parliament House is a matter which Mr Speaker and I have under continuing review and one in regard to which we are always ready to hear the views and suggestions of members. Indeed, the awareness of honourable senators of the need for security arrangements and acceptance of them is of vital importance in attaining adequate security. You may be assured, Senator Thomas, that your suggestion will receive every consideration.

page 786

QUESTION

DEFENCE FORCES PENSIONS

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer: Has the Minister noted the Press release issued by Mr Viner, as Minister Assisting the Treasurer, in which he indicates that Cabinet has decided to introduce amendments to the income tax laws so that all pensions paid in future under the superannuation scheme for members of the defence forces will be liable to taxation? Are the amendments proposed as a result of a High Court decision that such pensions are not taxable? Mr Viner further stated that the amendments that are proposed will be applied to pensions paid after the next pension payment day, 2 1 April 1977. As this Cabinet decision on the proposed amendments increases the cost to a certain section of the community- the pensions will become taxable after 21 April- is it contrary to the wages and prices pause?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-Senator Cavanagh asked whether I have seen the Press statement issued by the Minister Assisting the Treasurer. I have not. The balance of the question is based on information in the Press statement, which 1 have not seen. I cannot answer those parts of the question without having access to what the Minister really said. I ask the honourable senator to put his question on notice.

page 786

QUESTION

IAC (HOLDINGS) LTD

Senator LEWIS:
VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs: Is he aware that the Australian Shareholders’ Association has complained: (i) about lack of information given to shareholders of IAC (Holdings) Ltd about a takeover bid by Citicorp Services Inc. (ii) that IAC shareholders will receive only a summary of an independent report on the bid prepared by Hill Samuel Aust. Ltd? Further, is the Minister aware of proposals to set up a shareholders ‘ tribunal with power to investigate complaints by individual shareholders? Can the Minister say whether the Government favours the proposal and, if so, what it might do to help to establish it? If not, can the Minister say what alternative proposals the Government has to assist small shareholders who have complaints about the actions of directors of public companies?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-I read in the Press of the complaints about lack of information provided to shareholders of IAC (Holdings) Ltd. I think the complaints were made by some of the shareholders and certainly by the Australian Shareholders’ Association, which Senator Lewis mentioned. The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, whom I represent, also has had his attention drawn to this matter. However, at the present time this matter seems to come purely within the realm of State law. IAC (Holdings) Ltd is incorporated in Victoria. Of course matters affecting the administration of that company are for the Victorian Commissioner for Corporate Affairs. Therefore I think the questions that have been asked on this matter should be directed to the Victorian Attorney-General or to other Victorian authorities.

Regarding the rather broader issue that Senator Lewis raises as to a proposal for a shareholders’ tribunal, I remind the Senate of discussions that have been going on and are going on between the Commonwealth and State governments on the establishment of a national corporation and securities commission and national legislation covering the securities industry and companies. The proposal of Mr Walker, the New South Wales Attorney-General, is highly relevant to this question concerning the terms which would be contained in such legislation. It would be a particularly new initiative. The Senate will know that agreement in principle has been reached recently by the Commonwealth and the State governments on this matter. The Ministers concerned are meeting again in Perth on 6 May and no doubt Mr Walker’s proposal will be raised by him there. Certainly it will be discussed at some time by these Ministers. They are all seeking at this stage to reach some firm conclusions on the matter of principle and the implementation of national legislation. No doubt this matter will be considered in due course in the negotiations.

page 787

QUESTION

PRICES AND WAGES FREEZE: PERISHABLES

Senator GIETZELT:

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I refer to the statement of the Prime Minister that the price of perishables will be included in the current proposal for a wage-price freeze- a statement which repudiated the pronouncement previously made by the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Sinclair. In view of the conflict, which I now accept has been resolved, I ask the Minister: What steps has the Government taken or is it proposing to take to seek discussions and agreement with farm leaders, producers, wholesalers and retailers to achieve that objective of stabilising basic food prices?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

– I have no direct knowledge at the moment. I will seek the information for the honourable senator.

page 787

QUESTION

SECRET BALLOT LEGISLATION

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. Since the introduction by this Government last year of the secret ballot legislation can the Minister give the figures of unions which have changed from union run elections to elections run by the Commonwealth Electoral Office?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– The amendments, to which Senator Walters refers, to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act providing for secret ballots for union elections came into operation only about 8 months ago. The Government is pleased to note that its expectations appear to be being fulfilled in regard to the application of or resort to these provisions. Before the introduction of these amendments some 57 out of 145 employee organisations registered under the Act had, since 1955, availed themselves of the provisions for secret ballots. Since last August a further 12 employee organisations have lodged requests for officially conducted ballots. This represents quite a substantial increase in the number of unions utilising the provisions. There seems to be no reason why this trend should not continue.

page 787

QUESTION

PRICES AND WAGES FREEZE: GOVERNMENT RESTRAINING ACTION

Senator McINTOSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. During the 90-day price-wage freeze proposed by the Prime Minister and the State Premiers last week, will the Australian Government publicly denounce the price rise of any item or commodity? If that action fails to restrain any price increase, what action does the Australian Government propose to take?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

– I understood that it was a call by the heads of the 6 States and the Federal Government for a voluntary pause, in which they sought the support of all sections of the community in respect of the whole range of prices and incomes. I understand that there has been an enormous response to the Prime Minister’s call to people to abide by the prices freeze. Opposition senators are interjecting already. There has been a considerable response to date from a number of professional organisations including, I understand, the Australian Medical Association. It is fairly obvious that the call for restraint will not work unless the Australian Council of Trade Unions, its colleagues and honourable senators opposite are prepared to fall in behind the 6 Premiers- 3 Labor, 2 Liberal and one National Party. No person in any category in Australia ought to stand aloof from the call. I think that would be the view of everyone in this chamber, would it not?

Senator Primmer:

– It will reduce wages only.

Senator WITHERS:

– It is not the opinion of Senator Primmer. Do you not believe in it, Senator Primmer?

Senator Primmer:

– No.

Senator WITHERS:

-Senator Primmer does not believe in it. Other honourable senators who are trying to interject do not believe in it.

Senator Cavanagh:

– All it will do is reduce wages.

Senator WITHERS:

-Senator Cavanagh does not support it. Senator McLaren and Senator Walsh do not believe that they should get behind it. Are we being told by Labor senators opposite that they will not support the present call by three of their State colleagues, the Premiers of

New South Wales, South Australia and Tasmania? Is that what they are saying at the moment? Are they saying that they will not support the call for a 3 months pause in prices and incomes?

Senator Cavanagh:

– We are interested in the working man whom you are trying to rob.

Senator WITHERS:

-Obviously Senator Cavanagh does not believe in the proposal. Of course it will work providing everybody participates. But it will not work if the odd person snipes and sneers at it, tries to make it fail, takes every opportunity to condemn it and be a smartAlec about it. Everybody who is taking that view will stand condemned for promoting and seeking to maintain inflation in this country. They are the people who ought to be condemned, Senator Mcintosh. You should not come into the chamber and ask the Government and the Prime Minister to condemn one individual here and one individual company there. This nation will condemn any politician who is not prepared to get behind this proposal. It will condemn any employer or employee group that will not get behind it. I hope that we will not just pick one individual here or there but that the whole of the Parliament and the whole of the country will condemn any person or group, regardless of its politics- capital or labour- that is not prepared to get behind this operation.

page 788

QUESTION

LIE DETECTORS

Senator MESSNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Attorney-General a question. 1 refer to a recent Press report that a Sydney entrepreneur plans to import lie detection devices for sale to credit agencies, finance companies and other such bodies for use in assessing the quality of replies to questions addressed to applicants, seeking information as to their credit worthiness? Does the Minister agree that such activities should be closely surveilled to ensure that individual rights are not infringed? Accordingly, will he alert his colleague, the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, who is responsible for customs, to the possibility of the import of such machines with a view to liaising with the Attorney-General in this matter?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I have not seen or heard of the proposal of some entrepreneur to import lie detectors into the community to which Senator Messner referred. The matter certainly has very wide implications in relation to privacy rights. I certainly will refer the question to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs and to the Attorney-General in accordance with the proposal by Senator Messner. I would add that there is a reference by this Government to the Law Reform Commission in regard to matters of privacy. This question may well be appropriately considered by that Commission in the course of its inquiry.

page 788

QUESTION

PRICES AND WAGES FREEZE: SEASONAL AND AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS

Senator WRIEDT:

– I direct my question to Senator Webster in his capacity as Leader of the National Country Party in this chamber. Is he one of those honourable senators in this chamber to whom the Leader of the Government in the Senate referred who are prepared to indicate support for price control?

Senator Withers:

– I did not say that. I said a price pause.

Senator WRIEDT:

– All right, a price pause. Does Senator Webster agree with his own Deputy Leader of the National Country Party, Mr Sinclair, who made it quite clear that such a price freeze on seasonal and agricultural products is just not possible, or does he agree with the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Liberal Party, that he determines what the policy will be and that the National Country Party will fall into line? Or, alternatively, does he agree with the statement by the Prime Minister which appeared in the New South Wales Country Life of 25 August last year when the Prime Minister, in answer to the question ‘Would you like the powers to negotiate price and wage freezes with employers and unionists?’, said:

No country which has adopted hard, fixed controls of that kind has found them successful. What has tended to happen under compulsion is that pressures get built up, and explode when the freeze lifts.

With which statement does Senator Webster agree? Does he agree with Mr Sinclair, Mr Fraser or Senator Withers?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-Firstly, I question whether a statement such as that which has just come from the Leader of the Opposition should be permitted. At times he has complained of the opportunity being taken at question time to make a statement. Obviously that is what he has just done. I do not know that I should be asked to respond to such a question when in fact the Leader of the Government in the Senate had to prompt the Leader of the Opposition on what he meant. Am I to try to interpret what the Leader of the Opposition is attempting to say? If he intended to ask me whether I am one of those members of Parliament who agree with the pause in price rises, I want to say that I fully endorse the Government’s proposal in relation to it. If the Leader of the Opposition puts on notice the six or seven other questions he asked I shall give them my consideration.

Senator WRIEDT:

- Mr President, in view of the answer I received I wish to ask a supplementary question. In view of Senator Webster’s statement that he fully supports the Government’s position as declared by the Prime Minister I ask this question: As the person leading the National Country Party in this chamber will he indicate the guidelines whereby a pause in the rise of prices for agricultural products can be implemented over a 3 months period? Is he aware of the disastrous situation that took place in the United States of America when its government also endeavoured to do the same thing but found that prices exploded after the temporary price pause? If the Prime Minister will not give that information, will Senator Webster do it on behalf of the rural people of Australia?

Senator WEBSTER:

-By no means is that a supplementary question. It relates to an entirely separate issue.

Senator McLaren:

– Stand up to it.

Senator WEBSTER:

-Listen to the fowl noises coming from the other side. If the honourable senator will put his question on notice I will seek an answer for him.

page 789

UNEMPLOYMENT

Matter of Urgency

The PRESIDENT:

– I inform the Senate that I have received the following letter dated 20 April 1977 from Senator Grimes:

Dear Mr President,

In accordance with standing order 64, I give notice that today I shall move that, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The Government’s illegal and unfair actions in depriving the unemployed of employment benefits’.

Is the motion supported?

More than the number of Senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places-

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

– I move:

In moving this motion regarding the matter of urgency today, I, on behalf of the Opposition, believe that I am moving for discussion on a very important subject, a subject important to this whole country and a subject of great importance to this Parliament. The matter of urgency, namely the Government’s illegal and unfair actions in depriving the unemployed of unemployed benefits, is moved, firstly, because of the Government’s actions towards the unemployed in this country; secondly, because the number of unemployed in this country is rising each month, and the Government is taking no action to prevent the rise; thirdly, because of the Government’s actions in depriving the Aboriginal inhabitants of Queensland of their rightful unemployment benefit by directives last year; and, fourthly because of the very great importance of the moment in view of the implications of the High Court ‘s decision in the Karen Green case in Melbourne on Friday last. I am aware that the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) and her Director-General stated in answer to questions from the Press that the High Court brought down a judgment and informal declarations and that until the declarations are made formal they will not give an indication of the Government’s attitude, but they may make submissions regarding the nature of these declarations. Despite the fact that these declarations are not formal, Judge Stephen in his judgment made perfectly clear what the content of those declarations will be. He made perfectly clear in the draft declarations what he intends to do and what he intends the Government to do.

The only thing which may be in dispute is the actual wording of the declarations. Those declarations were, firstly, to request the DirectorGeneral of Social Security to consider the case of Miss Green- I will come to others later- in view of section 107 of the Social Services Act and not on the basis of some blanket decree or declaration by the Director-General of Social Security; secondly, the fact that the claimant, Karen Green, had left school should not be the only decisive factor in determining her eligibility for unemployment benefit. There is no doubt about what Judge Stephen said in his judgment. There is no doubt as to what Judge Stephen intends in his declarations. In this case the Government has been caught out. It has been caught out in a shoddy attempt to bypass the law on the payment of unemployment benefit to school leavers. The High Court ruled that the Director-General of Social Security, acting under Government instructions, exceeded his powers in denying unemployment benefit to all school leavers for up to 3 months. The Opposition repeatedly asserted that this was the case. The Court agrees. I suggest that to this Government’s record of incompetent and insensitive treatment of the young unemployed in this country can now be added illegality.

The case of Karen Green involved a 16-year- old Hobart girl who had been refused unemployment benefit under the harsh and all-embracing decree issued by the Director-General of Social Security regarding school leavers. There was nothing unusual about Miss Green’s case. I will quote from page 10 of Mr Justice Stephen’s judgment:

I must, I think, infer that very many other school leavers would have been in precisely her position.

She had left school and was seeking work and was unemployed. At page 14 of the judgment Mr Justice Stephen said:

The state of being ‘unemployed’ 1 regard as satisfied as soon as the student leaves school, with the intention of not returning but, instead, of entering the work force, and begins to seek employment.

The Court has ruled in this case that the Government’s actions did not comply with the provisions of the Social Services Act of 1947. We submit that the same must apply to thousands of other school leavers. Of the Government’s claim that it took this action to prevent abuses of the Act, Mr Justice Stephen at page 19 of his judgment in relation to prevention of abuses of the Act succinctly stated:

  1. . cannot be made the occasion for disregarding the statutory criteria of eligibility in favour of a requirement which finds no place in the legislation and the effect of which is to deny, for almost 3 months, to the great body of honest school leavers an opportunity to qualify for unemployment benefits.

I suggest that we should look at the events which led up to this judgment and at other acts by the Government in dealing with the unemployed in this country. Before gaining office a campaign was commenced by members of the coalition parties to denigrate the unemployed. The term dole bludger was introduced. Time and time again we heard speeches casting aspersions on the bona fides of people receiving unemployment benefits. Great emphasis was made in the Prime Minister’s policy speech about paying unemployment benefits to those who were genuinely unemployed and not to those who were lying on the beaches at Surfers Paradise and other places. I submit that since being in office the policy of the Government has been to maintain a large pool of unemployed to use as an economic tool. A campaign has continued to stigmatise the unemployed as misfits and idlers.

In recent months we have heard members of the coalition parties denigrating the unemployed, suggesting that many of them were not worthy of the benefits they received and suggesting that the problems in this country were due to people who were receiving unemployment benefits when they should not. Finally, the

Government decided to deprive many unemployed of benefits. This was done not by legislation but by the decree of the Director-General of Social Security under instructions from the Government. I suggest that the whole series of events has been a combination of mismanagement, of meanness and of arrogance. The treatment of school leavers is only one example of the Government’s determination to make life difficult for the unemployed. In this case Judge Stephen has ruled that action illegal. A series of stringent and illiberal work tests was introduced early in 1976. An arbitrary decision was made to exclude from unemployment benefits for 6 weeks all those who had left jobs voluntarily for any reason. I would think that this action is now in question. In November 1976 the Government sought to reduce the number of people on unemployment benefits and the number of people registered for employment in the holiday period by directing managers of the Commonwealth Employment Service to reduce figures to ‘rock bottom’.

In February this year the Leader of the Opposition in the other place, Mr Whitlam, tabled a minute from the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations showing that Commonwealth Employment Service managers in Queensland had been instructed to take benefits away from Aboriginals who lived on missions and on government settlements. I suggest the Government has limited the opportunities of those who can least look after themselves, such as the young and the Aboriginals. The Government has limited the opportunity of these people to receive benefits when they are unemployed. Before the High Court the case for the Government asserted that unemployment benefits were a gratuity and not a right. The Opposition asserts that people in this country who are unemployed for no reason under their control and who are seeking work are entitled to unemployment benefits as a right. I suggest that the Government may have to change its view on this argument that unemployment benefits are a gratuity, in view of the judgment of Mr Justice Stephen.

Despite the efforts of the Government to limit the number of people who register as unemployed and to limit the number of people who receive the unemployment benefit, the figures from the Commonwealth Employment Service showing those registered as unemployed are higher than ever and the number of unemployment benefits paid to people who are unemployed have increased month by month. There have been 135 000 more unemployment benefits paid so far this financial year than for the same time last financial year and that figure would have been higher had it not been for the restrictions placed on people receiving the unemployment benefit although they were unemployed. People may question the accuracy of the Commonwealth Employment Service figures. People may question the accuracy of the figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics although those figures year after year are comparable. However, the figures showing the number of unemployment benefits paid are absolutely accurate and that number is rising inexorably, a sure indication that unemployment is increasing in this country and that unemployment here is getting very much worse contrary to the experience in most other comparable countries.

Instead of attacking the lack of jobs in the community, the Government has resorted to shoddy devices to exclude the unemployed from receiving the unemployment benefit. The Government’s decision not to pay the unemployment benefit to unemployed school leavers in the school vacation was announced on 23 March 1976. This was a new provision. No justification for it can be found in the Social Services Act and in all the years that the Act has been in operation no one has asserted that such justification exists. The Opposition has repeatedly asserted that apart from the unfairness of such a move, no such power to do what the Government did exists in the Act. On 2 December last the Minister for Social Security was asked to table any legal advisings which the Director-General of her Department had used in drawing up his directive or had used to ensure that his directive was legal. Her response was to table an irrelevant opinion more than 10 years old concerning tertiary students on vacation, an opinion with which no one on this side of the House would disagree and an opinion which referred to tertiary students who were on vacation and who were going back to their studies. It was not an opinion which had any bearing on the paying of the unemployment benefit to school leavers.

The Minister again was asked on 8 December 1976 to produce a relevant opinion relating to school leavers. She replied that she would seek such information and see whether it could be tabled. Nothing has been produced since. One wonders how such advice, if it exists, differs from the judgment of Mr Justice Stephen. 1 believe that questions must be asked about why the Government proceeded in this way without amending the Act. The Government’s intentions were announced in March 1976. There was plenty of time to prepare and draw up legislation to amend the Act but the Government did not do so. We must ask why the Government did not use its obvious numbers in this Parliament to amend the Social Services Act so as to exclude school leavers if it felt they should be excluded in order to put the issue beyond doubt. Was this policy of excluding them by decree part of a policy to avoid legislation in this Parliament wherever possible? Was the Government ashamed of this policy in some way? Was it concerned about the reactions of its own members? Was the memory of its failure to pass legislation in this chamber to abolish the funeral benefit still fresh in the mind of the Government? Did it wish to avoid another humiliation in this Parliament? If that was the reason, I suggest that the Government has been humiliated in the High Court.

A young girl, the daughter of a widow pensioner, who had never been in court and had never been in the public eye before in her life was courageous enough to take part in a High Court challenge to question the Government ‘s right to act in this way. And the Government was defeated. What has happened is that the Government has deliberately tried to by-pass this Parliament and has been exposed in its efforts to do so. I suggest that it may well be that such actions are Government policy. Cabinet decision No. 1615 of 9 October which found its way, as so many other documents do in this place, to the Press states ‘except in special circumstances Bills should not be drafted unless they are necessary as a matter of law to achieve the desired purpose’. On 27 October 1976 the Australian Financial Review commented:

The Legislative Committee of Cabinet . . . has effectively opted for procedures which would certainly limit the opportunity for parliamentary debate on legislation.

Quoting from the minute, it said:

The Committee has agreed that Parliamentary Counsel give particular attention in drafting Bills to the possibility of leaving to regulations details that are liable to frequent change.

The Financial Review goes on to say:

The combination of these changes of emphasis goes against much that has been preached by the Government about the importance of Parliament.

Of course it does. We have had endless preaching, both when Labor was in Government and now when we are in Opposition, from honourable senators opposite about the importance of Parliament and the importance of the parliamentary process. Yet the Government is avoiding the parliamentary process by an arrogant and dictatorial attitude to legislation.

The Opposition has never suggested that students on vacation should receive benefits, but equally it has always asserted that the way to correct abuses is to legislate or to take action under existing legislation. In denying benefits to all school leavers the Government has disadvantaged the less well off particularly- people like Karen Green and her mother- who need the meagre unemployment benefits that are paid to juniors to give them money for transport and clothes to be more easily able to seek work. In attacking the rights of school leavers, the Government has attacked- I suggest it has done so illegally- the largest single group and the fastest growing group in our large unemployed populationour youth. In metropolitan areas of Australia over one-third of our unemployed are under twenty-one though they make up only 12 per cent or so of the work force. In rural areas the percentage is higher.

At the end of December 1976 there were 47 900 school leavers registered for unemployment. From November 1976 to the commencement of the school year in 1977, 34 455 school leavers applied for the benefit. Since the resumption of the school year 32 368 have been granted benefits. The figures are the Minister’s in answer to a question. She claimed in answer to the same question not to be able to tell me how much has been saved by the Government’s policy, perhaps in an effort not to tell me how much it will cost the Government if the judgment in the Karen Green case causes many thousands to be paid the unemployment benefits of which they were deprived. However, we know and every member of this Parliament knows how many thousands of school leavers were discouraged from registering with the Commonwealth Employment Service and who therefore do not appear in any of these figures. They were discouraged from applying for benefits by the Government’s announcements and by the actions of a very few officers of the Department.

It is not only the young unemployed who have been affected by the Government’s policies. At times the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has shown an apparent concern for the very real problem of Aboriginal unemployment in this country. In April last year in the Parliament, in reply to what was obviously a Dorothy Dix question from a member of his Party, he mounted a spirited attack on the number of Aboriginals who were paid unemployment benefits under the Whitlam Government. This year he hopes, by underhand methods, to reduce the number of Aboriginals receiving unemployment benefits.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honourable senator must not use words such as ‘underhand methods’ with respect to the Prime Minister.

Senator GRIMES:

– I withdraw them and say that by incorrect methods or by dubious methods he hopes to reduce the numbers of Aboriginals who receive unemployment benefits. In 1973 when the previous Labor Government was in power an effort was made- not before time, I might add- to improve the real living standards of Aboriginals. One of the methods used was to make unemployment benefits available to Aboriginal people on the same terms as they were available to the rest of the population of this country. We considered Aboriginals to be members of the population of this country. If there was no work available in their areas they were entitled to apply for standard unemployment benefits, whether they lived in a small outback community, on a mission or on a government settlement, lt was their entitlement, unaccompanied by adherence to arbitrary rules of morals and restrictions and subject only to the work test. Because it was not possible to find money for work projects in every area where Aboriginals lived- it is still not possible to find money in all those areas- many Aboriginals quite correctly received unemployment benefits for the first time, and the numbers on benefits increased, hence the increased number of Aboriginals receiving benefits. Although many Aboriginal communities remained in ignorance of this right and others preferred not to take it, many did take the opportunity to increase their incomes and the incomes of their communities.

The Government’s new anxiety to reduce the number of jobless Aboriginal people receiving unemployment benefits on the list takes the form not of finding them work, not of seeking work projects to enable them to work, but of denying their eligibility for benefits. Nothing will be easier than for the Prime Minister to point to a smaller list of unemployed Aboriginals. All that the Government has to do by decree, ignoring the consequences to human dignity and hardship, is to reduce the number of people on benefits by declaring them ineligible for benefits. The Aboriginals in this situation are unable to fight back. The Government is looking for far more than improvement in the figures. It is hoping to save a few thousand dollars at the expense of people who already cannot fight back- those in the out of the way regions of Australia. In his policy speech the Prime Minister said:

We will be generous to those who can’t find work and want a job.

He has been exposed by every action he has taken against the unemployed to be ungenerous and he has been exposed by the High Court to be using wrong and unlawful methods.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honourable senator may not make allegations of unlawful methods.

Senator GRIMES:

-Perhaps the word ‘illegal’ is better than ‘unlawful’. If you prefer the word illegal ‘ I will certainly use it.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honourable senator is pre-empting my decision in using that word in that context. In my estimation that is a very undesirable form of expression.

Senator GRIMES:

– I bow to your superior judgment, Mr President. In backing the assertions I have made let me quote from the circular which was distributed on 27 January 1977 by Mr K. G. Cruice, the Acting Assistant Director of Employment Services in the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. This refers to Aboriginals living in areas of Queensland. The circular states:

Where claimants indicate that they are not prepared to work away from the mission or settlement and it is clear that there are no employment opportunities in that particular area, the claimant should be regarded as unavailable for work and lapsed from the register.

Hence there would be an immediate drop in apparent unemployment in this country. This is not a condition imposed on unemployed nonAboriginals. Certainly it is not imposed on those with families in settled areas. It is even more obnoxious because the Government is aware of the strong ties Aboriginals have with their traditional land and with their traditional tribal and family structures. It is a changing area of attitude following the long years in which they have been encouraged to be dependent on the missions and settlements.

I believe it is cruel and, in fact, shameful that for a marginal reduction of dollars and a marginal reduction in the numbers on unemployment benefits the Government pulls away the right of the Aboriginals to the unemployment benefit- an unemployment benefit, I might add, which already is below the poverty line. There will be a tendency to condemn the Aboriginal people so affected to indefinite dependency, to aggravate the conditions of sub-standard nutrition and health and to make it more difficult for any of them to break away from the miserable conditions in which many of them are found. However, the Government will persist in this attitude. It will persist in its attempt to reduce the number of Aboriginals on the unemployed lists, to reduce the number of school children on the unemployed lists, and it will make it more difficult for both these groups to seek jobs and to improve themselves.

I suggest that unemployment is our most menacing social problem at the moment. The social evils associated with unemployment in the young- the increased incidence of drug taking, the increased incidence of crime, the sense of helplessness and of frustration, and the loss of motivation which chronic unemployment engenders in people- are aggravated both by the actions of some people in this community to rubbish and to denigrate the unemployed and the actions of the Government in depriving them of income support. The Opposition asserts that the Government’s policy in the case of school leavers and in the case of Aboriginals was illiberal, unfair and aimed at those who are least able to look after themselves. The Government- and, I suggest, the High Court- agrees with the Opposition that the method of implementation of this denial of benefits was illegal and that government by decree should not replace government according to the law of this country.

The Government has been exposed in a breach of its powers under the law and has been exposed to be in defiance of Parliament. We believe it has a moral obligation to redress the wrong it has done to thousands of unemployed. We believe those unemployed school leavers who registered for unemployment benefits and were refused benefits under the general directive of the Department of Social Security should have their cases reconsidered. In fact, in most cases, under section 107 of the Social Services Act, we believe they will be entitled to unemployment benefits. We believe it is in contempt of the rights and welfare of the unemployed and in contempt of the legal procedures of this land to conduct government business the way this Government has conducted it. We believe that this action by the Government has demonstrated that the Government not only has no concern for the welfare of the unemployed- for their need of income support- but also is unconcerned about the proper processes of this Parliament. I suggest that the Government has demonstrated itself to be corrupt in the true meaning of that word.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– Last Friday Mr Justice Stephen in the High Court of Australia handed down a judgment resulting from the action of Karen Christine Green through Patricia Ann Truman v. Laurie Daniels, Brian Wraith and the Commonwealth of Australia. I seek leave to have that judgment incorporated in Hansard, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted?

Senator Georges:

- Mr President -

The PRESIDENT:

-Objection has been taken?

Senator Georges:

– Is the Minister tabling the judgment?

Senator Jessop:

– She is incorporating it. .

Senator Georges:

– In other words, she is tabling a judgment?

The PRESIDENT:

– You sought leave to incorporate it, Senator Guilfoyle?

Senator Guilfoyle:

– I shall seek leave to table it and to incorporate it, if that is desired, Mr President.

Senator Georges:

– Yes.

The PRESIDENT:

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

The document read as follows-

KAREN CHRISTINE GREEN (by her next friend PATRICIA ANN TRUMAN) v.

LAURIE DANIELS, BRIAN WRAITH AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

JUDGMENT STEPHEN/

The plaintiff is a girl of sixteen who completed her fourth form school year on 26 November 1976 at Clarence High School in one of Hobart ‘s eastern shore suburbs.

During 1976, while still at school, she had discussed with a school guidance officer and others possible employment opportunities. On 25 November 1976, the day before the end of the school year, she visited a branch office of the Commonwealth Employment Service so that she might register for employment and seek assistance in finding it. She duly registered and some details of her school record were taken. She was told that there was no work available for her and that she should call in again later on when she had received her complete school results.

She received these results some three weeks later and called again with them at the office of the Service on 20 December 1976; she was interviewed, was told that no jobs were available and that she could not as yet receive an unemployment benefit because school leavers would not be receiving it until 22 February 1 977. Details of her school record, as previously recorded, were supplemented and corrected in the light of the examination results she had brought with her. She was handed a printed form of letter from the Department of Social Security, apparently prepared for distribution to those leaving school that year, together with two forms issued by that Department and headed respectively ‘ Record of Applications for Employment’ and ‘First Income Statement’. These she was told to bring back, duly completed, on 22 February 1977. She then also completed a claim for unemployment benefit. She was then taken to the Department of Social Security where she made application for a Special Benefit available in certain instances to those not entitled to unemployment benefits; however this application was later rejected upon the ground that her mother, a widow, would continue to receive an additional benefit in respect of her until she obtained employment or until 22 February 1977, whichever should be the earlier.

Then, in January 1977, as a result of receiving a letter from the Commonwealth Employment Service, she had a telephone conversation with an officer of the Service in which she was asked whether she had already ‘ registered for unemployment’. On hearing that she had, the officer told her, in response to a question, that she need not again visit his office until 22 February and that she should then bring with her the completed forms she had been given.

During the months of December, January and February the plaintiff made a number of efforts to secure employment, she responded to advertisements and registered with two private employment agencies but all without success.

On 22 February 1977 she again called at the office of the Commonwealth Employment Service with the forms which she had by then completed and which she then lodged. She asked about job vacancies and, after some inquiry was made, was told that there were none. She filled in a further form, concerned with tax instalment rebates, and shortly afterwards received her first cheque for unemployment benefits, computed as from 22 February 1977.

The plaintiff is still unemployed despite what are admitted to have been reasonable steps taken by her since 22 February 1977 to find employment; consequently she is still in receipt of unemployment benefits. It is agreed that during the period from 20 December 1976 until 22 February 1977 the Commonwealth Employment Service was unable itself to find employment for her or to refer her to any available positions.

I find as further facts that by the end of her 1976 school year the plaintiff had determined to leave school and to seek employment at the end of the school year in November 1976; that she abided by this decision and to the best of her ability sought employment, without success, from the month of December 1976 onwards; that her lack of success was not due to any want of trying but rather to her relatively poor qualifications combined with the depressed employment conditions then being experienced in Hobart.

It is in the light of these facts, together with others to which I shall refer in the course of this j judgment, that the plaintiff ‘s claims to relief are to be determined. These claims are, as I understand them, essentially two. First, that she was entitled to unemployment benefits throughout the period from 27 November 1976 until 22 February 1977, that they have been wrongfully denied to her and that she is entitled to a declaration accordingly and to payment of the arrears due to her. Secondly, that she is entitled to damages reflecting the amount of lost unemployment benefits, her entitlement being founded upon the negligence of the defendants in misinforming her concerning her lawful entitlement to such benefits. This second claim to relief is contingent upon success in establishing the entitlement to unemployment benefits claimed in the first claim and is put forward lest that entitlement, if established, should nevertheless prove fruitless because of the terms of s. 1 32 ( 3 ) of the Social Services Aci 1947. That section provides that an instalment of a benefit shall not be paid later than twenty-eight days after it became payable unless otherwise determined by the Director-General.

I put aside this second claim for the moment and turn to the first, the plaintiff’s claimed entitlement to unemployment benefits from 27 November 1976 until 22 February 1977.

Section 107 of the Act provides that a person who

has attained the age of sixteen years but, being a male, has not attained the age of sixty-five years or. being a female, has not attained the age of sixty years:

is residing in Australia on the date on which he lodges his claim for a benefit and-

has been continuously so resident for a period of not less than twelve months immediately preceding that date: or

satisfies the Director-General that he is likely to remain permanently in Australia; and

satisfies the Director-General that he-

i) is unemployed and that his unemployment is not due to his being a direct participant in a strike

is capable of undertaking, and is willing to undertake, work which, in the opinion of the Director-General, is suitable to be undertaken by that person; and

has taken reasonable steps to obtain such work, shall be qualified to receive an unemployment benefit’.

It is not in dispute that the plaintiff satisfies the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b). Had paragraph (c) concerned itself only with the factual circumstances referred to in its three sub-paragraphs, I would have no difficulty in concluding that on 20 December 1976, the plaintiff had complied with the criteria in at least sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii).

However, paragraph (c) is not directly concerned with factual circumstances, but rather with the state of mind of the Director-General. The criteria it prescribes are matters to which the Director-General must turn his mind and it is his satisfaction as to an applicant’s compliance with them that determines whether or not an applicant becomes ‘qualified to receive an unemployment benefit’. It was conceded that in the case of sub-paragraph (ii) he had been satisfied on or about 20 December of the plaintiff’s compliance with it. There is no doubt but that it was not until 22 February 1977 that the Director-General became satisfied in terms of subparagraphs (i) and (iii) of paragraph (c). The question is, therefore, whether he wrongly precluded himself from attaining the requisite state of satisfaction, and, if he did do so, what are the consequences in law for the plaintiff and the remedies open to her.

Counsel for the plaintiff contends that he did so preclude himself, that he ought to have been so satisfied and that in those circumstances this Court should now substitute for his erroneous want of satisfaction what should have been the state of satisfaction which, by 20 December 1976, he ought to have attained. The plaintiff, it is said, thus becomes entitled to an appropriate declaration as to qualification for unemployment benefit as from that date and to payment of benefits from that day onwards. It was, so it is said, only as a result of the application to the plaintiff of an inflexible policy ( better perhaps expressed as the inflexible application to her of a policy) that the Director-General failed to be satisfied; that policy was that school leavers should not be treated as qualifying for benefits until the end of the school holidays.

For the defendant it is said that the departmental policy was no more than a quite appropriate general rule, which was subject to exceptions for special cases and which was necessary to provide general guidance in dealing with the difficult case of school leavers and their entry into the work force. The plaintiff was offered the opportunity of showing that hers was a special case but she failed to take it, by her failure accepting the view that she had not then satisfied the Director-General. In any event, so it is said, the plaintiff by 20 December 1976, had not stated that she was both unemployed and was not returning to school; not until 22 February 1977 did she inform the Department that she had in the interim been seeking employment. Accordingly, the Director-General’s want of satisfaction was entirely reasonable. It was further contended that the plaintiff’s writ, issued on 24 December 1976, was premature, that if any remedy were open to her, it was by way of mandamus, that this Court could not substitute its satisfaction for that of the

Director-General, that any state of satisfaction could not be made retrospective; that in any event unemployment benefits are by way of a gratuity which may not be sued for and recovered, as the plaintiff seeks to do.

These, then, were the general areas of dispute over which argument ranged; of course my description, confined to a few sentences, does less than justice to the fullness of the arguments relied upon.

At the heart of this litigation lies what was called in argument the departmental policy applicable to the grant of unemployment benefits to those leaving school at the end of the 1 976 school year. This policy itself is described in some detail in a departmental publication the relevant portions of which are in evidence, the ‘Unemployment and Sickness Benefit Manual’. This manual contains instructions concerning the administration of the present legislation and paragraph 7.301 states that full-time students are ineligible for unemployment benefits, whether in term time or during vacations. Paragraph 7.302 refers to past instances in which ‘school leaver claimants’ had been paid unemployment benefits, only later to resume their studies. Thus, it is said, they received benefits to which they would not otherwise have been entitled. Then follows this passage:

As a general rule, therefore, people who leave school and register for employment within 28 days prior to the end of the school year, or at any time during the long vacation, will not be in a position, until the end of the school vacation, to satisfy the conditions of eligibility for unemployment benefit which require the claimant to be unemployed and to have taken reasonable steps to obtain work.

One who leaves school well before the end of the school year is, apparently, to be treated significantly differently; instead of having the general rule applied to him, his particular circumstances arc, in each instance, to be considered. Thus paragraph 7.303 reads:

Where a student claims that he has terminated his studies more than 28 days before the end of the official school year and that he intends to join the workforce, it will be necessary to look at the circumstances of the individual case to establish whether he has in fact ceased to be a student.’

Paragraph 7.304 puts the position affirmatively; its opening sentence reads:

A student who intends to enter the workforce and not resume his studies will, as a general rule, be eligible for unemployment benefit from the date of commencement of the following school year or from the seventh day after the date of lodgment of the claim, whichever is the later. ‘

A portion of the last sentence of this paragraph describes his position before that date arrives when it says: because of the operation of these instructions, there is no entitlement to payment’.

The operation of this policy is demonstrated by what is said in paragraph 7.307 about the special case of a student intending to resume his studies, but who is unable to do so at the resumption of the usual academic year and who seeks employment in the meanwhile. He will be eligible for unemployment benefit from the date of commencement of the school year subsequent to the cessation of his studies, or from the seventh day after the date of lodgment of his claim, whichever is the later, and until such time as he resumes his full-time studies.’

The policy, as it was applied to the plaintiff, first manifested itself when, on 20 December 1976, she was told in response to her application for unemployment benefit, that school leavers ‘were not getting it’ until 22 February 1977, the date when the school holidays ended. The standard form of letter addressed to school leavers which she was handed, after speaking of the need to satisfy the condition of eligibility for unemployment benefit relating to the taking of reasonable steps to obtain work, went on to say:

The effect of the above conditions is that, as a general rule, persons who leave school in November or December will not be in a position to meet the conditions of eligibility for unemployment benefit until the end of the school vacation’.

That letter ended with this paragraph:

Persons who left school at the end of the school year, who are not planning to undertake full-time education or training and who are still seeking employment at the end of the school vacation, will be eligible for unemployment benefit from the date of commencement of the new school year. ‘

Two further circumstances illustrate the application of the policy to the plaintiff. The ‘Record of Applications made for Employment’ which she was given on 20 December and which required to be filled in with particulars of job opportunities sought by her contained a printed box bearing the legend ‘date of lodgment’; when the form was handed to her it was filled in with the date ‘22.2.77 ‘. This had been written in by the issuing officer, who told her to bring the form back, completed with details of her applications for employment, in two months time on 22 February 1977, the end of the school holidays. Again when, on the 20 December, the Commonwealth Employment Service referred the plaintiff to the Department of Social Services, it was so that she might apply for a Special Benefit, a type of benefit only available to those not entitled to unemployment benefit.

Whatever hint of flexibility and of room for consideration of exceptional cases may be thought to be conveyed by the Manual’s use of the phrase ‘as a general rule’, repeated in the standard form of letter to school leavers, the application of the general rule to the plaintiff contained no suggestion of anything other than an inflexible rule, a rule which prevented her from being considered for unemployment benefit at any time prior to 22 February 1977. It is said on behalf of the defendants that the plaintiff has herself to blame for this, since she failed to tell the Department on 20 December or at any time prior to 22 February 1 977 what she had done on her own behalf by way of efforts to find employment.

To this, the plaintiff replies that she was not only not asked for such information, but was expressly told that it should only be supplied on the date fixed for her next visit to the Commonwealth Employment Service, at the end of the school holidays. But more than that, there was, in any event, nothing very exceptional about the plaintiff’s position of which she had to tell. I must, I think, infer that very many other school leavers would have been in precisely her position; that is, having decided to leave school, they would have taken some steps on their own account to seek employment, but would have met with no success. There was much evidence of the difficulties experienced by school leavers in obtaining employment in Hoban in the summer of 1976, including evidence that when advertisements of jobs available appeared in the daily press, very large numbers of applicants would appear in response. It is clear from the standard letter addressed to school leavers, from the ‘Record of Applications made for Employment’ and from a pamphlet which is in evidence ‘Help CES Help You’, apparently commonly issued to school leavers, that it was contemplated that school leavers should make their own endeavours to obtain employment as well as registering with the Commonwealth Employment Service. The plaintiff had, by 20 December, made about three such applications for employment; she made a number subsequently, but there is nothing to suggest that she did any more than any other school leaver in her position.

Accordingly, this is not, I think, a case of a person in an exceptional situation being denied the opportunity of having her particular circumstances considered on their peculiar merits, but rather one in which the plaintiff, together no doubt, with very many others, has been dealt with in accordance with a general administrative rule intended for just such an ordinary case as hers.

The question is, then, whether this general rule is no more than a permissible instruction by the Director-General to those to whom he has delegated his powers under s. 107 (c) as to how they are to determine whether they are satisfied of the matters there referred to; or whether on the contrary it reveals an attempted substitution of inconsistent departmental criteria for those which the Parliament has enacted as appropriate to qualify an applicant for unemployment benefit.

Before going to this question, there are two related matters to which I should briefly refer. First, 1 do not regard this case as involving the introduction of irrelevant factors into a decision-making process; the fact that a purported school leaver applies for unemployment benefit during the school holidays will bear upon, though it can hardly be at all conclusive of, the question whether he is truly an intending entrant into the work force or is, on the contrary, merely seeking unemployment benefit during a holiday interval occurring in the course of his continuing school career. The type of error involved in employing that fact as a conclusive test will not be that of permitting irrelevant factors to affect a decision-making process. Secondly, in saying this, I have adopted as correct what was implicit in the arguments of both parties, namely that a person is not unemployed within the meaning of s. 107 either when actually attending school or tertiary institution or when on vacation before returning to school or other institution. The term ‘unemployed’ is not defined in the Act and it would, in my view, be inconsistent with ordinary usage to describe such a student as unemployed in the context of this legislation’s provision of benefits for the unemployed. On the other hand, one leaving school with the intention of not returning to his studies but, instead, of seeking work and who begins to seek employment appears to me thereupon to answer the description of one who is unemployed. He will continue to do so so long as he remains out of employment and retains his intention of entering the workforce. This said, I return to examine the question earlier posed.

In doing so, it should be remarked that the function of the Director-General under s. 107 is to be distinguished from that of tribunals, such as licensing justices, which, in their exercise of discretionary powers to grant or refuse licences, may give effect to some general policy that they see as desirable so long as in doing so they do not preclude themselves from considering on its merits the exceptional case. The DirectorGeneral is not concerned, in his administration of s. 107, with the carrying out of any policy. No general discretion is conferred upon him: instead specific criteria are laid down by the Act and all that is left for him to do is to decide whether or not he attains a state of satisfaction that the circumstances exist to which each of these criteria refer. He must, no doubt, for the benefit of his delegates and in the interests of good and consistent administration, provide guidelines indicating what he regards as justifying such a state of satisfaction. But if, in the course of doing this, he issues instructions as to what will give rise to the requisite state of satisfaction on the part of his delegates and these are inconsistent with a proper observance of the statutory criteria he acts unlawfully; should his delegates then observe those instructions, their conclusions concerning an applicant ‘s compliance with the criteria will be vitiated.

This is what has happened in the present case. The criteria in s. 107 (c) (i) and (iii), those of being ‘unemployed ‘and of having ‘taken reasonable steps to obtain such work’, have had superimposed upon them a requirement which prevents them from being satisfied by any school leaver during the school holidays, a period of about three months, and which, in effect, renders them inoperative during that period.

The position may be tested by examining the matters arising for consideration under each of these two statutory criteria and the effect, in each case, of the Director-General ‘s requirement. 1 take first sub-paragraph (i) of s. 107 (c). The state of being ‘unemployed’ I regard as satisfied as soon as a student leaves school, with the intention of not returning but, instead, of entering the workforce, and begins to seek employment. The only element in that set of circumstances which is not readily ascertainable by the Director-General is the school leaver’s intention. That intention he has chosen to ascertain by waiting until the outcome reveals itself at the end of the school holidays. To do so no doubt ensures that the Director-General’s state of satisfaction of mind will accord with the truth of the matter in the case of those applicants, surely only a small proportion, who seek to deceive him when they say that they do not intend to return to school; as to them his refusal to be satisfied until the end of the holidays will ensure that he is not deceived. But he has only attained this result at the cost of being wrong in the case of all those other applicants who have truthfully told him that they have ended their school days but whose statement he has refused to accept until proved correct at the end of the school holidays. In the case of all these, unemployment benefits will have been denied them during the school holidays and this because the Director-General will erroneously have failed to be satisfied as to their true position. Those, too, who at the beginning of the school holidays intend permanently to leave school but later change their minds, perhaps because of the lack of job opportunities, will also be treated erroneously by the Director-General; so long as they retain their original intention they must, I think, be regarded as ‘unemployed’ but they will nevertheless be denied eligibility to unemployment benefits. Any method which produced erroneous results of this magnitude is clearly unacceptable as a means open to the Director-General in satisfying himself as to the subject matter of s. 107 (c) (i).

This must be the more so when other, conventional means of learning of applicants’ intentions are not only open to him, but are in fact used by him; the ‘ Record of Applications made for Employment’ issued to school leavers itself contains a form of declaration to be made by applicants that ‘I will not be undertaking full time education or training in 1977’; in the present case, the plaintiff made such a declaration. Such declarations the Director-General presumably disregards. In addition to such declarations, he could have regard also to the nature of the efforts by the school leaver to seek employment. The present case provides an example, the plaintiff’s record card maintained by the Commonwealth Employment Service discloses that the plaintiff was seeking employment in itself quite inconsistent with an intention to resume studies in the succeeding school year, employment as an apprentice cook.

The second criterion, that in sub-paragraph (iii) relating to the taking of steps to seek work, no doubt presents considerable scope for the giving of instructions by the DirectorGeneral to his delegates as to what is involved in ‘reasonable steps’; it does not, however, in my view, entitle him to impose a quite arbitrary time of almost three months before this criterion is to be regarded as having been complied with. lt is arbitrary in two respects: it depends not at all upon matters relevant to the application- upon factors such as the range of available employment opportunities consistent with the applicant ‘s qualifications, skills and general capacity, the current state of the employment market and the locality in which employment is being sought. Indeed, its duration is dictated by and entirely extraneous circumstance, the period which State education authorities happen to have fixed upon as the duration of school holidays in the State, a period which the evidence shows to differ from State to State, the effect of the Director-General’s direction varying accordingly. Again, it is an exclusively temporal concept. No doubt some attention must be given to the element of time, the taking of reasonable steps may well require sustained activity over a given period: but even if a period of three months were to be thought of as reasonable, as to which I say nothing, it cannot be proper to impose such a period in the case of one class of applicants, those who leave school within 28 days of the end of the school year, while imposing upon no other class of applicant any such requirement relating to a minimum period of job-seeking

The reason why the Director-General’s requirement produces inappropriate results, which, when viewed in the light of the criteria in sub-paragraph (i) and (iii), can be seen to frustrate rather than aid in their application to school leavers, becomes apparent once it is appreciated that his requirement is not, in truth, concerned with the formation of a correct state of satisfaction of mind by him. What it is in fact concerned with emerges from paragraph 7.302 of the Manual, part of which I have already quoted. That paragraph first identifies the abuse to be guarded against, the improper payment of benefits to school leavers who are later found to have returned to school at the beginning of the next school year. This is an abuse because students, whether in term or on holidays, are ineligible for unemployment benefits. Then follows the statement of the remedy for this abuse, which begins with the words ‘As a general rule, therefore, . . . ‘ and which goes on to prescribe the Director-General’s requirement, the three month waiting period for school leavers. Such a requirement, specifically designed to cure a particular abuse, of its nature is unlikely to provide a satisfactory basis for the general determination of the eligibility of school leavers for unemployment benefits.

The statement of the abuse in paragraph 7.302 in itself calls for some correction, arising from what I have said earlier about school leavers who change their intentions. The paragraph refers to school leavers who Tor one reason or another have returned to their studies’ on the resumption of school in the succeeding year. Where the reason is a change of intention, perhaps occurring shortly before the beginning of the new school year and perhaps induced by the inability to obtain employment, there is, in my view, initially, until that change occurs, no abuse to be cured; until the change of intention, the former student was ‘unemployed’ within s. 107 (c) (i). Only if he continues to receive unemployment benefit after that change, having failed to inform the Department of the change, will there bc any abuse. lt is, then, only where deceit has been practised upon the Director-General that there is an abuse to be prevented. It will, no doubt, often have involved the making of false or misleading statements, a matter dealt with by the penal provisions of s. 138 of the Act, which includes a power to order repayment of benefits procured by such statements. Presumably these have been found to bc inadequate to deal with the matter. Whether or not this be so, the quite understandable desire to prevent what is seen as an abuse of the Act by dishonest school leavers cannot be made the occasion for disregarding the statutory criteria of eligibility in favour of a requirement which finds no place in the legislation and the effect of which is to deny, for almost three months, to the great body of honest school leavers an opportunity to qualify for unemployment benefits.

If then, the Director-General, by his delegate, did apply an erroneous test in determining the ineligibility of the plaintiff to unemployment benefits during at least part of the period ending on 22 February 1977, what flows from this?

For the plaintiff, it was urged that I should form my own conclusions as to the plaintiff’s compliance with the requirements of s. 107, that these should be in the plaintiff’s favour, that I should then impute to the Director-General my own state of satisfaction under s. 107 (c) and should accordingly declare the plaintiff to have been qualified to receive an unemployment benefit as from 27 December 1976, being seven days after her application was rejected on 20 December 1976. Even were I minded to find the necessary facts in her favour, as to which I say nothing, the course suggested is not, I think, one which is open to me. It is to the Director-General or his delegates that the legislation assigns the task of attaining satisfaction and the Court should not seek to usurp that function. The only authority which Counsel for the plaintiff cited as supporting such a course was the decision of Donovan J. in Hamilton v. West Sussex County Council (195$) 2 QB 286. That case is, in fact, no authority for the proposition which the plaintiff seeks to establish. All that his Lordship did in that case was to make good the failure of a planning authority to express approval which, the authority having already in fact satisfied itself that a development duly complied with the law, it had failed formally to convey to the developer because of its mistaken view of the law.

If, as I find to be the case, the plaintiff’s claim to unemployment benefit was not considered as s. 107 contemplates that it should be, the plaintiff is, I think, entitled to some relief. But that relief does not extend so far as the plaintiff seeks to press it.

On 20 December 1976, the plaintiff made an application, a claim for unemployment benefit, and her qualification for benefit should then have been enquired into. What the delegate of the Director-General ought to have done, had he not been distracted from his task by the requirement laid down in the Manual, was to have applied his mind to the plaintiff’s eligibility for unemployment benefit, testing it by reference to the criteria in s. 107 (c). Sub-paragraph (ii) would have occasioned him no difficulty; it would be upon the matters referred to in sub-paragraphs (i) and (iii) that attention would have had to be concentrated: whether the plaintiff was unemployed, involving the question of whether she had genuinely ended her school career and was seeking a place in the work force, and whether she had taken reasonable steps to obtain suitable work. If, on such material as she could then have placed before him, he would have been satisfied, that would then have been an end to the matter; if not, she could try again later on when she thought that she had made good the defects in her material, as, for example, by having made further efforts to seek employment.

It is declarations concerning what ought to have thus been the action of the Director-General in response to her claim made on 20 December to which I regard the plaintiff as entitled. For the defendants, it was said that no duty owed to the plaintiff was imposed upon the Director-General by the Act. With this was associated the submission that an unemployment benefit was no more than a gratuity which, once granted, might be cancelled or suspended by the DirectorGeneral in his uncontrolled discretion- s. 131. The absence of any obligation imposed by the Act upon anyone to make payments of unemployment benefits was also relied upon and reference was made to authorities in the field of the assessment of damages, the most recent of which being 77ie National Insurance Company of New Zealand Ltd v Espagne ( 196 1 ) 105 CLR 569. These authorities were said by the defendants to support, and by the plaintiff to deny, the view that unemployment benefit is no more than a gratuity, to payment of which the plaintiff can have no rights enforceable at law. Equally, say the defendants, the plaintiff has no enforceable rights in relation to the manner in which the Director-General dealt with her claim to unemployment benefit under s. 107.

In part, the defendants’ submissions were in answer to claims to relief made on behalf of the plaintiff and which went far beyond such declarations as I have foreshadowed. To the extent, however, that they are put as a ground for denying her any right to such declarations they must, I think, be rejected. Her direct personal interest in due compliance by the Director-General with the requirements of s. 107 (c) is clear; upon it depends her eligibility for, and her prospect of obtaining payment of, unemployment benefits. She has what Megarry J. found wanting in Thorne Rural District Council v Bunting ( 1 972 ) Ch. 470, at page 477, a substantial interest recognised by the law; and if in fact she lacks a cause of action in the strict sense of that term that will not debar her from declaratory relief- Rediffusion (Hong Kong) Ltd v Attorney-General of Hong Kong (1970) A.C. 1136 at page 1 167. The power to give declaratory relief is, as Viscount Radcliffe observed in Ibeneweka v Egbuna ( 1964) 1 W.L.R. 219 at page 224, conferred in wide and general terms; it is not excluded by the availability of an alternative remedy by way of certiorari- Pyx Granite Co. Ltd v Ministry of Housing and Local Government (1960) A.C. 260 per Lord Goddard at page 290- and no different considerations should apply when mandamus might lie- see generally Zamir, The Declaratory Judgment (1962) at page 98 et seq. and De Smith, Judicial Review of Administrative Action (iri Ed.) page 442, 465 and 490 et. seq. In Forster v Jododex Australia Pty Ltd ( 1972) 127 C.L.R. 42 1, Gibbs J., with whom, in this respect, all other members of the Court agreed, examined in detail the extent of the jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief. What his Honour there said, including his reference to and his distinguishing of Toowoomba Foundry Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth ( 1 945 ) 7 1 C.L.R. 545, 1 would regard as applicable to the present case.

It was further urged on behalf of the defendants that the provisions of s. 15 of the Social Services Act should, as a matter of discretion, result in the refusal of relief to the plaintiff. That section confers upon a person affected by a determination of an officer other than the Director-General a right to appeal to the latter. Having regard to the nature of the determination (if it was in truth such), which is here in question, a determination which did no more than reflect the instructions of the Director-General as to the disqualification of school leavers for unemployment benefits during school holidays, it may be that the determination of the delegate, that the plaintiff was not qualified, should be regarded as in fact that of the Director-General. But in any event, the nature of the matter here in dispute, not at all concerned with the quality of a particular exercise of discretionary power by an officer but rather with the validity of a general rule of administration adopted by the Director-General, is such that I would not, as a matter of discretion, regard the existence of the right conferred by s. 15 as a reason for refusing declaratory relief.

To make a declaration in the form proposed will not involve any element of futility, nor of retrospectivity. The fact that the plaintiff has now been recognised as qualified to receive unemployment benefits as from 22 February 1977 does not affect her complaint that prior to that date she was denied qualification for a reason which lacked statutory justification. There remains in question her eligibility before that date; should the Director-General, in conformity with my declaration, undertake a re-examination of the plaintiff’s position and conclude that, on the facts then existing, she was in fact qualified as from some earlier date she will, no doubt, receive payment accordingly, but this will not involve, in any true sense, the making of a retrospective determination.

I should advert to the effect of s. 132 (3) of the Act. to which passing reference has already been made; it reads:

Where payment of an instalment of a benefit has not been made within twenty-eight days after the day on which the instalment became payable, the instalment shall noi (unless the Director-General, in special circumstances, otherwise determines) be paid’.

This sub-section only applies to delay in payment after an instalment became payable. It can, I think, have no application in the present case since, unless and until the DirectorGeneral is satisfied as to the holiday-time entitlement of the plaintiff to unemployment benefits, no question of any benefit or any instalment becoming payable to her will arise.

The writ by which the proceedings were instituted issued on 24 December 1976, four days after the plaintiff’s second visit to the Commonwealth Employment Service and before any payment would in any circumstances have been due to be paid to her by way of unemployment benefit. This is because a benefit only comes payable seven days after an applicant either becomes unemployed or makes a claim for unemployment benefit, whichever be the later- s. 119(1). The defendants contend that for this reason the proceedings are premature; so they might be, were they no more than proceedings for the recovery of moneys said to be due by way of benefit payments due and unpaid. However, the form of declaratory relief which I propose is not subject to any such objection; the plaintiff had been affected by the DirectorGeneral ‘s general rule well before issue of her writ and was already, before its issue, entitled to complain of the denial of an opportunity to seek to satisfy the Director-General of her entitlement to unemployment benefits pursuant to s. 107.

It is for the foregoing reasons that I conclude that the plaintiff is entitled to declarations of the general nature already indicated. She is not, however, entitled to a declaration that she was, in respect of any period before 22 February 1977, qualified to receive unemployment benefits; any such qualification remains for determination by the Director-General or his delegates in the light of s. 107 (c) and of the particular circumstances of the plaintiff at the time. It follows from this that there can be no present order or declaration as to entitlement to, or payment of any unemployment benefits to, the plaintiff in respect of the period before 22 February 1977.

It remains only to dispose of the plaintiff’s second claim, which is said to sound in damages for negligence on the part of the defendants in wrongly advising the plaintiff as to her rights. This claim was put in varying ways during the course of argument but, however expressed, cannot entitle her to relief in these proceedings. The plaintiff faces real difficulties in establishing either that, in reliance upon the defendants’ negligent advice, she acted to her detriment (bearing in mind that only four days after that advice, her writ was issued with a full statement of claim signed by senior and junior counsel) or that she has in consequence suffered damage. But, more importantly, I am not satisfied, assuming for the moment (although without in any way so deciding) that there existed some appropriate duty of care owed by the defendants to the plaintiff, that the facts disclose any breach of that duty. In any event, this particular claim to relief was, as I understand it, put forward only because of apprehension lest, being found entitled to payment of some money sum, the plaintiff might then find herself deprived of the right to payment of it by the operation of s. 132 (3) of the Act. The view which I have already expressed concerning the operation of that provision disposes of that fear. Accordingly, I make no order as to relief in respect of that claim.

The declarations to be made fall considerably short of those sought by the plaintiff in her amended statement of claim. I have prepared declarations in draft form; they will be available to the parties and I will be prepared to hear any submission as to the precise form they should ultimately take.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– This was a 27 page judgment. On page 27 Mr Justice Stephen said:

I have prepared declarations in draft form: they will be available to the parties and 1 will be prepared to hear any submission as to the precise form they should ultimately take.

The Director-General of the Department of Social Security, on the advice of the SolicitorGeneral and the Attorney-General (Mr Ellicott), regards this matter as still incomplete and subject to discussion with Mr Justice Stephen and the other parties if they wish. In these circumstances, until such time as the final declarations have been made and the Government has considered the reasons for any decisions that are given by the court, we consider that this is not a matter that ought to be canvassed by the Senate. I therefore move:

That the question be now put.

Senator Georges:

- Mr President -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! There cannot be debate on the motion.

Senator Georges:

– I do not wish to debate it. I wish to raise a point of procedure.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is it a point of order?

Senator Georges:

– Yes. I want to make certain that the Minister tabled as well as incorporated the document.

The PRESIDENT:

– Yes. I used the word incorporation’, but leave for tabling and incorporation was requested.

Question put.

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 31

NOES: 23

Majority……. 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question put-

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

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

AYES: 23

NOES: 31

Majority……. 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Suspension of Standing Orders

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Under standing order 448, I move:

My motion concerns a document that has been tabled in the Parliament by a Minister of the Crown. I understand that the document purports to be a judgment of a judge of the High Court, after an action was taken by a 1 6-year-old citizen of the Commonwealth against the Government for -

Senator Maunsell:

– Have you read the document?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I have not read the document. I have not sought the suspension of Standing Orders to allow me to discuss the matter. I seek the suspension of Standing Orders to enable Senator Georges, who has read the document, to raise the matter. It is a matter that is of considerable importance to tens of thousands of Australians.

Senator Wright:

– I rise to a point of order. The Minister who tabled the document expressly stated that it was the reasons for judgment of a justice of the High Court, given on Friday and as to the minutes of his order, the parties were yet to speak to them. The precise terms of his order have not yet been determined. It was on that ground that honourable senators on this side of the House allowed Senator Grimes full time to state his case notwithstanding the fact that he referred very fully to terms of the judge’s judgment. But the Minister very properly took the course that it was not proper to debate the matter further while the matter was before the High Court expressly for adjudication. It will not be proper to debate the matter until the time for an appeal from that judgment has expired. In those circumstances I submit that it is quite improper for Senator Douglas McClelland to move that an honourable senator be given leave to make a statement specifically on that judgment. This would bring directly into debate- it would be the subject matter of Senator George’s statementthe reasons of the judge. I submit that it is not an established procedure of the Senate to debate a matter subject to final adjudication by a judge and which is possibly the subject of appeal depending upon the terms of the order that the judge finally settles.

Senator Wriedt:

– I speak to the point of order. One would expect Senator Wright to raise that point of order for the sole purpose of confusing the Senate or attempting to confuse the Senate. One would assume -

Senator Wright:

– I ask that the honourable senator withdraw the suggestion that I rose for the purpose of confusing. It is an offensive suggestion to say that I made a statement to the Senate for the purpose of confusing. I submit that the honourable senator is completely improper and out of order.

The PRESIDENT:

– I call Senator Wriedt.

Senator Wriedt:

- Mr President, you are ruling on the point of order, I assume.

The PRESIDENT:

– Yes. Senator Wright has taken exception to the words that Senator Wriedt used. He says that they are offensive to him.

Senator Wriedt:

– If you, Mr President, seek my withdrawal of the word ‘confusing’ I of course will withdraw it. This illustrates not only the sensitivity of Senator Wright on this issue but also of the Government itself. He rose- I will not say to confuse the Senate again- and introduced a lot of legalistic rhetoric for the sole purpose of trying to convince the Senate that it ought not discuss this matter. We are not talking about a decision of a court now; we are talking about whether the Senate should suspend Standing Orders to allow Senator George to speak to the document that was tabled by the Minister for Social Security. With repect, Mr President, you need to rule on this issue. I ask you to consider that it is this Senate that should make the decision and not a court of law. We ought not to be bamboozled by some legalistic argument put by Senator Wright. The Senate will make the decision. That is the proper course for us to follow. I suggest that you do not uphold Senator Wright’s point of order.

Senator Missen:

– I rise to support the point of order taken by Senator Wright. I point out that motions for the suspension of Standing Orders arise in cases of urgent necessity. It is quite clear, as Senator Wright has pointed out, that the motion has been moved in an endeavour to allow an honourable senator to debate an inchoate judgment on a matter that is still before the court. Any debate in this chamber earlier today on this subject was in regard to matters other than the judgement. This motion seeks to give an honourable senator leave to debate a document- a judgment which is not even a final judgment of the court. I submit that it would be absolutely wrong to allow a senator to proceed with that motion. It is out of order and it certainly meddles with the rights of the court to determine their judgments free of interference. I submit that it would be quite improper to allow this motion.

Senator Grimes:

– In speaking to the point of order I point out that the document tabled by Senator Guilfoyle relates to a judgment of Stephen, J. in the case of Karen Christine Green et al v. the Commonwealth of Australia and others. That is what the document says. Attached to that document are 2 declarations in draft form. In the words of the judge ‘they will be available to the parties and I will be prepared to hear any submission as to the precise form they should ultimately take’. I submit that the judgment is a judgment on the law of the matter. It will not be altered. The only question will be on the precise wording of these 2 declarations. Surely everyone in this place agrees that we should not debate court cases which are in the process of being heard and which, therefore, are sub judice. I suggest that this court case is over. The judgment has been made. Some fine detail has to be made about the last part of the declaration. Surely that is a very poor reason for preventing debate on this issue. If this issue were sub judice someone should have been on their feet to get me to sit down again as soon as I opened my mouth to speak on the matter of urgency. No one attempted to do so. The debate was gagged because the Government was afraid to debate the issue. That is why it is opposing this motion.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I speak to the point of order. I am surprised that 2 legal men came in on the question of why we should not debate a judgment. When a matter is sub judice we do not normally debate it if the debate may prejudice a party in the court. Let me illustrate an example which is on record. Even when a matter is sub judice there is a right for the Parliament to debate it. That was the submission of Senator Rae in regard to an application by Senator Bonner to refer to a matter during debate on a Bill concerning Aborigines. We are not seeking to debate something before the court. We are seeking to debate a judgment which was handed down as a public document to the parties involved. The judgment has been reported in every newspaper in Australia. It is the judge’s final decision. As it is a final decision Senator Georges wanted to speak to the judgment. He was prevented from doing so. The decision has been published in every newspaper in Australia. The judgment was handed down for the purpose of case law to be followed by other judicial tribunals in Australia. It was a direction to the Minister for Social Security as to the law. It was given for the sole purpose of publicity. Now it is said that we cannot discuss that document. Senator Guilfoyle may have been somewhat justified in what she said because her remarks may have extended beyond the document. But she tabled the document. It is the tabled document to which Senator Georges wants to speak. I draw your attention, Mr President, to standing order 365, which reads:

On any Paper being laid before the Senate, it shall be in order to move- ( 1 ) That it be read, and, if necessary, a day appointed for its consideration;

Obviously if Standing Orders are not suspended for the purpose of allowing Senator Georges to make a statement, I will move in accordance with standing order 365 that the paper that has been laid before the Senate be read and a daytomorrow be appointed for its consideration. I do not think Government supporters can get out of the situation by refusing to debate something when they know they are guilty.

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– I rise briefly to support what has been put by Senator Wright and Senator Missen on this matter and to answer Senator Cavanagh. The real point is that Senator Georges wishes to debate an inchoate judgment. He wants to talk about the judgment. That is what we are really talking about. Until such time as the declarations which are annexed to the judgment have been settled by the parties and agreed to by the judge, the matter is still before the Court. It has not been finally determined by the High Court. Therefore, it would be quite improper for the Senate to enter into a debate on anything that has been said in the document.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I point out that the motion before the Senate is to suspend the standing orders to enable Senator Georges to make a statement relating to a judgment. I ruled that the motion was in order. It requires seconding.

Senator Georges:

– I second the motion.

The PRESIDENT:

– Senator Douglas McClelland, you have moved that standing order 448 be suspended. That motion has been seconded. Have you completed your contribution?

Senator DOUGLAS MCCLELLAND (New South Wales)-I have not completed my remarks. I assume that you called for a seconder on the basis that the seconder- in this case Senator Georges- would reserve his right to speak at a later stage.

Senator Bishop:

– Has the President ruled on the points of order?

The PRESIDENT:

– Yes, I have ruled.

Senator Cotton:

– The motion is not in order.

The PRESIDENT:

– The motion is quite in order as it was moved by Senator Douglas McClelland.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I believe that the Standing Orders should be suspended. The document is important, not only from a legal point of view but also from a social point of view. Many thousands of people have been deprived of their rights to benefits as a result of a decision taken by the Government in November or December of last year. Action on behalf of these people has been held up pending this document being handed down by Mr Justice Stephen. The first opportunity that the Opposition has had to raise this matter is today, after the document was handed down. The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Senator Durack) has now claimed that the matter is still sub judice. The circumstances surrounding the document are of immense importance to people in Australia. To date, by the Government’s action, Opposition senators have been deprived of the opportunity to speak on the matter. I believe it is important in the interests of parliamentary democracy and of the right of elected representatives of the people to be heard in this place that the Senate agrees to the suspension of Standing Orders to enable my colleague, Senator Georges, who was to speak in the previous debate which has been gagged, the opportunity to exercise his right to be heard in this place.

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

– As I understand it, the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Senator Durack) has made it quite clear that the order is not yet complete. Therefore, it ought not to be debated. This is not a matter that can be properly brought before the Senate. Accordingly, I move:

Question put.

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

AYES: 31

NOES: 23

Majority……. 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question put.

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

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

AYES: 23

NOES: 30

Majority……. 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

- Mr President, in accordance with standing order 365 I now move:

That the paper tabled by Senator Guilfoyle be read to the Senate.

I cannot recall this standing order ever being applied before. It provides also that if necessary a day should be appointed for consideration of a document or paper. I am concerned as to how much consideration it is desirable to give to this particular document, but I know that many honourable senators on this side of the House have not seen it. The document we are asking to have read has been tabled and made public property by the Minister for Social Security, Senator Guilfoyle. It has been incorporated in Hansard and tomorrow it will be public property and available to all readers of Hansard.’ We think consideration should be given to it. Possibly with the exception of Senator Grimes on this side of the House, we do not know what is in this paper and we desire to look at it. It is important that it be read so that honourable senators may be acquainted with its contents and as a reaction to the action of the Government today. It is believed that many thousands of school-leavers, some 20 000 to 30 000, were deprived of the unemployment benefit over a certain period. Those people are waiting on a decision because they want to know whether to make further applications, which will have to be considered on their individual merits, and whether they have lost thousands and thousands of dollars. Possibly one could say that they have been defrauded of thousands and thousands of dollars, money to which they were entitled as a result of a decision of this Parliament. That decision was endorsed by this Senate. Yet those payments were taken away as a result of a blanket ban following a declaration by the Minister. That declaration was found to be illegal and one that cannot apply. Therefore we of the Opposition raised this question as a matter of urgency. The matter is urgent because those children who left school have to be notified of their entitlement and notified to reapply for the benefit.

We raised this matter in order to impress upon the Government the feeling of the Opposition and the people of Australia that there should be recognition of this right to payment. The Government has definitely refused to debate this matter of urgency at this time. By running away from the question of urgency, again it is trying to keep the question of these payments under the carpet so that there will not be publicity sufficient to get people with an entitlement to apply for the benefit. I should mention, Mr President, that many thousands of school-leavers did not apply for unemployment benefit because they thought at that time that it was useless to do so because of the declaration of the Minister.

Senator Devitt:

– They were told not to.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-Senator Devitt informs me -

Senator Jessop:

- Mr President, I would like your advice. Senator Cavanagh is speaking to standing order 365. Does that standing order apply to a document that has been incorporated in Hansard!

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The document has been tabled.

Senator Jessop:

– I understand that it has been incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

– The document has been tabled and its incorporation in Hansard has been allowed.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I do not want documents incorporated in Hansard to be read. I want the document that has been tabled to be read to the Senate and for further consideration to be given to discussion of that document. The Government cannot run away from this question. It acted unjustly to school-leavers and it has a responsibility. It acted contrary to the will of the Parliament. We should not let this matter go unchallenged without giving some publicity to the question. It involves the dictatorship of the Executive over the Parliament of the people of Australia. That is the important point, apart from disfranchising children. It is a case of Cabinet control over the parliamentary system of Australia instead of the people’s elected representatives having that control. Therefore it has to be discussed. Ministers have to face up to their responsibility. They erred, illegally, and they have to face up to their medicine at the present time. Therefore, in accordance with standing order 365 1 have moved:

That the paper tabled by Senator Guilfoyle be read to the Senate.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is the motion seconded?

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– Yes, Mr President, I want to second the proposition. I want to bring the Senate back to the issue in this debate. The fact is that today the Opposition moved for debate on a matter of urgency with a view to putting before the Government the fact that it is lax in not immediately taking cognisance of the judgment in which it became clear that the actions of the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) and the present Government were illegal. If their actions were not illegal, they were not taking the steps necessary to remedy a situation within the Australian community following an appalling lapse of judgment in respect of the payment of the unemployment benefit to young people.

Because the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Cotton) decided to gag the debate, Senator Cavanagh, in my opinion, is well justified in moving that the document referred to, the document which has been tabled and which will appear in print in Hansard tomorrow, should be read at this stage because it will be very relevant to the debate which is taking place today. This would be a strange Senate and a strange Parliament if we, having seen this judgment reported in the Press -

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– Inaccurately.

Senator BISHOP:
Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– All the more reason why the judgment should be debated.

Senator BISHOP:

-Exactly. Earlier I wished to draw attention to this fact: It would be a strange parliament which, having seen something published in the Press, either accurately, inaccurately or not fully, did not have the opportunity to consider that matter. It seems to me that there are 2 important and key issues which the Senate ought to be considering. It was certainly a most undiplomatic decision by the Minister not to allow the debate to run its course. During the debate the Government should have stated clearly its intention about a situation which has been allowed to run for many months. There is an urgent need for the Minister for Social Security to announce a Government remedy and to state clearly the Government’s views on the judgment. This Parliament should not be deprived of an opportunity to consider the matter. The mass media have had the document. They have run their own views. The correspondents and reporters, whether versed or not versed in the law, have aired their views about the document. We started the urgency debate. It was an issue which the Opposition wanted debated. It seems to me that there is an obligation on the Parliament to make sure that an Opposition which wishes to discuss an important question is given every opportunity to exercise its right. The other question is whether the Government, in view of the attack by the Opposition, can answer properly the Opposition’s criticisms. I suggest that wise counsel should prevail, the document should be read and the Minister should make provision for a debate on a subsequent day.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– I do not wish my action in ending the debate on Senator Grimes motion to be misunderstood. As far as the Government is concerned, the plain fact is that this matter is still incomplete. It is before the High Court. When the judgment has been declared and the matters relating thereto have finally been disposed of, the Government will be in a position to have an informed discussion with the Opposition, in this place or in the other place, on the matters that have been raised. It is evident from the speeches in this place that the 27 pages of the judgment have not been read. It is evident from Senator Bishop’s speech that he is concerned that some of the Press reporting of the matter misrepresents the situation.

Senator McLaren:

- Senator Baume said that, not Senator Bishop.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I think that if Senator Bishop reads his speech in Hansard tomorrow he will see that that inference could be drawn from his remarks. I want to make clear that I am prepared to make available a day for the consideration of this matter when it has finally been dealt with by the Court. With that thought in view, I move:

Question put.

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

AYES: 30

NOES: 23

Majority……. 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion (by Senator Guilfoyle) agreed to:

That the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for next day of sitting.

page 805

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Apple and Pear Stabilization Amendment Bill 1 977.

Apple and Pear Stabilization Export Duty Amendment Bill 1977.

Apple and Pear Stabilization Export Duty Collection Amendment Bill 1977.

Defence Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1977.

Asian Development Bank (Additional Subscription) Bill 1977.

Law Courts (Sydney) Bill 1977.

page 805

AUSTRALIAN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– On behalf of Senator Cotton and for the information of honourable senators I present the text of a statement made by the Prime Minister in the House of Representatives on 19 April 1977 together with a report Future Arrangements for an Australian Science and Technology Council.

page 805

AUSTRALIAN AGRICULTURAL COUNCIL

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– On behalf of Senator Cotton and for the information of honourable senators I present resolutions of the ninety-ninth meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council.

page 805

MONOCHROME TELEVISION RECEIVERS

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans’ Affairs · LP

– I present for the information of honourable senators the report of the Industries Assistance Commission on monochrome television receivers and certain electronic components.

page 806

OLIVE INDUSTRY

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans’ Affairs · LP

– I present for the information of honourable senators the report of the Industries Assistance Commission on the Australian olive industry.

page 806

SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL AFFAIRS

Senator MISSEN:
New South Wales

-I present the report of the outstanding references of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator MISSEN:

– I seek leave to move a motion that the Senate take note of the report.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator MISSEN:

-I move:

When the Committee was re-established in March 1977 following the prorogation of Parliament only one reference remained outstanding, that is the Evidence (Australian Capital Territory) Bill 1 972. The only other matters before the Committee were 6 annual reports. In this report the Committee has drawn the attention of the Senate to 3 of these reports, that is, the Law Reform Commission annual report 1976, the Trade Practices Commission second annual report for the year ended 30 June 1 976; and the ninth annual report on the operation of the Bankruptcy Act 1966, for the period 1 July 1975 to 30 June 1976. In the report the Committee has noted 2 particular matters contained in the 1 976 annual report of the Law Reform Commission. The first is the problems associated with the implementation of law reform proposals. The Law Reform Commission has canvassed a number of methods to ensure that law reform proposals are processed and carried through. The members of this Committee believe that it is encumbent on the Parliament to seek out and find ways to ensure that proposals for law reform, from whatever source, are processed. The Committee has recommended that the Senate empower this Committee to inquire further into this matter. I propose to move a motion to give effect to this recommendation tomorrow.

The second matter concerns the publication of an Australasian Law Reform Digest. In the past law reform proposals, from whatever source, have been neglected. It is necessary to find a way to ensure that law reform proposals are implemented. There has been no attempt over the years at a systematic correlation of these proposals. The Law Reform Commission is concerned at the great wastage of time and effort which has resulted from this and has produced an Australasian Digest of Law Reform Proposals. Unfortunately the Commission is experiencing difficulty in finding a publisher for the Digest, principally through lack of funds. In this report this Committee has recommended that if the Commission is unable to find a publisher for the Digest, the Government should provide the Commission with funds sufficient to enable the Commission to publish the Digest and update it at regular intervals.

Debate (on motion by Senator Devitt) adjourned.

page 806

REDISTRIBUTION 1977

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I seek leave on behalf of the Minister for Administrative Services, Senator Withers, to make a statement relating to the redistribution 1977.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator CARRICK:

– As the statement has been distributed I ask for leave to have it incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

The statement read as follows-

REDISTRIBUTION 1977

I wish to inform the Senate that, acting on the advice of the Executive Council, the Governor-General has directed that redistributions shall be effected in all States. The proclamations directing the redistributions were gazetted on 12 April 1977.

The appointment of the following persons as Distribution Commissioners was notified in the Australian Government Gazelle today:

The Commissioners will shortly publish an advertisement in the Australian Government Gazette inviting suggestions in writing relating to the redistributions. Suggestions must be lodged within 30 days of the date of the advertisement. Immediately after that 30 day period the Commissioners will make available for perusal copies of any suggestions lodged with them and a further 14 days will then be allowed for comments relating to the suggestions to be lodged with the Commissioners.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I seek leave to make a short statement on the same subject.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-When the amendment to the Commonwealth Electoral Bill was being debated in the Parliament, or at about that time, a time-table of the proposed redistribution was incorporated in Hansard by the Minister. I note that according to that timetable the initial meetings of the commissioners was envisaged to take place on Monday, 7 March, and that publication of advertisement by commissioners in the Gazette was expected to take place by Thursday, 10 March. It is now 20 April so we are running at least a month behind the original time-tabling arrangement. At the time the Minister mentioned that it was doubtful whether the redistribution arrangement would be completed and brought into Parliament and approved by Parliament by the end of this year so it now appears, because we are running nearly 6 weeks behind the original time-tabling arrangements, that the time-table for the completion of the redistribution this year is becoming very acute. Of course, the Opposition has been pressing for some considerable time for an early redistribution of electorates. We brought in 2 electoral redistribution proposals when we were in government, both of which were rejected by the Senate. We now hope that the commissioners who have been appointed by the Government will be able to undertake their tasks at a very early date. We trust that the redistribution will be effected and finally approved by the Parliament in 1977.

page 807

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

Motion (by Senator Carrick) agreed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the remaining stages for the passage through the Senate of the Tertiary Education Commission Bill 1977 and the Commonwealth Teaching Service Amendment Bill 1977 being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of such Bills together in Committee of the whole.

page 807

QUESTION

SENATE ESTIMATES COMMITTEES

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator DrakeBrockman) I have to inform the Senate that the President has received letters from the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Withers) and the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Wriedt) nominating senators to serve on Estimates Committees as follows:

Estimates Committee F:

Senator Bishop

Senator Jessop

Senator James McClelland

Senator Rae

Senator Tehan

Senator Wheeldon

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

- Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to move a motion.

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

Senator CARRICK:

-I move:

That Estimates Committees be appointed in accordance with the list circulated and that the senators indicated, having been duly nominated in accordance with standing order 36AB, be members of the Committees.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 808

TERTIARY EDUCATION COMMISSION BILL 1977

Second Readings

Debate resumed from 3 1 March, on motion by Senator Carrick:

That the Bills be now read a second time.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The Senate has before it 2 Bills, namely, the Tertiary Education Commission Bill and the Commonwealth Teaching Service Amendment Bill which I understand may be dealt with cognately. Obviously, to one of those 2 Bills we naturally must give more consideration than to the other because of the importance of the legislation. That Bill is the Tertiary Education Commission Bill 1 977. It seeks to change certain structures in the post-secondary area of the Australian education system. Of course, when we deal with education, under this Government we are dealing with an area to which the Government intends to make very substantial changes in the period ahead.

I thought that what happened this afternoon in respect of the urgency debate which was launched by the Opposition was indicative of the Government’s attitude. We sought to debate in this Parliament the illegal action of this Government, action which was found to be illegal by the High Court, in denying by decree the unemployment benefit to school leavers in this country, many of whom are forced through the economic circumstances of their parents to go directly from the education system to seek work. That action has now been found by the High Court to have been an illegal action. Of course, the Government, being extremely embarrassed by the decision of the High Court, this afternoon refused the Senate the opportunity to debate the matter thoroughly. I have no doubt that the message has not been lost on the people of Australia who now have a further example of the methods by which this Government operates.

I return now to deal specifically with the Bill. Since 1974 there have been 3 education commissions, namely, the Universities Commission, the Commission on Advanced Education and the Technical and Further Education Commission. The Universities Commission, of course, has been in existence for many years, the Commission on Advanced Education for a lesser time and the Technical and Further Education Commission since 1974 only. In 1975 the then Labor Government introduced legislation into the Parliament which would have effectively combined the Universities Commission and the Commission on Advanced Education but not the Commission on Technical and Further Education. At that time and since- and I do not hesitate to say it now- the Opposition has generally stood by that legislation. We took the view when the Government announced the decision to combine universities and colleges of advanced education under one commission that the Technical and Further Education Commission ought not to be included in that proposal, which is now before the chamber. We did so because of our concern for the technical area.

It should be, and I think is, recognised across the general spectrum of education in Australia that the technical sector has been neglected by successive Commonwealth governments over the years. There was quite a massive improvement in the allocation of financial resources to the technical sector under the Labor Government but we now as an Opposition are concerned that the Technical and Further Education Commission should not be subsumed by the other 2 commissions. However, now that we have this Bill before us, I indicate that the Opposition will not oppose the concept of including the technical sector in this new Tertiary Education Commission because we feel that there have been sufficient safeguards written into the legislation to ensure that the technical sector is not disadvantaged.

On behalf of the Opposition before this legislation is finally passed I place on record the roles that have been played by both the Universities Commission and the Commission on Advanced Education. Their work over recent years will stand as a tribute to many of the people who served on those commissions and I had hoped that the second reading speech would have made mention of that matter. Nevertheless, I certainly place on record on behalf of the Opposition the Opposition ‘s attitude in that regard.

In many respects the Bill does substantially follow the Bill which was introduced by the Labor Government towards the end of 1975. By calling it a Tertiary Education Commission we hope that it is the intention of the Government to recognise that technical education in Australia will be recognised as tertiary education; that is to say, it should mean a substantial upgrading of technical and further education. The requirement that the Commission shall perform its functions with the object of promoting balanced and co-ordinated development of tertiary education and to ensure that the needs of technical and further education are met is a positive step. The Commission will be composed of certain full time commissioners and part time commissioners and the chairmen of the Councils which will be formed under the legislation to represent each of the 3 arms of tertiary education also will be part of the Commission. A feature of the Bill in respect of the Councils and the Commission is that there will not be an annual report published and tabled in the Parliament. I will be dealing with that matter later in the Committee stages.

The Opposition is concerned about the treatment that technical and further education may receive if it is not properly recognised in the establishment of this Commission. Technical and further education is in a different position from the other 2 areas of tertiary education. Universities and colleges of advanced education now are fully funded by the Commonwealth but most of the funds for technical and further education come from State governments. The roles of universities and colleges of advanced education are fairly clear but the role of technical and further education is much more diverse. It has provided a network of institutions variously known as colleges, schools or centres of technical and further education and these are widely dispersed throughout the country. In 1975, for example, technical and further education was provided in more than 500 separate locations throughout the Commonwealth and there were a great many of these institutions in the metropolitan areas. This is pointed out in the current report of the Technical and Further Education Commission. The institutions vary greatly in size and in the scope of their educational provisions. Metropolitan institutions have the largest individual enrolments ranging up to 39 000 in the case of the Sydney Technical College and offer a comprehensive range of courses numbering in the case of some of the larger institutions up to 350 separate courses.

That illustrates the diverse nature of technical education and one of the problems with which all Federal Governments have had to deal over the years. In the past the interests of universities and colleges of advanced education have been looked after by fairly powerful and, I suppose, substantially autonomous commissions which have built up a substantial body of expertise. The Technical and Further Education Commission, being a much more recent creation, perhaps could not be seen to have that body of expertise and experience dealing with the government in quite the same way.

Senator Baume:

– It has the vigor of youth. It is more vigorous, perhaps, senator.

Senator WRIEDT:

– It is very vigorous. I would not question that. Senator Baume would know, as we all know, that when dealing with pressures on governments one has to have the widest possible experience and background in order to seek those things which pressure groups need. I do not question the sincerity of the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) in his concern for technical education in this country. I believe that in the time that he has been Minister he has endeavoured to convince the Government of the needs in this area. However, I am not convinced, nor is the Opposition, that the Government is prepared to listen to the advice that the Minister may give it. The present guidelines recognise the need for a greater increase in expenditure in real terms for the technical sector over that for universities and colleges of advanced education. The increase is nowhere near enough, and we do not believe that these financial guidelines in real terms will be met.

I want to make it quite clear that the statements which have been made by the Minister concerning the Labor Government’s role in financing tertiary education and education generally in Australia are simply incorrect. Three weeks ago in this chamber we had an urgency debate on education in which the Minister made certain assertions, At page 633 of Hansard he is reported as saying:

In the last Budget of the Labor Party, in August 1975, it produced for the calendar year 1976 a massive, record and unique cutback in education totalling $l05m for the 4 education commissions. No other government in the past dreamt of cutting back education in this way.

But the facts are quite different and I must again take issue with the Minister who continually puts forward the argument that the Labor Government cut back expenditure on education in the 1975 Budget. I hope that we will not again hear statements by him about calendar year expenditures. Three weeks ago I sought information from him for the Senate as to what the calendar year figures mean. I am still waiting for that information. Let me again place on record a true statement of what the Labor Government did in its last Budget in 1975-76. We know that from the time it came into office it did a magnificent job to lift the standard of education in this country. At no time in the history of Australia has any government done more to assist education throughout Australia.

I want to take the figures from the 1976-77 Budget Paper No. 7 presented by the present Treasurer (Mr Lynch). The figures reveal that in the last year of the Labor Government, in the 1975-76 Budget, it increased expenditure for universities by no less than $32m. I might add that when Labor came to office the total expenditure by the previous Government in its last Budget of 1972-73 was $107m. The Labor Government lifted that expenditure to no less than $47 5 m in respect of universities. When Labor came into office the Commonwealth was spending $58m a year on colleges of advanced education. That was the figure in the last Budget of the previous Liberal Government. By 1974-75 we had lifted that expenditure to $349m. In the last year of our Government we lifted it again by $24m to $373m. In the area of technical education, in the year in which we came to office the expenditure by the previous Liberal Government had been $ 13m. We lifted it in 1974-75 to no less than $45m. In the last year of our Government we lifted it again to $65m. In respect of the last group, government and nongovernment schools, in the last year of the previous Liberal Government the total spending was $74m. In 1 974-75 we lifted that to $434m. In the last year of our Government we raised it again by another $42m to $475m.

It does not matter to me how many arguments we have about the expenditure over financial years and calendar years. All I say is that if this Government in its first 3 years does half what we did for the education system in this country that will be a wonderful performance. But I do not believe there is the slightest chance that that will happen, because we come now into the other area with which we are directly concerned- that is, this Government’s intentions to pass the responsibility for expenditure on education, roads, hospitals, schools and a whole range of areas over to the States. Under the new federalism policy the Government is saying to the States: ‘If you want these services, if you want to maintain roads, schools and hospitals you will tax the people in your own States to raise the revenue to do it’. No wonder the Premiers have finally woken up to what this Government is doing. This Federal Government intends to opt out as far as it possibly can of improving any of the services which were provided, not only under the previous Labor Government, but also under previous Liberal governments. Thus we see all the Premiers now indicating that they will not be involved in a tax arrangement whereby they impose taxes on the citizens of their own States. This Government is prepared to go ahead and force them into that position. At question time today the Minister said that the Government will not force them into stage 2 of federalism. We all realise that the Federal Government cannot force them in that sense but it can force them by reducing payments in other areas so that the States will be compelled to impose income taxes. That is the force that will take place and that is what will confront the education systems, both in the schools and technical areas, throughout all the States. At this stage all the State governments realise the implications particularly for the technical sector.

Whilst the Opposition does not oppose the concept envisaged under this legislation it most certainly says to the Government that, in combining the 3 bodies, the Government should give an undertaking that there will be no discrimination against one of the tertiary sectors in favour of another. If the Government is sincere and really wants to see technical education improve to the point where it meets the standards recommended in the Kangan report, the Opposition will be satisfied. In order to indicate the genuine concern of the Opposition I move the following amendment:

At end of motion, add “but the Senate is of the opinion that in respect of the Tertiary Education Commission Bill 1977-

1 ) the Senate recognises the disadvantaged position of technical education in Australia and that adequate financial resources will be made available to the technical sector to raise its standards to levels envisaged in the Kangan Report;

further measures be taken to ensure that technical education in Australia is not further isolated from secondary education: and

every effort be made to ensure full provision for the development of further education.

Senator Georges:

– I second the amendment.

Senator BAUME:
New South Wales

-The Senate is debating in cognate fashion 2 Bills- the Tertiary Education Commission Bill 1977 and the Commonwealth Teaching Service Amendment Bill 1977. I listened with great interest to the speech by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Wriedt). I believe I am correct in saying that generally his co-operative and positive attitude could only be welcomed by my colleagues and by all of us. I believe that the measures before the Senate advance our desire to push ahead with the general principles on which our education policies are predicated- a belief in choice, a belief in variety in the kinds of institutions and the kinds of courses available and the place of the non-government sector in education generally in Australia.

It would be appropriate to address myself first to the Commonwealth Teaching Service Amendment Bill 1977. Although this is a small BillSenator Wriedt referred to it in passing- it contains a provision which I think should be noted. The Bill allows former members of the New South Wales teaching service who were teaching in the Australian Capital Territory in technical institutions and who joined the Commonwealth Teaching Service in the early part of this year to preserve the long service leave conditions which applied immediately prior to their joining the Commonwealth Teaching Service, lt enables them also to treat future service as if it were State service for the purpose of that kind of legislation. This complicated provision is really seeking to preserve for these officers rights which they formerly enjoyed before moving from a State service to a Commonwealth service.

A principle is involved here which I believe requires stating and emphasising; that is, the principle revolving round the general issue of portability. There is no doubt that a pattern of rearrangement of services between the Commonwealth and the States, between the States back to the Commonwealth, and between either of those levels and local government is emerging. We have, for example, a number of major reports. We recently had tabled in the Parliament the report of the task force on health and welfare, chaired by Mr Peter Bailey- the Bailey Task Force- which deals particularly with this issue of the movement of welfare services between different levels of government. I simply wish to make the point that when services move it must be possible for the expert staff required for those services to move as well. When officers who have made a career in one function wish to continue, if that function moves, they must be able to do so with no detriment to the existing rights of the officers under schemes which provide for long service leave, superannuation rights or whatever other rights there might be.

This principle of portability is one of which we have to take note if the concept of federalism, which this Government is espousing, is to be implemented successfully. To the extent that the Bill before the Senate does advance that principle I think it is especially welcome. It is, of course, just and it is appropriate. But it means that one of the barriers to the free movement of experienced people to the level of government where they can best operate to use their skills will have been removed or at least lowered. I hope that this is one of a number of measures which will be forthcoming to allow portability of the rights of officers to be safeguarded in every situation of transfer.

The main Bill which we are discussing in this cognate debate is, of course, the Tertiary Education Commission Bill 1977. The Bill can really only be discussed against a background of the achievement of the Fraser Government- the Liberal and National Country Parties in governmentin the field of education. I think it is important to state once again that in a time of economic hardship and of economic restraint it has been possible, because of the commitment of the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) and the Government, to continue to support education in a very positive and increasing manner.

Senator Wriedt outlines some of the budgetary measures introduced by the Government of which he was a Minister some years ago. But the Whitlam Government in its 1975 Budget- its last Budget- reduced expenditure on the four education commissions by $ 105m. It set aside the triennial basis of funding which was then operating. This was a particularly serious thing to happen. It froze all student allowances at the level operating at June 1974. Of course, because of the Whitlam Government’s policies- its tariff cuts and its economic management generally- it created more juvenile unemployment and, in fact, created a greater demand for education under the new economic conditions.

In this situation in the 1 977 calendar year the Fraser Government- the Liberal and National Country Party Government- has put more money into education. It did not put in just enough money to cover inflation. Not only did we provide money to cover inflation but we put in more money again to create real growth in the field of education. We covered inflation and more for all of the four education commissions. We re-established the rolling triennium with appropriate minimum funding guidelines. We have increased student allowances. We have started new training schemes. We have appointed a most important and significant committee- the Williams Committee of Inquiry into Education and Training. I might refer later to this Committee and to some of the things it is doing.

I pick up the concern of Senator Wriedt and point out that we have given special emphasis to the expansion of technical and further education in Australia in the programs which we are introducing. Commonwealth funding for technical and further education for this year rose in real terms by 7.5 per cent. This occurred at a time of great economic stringency and difficulty. We were able to find places in colleges and universities for all qualified matriculants. There has been a 10 per cent increase in planned college places. The money in real terms available for schools after allowing for inflation has increased this calendar year. There has been an increase of 2 per cent.

A number of new initiatives in education have been undertaken during this time as well. These include new initiatives for the education of children in institutions, pilot schemes to cover special problems of country children and isolated children, initiatives dealing with country boarding schools and disadvantaged schools in the country.

I should like to indicate my support for the non-government sector which educates such a large number of our children. Our initiatives include new loan guarantees from the Fraser Government, forward construction approvals for building funds for non-government schools and the linking of recurrent grants as a percentage of government school grants for the nongovernment schools.

We have kept other promises. We have retained the Schools Commission. We have preserved and strengthened specific purpose grants in the area of education. There have been no cuts.

The Fraser Government has preserved its commitment to education. It has increased the money spent on education and it has increased its commitment. In fact, in 1977 the 4 educational commissions have spent between them more than $lA billion- $ 1,537m- an increase of almost $50m on the previous year.

All this has occurred in a situation in which we have strengthened the other great funding arm for education-the State governments. During this year the States have received more money than ever from the Federal Government. I remind the Senate that the new tax sharing arrangements have put into the hands of State governments $ 100m more than they would have received under the previous formula. That money is available to be used by the State governments, if they so wish, for education as well as other purposes. The States are more affluent than they have ever been. They have a capacity to respond to the needs of education as they wish. Most States in fact have recognised their affluence by offering various tax cuts to their citizens as one of the options. We believe that whatever is done eventually in education must be done in a co-operative fashion with the State and Federal governments working together. We believe that the kind of funding that we espousemore direct funding from the Commonwealth and more capacity for the States to provide money- is a proper way to approach the whole funding question.

I believe that the Tertiary Education Commission Bill serves to extend our initiatives in one more area. The fact is that for some years now we have realised that in the field of education we have had a large number of bodies, each responsible for small segments of education but they have been poorly co-ordinated. In fact, there were some thirty or so small bodies and four or five major bodies which directly advise the Minister for Education on matters relating to his portfolio. They cover a wide range of subjects and functions. The 4 major bodies- I think Senator Wriedt mentioned three of them- are the Schools Commission, which is not affected by the present legislation; the Universities Commission; the Commission on Advanced Education; and the Technical and Further Education Commission. Up to the present time, these commissions have operated autonomously and independently. The only focal point at which they have co-ordinated their activities has been with the Minister for Education and this has created its own problems. It means, for example, that there is a likelihood of duplication of effort, duplication of research funding, duplication of the bureaucracies to operate the structures, and as Senator Wriedt so correctly pointed out, there is vigorous and sometimes bitter competition for the available funds.

I share the concern of anyone who feels that one or other of the commissions could be placed in a disadvantageous position with regard to future funding and Senator Wriedt mentioned the Technical and Further Education Commission in that regard. I share and support the concern which he has expressed.

If we examine the ways in which we could have approached the problem of bringing some co-ordination and some rationalisation into the plethora of bodies responsible for postsecondary education we find that we could have worked to ensure some joint membership of the different commissions. That could have been one solution. I do not really think it would have resolved the problems we face. We could have asked some body- say the Australian Education Council or, the various ministerial councils- to take a co-ordinating role but I do not really think that would have been practical. We could have had one chief adviser on education- one chief officer. We could have adopted the procedure followed by the British Government which has a chief adviser on science whose job it is to co-ordinate the various science commissions and advisory bodies. Alternatively, perhaps we could have abolished some of the commissions as a solution. I really think that of the avilable choices the one which has been chosen, which is to create a higher planning body which lies between the Minister and the 3 post-secondary commissions, is the most logical and the most practical solution. This body is, of course, the one which is being set up in this Bill- the Tertiary Education Commission. The Schools Commission will remain untouched and will remain carrying out its own functions.

We are dealing here only with problems of post-school education. The 3 present commissions will cease to exist but councils will carry out the functions which each of those commissions presently carries out, except that the councils will operate now under the authority of the new commission. This is in keeping with the pre-election policy which our parties put out in 1975. 1 suggest to Senator Wriedt that much will depend upon the instructions and guidance given by the Minister to this new Commission as to how the Commission functions to protect the legitimate rights of all branches of postsecondary education. I take, for example, the particular instance Senator Wriedt mentionedthat of the Technical and Further Education Commission. It is within the capacity of government to ensure that this Commission receives guidelines which will indicate to it the proper concern of government to see that no area of education is disadvantaged.

One must acknowledge that some people will be concerned that by merging the commissions access to funds by the less able or weaker parts of the Commission will be weakened. We could find that certain commissioners might gang up on one area to further their own ends. But I am not sure that the present system of independent commissions necessarily protects one or other branch of post secondary education any better. I believe than an independent commission- a coordinated commission such as we are producing -can work well to protect all 3 post-secondary education avenues. I believe that a better debate will take place in a single commission. There is less likelihood of ideas getting through to the Minister or to the bureaucracy- slipped through by, say, the Universities Commission- without the idea having been seen, examined or criticised by the other 2 bodies which will be affected and which may, in fact, end up as losers. This at least will aid and enhance information transfer in the system and I believe that can only be good.

I believe that the new arrangement will give us a chance to look in a better way at the competing demands between liberal generalist education and between the highly specialised education which is vocationally oriented, such as the education I received in my day.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Senator BAUME:

– The Senate is debating the Tertiary Education Commission Bill and the Commonwealth Teaching Service Amendment Bill. Before the suspension of the sitting I was discussing some of the points which would need to be taken into consideration in making the new Commission work most effectively. I said that I hoped that there would be a balance between the provision in Australia of resources for liberal arts education and resources for technical education in strictly vocational specialties. I was making the point that although we required high quality technology training I hoped that we would not develop in our education system the thrust which sees value only in this kind of training. It can be too narrow and too inflexible. It can be divorced in fact from real needs as they sometimes exist. Sometimes a very narrowly based vocational training can be positively harmful. I am aware of the great difficulties that face many students at present who are undertaking university courses in strictly narrow areas for which there is at present no opportunity to practise in the community once they graduate. We need to be aware of any restructuring in our educational commissions which could in any way resemble that done recently in France. It seems that the restructuring in France’s educational commissions was done simply to meet the needs of industry and commerce and perhaps not to meet broader national goals.

Let me say a few words about the general role of education and its formal apparatus and how the two should work together. I have an interest in this subject having at one stage been a teacher, as have many people in this place. I taught at university level and I can well remember the anonymity when one lectures to a class of 250 people in a subject and then at the end of the year is called upon to set an examination for a faculty and a year the students of which were included amongst one’s students and whose presence one was entirely unaware of for the whole time. I thought I was teaching medical students. I had to set examination papers for medical students and science students. There is something wrong with the kind of system where there can be this distance between the teachers and the taught.

It was pointed out to me informally by Senator Wriedt a few moments ago- this is something I would acknowledge- that it is extremely important for us to acknowledge the influence of home and one ‘s other background in the finished educational product and the quite limited though important role which formal education plays. Nevertheless I would like to think that formal education is relevant and effective.

I offer the observation that in those educational activities in which I have taken part either as a recipient or as a teacher there has generally been a lack of goals which are clearly stated and which seem really relevant to the task. There seems to be a lack of training for those who are doing the teaching, and this applies particularly at tertiary level in all the post-secondary levels where many of the people who are giving the training are basically not prepared for the job. There seems to be no evaluation of what goes on in education.

I offer the comment that if ever there is an area of activity where consumerism is resented it is education. If ever a person wants to see a group of people resisting the voice of society attempting to question what is being done he should go to the teachers- I was a teacher- and tell them that he is not quite sure that they are doing their job appropriately or well. One will quickly learn that his point of view is neither sought nor wanted.

I am reminded that in New South Wales there was a move, not carried through, to create certain citizens consultative groups. This was resisted bitterly by the professional teachers. I think that in the end we will have to recognise that even our educational institutions will have to be as answerable to evaluation as anything else.

It does not follow automatically, it does not follow a priori, that education is necessarily good. It does not follow that the activities of an educational commission are necessarily good. It does not follow that an institution will do any good just because people want to see it do so.

It is pleasing to see in my State some initiatives which are at least promising. A new medical school is being created in Newcastle which has completely turned traditional methods of teaching upside down. It is going at things in a very different way. It is concerned with its goals and with measuring what it does. Some colleges of advanced education it seems to me are doing the same kind of thing. I hope- other speakers have expressed the hope- that in the field of technical and further education the same thing can happen. Standards have been uneven between the different branches of post-secondary education. There has been inadequate co-ordination. Goals and objectives have not been stated clearly. I would like to see this kind of thing further advanced.

The Williams committee on education and training will address itself to precisely these questions. I think we should acknowledge the initiative of the Government in setting up this committee of inquiry to address itself to basic questions of education- where we are going and what we hope to achieve. The Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) might be interested in a similar kind of experience from New Zealand. The New Zealand community has created the New Zealand Educational Development Conference which attempted to examine some of the basic questions. I have one of its documents which sets out quite clearly some of the aims and objectives clearly enough for people to work from and to produce plans for the society to use.

Before the suspension of the sitting I referred to some figures which indicated expenditure on education by the Fraser Government. I have been able to tabulate these figures. The table I have shows triennial expenditure in the calendar years 1975, 1976 and 1977 for universities, colleges of advanced education, technical and further education, schools and total. This table has been previously seen in the Senate. I seek leave to have it incorporated.

The PRESIDENT:

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

The table read as follows-

Senator BAUME:

– The figures, which are in calendar years, show that education expenditure has gone up since the Fraser Government took office, that spending on technical and further education between calendar years 1975 and 1976, that is to say the last Labor Budget, actually had fallen and that it has gone up again in our hands. Overall, the cuts which took place between 1975 and 1976- the last Labor Budgetwere definite but small: $2 1 m in universities, $32m in colleges of advanced education, $9m in technical and further education and $43m in the schools. We have restored much of those cuts in our first year. We are continuing to increase and support educational spending and we are bringing about a kind of restructuring that we see as appropriate.

I hope that everyone in Australia will welcome the rational and reasonable proposals which are contained in these Bills. They promise a more relevant product in education. They promise a new opportunity which we think is highly desirable. The new educational commission, with the new levels of financial support, will combine opportunities for a better development of balanced educational programs in our community. It is an expression of our present and continuing commitment to education in the Australian community. I support both Bills.

Senator RYAN:
Australian Capital Territory

– The Senate is debating cognately 2 education Bills, the Territory Education Commission Bill 1977 and the Commonwealth Teaching Service Amendment Bill 1977. The Opposition opposes neither of these Bills. However, the Opposition has serious reservations about the effect that the Tertiary Education Commission Bill will have on the various sectors of education that will be included in the Commission. In order to express those reservations and to obtain from the Government some reassurances on them, the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Wriedt, has moved an amendment which we hope the Government will accept. I remind the Senate of the amendment:

At end of motion, add ‘but the Senate is of the opinion that in respect of the Tertiary Education Commission Bill 1977-

1 ) the Senate recognises the disadvantaged position of technical education in Australia and that adequate financial resources will be made available to the technical sector to raise its standards to levels envisaged in the Kangan Report;

further measures be taken to ensure that technical education in Australia is not further isolated from secondary education; and

every effort be made to ensure full provision for the development of further education ‘.

I shall explain why we have moved that amendment. However, before I proceed to do so, I must throw a little more light on the figures just incorporated by the previous speaker, Senator Baume. Honourable senators will be aware that there has been a long disagreement in this chamber about how much was actually spent on technical education in the last 3 calendar years and 2 financial years. The figures incorporated by Senator Baume, which I also happen to have before me, were not fully explained by him. I say to honourable senators and particularly to the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) that if we are looking at calendar years it is fair to look at the calendar year 1975 which was the last year of the Labor Government and the current calendar year 1977 which is the first complete year for which the Liberal-National Country Party coalition has brought down a Budget and compare those figures. If we compare the calendar years 1975 and 1977 we find not an increase in actual money terms but a slight reduction. I shall refer to the 4 headings of the figures which Senator Baume incorporated to make this point. On universities, in 1975 a total of $563m was expended by the Labor Government. In 1977, a total of $555m was expended by the present Government- a reduction. On colleges of advanced education, in 1975, $4 17m was expended by the Labor Government. In 1977, $404m was expended by the Fraser Government- again a reduction. On technical and further education, in 1975 $74m was expended by the Labor Government. In 1977, $70m was expended by the Fraser Government. On schools, in 1 975, $54 1 m was expended by the Labor Government. In 1977, $508m was expended by the Fraser Government. I took the time to read out those figures which have been incorporated by Senator Baume because he did not draw sufficient attention to them.

I now turn to the Tertiary Education Commission Bill. The Opposition regards this as a very significant Bill because it changes the structure of tertiary education administration by the Commonwealth Government in this country. Until now, as honourable senators will be aware, 3 separate Commissions have covered the areas which are now to be combined. There has been a Universities Commission for many years. There has been a Commission for Advanced Education for some time. Only recently, since 1974, has there been a Technical and Further Education Commission. The purpose of the legislation before us is to amalgamate all those commissions in an umbrella commission called the Tertiary Education Commission. Each of the 3 sectors will have its own council which will report on needs in its own areas independently to the Commission. We do not oppose this amalgamation. We accept the Minister’s argument that there is a need for rationalisation, particularly in the area of colleges of advanced education and universities. I am personally aware, from my own experience in these areas, that there is wasteful duplication of human, financial and physical resources.

However, we have reservations that inclusion of the technical and further education in the university and colleges of advanced education areas may lead to a weakening of that sector of education. We seek an assurance from the Minister in the course of this debate that his Government is proposing not only structural changes as contained in this legislation but also a real change in funding priorities. The claim that technical and further education has been the Cinderella of education has become a political cliche in the last few months. Politicians on both side of the chamber, in and out of Parliament, are uttering this and expressing regret that it has been the case. We no longer have to debate the fact that technical and further education has been most seriously neglected particularly, of course, during the long years of rule by conservative governments in Canberra. What we require from the Minister now is not the admission which we have had already that technical and further education is in a disadvantaged situation, but a real commitment to improve that situation, to bring the funding allocation of technical and further education to a position of parity with other forms of post-secondary education.

I have been following the Minister’s comments in this chamber and in other forums very closely. As yet I have heard from him no specific commitment with regard to funds and changing funding priorities. I have heard general sentiments, which I and people involved in technical and further education were pleased to hear, that he is aware of the problems and is determined to do something about them. What we should like in the course of this debate is some specific information about priorities. For example, what sorts of guidelines will the Minister be issuing to this new Commission? Where will technical and further education fit into those guidelines? Since he has been the Minister for Education the Minister has adopted the procedure of issuing to the education commissions guidelines within which they must draw up their budgets and determine their policies. I hope that in issuing guidelines for this new Commission the Minister will make it quite clear just what priority his Government puts on technical and further education.

The other reason why members of the Opposition feel some reservation about seeing the Technical and Further Education Commission abolished is that it has done such an excellent job. The Technical and Further Education Commission, and the Kangan Committee which led to its establishment, cannot be praised too highly for the work they have done in drawing attention to the needs of this area of education and the very serious financial, physical, administrative and other disadvantages it has had to suffer for many years. It has provided data of a most detailed, specific and persuasive kind regarding all the disadvantages to which I have referred. There has been criticism from some supporters of the Government that the Labor Government did not act quickly enough in the technical and further education area. Whilst we admit that it would have been preferable to have been able to achieve a more rapid improvement in that area, it would have been extremely difficult for any Government gaining power at the end of 1 972 to implement immediately a program for improving technical and further education on a Commonwealth basis because the data was not available.

The neglect in this area had not been simply a neglect in terms of funding but neglect in terms of research. It was not until the Kangan Committee produced that first excellent report that we had national data, that we had State by State and Territory data, whereby we could get a national picture of what was going on in technical and further education. Until we had such a picture there was no rational way in which a program could be mounted. I would like to record at this point my congratulations to the members of the Kangan Committee and to the subsequent Technical and Further Education Commission for the excellent job that they have done. The material they provided in the 3 reports will, I hope, be basic documents from which the new Technical and Further Education Council to be established by this legislation will develop its strategies and advice to the Minister.

Having uttered those words of praise about the Technical and Further Education Commission’s third report I would like to quote from it. The information I am going to quote illustrates very clearly the extent of the problem and the numbers of Australian people who are involved or who would wish to be involved in technical and further education. I was interested in Senator Baume ‘s remark that he appreciated the fact that the home environment and home circumstances of a child determine to a considerable extent the kind of educational opportunity that that child will have. I would endorse his remark but perhaps draw an inference different from the one that he drew. If we look at the socioeconomic backgrounds of students in our universities even today we will find that over 90 per cent of them come from what we might call advantaged socio-economic backgrounds. No more than 10 per cent of children from what are called working class families in this country get to universities, which I think is an indictment of the inequalities that remain within our education system. The children from working class and lower class income families do not get to universities but usually they get to, or wish to get to, technical and further education institutions. That is one of the reasons why we in the Labor Party have such a persistent concern about upgrading those post-secondary institutions in which the majority of low income students find themselves. The information from the Technical and Further Education Commission’s triennium report for 1977-79 to which I wish to draw the attention of the Senate at this stage is this:

Interpreting available data conservatively, the Commission estimates that the equivalent full-time student ( EFTS ) enrolments of the State TAFE -

That is a shorthand expression for technical and further education-

Departments/ Divisions in 1975 were some 163 500 as compared with some 126 900 in universities and some 98 200 in colleges of advanced education. Put another way, TAFE is meeting rather more than 40 per cent of the total institutional load of post-secondary education.

The report goes on to say:

Relating student load to resources available reveals that the public sector has been providing per EFTS in TAFE only 37 per cent of the funds provided per EFTS in the tertiary sector.

The very nature of many TAFE programs, especially in the technologies, demands up-to-date capital facilities if these programs are to be effective. Of particular concern to the Commission is the long-standing starvation of TAFE for capital funds. In 1973-74 and 1974-75, for every $1 of capital expenditure per EFTS in TAFE more than $4 per EFTS was spent on capital facilities in tertiary education . . .

Reflecting the limits of the State funds available for TAFE, and the compelling requirement on States to increase substantially their recurrent expenditure, most States have been able to do little in recent years towards meeting TAFE’s needs for accommodation and for programs to improve its efficiency. State capital expenditure has probably been adversely affected by the matching requirements until recently of Commonwealth grants for universities and colleges of advanced education and the need for school building in a period of rapid increase in enrolments.

I would hope that the Minister for Education, in the course of this debate, will explain quite clearly to the Senate just how the funding of technical and further education is to be affected by his Government’s federalism policy. Although the technical sector is to come into this new tertiary commission it should be remembered that whereas the Commonwealth funds 100 per cent the universities and colleges of advanced education it funds directly only 20 per cent of technical and further education and the great burden, the 80 per cent, is left for the States. In a situation where States have increasing responsibilities, where they do not have increasing financial resources to meet those responsibilities, how are the States to find the additional resources that are so necessary if technical and further education is to be improved? I would very much appreciate a clear statement from the Minister of his expectations in that respect.

Another point I wish to raise in the debate is the relationship of industry to technical and further education. Industry, we may say, gets the fruits of successful technical and further education. Industry relies on the skills that it requires for productivity being imparted to workers in industry before they enter industry through technical and further education institutions and through the apprenticeship system associated with it. We have heard many complaints from industry in recent times that it is not getting the skills it needs in its workers; it is not getting the right kinds of skilled workers; it is not getting enough skilled workers and therefore its productivity is declining. I do not think anyone would disagree with that statement. However, I would say to industry, and I hope that the Minister might consider saying it also, that as it requires skilled workers of a certain kind for productivity, perhaps it is time industry accepted some responsibility for the financial commitment involved in training people with those skills. 1 realise that industry contributes to the apprenticeship system but I would hope that other constructive strategies could be developed whereby industry contributes to some of the costs of training skilled workers for the industry which will use them for profitability.

I also feel that in this debate we must draw attention to the current economic situation and the current unemployment situation. During this period of the Fraser Government we have the worst unemployment that has existed in this country. We must relate this unemployment to the inadequacies in technical and further education in the past. I certainly would not suggest that it has been only inadequacies in technical and further education that has given rise to this dramatically high rate of unemployment.

Clearly, when we have a situation which members of the Government have described often enough, where there are at least some skilled vacancies available and there are many, many unskilled persons who cannot be employed in those jobs because they do not have the skills, surely we must look again at the whole relationship of technical education and training to manpower policies and employment policies.

We in the Labor Party believe that every person has the right to work. Perhaps that statement would not be disagreed with by members of the Government, but it is no use saying to people that they have the right to work if educational and training institutions do not impart the skills whereby a person can exercise that right to work. The lack of skills in our community really is quite dramatic. Again I will quote figures from the last Technical and Further Education Commission report to demonstrate this fact. In quoting these figures I would hope also that I would be effectively silencing those people in the community who say that perhaps we have an over-educated community, that perhaps we have an overtrained community, and that perhaps we should stop spending money in this sector because already we have spent too much and we have skills we do not need. An analysis of census figures in 1971 showed that of the total adult population of persons employed, 67.5 per cent of males had no post-school qualifications- that is they had no formal skills of any kind- and 80.7 per cent of females had no skills. When we look at the breakdown of the figures, and I will table this document if the Senate so wishes, we find that only 20.3 per cent of males in the working population have trade qualifications and only 1 .9 per cent of females in employment have trade qualifications. A lot of the females in that category would be hairdressers. That is not the most lucrative trade for a person in the work force to follow. Only 3.3 per cent of males in the work force had degrees, and only 1.8 per cent of women in the work force had degrees. Only 3.8 per cent of males had other tertiary qualifications, whereas 5.2 per cent of females had other tertiary qualifications. I will repeat the overall picture- 67.5 per cent of males in the work force had no qualifications, and 80.7 per cent of females in the work force had no qualification.

On those figures I do not think we can really claim to have an over-educated or over-trained work force. It is very clear that if we were to compare those figures with the figures for countries with comparable capitalist or socialist democracies we would find that we were lagging behind by about 1 5 to 20 years in the imparting of skills to our work force. This factor must surely be extremely significant as part of the explanation for our present economic crisis and our present very grave unemployment crisis.

As I quoted those statistics, honourable senators may have noticed the very seriously disadvantaged situation of women in relation to skills for employment. At a seminar held in New South Wales last weekend on technical and further education and on the crisis in technical and further education a lot of time was devoted to analysing the access of women to technical and further education. The results of that inquiry were very damning. Women have been virtually excluded from most avenues of obtaining marketable skills in technical or trade areas. Nevertheless, they have gone into the work force. They have been employed only in the worst paid and least skilled jobs, jobs which are performed under the worst conditions. They have been the most vulnerable to retrenchment at a time of economic crisis. This has happened. Although the present method of collecting unemployment statistics does not give anything like the true indication of the rate of unemployment among women, there is still reason to believe that women who were employed in the manufacturing industries suffered a much more serious degree of unemployment than virtually any other sector. They became unemployed because of the economic crisis and because they did not have any skills in the first place. They remain unemployable. This is something which I hope the Minister will bear in mind and on which he will be prepared to take positive action when the Tertiary Education Commission starts to work.

One of the concerns that we voice in the amendment moved by the Opposition to the motion for the second reading is that technical and further education ought not to become any more isolated from the schools system. A report of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development on the transition from school to the work force in Australia has not yet been completed. However, an Australian working party report has been published. It is very clear that there has been an isolation, which has been very destructive, between the needs and the opportunities provided by technical institutions and what has gone on in schools. In general, our school system had been geared to preparing students for university-type post-secondary education. The system had ignored, to a large extent, preparing students to undertake technical courses, for example in school curricula. The system had not advised the students of the possibilities that existed. The poor careers advice has become almost as much as cliche as has the claim that technical and further education is the Cinderella of education. This poor careers advice has been particularly poor in the case of female students. So we have huge numbers of unemployed among school leavers, most of whom leave school with no knowledge of technical and further education institutions, no knowledge of the prerequisites which they should have taken at school to qualify for various courses and no knowledge of the job opportunities that they would have if they acquired certain skills in the technical sector. They are not only without skills; they are without the knowledge to attain those skills. To a large extent that has contributed to the lengthy periods of unemployment which school leavers are experiencing.

For this reason we hope that whatever happens to the new Tertiary Education Commission, there will be close liaison between that Commission and the Schools Commission, and close liaison at a State level between the Technical and Further Education Commission and the State Departments of Education. It is absolutely essential that a much closer relationship be developed between schools, vocational education in schools, vocational guidance in schools and the courses available post-school. I hope that the Minister when making appointments to the commissions will use this opportunity to reflect the real needs of the community. I hope that we will see appointed to the councils, particularly to the Technical and Further Education Commission, people who represent certain disadvantaged groups in that area. For example, I hope we will see several women from the technical and further education sector appointed to that Commission. I hope we will see migrants appointed to the$e commissions. I hope we will see appointed people with other specialised knowledge of the particular difficulties our various disadvantaged groups- ethnic groups and women generallyhave in gaining access to post-secondary education.

I ask the Minister to state, when he is replying to this debate, how far he is prepared to go in adopting a national strategy in respect of the funding of post-secondary education and how far he sees it possible for his Government, committed as it is to federalism, to adopt such a strategy. If we are to upgrade the area of technical and further education, if we are to rationalise the resources allocated to CAEs and universities, that can be done effectively only if there is a national strategy. The Schools Commission developed for schools a national strategy which has, I think, been successful as far as it has gone. We would now like to see a commitment from the Minister to a national strategy in the area of post-secondary education and training. We hope that the preoccupation of his Government with States rights and federalism will not be allowed to interfere with or to obstruct development or the implementation of a national strategy. It is only by the development of a national strategy in this area that we will create what I consider to be an essential situation. School leavers or any other persons who do not have jobs, instead of getting unemployment benefit, could get education or training so that they might obtain jobs. Unemployment benefit does nobody any good. It is essential to maintain life, but it does not lead anywhere. I would like to see this Government take the initiative, now that it has a new structure, and put sufficient funding and national direction into the whole area of tertiary education so that instead of offering unemployment to school leavers and other persons we might offer education and training.

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– I support these 2 Bills which are being debated cognately and which deal with the very important question of education. In the establishment of the new Tertiary Education Commission the Government is redeeming one of its election promises. This is an important initiative and a great step forward in this very important field which means so much to our nation. Before proceeding I want to deal with a couple of points raised by Senator Ryan relating to past expenditure in the area of the present 3 commissions. Before getting on to that matter I think I ought to state the position of the Government which was outlined by the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) in a speech he made on 4 November 1976 when he dealt with the forward planning of the Government for the following 3 years. At page 1655 of Hansardhe is reported as stating:

The guidelines provided by the Government enabled the commissions to recommend programs for 1977 totalling $ 1,537m, at December 1975 prices- an increase of $47m in real terms over 1976.

He then went on to look at the next 2 years. I think it is important that we do this because one of the great achievements of this Government has been to restore the situation of triennium funding for education. In some respects, forward planning for 3 years might not be enough when one has to project into the next 5 or 10 years. But education is such an important and vital area that we cannot plan for just one year, as was attempted by the Australian Labor Party in 1975. The Minister went on to state:

For the second and third years of the triennium, the commissions were asked to proceed with plans based on minimum growth rates of 2 per cent per annum in real terms for universities, colleges of advanced education and schools, and a higher rate of 5 per cent per annum for technical and further education.

Senator Ryan has been at some pains to cite figures for 1975 and 1977.I think it is fair to say that in the Senate over recent times we have had a sort of running debate between the Minister and Senator Wriedt, who is the Opposition’s shadow Minister for Education, over these figures. The situation is almost like the Blue Hills serial. There is some hang-up or difference of opinion over the figures for calendar years and financial years. The weakness in relation to the figures given by Senator Ryan is that she conveniently left out the year 1976. As I understood her she cited the figures for 1975 and 1977. I noted her figures. I am looking at a statement from the office of the Minister which deals with the 3 years. I think Senator Baume may have already included the figures in Hansard. If so, I shall not seek to include them again. These figures were given during an urgency debate which took place on the last broadcasting day before the Senate adjourned for the Easter vacation. They were given by the Minister and we have repeated them. He stated that Labor cut the amount available to the 4 commissions by $105m across the board. (Quorum formed.) When Senator Douglas McClelland interrupted me by calling for a quorum I was mentioning what the Labor Party had done. For the benefit of those who have come into the chamber I mention again that Labor cut the education vote in 1976 for the 4 commissions by $105m. We were not able to remedy the situation in one hit in our Budget. I have already given, from the Minister’s figures, the increase for 1977 over 1976. But to put the record straight I point out that in the calendar year 1976 the total expenditure for the Universities Commission was $542m and for 1977 it was $555m. The Commission on Advanced Education in the 1976 calendar year was allocated $385m and for 1977 the amount is $404m. For the Technical and Further Education Commission a total amount of $65m was provided for 1976 and $70m for 1977. I think that sets the record straight as far as the arguments raised by Senator Ryan are concerned.

I return to the Bills. This legislation brings the 3 commissions- the Universities Commission, the Commission on Advanced Education and the

Technical and Further Education Commissionunder one umbrella. This is a very important initiative because, undoubtedly, since the 3 commissions were set up separately there has been a position of competition for funds between them. I think it important that we have an overall supervising commission which will be able to exercise an oversight and control of the activities of the 3 separate areas. I think the choice of the title of Tertiary Education Commission is a very happy one. As the Minister has stated, up until now the minimum entry level has required the completion of a full secondary education course. That has been the norm or standard for entry into a university or college of advanced education.

Under this Bill the definition of tertiary education is enlarged to encompass the wide range of courses in the technical and further education area. This affords an opportunity for rationalisation in both the funding and the courses in the 3 areas because there has been an interface between the Commission on Advanced Education and the Technical and Further Education Commission. This will enable the relative position of each to be controlled by the one authority. I think it important that the Government has seen fit to do this at the present time because, as Senator Ryan has said, there is a growing and increasing awareness of the importance of technical and further education in the Australian commercial fabric. One of the things that has happened as a result of free university education is that a preponderance of students has been seeking university education to the neglect of the technical and further education area. That is reflected in the number of graduates from some faculties in every university who now are finding it difficult to obtain employment in their field whereas in a number of areas in the commercial field companies and people engaged in manufacture, commerce and industry have found it difficult to obtain qualified technical tradesmen. Of course, the Government is fully aware of this situation. Indeed, the increase of 5 per cent in expenditure on technical and further education as against 2 per cent for the other commissions, as I have already indicated when quoting from the Minister’s speech in November last, is an indication of the awareness of the Government of the importance of giving some greater funds to the technical and further education area.

I think we all agree- it would be readily agreed to by the Opposition- that there needs to be a change in emphasis from university education to technical and further education which is the field in which job vacancies are likely to occur. It is important to note that in times of relatively high unemployment, such as we have at the moment throughout the community, there still can be a shortage of tradesmen in certain technical fields. This is the need which the Government ‘s policy in the apprenticeship area is designed to meet. Admittedly some of these fields belong to the State governments. But it is important- and I will have something more to say about this later on- that in education there be close co-operation between the State and Federal governments.

It is important also when looking at the general position- and a debate of this kind affords us that opportunity- to consider where we are going in education. We and, I am sure, the people of Australia are aware that the Government has set up the Williams Committee which is conducting a comprehensive inquiry into education generally with particular regard to the goals of education. What is the education system designed to do? What should it be designed to do? Is it doing those things? We have to look at population figures also. We are told by the Commonwealth Statistician that we are approaching an era of zero population growth. This is reflected already by increasing surpluses in certain areas of teaching and perhaps will be reflected in universities in the early 1980s. The setting up by the Government of the Williams Committee to look at the whole question with a view to recommending to the Government some rationalisation in education is opportune.

I turn now to the structure of the Commission and the councils to be set up under the Bill. There is provision for three or four full-time commissioners plus 29 pan-time commissioners. I think that is how it works out.

Senator Button:

– You had better do some arithmetic.

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– I think I had better look at the Bill so that my statistics will be accurate because Senator Button will correct me when he speaks if I am not. The Commission will consist of a chairman, a commissioner to be concerned particularly with universities, a commissioner to be concerned particularly with colleges of advanced education, a commissioner to be concerned particularly with technical and further education institutions, plus 5 other commissioners. So, there are 5 part-time commissioners. Each of the councils will have a member who will be one of the full-time members of the Commission. In other words, the commissioner dealing particularly with universities will be the full-time chairman of the Universities

Council. There will be 8 other part-time members of the Council. So there will be 5 part-time members of the Commission and 24 part-time members on the 3 councils, a total of 29 parttime members of the Commission and Council and a chairman and 3 commissions, a total of 4 full-time members of the Commission.

In the time left to me I wish to say something about colleges of advanced education, particularly in country areas. First of all we should look at Schedule 2 of the Bill which sets out the colleges of advanced education. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the list of colleges of advanced education in Victoria as shown at page 19 of the Bill.

Senator Cavanagh:

– You have not given us a copy of it yet. They are the new guidelines.

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– It is in the Bill. Senator Cavanagh can see it there if he wishes. At all events, there are 4 country colleges of advanced education and 19 city colleges in Victoria. I will not detail them because they are in the Bill. In the other States there has been a proliferation of colleges of advanced education. I think it is fair to say that they have proliferated extensively in recent years. There are 1 1 colleges which call themselves regional colleges because they service a large area of a State outside a capital city.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Excuse me, but have you had that list incorporated?

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Maunsell)- Are you seeking leave?

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– I did seek leave. If there is any objection I do not mind.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Leave is granted.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT-

Leave is granted.

The list read as follows-

The 1 1 colleges which call themselves regional colleges are the Capricornia Institute of Advanced Education at Rockhampton and the Toowoomba College of Advanced Education in Queensland; the Northern Rivers College of Advanced Education at Lismore, the Bathurst College of Advanced Education, the Goulburn College of Advanced Education and the Riverina College of Advanced Education at Wagga Wagga in New South Wales; the Gippsland College of Advanced Education at Churchill, the Bendigo College of Advanced Education, the Ballarat College of Advanced Education and the Warrnambool Institute of Advanced Education in Victoria; and the Launceston College of Advanced Education in Tasmania. I draw the attention of the Senate to the peculiar circumstances of these colleges which are outside capital cities. They are well removed from any university or other college of advanced education and have the responsibility of providing a range of tertiary education for the rural region in which they are located. It is important to note that in general the region served by each of these colleges has a population five times that of the city in which the college is located. In other words, in Warrnambool, which has a population of 1 8 000 to 20 000 people, the college serves the much greater population in the whole of western Victoria.

It is an established fact that the existence of these colleges plays a major role in arresting the population drift to the metropolitan areas and assists decentralisation. These colleges are of vital importance in generating trade and commerce in the city in which they are located and in the rural areas surrounding that city. They have special problems and responsibilities which are not shared by their city counterparts. Each of the regional colleges is alone within its region in the provision of a range of tertiary courses to meet the needs as far as possible of the rural community within which it is located. On the other hand, in the city of Melbourne, for example, there are 3 universities and 1 7 colleges of advanced education which complement each other in various ways and offer a very wide range of choices to prospective students from the metropolitan area.

In regard to the 8 part-time members of the councils to be set up under the Bill there is no indication as to whether they will be chosen on a

State basis. I suggest to the Minister for Education that he give earnest consideration to seeing that the country areas where colleges of advanced education are situated receive some representation on the Council so that the problems which I have mentioned which are peculiar to the country colleges can be put before them and recommendations made to the Commission.

Another matter with which I wish to deal is the question of student accommodation. This important question is causing some problems. Last week I was fortunate enough to look over the Bendigo College of Advanced Education in Victoria. During that inspection some of the matters which I have mentioned were drawn to my attention and I said that I would have a look at the question of accommodation. I have ascertained that in Bendigo 70 per cent of the tertiary students at the College of Advanced Education have to live away from home, at least from Monday to Friday, whereas the vast majority of students attending metropolitan universities and colleges live within daily commuting distances. The problem of the provision of accommodation is self-evident. Up to 80 per cent of the students at the 1 1 regional colleges throughout Australia which I have mentioned live away from home, whereas not more than 20 per cent of students at metropolitan colleges live away from home.

In setting up colleges of advanced education it is very important for the Government to look at the question of accommodation of students in country areas. In the provincial cities where these colleges are located the provision of accommodation is a limiting factor. Accommodation is not as readily available there as it is in city areas. There are cases on record of students actually having been discouraged from enrolling in regional colleges and going to metropolitan institutions because they cannot find accommodation in the country areas. ( Quorum formed. )

I am glad that a few of my Labor opponents have turned up. I am pleased to see Senator Button, who will follow me in the debate, return to the chamber. I was dealing with the problem of students in country areas finding accommodation at colleges of advanced education. Let me say in summary that special funding will be needed to cope with this problem. In the case of new colleges of advanced education such as in Bendigo there are a great number of other matters which require capital cost. It is a matter of grave concern that well over 50 per cent of the students who come from outside Bendigo have great difficulty in finding accommodation.

With the 2 interruptions that have taken place my time has almost expired. In conclusion I want to refer again to the letter which the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) wrote to the Premiers of the States and which appears at page 646 of Hansard of 30 March when it was quoted in full during the urgency debate. I stress the great importance of co-operation by the States with the Federal Government in this area of education and, of course, in other areas. The system of funding and solving the problems in this very important area will not be helped unless there is a spirit of co-operation between the respective States and the Federal Government. The Prime Minister’s letter was designed to get the State Ministers together with our own Minister to iron out some of the problems which will arise under this legislation. I commend the legislation to the Senate as an important milestone in the progress of education in Australia.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-The previous speaker, Senator Tehan, had one key theme in the speech which he made to the Senate about the tertiary education legislation and that was, as he expressed it, the need to see where we are going in education. Having listened to his speech, I understand his deep-felt need and his confusion about where we are going in education and the confusion which might now be apparent in the Senate as a result of the speech which he just made.

The Senate is debating the Tertiary Education Commission Bill. As the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) said in his second reading speech, the purpose of the Bill is to bring about greater co-ordination in the area of tertiary education in Australia. Currently we have a Universities Commission, a Commission on Advanced Education, a Technical and Further Education Commission and, outside the post-secondary area, the Schools Commission. It is proposed by this legislation to establish, in effect, one overall tertiary education commission with separate councils dealing with each of the areas of postsecondary education. The Opposition agrees with that course. We agree with the need expressed by the Minister for Education for coordination in the tertiary area. But we do have some qualifications about the structure, particularly having regard to the area of technical and further education and to the needs which we see in that area in its important and unique position in the Australian situation at the present time. But we wish the Commission well and hope that it will achieve many of the results which the Minister expresses in his second reading speech to be its intention.

As I said, the reasons for the establishment of this Commission were set out quite clearly in the Minister’s second reading speech. It is a comprehensive, thoughtful and very thorough speech which displays an open mind about the issues of tertiary education. The fact that it displays an open mind suggests to me it was not written by the Minister because the Minister’s approach to educational problems has been rather that of displaying an open mouth. Whilst he takes justifiable pride in this legislation, I found it somewhat galling to see that at about the same time as this legislation has come before the Senate the Minister issued a statement-on 5 April this year -regarding the achievements in education by this Government. He said this sort of thing and this is the authentic voice of the Australian Minister for Education:

There is a significant story of achievement to tell. In a time of overall economic restraint the Federal Government has given education top priority. We have inherited some difficult problems. In its last Budget the Whitlam Government cut the 1976 expenditure of the four education commissions by a total of $105 million. It set aside the principle of triennial funding and froze student allowances at the June 1974 price level. It left a legacy of juvenile unemployment of a level unique in Australian history. To reverse these trends has been no easy task but we have done so.

That is the authentic voice of the Minister, which is not reflected in his second reading speech in relation to the Tertiary Education Commission Bill. I shall make some comments about what the Minister had to say in that statement issued on ‘E Day’, as it was called, that is, on 5 April 1 977. He refers to the expenditure cuts made by the Hayden Budget of 1975. He knows that he is confronted at this time in 1977 with the possibility of expenditure cuts of a quite considerable order in education. No doubt in the next few months he will be telling us about all that. He knows why the cuts were made in 1975. He knows that those cuts were made on the basis of the most massive expenditure in education that this country has ever known by a Federal Government.

Senator Walters:

– It is the first time you have admitted cuts.

Senator Lewis:

– You admit that you made the cuts?

Senator BUTTON:

-Of course I admit we made the cuts. They are there for honourable senators to see.

Senator Lewis:

– That is the first time I have heard you admit it.

Senator BUTTON:

-If the honourable senator is looking for nit-picking admissions I am prepared to make them. The point I am making is that the Minister is not. The fact of the matter is that any cuts which were made were made in that context. The last part of the comments made by the Minister which I quoted is the most interesting of all because he refers to the setting aside of the principle of triennial funding, which is not really a very honest approach to the past situation in educational funding in Australia. He referred to a legacy of juvenile unemployment of a level unique in Australia.

Senator Lewis:

– Is that not true?

Senator BUTTON:

-The honourable senator should not get excited; he should just listen for a minute. The Minister referred to a level of juvenile unemployment, which he described as unique. This came from a Minister who was a supporter of the Liberal-Country Party Government in 1968 when the then Treasurer boasted about this country being unique in the world in not having a manpower policy. He said we did not need a manpower policy, that we leave those things to market forces. Senator Carrick, as an ardent supporter of that Government, went along with that sort of policy for years. In 1977 he seeks to score a point against a Labor government about the level of youth unemployment. If he thinks this Government is going to fix up the level of youth unemployment in this country by the measures which are being taken now and will be taken in the next year, or the year after, or the year after that, with the greatest respect to him, he has another think coming and so does Senator Lewis.

I draw attention to these matters because it seems to me, as it were, that the Minister speaks with a forked tongue about the situation in which he found education. Let us look at the history of the matter. Let us go back a little further than perhaps the present Government would like to look at the history of the matter. The suggestion of a post-secondary or tertiary education commission for education was first made by the Martin Committee in 1964. Since the Martin Committee made that recommendation in 1964 there have been 10 years of Liberal-Country Party government in Australia: 8 years before the Labor Government came to office and nearly 2 years since. In all that time the suggestions of the Martin Committee had not been taken up. They were never taken up by the LiberalCountry Party governments between 1964 and 1972 and they are only now being realised in 1977 as a result of initiatives taken by the Labor Government. In that period there were 10 years of Liberal-Country Party government and 3 years of interrupted Labor Party government. It took 3 interrupted years of Labor government to establish the Schools Commission, the Commission on Advanced Education and the Technical and Further Education Commission.

It took a Labor government to raise the needs of each of those major areas of education to issues of public importance and the responsibility of a national government in this country. None of those things were ever heard of before a Labor government came to power. Senator Carrick can make carping political points in his ego statement- nit-picking points- about the 3 years of Labor government and the Labor Government’s record on education, but the record over the past 10 or 12 years stands quite clear. There is the record of inactivity of LiberalCountry Party governments, the record of activity in the establishment of these new commissions and in acting upon the establishment of those commissions by the Labor Government, which established new education priorities accompanied, as they were, by massive Federal funding. It is a source of regret that the Minister does not show a little more generosity of spirit in introducing into this chamber the Tertiary Education Commission Bill which, of course, really is only possible in its present form as a result of the establishment of two post-secondary commissions by the Labor Government and the priorities and initiatives established by that Government.

I said that we had some qualifications about this legislation. The Minister quite properly stressed the need for co-ordination at the Federal level on education priority assessment and the level of funding. He seems, with respect- as I suppose we all have- to have grasped in a slow dawning way the simplistic point that in education, as in everything else, the kneebone is connected to the thighbone. The only difficulty I have about that is that in establishing the Tertiary Education Commission doubts still seem to be raised by other activities of this Government as to whether it really understands the relationship between the various areas of education. I hope that in the course of this debate the Minister will explain to the Senate what is the precise relationship between the Tertiary Education Commission and the Williams inquiry into education and training. I suspect that the real relationship is that the Minister, conscientious as I believe him to be, and his Department, in establishing the Tertiary Education Commission as it was to be established by the Labor Government in a slightly less magnified form, are following a consistent line. But if one compares the terms of reference of the inquiry into education and training to be conducted by Professor

Williams, one finds that there seems to be a very real confusion between the functions of the Tertiary Education Commission and the functions of that inquiry. For example, the terms of reference of that inquiry state:

The inquiry will be concerned specifically with . . .

a ) the provision of educational facilities and services:

the overall pattern of institutions and courses including their objectives;

the responsibilities of State and Commonwealth authorities in relation to the nature and location of institutions

the magnitude of the provision, including the desirable balance between sectors;

the relationship of the provision to the community and individual needs and preferences.

One can go on. The functions of the Tertiary Education Commission are spelt out in clause 7 of the Bill which states:

The functions of the Commission are-

to inquire into, and to furnish information and advice to the Minister with respect to-

matters in connexion with the gram by the Commonwealth of financial assistance to a State for and in respect of universities, colleges of advanced education and technical and further education institutions in the State;

matters in connexion wilh the provision by the Commonwealth of financial assistance for and in respect of universities, colleges of advanced education and technical and further education institutions - and so on. I would have thought that none of those recommendations would have been made by the Tertiary Education Commission without reference to precisely the same son of things which the Williams Committee is going to inquire into. One suspects that what has in fact happened is that the Minister, as the responsible Minister, has set up the Tertiary Education Commission to fulfil these functions but earlier this year the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in one of his knee-jerk, off the top of his head, responses to what he saw as a social need in our community and something which something ought to be done about, with that characteristic degree of ad-hockery which characterised the prices and wages freeze last week set up the Williams inquiry to inquire into the sort of matters to which I have just referred and which are set out in the Williams inquiry terms of reference. Even today one finds the Prime Minister making what is apparently regarded as an important statement on science and technology and not, in any way, relating that statement to the sort of things which the Tertiary Education Commission, one hopes, will be about or the sort of things which the Williams inquiry may well be about. It is the same Government introducing the Tertiary Education Commission Bill which last year proposed to abolish the Australian Industrial Design Council and then, in response to pressure, changed its mind about the abolition of the Australian Industrial Design Council. It did so with no apparent understanding at any stage of the relationship of the function of that body to education and the technological situation in which this community now finds itself. There seems to be no understanding of the relationships between these various statements of the Prime Minister and the statements of the Minister for Education in this House.

I should like to refer to an editorial which appeared in the Canberra Times on 27 August last year which, I think, sets in context the importance of this issue and the lack of planning which has characterised federal governments in this country for many years. When I say ‘ many years ‘ I go back to the time of the Martin Committee’s report in 1964. 1 am referring, as I said earlier, to 10 years of Liberal Government. The Canberra Times stated:

Apart from inertia on the part of the planning authorities, the lack of any rational co-ordination between all sectors of tertiary education, the neglect of careers guidance and the absence of close links between TAFE and the secondary schools, and the misplaced emphasis on the value of university degrees, there has been an unforgivable failure to understand and constantly bear in mind that the creation of the wealth upon which all the people in Australia depend for their livelihood and affluence is primarily the work of the skilled tradesman and the primary producer. Without its wool, wheat, sugar, meat, milk, timber, steel, fruit - and so on- and other products Australia could not support in aboveaverage comfort its tens of thousands of academics, public servants, politicians, entertainers, and market speculators.

That reference, of course, to the lack of coherent planning is not a reference which arose, as Senator Carrick would like to have us believe, in the last days of the Whitlam Government. It is something which has been going on for decades. It is something which has been going on since Liberal governments were able to boast that they had no manpower policies in Australia unique in the world. So, the whole question of lack of planning and so on is important in the context of this Tertiary Education Commission Bill.

I should like to say something, if I might, about the importance of the area of technical and further education because it again comes into this related problem. Again, in the article in the Canberra Times to which I referred, the question of this problem is very well summarised, lt states:

The urgency of allocating more resources to technical education is underscored by the facts that we can no longer count as much as in the past on the skills brought in by immigrants, on the strong belief that the young in Australia are in for prolonged periods of unemployment, that the demand for skills and for the upgrading of existing skills will increase, and that our technical-education facilities have long been starved of funds for capital equipment . . .

The same article referred to the fact that the Technical and Further Education Commission report reaches the inescapable conclusion that without a rapid development of the nation’s technical education structures and resources, Australia will not be equipped to turn out the qualified manpower it needs. Of course, what that article is saying is borne out by the observations of any honourable senator in this place or any citizen of this country who might wander in to most of the technical institutions in this country and make an impressionistic comparison with the same sort of meanderings in which one might indulge in many universities and many colleges of advanced education. Of course, the essence of technical education, quite apart from the quality of the teaching and the facilities available, in 1977 is, of course, the provision of adequate facilities in terms of equipment and equipment which has regard to rapid technological change in the world at large and in a society such as Australia in particular.

As I said, one could make an impressionistic judgment of what has been called the ‘Cinderella’ area of education merely by a visit to some of these institutions. Of course, it is not only educationists and people like that who are concerned about this very matter of the Cinderella area of technical education. Many honourable senators will be familiar with the Jackson report on manufacturing industry and its very strong comments about this very problem of the difficulties which manufacturing industry inherited, of the malaise as it was called which had possessed manufacturing industry in Australia for a number of years- a malaise which once again had nothing to do with 3 years of Labor Government but which has been going on, as the Jackson report found, for a long time. Some of the reasons that the Jackson Committee said that it had been going on for a long time were, of course, the inadequate apprenticeship system which existed in Australia, the poor standard of technical training and the poor working conditions which were available for young people in industry. All of these things, as I said, cannot be attributed in a very glib fashion, as the Minister would like to do, to a brief period of Labor government. All of these reasons were astutely summed up in the reference of the Canberra Times editorial to the needs of technical education in this country.

Of course, the other factor which has to be borne in mind is the sort of revolution of rising expectations which has flooded Australian universities in the last decade and left technical institutions in the Cinderella situation- again as the poor relation of universities and, lately, as the poor relation of colleges of advanced education. That is again reflected, I believe, in the unemployment situation of young people in this country and in the situation of technical education.

We must, I believe, in considering this Bill take note of the constant changing needs and demands of education and try to assess those changing demands and needs not only for 1977 but also for the 1980s and beyond. Let me refer the Senate to what I regard as a thoughtful commentary on this issue which was given in an Australian Broadcasting Commission Guest of Honour program by Dr David Armstrong of the Prahran College of Advanced Education in Melbourne a few weeks ago. Dr Armstrong, in discussing this question, drew attention to the fact that many of our institutions in Australia are too small to be educationally or economically viable. He said that last year 64 per cent of the total number of our post secondary educational institutions enrolled fewer than 1000 students. He said that it is possible to justify some small institutions on grounds of access, that is to say availability in areas, but he wondered about the overall cost of the mushrooming development of post secondary educational institutions which number some 470 in Australia this year. That is a very high ratio to population compared with the United States of America. In the talk which Dr Armstrong gave he advocated a more comprehensive institution and in so doing put it this way:

At present there are three or four basic institutional types in Australia- universities, colleges of advanced education, technical colleges and in some States single-purpose teachers ‘ colleges.

He goes on to say:

It would make sense to reduce the number of institutional types to two- universities, and comprehensive multi-level regional colleges.

I know the word ‘regional’ sends this Government out of its mind. The suggestion of multilevel regional colleges in the context in which Dr Armstrong developed it and which has been developed in the United States and elsewhere has a lot of sense. He illustrates the advantages of this suggested program by setting out the functions which such colleges would perform. These functions are broadly for training for the army of technicians and technologists required by the post industrial state, to provide academic transfer programs to universities and to provide students with an opportunity to transfer from one course, faculty or discipline to another within the same institution without changing from one institution to another. The third and important function in the 1970s and 1980s is providing general interest adult education programs for the community at large and to offer to the community services such as academic counselling and so on. There is a multifarious number of possibilities in a suggestion like that. It may not be a matter which this Government or any government would follow up or take seriously, but it is something which ought to be thought about in the context of tertiary education in the late 1 970s and the 1980s. Again I stress in this regard the need for looking forward rather than backwards.

The only other important point which I think should be made about this legislation is that the Tertiary Education Commission will have one tremendously important function- I assume it is a function of this Commission and not of the Williams Committee. That important function is to try to sort out the relationships between the various sectors now covered by the respective commissions. On this side of the House we have expressed strong emphasis towards the importance of technical and further education, and so has the Minister for Education. In sorting out these relationships it is worth while having in mind some of the criticisms which have been made of the relationships which exist between the various areas in tertiary education in Australia at the moment. Earlier this year the London Times higher education supplement had this to say in discussing the Australian problem ash was called:

To say the universities are to develop the more academic, theoretical side of higher education, while the colleges develop the practical and immediately vocational side, rings hollow when the former are allowed to retain a virtual monopoly over training for law and for medicine. To say that the strength of the colleges is their diversity is little more than an apology for their failure to develop any coherent alternative conception for higher education. The colleges have mostly aspired to higher level work because there has been nothing in the system to persuade them to aspire to anything else.

That criticism was made in the London Times higher education supplement. I hope that the Tertiary Education Commission will be looking at it in trying to assess the relationships between the various levels of education in this country. They are all matters which need to be considered. As I say, we are optimistic about this legislation. We welcome it. It will need to be seen with flexibility and imagination having regard to changes that will inevitably take place in the next few years and on into the future. Those sorts of changes would, one hopes, provoke us all- I am not making any party political point- continually to try to assess, as one writer has put it, the very elements of education, the theory and the practice, the structures and the methods, and the management and the organisation which all have to be rethought in Australia. Our traditional concepts of institutions must be shed. It is only through the adoption of fundamental alternatives to our present concepts and structures of education that we will produce an Australia which is a total learning society. As I said, the Opposition hopes that the establishment of this Tertiary Education Commission will be a step along those lines, but it will require the imagination, the flexibility and the thought to which I referred earlier in my remarks.

Senator MARTIN:
Queensland

-I am obliged to comment on the tone of the debate so far until possibly the speech of Senator Button. I wondered throughout the debate whether the Opposition has been more interested in the future of education in Australia or the future of the Opposition in Australia. Without a doubt the Government recognises that the Tertiary Education Commission Bill is not a total answer. It provides a framework for what we hope is as complete an answer as we can achieve. The Bill itself does not give the total answer to human relationships and the very difficult decisions of educational administration that must be made in the near future in Australia.

We have had some reasonably good debates on the subject of education in this chamber but on the last few occasions when we have debated education we have encountered a situation where the Opposition has continually moved amendments related only to technical education. Surely the purpose of this Bill is to try to find some way of putting all these post secondarycumtertiary areas into a context where we can debate them together realistically, where we do not have to divide one area against another, where we can make decisions which are educational priority decisions and not special interest decisions. That is the whole purpose, surely, of the Tertiary Education Commission. I am sorry that the Opposition has seen fit to move yet again a pious amendment specifically in relation to technical education at the second reading stage of this Bill. That surely defeats the purpose of the debate in which we could have engaged.

For some time it has been obvious to those who care about education in Australia that there has been a desperate need for some sort of rationalisation or realistic assessment of what has been happening in the post secondary area in Australia. Certainly many good things have happened. There have been many exciting developments, but at the same time there has been quite a lot of Topsy-like growth which has caused many people not directly involved in the edu-‘ cation area but who care about what happens in the community to ask the question: ‘What on earth is going on?’

We have had a very interesting and rewarding development of universities in this country postwar. The Martin Committee report led to the expansion and development of colleges of advanced education. In more recent years there has been a particular interest in technical education which has led to the emphasis on public spending in that area which this Government has followed and subsequently to the emphasis which the Opposition chooses to make almost exclusive in debates on education in this chamber.

I wish to address myself mainly to the purpose of the Bill but there must be some comment on some of the more outlandish statements that have been made in the course of the debate. I welcome this decision by the Government. It is the most reasonable decision that it could have made. The area of education and the proportion of federal government spending that has been taken up by it has been rapidly expanding in recent years. We have worshipped the sacred cow of education in Australia for some time- now. It has been dangerous politically ever to ask a question about whether spending money in certain areas of education was right and proper. One could all too easily be labelled anti-education when that was not a fair or true challenge. Recently we have entered a climate in which we can undertake a reasonable assessment in public debate of what is happening in the post secondary area of education. This has assisted us to reach the logical conclusion, that is, to establish the Tertiary Education Commission. A number of commissions have been operating for a greater or lesser length of time trying to carry out to the best of their individual abilities the responsibilities they have been set in their respective areas of education, universities, colleges or technical education. The rate of growth and the objective value of that growth has not been properly assessed.

I hope that one of the educational advantages of this Bill is that we will be able to achieve a degree of objectivity in our education debate in Australia which has been generally lacking to date. I hope that a number of reports will come from the Commission on what ought to happenin the opinion of the Commission- in education in Australia, which will be open to public scrutiny. I hope they will become documents of objective value by which the public can debate the wisdom or otherwise of Government decisions which will not be subject to directions by the Commission but, of course, advised by it. The responsibility of the Government for education objectives will still exist. It is not submerged. The Government is not passing the responsibility for policy to anybody else. Governments of the future will still have to set guidelines which will, to some extent, set the councils and the commission on their paths. Governments of the future will still have to make decisions after receiving the reports which will be political as well as educational. Those decisions and guidelines will be continually measured in terms of public documents which will have some objective educational value to the country. That is what matters.

We do not denigrate or not recognise the difficulty of definition in these 3 areas. The definitions in the Bill are as broad as they are long. That is as it should be. Senator Button saw fit to make some comment on definitions. In the tertiary area it is easy to make quick and not very worthwhile capital in that area. Senator Button saw fit to comment, for example, on provincial institutions. I inform him that I am not a member of a government which shrinks from the word provincial ‘. I recognise that in the tertiary area the word ‘provincial’ is a valuable one. I do not agree with Senator Button that all education institutions should be all things to all people. That is what he went on to suggest. In my own State of Queensland there is a number of education institutions which vary very much in their structure and objectives. I mention, in particular, the Capricornia Institute of Advanced Education which was built in response to a community need. Right from its beginning it has had a close relationship to the community it has served. The institution and the community have striven to preserve this relationship. This is a college of advanced education offering Arts degrees and courses in government, politics and subjects like that. It is not very helpful to ask: ‘What the devil is a college of advanced education doing offering those courses?’ We have to face the fact, given the patterns of provincial development in Australia, that definitions of universities and colleges of advanced education do not serve us well in terms of what education ought to be doing for all Australians. If the Capricornia Institute of Advanced Education did not offer Arts degrees and courses in government the people of the Rockhampton region would have no opportunity to study those subjects. I refer particularly, of course to certain disadvantaged groups in our community which Senator Button did not mention but which other speakers on his side of the chamber did. If the Capricornia Institute of Advanced Education did not offer a basic Arts degree it would not be possible, for example, for housewives of Rockhampton to receive an Arts degree. If they had to travel to Townsville or Brisbane to undertake university type educations they would not be able to do so. We have to face certain provincial responsibility in education in Australia. As a consequence we cannot clearly and finally define those areas. If we attempt to do so our tertiary education system will not be serving the country, it will be serving the academics and the politicians, it will not be serving the people. That is a fact we must all face.

I am sure that all of us who care about education are very interested in the development that is taking place in Launceston at the moment. It has a College of Advanced Education and a maritime college is also being developed. The college of advanced education operates in what appears to be clearly a tertiary area which has been the preserve of universities and colleges for some time. The maritime college offers essentially technical education. It will offer certain subjects of study which will be very much part of the Launceston College of Advanced Education. The deliberate development of that particular educational experiment- a college of advanced education and a technical college deliberately overlapping in their courses and resources- is one that I find exciting. I am sure it will teach us much of what we need to know in the development of these 2 areas of tertiary education in Australia. It will probably give us many lessonsunder optimum conditions, I agree, because they are both new institutions- that we need to learn about tertiary education.

As I said earlier, those who are interested and concerned about education in Australia have been aware for some time that there has been a direct and pronounced need for rationalisation in the tertiary area. There has been to a large extent a lack of overall planning in that area which has led to a proliferation of institutions. The proliferation, in itself, need not have been undesirable but, in practice, it has been. We all know of many examples of the development of institutions which are not viable individual institutions. Had their establishment been undertaken in a total tertiary education context, the questions which have been raised which would have led, I believe, to a better development of educational resources. It would be unfair to single out any individual institutions for criticism because we would be depending for our selection on our own individual knowledge. Numerous examples, to my knowledge, exist throughout the country. There are examples where courses have been developed in the most unlikely institutions of tertiary education, apparently because they have been promoted as an extension, not necessarily a logical extension, of something that was already happening in those institutions. In each case they just happened to be the first tertiary institution to ask for the resources and rights to offer those courses. The results in some cases have been ludicrous.

We can deplore the apparent wastage of public money which has resulted but that surely is not as serious as the wastage which has occurred in the abilities and ambitions of those young people who have gone to these institutions believing that they were being offered something which would be of permanent value to them throughout their life. Those people who were motivated to lift themselves out of the unskilled area that we have heard so much about from the Opposition were, frankly, deceived and wasted their own personal as well as financial resources in undertaking courses which did not deliver the goods. I am aware of certain institutions in Queensland which, in the scramble for finance which is based very much on student numbers, have deliberately misrepresented the worth of their courses to potential students. In that misrepresentation they have attracted additional students and therefore, ultimately, additional academic staff, because so much is based on staff-student ratios. Increased numbers of staff and students have attracted additional buildings because they need a certain basic amount of space. So the empire building went on. Once the buildings are up, they are permanent- tertiary buildings. Once the staff are appointed, they are virtually permanent, because of academic tenure. The students may come and go, but those two enormous factors in our total education expenditure are not variable once they have been committed.

We desperately need some organisation such as this commission, some instrument for education planning such as this commission, which can look at what to date have been competing sectors of education. That planning instrument is needed to advise us in areas of competition for resources between universities, colleges and technical colleges on the sensible disbursement of funds and forms of development that would meet national education objectives. That can only be in the interests of those young people, and older people too these days, who seek training and education and in whose interest it clearly is that we make the best possible use of our resources.

In that context one must use the word rationalisation. It is a word that can be used or abused. It can sound cold and not very worthy, but it can also mean a sensible development of our resources. In this country we have a high level of education. We are so aware of what is available and what the possibilities are. But we, like every country, have limited resources. We have educated people sufficiently to be aware of the possibilities. We have not necessarily educated them sufficiently to be aware of what the costs of those possibilities are, both in general community and in particular personal terms.

Senator Wriedt:

– Who prepared your speech?

Senator MARTIN:

– Nobody.

Senator Wriedt:

– You are reading your speech. Remember standing order 406.

Senator MARTIN:

- Senator Wriedt can ask me to table my speech if he likes. It is written in note form and in pencil. I do not think it would be of much benefit to anybody, even Hansard. To suggest that anybody has written my speech is the most ludicrous suggestion that the Opposition has made so far in this debate.

In the area of planning we have to look at the very particular systems the 3 different sectors have developed. The universities have developed a very useful and well tried and well worked out process for their planning. The Australian Universities Commission has been in existence now for decades and it has served the area of tertiary education and the universities, in particular, very well. The Universities Commission has many areas of their planning and administration down to a fine art. It works like a smoothly oiled machine. The universities always have had a particular advantage in their dealings with their Commission. Because of the small number of universities there has been some direct access to the Commission, albeit an informal one on occasions, even when States were involved in their funding. Even now that direct access is not affected in any way by what is to happen. No matter what happens as a result of this Tertiary Education Commission Bill, regardless of what might happen with funding policies in the future, that situation will not change because there are so few universities. The people who are administering the universities and the people who are administering the Universities Commission know well that there exists a direct access which has been to the advantage of the universities.

The colleges have been in a different position because they have been evolving a new system in recent years. The Commission on Advanced Education is a fairly new Commission. It has had to establish itself and find its own way, just as the Universities Commission did initially, but also it has operated with a very particular State involvement. There have been boards of advanced education which have had a direct say in planning. There have been some difficulties and some frustrations which are only matters of detail of administration but which the Government will need to look at as it applies this new Bill. Everybody in Government and Opposition will be aware of the familiar complaint- it is a well based one and one which ought to be attended to- that there seems to be in the colleges area, as against the universities area, difficulties with the decision-making machinery at times which means that things are sometimes not achieved smoothly. We would all be familiar with college administrations which have said: ‘What are the responsibilities of Canberra and what are the responsibilities of the State board?’ Colleges may receive approval for what would appear to be machinery and very much local matters related to their physical development and which fall within a pre-approved total academic development. Having received State approval, these colleges may suddenly find themselves frustratingly sent back to square one on their physical planning by the Canberra Commission. The Commission may well be acting properly, but the matter of where discretion lies and whether there is any purpose in that State board is one which ought to be cleared up. Now, of course, the Commission virtually becomes the council, but that is the type of detail of implementation of the Bill that we must look at carefully.

This Bill introduces a fairly intricate bureaucracy: It is not difficult to follow for those who are familiar with the tertiary area but nevertheless a more involved total bureaucracy will be needed than was previously. Therefore the examples of difficulty that arose from the previous structure ought to be noted and attended to now. I that happens they will cause us no trouble in the future. If they are not attended to now we run the risk that the whole area of tertiary education planning may be more involved than it need be and even set back in what we could reasonably expect of it.

The technical area has had a very large degree of flexibility in planning. It has had Limited Federal funds; it has been State funded, in the main for very good reasons. I do not think for one minute that the State governments would want to forgo the responsibility that they have in the technical area so easily as they did in the area of universities and colleges because it serves a rather different purpose. Nevertheless, with that flexibility there have been actions taken by technical colleges which have not been, I would suggest, necessarily in the interest of tertiary education and which have affected the colleges in particular. One really ought to look at this whole subject. It is good that there is flexibility, and for the technical colleges in particular it is good that they can quickly respond to community need. Nevertheless, without trying to take away that effectiveness of the technical colleges, one ought to look at a situation that arises as a consequence.

The colleges of advanced education go through quite long and very specific processes whereby they get approval of new courses. Having gone through those processes, which may take years in the case of some courses, having made a value judgment in terms of their resources, having decided to introduce that course as against some other course, having committed resources to it, having advertised and appointed staff- they suddenly find that on 2 weeks’ notice a technical college has set up a similar course- maybe not at the same level but probably to answer the same community demand. The colleges, having foregone the possibility of putting their resources into other areas, find themselves in a poor position for competition as against the technical colleges. I do not suggest that we ought to slow down or bog down technical colleges with bureaucracy but I do suggest that they ought to have brought home to them the responsibility that they have in the total post-secondary education area. They should be made to realise that what they do matters very much, not just to the colleges but also to the community which cares about what is happening in that area of education.

I said at the beginning that the Opposition has chosen in the last couple of debates on education in this chamber to narrow the debate very much, to narrow it specifically to the technical education area. We have had an extraordinary series of contradictions and waffly sort of argument in this area. On the one hand the Opposition is very wobbly on what it thinks about the commission which is inquiring into education and training. On the other hand it says we really must attend to the technical area and put a very much larger proportion of our resources into training people for jobs, because obviously that is an area of particular need. The Opposition cannot have it both ways. It cannot argue, that we need more resources for technical education because people need to be trained for jobs on those particular occasions when it chooses to move an amendmentas it has done today- on that very particular subject, and then on other occasions- as has happened here when we have had an education debate in more general terms- criticise the Government for looking at such problems as education and training. It cannot then say that we really are overlooking, as the Opposition has charged on various occasions, the great, large, stirring and wonderful meaning of education and that we ought to be educating plumbers in music and poetry, as has also been suggested to us on previous occasions. The Opposition needs to sort itself out on that issue. It needs to sort out whether it really thinks that technical educationthat is, the training for jobs- is something that is important and something into which a very much larger proportion of our resources ought to go. If it does, I hope it will desist in other debates on education from saying that we are giving too much emphasis to the technical aspects- that is, the job training aspects- of the whole education system.

The Government’s record, I suggest, has been good in this area. For some reasons, certain groups in the education arena have chosen to tell continual untruths about the Government’s policy. There would never be a month go by, I do not doubt, but the New South Wales Teachers Federation’s journal has some large article about an alleged reduction in education spending by the Fraser Government. It apparently pursues the idea that if one repeats something often enough some people, the ones who read only that source of information, will believe it. The Federation believes that if it is very lucky, what it says will come true. Perhaps it believes that if the Government is abused often enough -

Senator Wriedt:

– Are you calling its members liars?

Senator MARTIN:

– I said that certain things which appear in the journal are not true.

Senator Wriedt:

– You said that there are untruths.

Senator MARTIN:

– There are untruths, that is right. There have been articles in the New South Wales Teachers Federation’s journal which have stated without any qualification that the Government has reduced education spending. There have been a large number of articles in that journal to that effect. That is not true, as Senator Wriedt knows very well. I was speculating why it might choose to state that untruth. I have stated this to its members’ faces, so the honourable senator will not have the opportunity to disclose to them any great secret about my opinions. It is something of which they are aware. They know that I am critical of them in that direction. Nevertheless, they go ahead. It does not matter that much to them. One can only speculate on why people do that. They do it either because they really want the Government to reduce education spending or because they do not really care about their credibility with people outside their own political persuasion. That is the trap into which the Opposition is in danger of falling. I do not suggest ibr one moment that the Opposition is not telling the truth. I suggest that the Opposition is telling selective truths and is not doing justice to itself in the whole treatment of the subject.

The Opposition must ask itself whether it can concede anything to reality. There are times when oppositions and governments can come together in a happy concert and say that something which is good has happened. Opposition senators should ask themselves whether they are pleased that something which is good for our country and for the area in which we believe has happened. The Opposition really ought to concede a little more to reality so that we can have a more constructive debate. This Government is probably very lucky that it has a Minister who genuinely cares about education and who can take debates in the spirit in which they are engaged in in this chamber. I urge upon the Opposition and those who are interested in education or who claim to be- that includes the New South Wales Teachers Federation- that in the narrowing of the whole education debate to only one area they are negating what education is supposed to be about, and what the Opposition and the other people have presented that education is all about from time to time.

Education is about the opportunities that it can offer individuals in setting the direction of their own lives. It is about the opportunities that it offers our country in its future direction and planning. Those are the things that ought to matter. Without any doubt, government and opposition will differ on detail, but in general direction we ought to be able to reach some consensus. For that reason I suggest to the Senate that the amendment moved by the Opposition is quite unworthy of the Opposition. The amendment will be defeated in due course. The Bill which the

Minister presented and the policy which the Minister presented are matters in which I think most people involved in tertiary education in Australia believe. I say that quite deliberately. It is a well advised and a well directed policy. We have the potential to develop properly, dispassionately, objectively, for the good of our country and for the good of education, policies which will be acceptable to all. It is not necessary that they be acceptable in their finest detail ultimately. That never happens. That would be too much for which to hope. Therefore, on the basis that the Bill is well intentioned and well directed, I commend it to the Senate.

Senator COLSTON:
Queensland

– The Senate is debating 2 Bills cognately the Tertiary Education Commission Bill 1977 and the Commonwealth Teaching Service Amendment Bill 1977. I shall confine my remarks to the former of these 2 Bills. Before commencing my principal comments I would like to make some remarks on 2 aspects that have been mentioned by previous speakers. I am tempted to use a phrase used by Senator Martin -‘selective truth’- because two of the previous speakers have peddled the well worn and misleading argument that the Labor Government cut $105m off education spending in the 1975 Budget. Let me explain what actually occurred in 1975 and what has been the Government’s strategy since then. When the education commissions brought forward their estimates of requirements in 1975 the Labor Government was forced to say that the requests from the commissions could not be fully granted. That was following the rapid expansion of funds that had been provided for education by the Labor Government since it came to power in 1 972. There were no actual cuts in expenditure. In fact, there was an increase in real terms for education in the 1975 Budget. The cuts that are spoken of were not cuts as such. They were the short-fall between what the education commissions recommended and what the Government decided could be provided for education that year.

What this Government has done has been to tell the commissions what amounts will be made available. The commissions have to tailor their plans accordingly. With this approach the Government will never be placed in a situation which the Labor Government faced in 1975, because the commissions will not be able to provide plans which request a certain amount of funds to be expended, with the Government saying: ‘No, that cannot be provided at this stage’. What has happened is that the commissions have been told what amounts will be available. If one looks at the comments made by the commissions one can see that they are by no means enthralled by the approach of the present Government. If Government members intend to continue to use this argument, which I believe is a spurious argument, they should tell the full story. Even better, I suggest that they use their research expertise to find out what the commissions would really like by way of funds and what the Government is actually providing by way of funds. Then they can boast about the sort of cut which they have made to education.

Senator Martin said that the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Wriedt, would be defeated by the Government using its numbers. For the people who are listening to this debate, let me quote what the amendment states. It states:

At the end of motion, add ‘ but the Senate is of the opinion that in respect of the Tertiary Education Commission Bill 1977-

1 ) the Senate recognises the disadvantaged position or technical education in Australia and that adequate financial resources will be made available to the technical sector to raise its standards to levels envisaged in the Kangan Report;

further measures be taken to ensure that technical education in Australia is not further isolated from secondary education; and

every effort be made to ensure full provision for the development of further education ‘.

If the Government votes against that amendment and defeats it, what does it mean? Does it mean that the Government does not recognise the disadvantaged position of technical education in Australia? It must certainly mean that. Does it mean that the Government does not recognise that adequate financial measures should be made available to the technical sector to raise its standards? It seems very strange to me that this amendment faces defeat because the Government does not believe that the amendment has the credence that it definitely has. Let me return to my principal remarks about the Tertiary Education Commission Bill. I believe that with a Bill of this nature it is pertinent to examine certain aspects in relation to the current education commissions. At the Federal level at present there are 4 education commissions. There will not be, of course, once this legislation is passed. I shall look at some of the origins and at some of the developments of these 4 commissions so that we can place this Bill which is now before us in a proper context. We shall see how it fits into the development of education. We shall look at the Commonwealth involvement in education and how, since the Commonwealth has become increasingly involved in education, this has been a further development.

The Australian Universities Commission was established under the Australian Universities Commission Act of 1959 following acceptance by the Commonwealth Government of the recommendations made by the Murray Committee that the Australian Universities Grants Committee be established. During 1974 the Commission’s name was shortened to the Universities Commission and the title of the Act was changed to the Universities Commission Act. The functions of the Universities Commission are broadly to advise the Commonwealth on the needs of universities; to recommend to the Commonwealth the extent and level of grants to the States for universities and for financial assistance to universities established by the Commonwealth; to study the problems and needs of universities and to advise on any special university matters brought before it; and, finally, to promote the balanced development of universities so that their resources can be used to the greatest possible advantage to Australia. Universities are autonomous bodies. They are responsible for the conduct of their own affairs. The Universities Commission thus does not in any sense administer the universities.

In accordance with established policy on the funding of universities, the Universities Commission, in recommending recurrent funds by way of block grants, avoids detailed involvement in university policy and expenditure. In promoting balanced development of universities, the Universities Commission is obliged to consider the possible effects of development of new activities in the universities and the financial implications of such new developments. For instance in Queensland, which is the State I represent, the Universities Commission had to look at the possible development of new medical facilities. This is just one example. After proper investigation the Universities Commission decided that not only should there be the current medical school at the University of Queensland but also that a medical school should be set up at the James Cook University. The Griffith University in Queensland was interested in setting up a medical school but the Universities Commission, after proper consideration, said that that should not proceed but that a new school should be established at the James Cook University. Unfortunately, the plans for James Cook University are in limbo at the moment but I imagine and hope that they will proceed in future years.

It will be well remembered that the Australian Labor Party in 1 972 promised to abolish tuition fees at universities and colleges of advanced education. When this occurred and with the Commonwealth’s assumption of full financial responsibility for universities from 1 January 1974, the Universities Commission became responsible for the flow of virtually all funds to the universities. As a result of conditions attached to grants under the States Grants (Universities) Act the Commission has acquired responsibility for the approval of certain university expenditures, particularly university building programs.

I mention now a second commission which currently exists but which will not exist after the passage of this legislation. That is the Commission on Advanced Education. This Commission was established by the Australian Commission on Advanced Education Act of 1971. Similar to the Australian Universities Commission, in 1974 the title of this Commission was changed to the Commission on Advanced Education. The Commission’s predecessor was the Commonwealth Advisory Committee on Advanced Education which was established as a result of the recommendations made by the 1964 Martin report on tertiary education. The functions of the Commission on Advanced Education are to furnish information and advice to the Minister on matters relating to Commonwealth Government financial assistance to advanced education institutions in the States and Territories. The Commission’s advice to the Government must include the necessity for and conditions upon which financial assistance should be given and the amount and allocation of such assistance. Broadly, the Commission on Advanced Education is to perform its functions with a view to promoting the balanced development of advanced education provisions so that the institutional resources can be used to the greatest possible advantage of Australia. To this end the Commission is required to consult with institutions providing advanced education, with the Universities Commission and with the States. It may consult with such other persons, institutions or bodies as it thinks proper.

The role of the Commission on Advanced Education is in some ways different from that of the Universities Commission. Although funds are provided by the Commonwealth Government, the Commission recognises that colleges, like universities, are or should be autonomous and should have their own governing bodies. It thus attempts to limit direction of individual college expenditure to stating the main broad objectives which its financial recommendations are intended to achieve. Nevertheless, in addition to its advisory role, the Commission has certain executive powers in the area of course approvals and the distribution of funds for approved capital projects within a State. Broadly, the Universities Commission does not have the same power over course approvals. It recommends money for institutions rather than courses. .

I turn now to the third commission. After my comments with regard to the first 2 commissions it is perhaps somewhat pleasing to say that this commission will remain after the passage of the legislation which we are currently debating. Nevertheless, I consider it is necessary to make some brief remarks about the Schools Commission. The Schools Commission was established by the Australian Labor Government as a statutory body. Legislation for this Commission was assented to in December 1973. The Commission was preceded by the Interim Committee for the Australian Schools Commission, chaired by Professor Karmel. In general, the functions of the Schools Commission are to recommend to the Minister for Education what Australian Government funds should be made available to schools and school systems throughout the country in order to ensure acceptable standards and also to inquire into and report on any aspect of primary or secondary schooling. I shall mention briefly at a later stage some further aspects with regard to the Schools Commission.

I mention finally the fourth commission which currently exists. Like the first 2 commissions, this commission will no longer be in existence after the passage of this legislation. When I say that these commissions will no longer be in existence one must remember that there will be councils in their place. I refer, of course, to the Technical and Further Education Commission. This Commission was established during the term of the Labor Government. The Act establishing this Commission received assent in May 1975. The broad functions of the Technical and Further Education Commission are to inquire into and furnish information and advice to the Minister with respect to the general development of technical and further education in Australia; the needs and desirable standards for buildings, equipment, teaching and other staff and other facilities, including student residences- to which a previous speaker has referred- the respective priorities for satisfying needs, and the means of attaining and maintaining standards; matters in connection with the grant and the conditions, if any, of financial assistance to the States, and the amount and allocation of such financial assistance.

Each of the 4 commissions which I have so far mentioned is required to furnish reports to the

Minister as the Minister requires and may furnish such other reports as it sees fit. It is important that we realise that each may furnish other reports as it sees fit because remarks along these lines will be made in the Committee stages of this Bill. It is worth noting that legislation to give effect to the Labor Government’s decision to amalgamate the Universities Commission and the Commission on Advanced Education was introduced in the Parliament on 22 October 1975. In other words, there have been previous moves to amalgamate two of these commissionsthe Universities Commission and the Commission on Advanced Education. That Bill, which was termed the Tertiary Education Commission Bill 1975, lapsed when Parliament was abruptly dissolved on 1 1 November 1975.

Because of comments I wish to make later I consider it also worthwhile to look at the background of the establishment of the 4 commissions. In brief, the Commonwealth’s principal involvement in education began with financial assistance to students during and after World War II and this role has expanded to encompass other aspects and levels of education. The Commonwealth Government assumed control of income taxation in 1943 and gained powers to cover ‘benefits to students’ as a result of an amendment to the Constitution in 1946, one of the few proposals to amend the Constitution which have been accepted. A financial assistance scheme to assist universities following the gaining of these powers led to accommodation problems at universities and, after an examination by a committee chaired by Professor Mills, Commonwealth financial grants were made to universities in 195 1. However, the continuing strain placed on available staff, buildings and residential resources eventually prompted the Federal Government to set up the Murray Committee in 1956. The acceptance of its recommendations resulted in Commonwealth assistance on a much wider scale and the establishment of the Australian Universities Commission in 1959. Following that, as a result of election promises made during the 1960s, the Federal Government’s involvement in education increased. Aid was given to independent school pupils, to secondary school science laboratories and libraries, to technical education and to teacher training institutions. As one who was working in the education sphere at the time I gained the impression, as did many of my then colleagues, that a lot of the increasing involvement of the Federal Government was very much on a politically ad hoc basis. Nevertheless in the 1960s we did see an increasing involvement in education by the Federal Government.

In 1969 the Labor Party gave an undertaking to establish a Schools Commission and during the 1972 election campaign Mr Whitlam made a statement which I consider to be worthwhile quoting. He said:

The Australian Labor Party believes that the Commonwealth should adopt the same methods to assist schools as it adopted to assist universities and colleges of advanced education- through a commission. We will establish an Australian Schools’ Commission to examine and determine the needs of students in Government and non-government primary, secondary and technical schools. I propose to prepare for the statutory Schools’ Commission as Sir Robert Menzies prepared for the Universities Commission. In December 1956 he wrote to Sir Keith Murray and some other leading educationists to advise him on the immediate needs of universities and their future requirements. They reported to Sir Robert within 9 months.

Following the 1972 election the Labor Government followed this procedure and the Interim Committee was set up followed later by the Schools Commission. The establishment of commissions in the Australian context of education enables the Government of the day to be provided with specialist advice which otherwise might not be available. For instance there has been the provision of specialist reports on particular subjects such as teaching hospitals and medical education. I mentioned earlier how the Universities Commission looked at the provision of further medical education facilities not only in the State that I represent but also in all other States by commissioning a study and bringing forth a special report on medical education. There have been reports on open universities, language education and management education, and these reports have been a notable feature of the operation of the Commission in addition to its more usual function of furnishing advice on general funding programs.

By and large the concept of commissions as sources of specialist advice in fields of education has had general acceptance in Australia, although I remember that there was some debate at the political level over their applicability to the schools sector. I think that any major source of apprehension in that area no longer exists. Such commissions placed education in a relatively favoured position vis a vis other sectors of public activity. Each placed before the Government its assessment of needs which was made public and it was up to the Government of the day to accept or to reject publicly these recommendations. This was the case until the new guidelines were set by this Government. It is well worth remembering this because other areas of Government activity may not receive this expert assessment and thus may be less favoured than education. I believe that educationists have no reason to apologise for this situation but that they must keep it in mind.

As I mentioned earlier, the 3 post secondary commissions will no longer exist with the passing of the Tertiary Education Commission Bill. There will be the 3 councils, the Universities Council, the Advanced Education Council and the Technical and Further Education Council. In many respects I look forward to the concept of a higher planning body to co-ordinate these 3 councils which will take the place of the currently existing 3 post-secondary commissions. I and many others have seen in universities and colleges of advanced education duplication of effort where it is not necessary and duplication of courses where such duplication is not necessary. One may look in a cursory way at certain institutions and see that institutions situated close to one another have courses of a similar nature. That does not necessarily mean that those courses should not be duplicated in those 2 institutions. But I do think that there is much duplication where duplication is not necessary. I have seen undue competition amongst various postsecondary institutions. Whilst I am sure that some competition is worthwhile and probably is good in the educational sphere, as it is in many other aspects of life, undue competition which takes away too much of the scarce resources that are available to education probably needs to be examined carefully.

It must be remembered- I think that quite often it is not remembered- that resources which can be channelled into any activity including education throughout Australia, are limited. Because such resources are limited it is necessary that these resources are wisely and efficiently used. I hope that this will happen with all of our educational institutions in Australia. Let us not be so inflexible that we cannot provide institutions close by one another if necessary or in isolated areas or regional areas if necessary, and institutions which provide a variety of courses. But let us have a close look at them to make sure that the funds that we have available are used in the best possible way. If the Tertiary Education Commission can fulfil this role in making sure that we use our resources wisely it will be very worthwhile. Although the Opposition wishes to raise some matters in the Committee stage, generally it accepts the introduction of the Tertiary Education Commission Bill and gives it its support.

Senator KNIGHT:
Australian Capital Territory

– I rise to support the Bills before the Senate and refer firstly to the Tertiary Education Commission Bill, the purpose of which is to combine the 3 existing tertiary commissionsthe Universities Commission, the Commission on Advanced Education and the Technical and Further Education Commission. Under the Tertiary Education Commission these will be represented in future by 3 councils of the same names. It is important to note that the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) said:

These Councils will preserve much of the essential qualities of the existing commissions while working with and being subject to the co-ordinating functions and authority of the new Tertiary Education Commission.

I think that that is really the essential point- that the reforms proposed by this legislation will provide better co-ordination of educational policies at the tertiary level, and it implements the Government’s election policy on the need to coordinate the work of the educational commissions and in this case particularly the 3 tertiary education commissions.

Another point of particular interest and significance is that it will more effectively recognise the significance of technical and further education with respect to other aspects of tertiary education. One hopes that this also will be recognised I am sure that it will be recognised- in the work of the Williams Committee of Inquiry into Education and Training which is an initiative taken by the Government at a time when such an initiative is clearly necessary. I will refer to that again later. The sort of inquiry to be conducted by the Williams Committee will be of fundamental importance to the future of education in Australia, particularly tertiary education, and will no doubt influence the development of tertiary education in this country for many years.

There are particular reasons why at this time in our history it is necessary and very important to develop a more effective tertiary education system. We are living in a time of rapidly changing social values. There is a recognised and growing need within the community for continuing education. There is a growing and now widely recognised need for more technical skills. There is a process of changing demand in the employment market which governments have recognised and which we must move to meet. That applies also to the relevance of skills for which people are being trained both in our secondary schools at junior and senior levels and, more importantly, ultimately in tertiary institutions, particularly technical and further education institutions. It is essential that these developments within our society and the implications with respect to tertiary education be recognised and that reforms be implemented urgently to meet these needs. I believe that this Tertiary Education Commission is one such significant reform.

The significance that the present Government attaches to education has been well enough illustrated by the fact that in 1977 Federal funds for education increased by $47m, an increase of 3 per cent in real money terms, in contrast with a reduction of $ 105m in 1976. As I said, that illustrates the son of priority which the present Government is quite properly giving to education. It is also indicated in the increase in student allowances in accordance with cost of living increases after these allowances had been frozen by the previous government at the June 1974 level. Last year the present Government made very substantial increases in those allowances for students.

I have already mentioned that the real increase in funds from the Federal Government for education in general this year was 3 per cent. It is of particular significance that the real increase in funds specifically for technical and further education was Vh per cent. Again I think that that quite properly recognises and signifies the importance of technical and further education in our society now. Over recent years we have seen that universities, for example, have been relatively well provided for and have experienced rapid development. In more recent years colleges of advanced education have also developed relatively rapidly. But in many respects technical education has been neglected, and this Government is giving technical education greater priority at a time when it is essential.

Within our community there is a growing recognition of the importance of technical skills. There is a growing recognition that technical skills may be just as important as a university degree. I believe that governments have a role to play in furthering that sort of recognition within the community and encouraging it. This can be done in part through encouraging development and giving the sort of support that the Government is giving to technical and further education. ( Quorum formed.)

I know that the sorts of needs to which I have been referring have been recognised by the Minister in a number of public statements. It is worth remembering that this need for technical skills has existed in the community for some years. I refer to the report on manpower policy in

Australia by the Department of Labor and Immigration in 1 974 in which it was stated:

Shortages in the supply of tradesmen have been the subject of a number of State and National apprenticeship inquiries since 1949. The most recent national assessment shows that as at October 1973 shortages of adult skilled metal, and electrical tradesmen continued to be experienced in every State.

That illustrates the sort of situation which has been developing in Australia over the years. As that report pointed out, there have been inquiries into this matter since 1949. Something is being done now about this particular problem, which has been recognised by the Government, specifically in the Australian Capital Territory. There have been a number of changes here to which I would like to refer. The former Technical and Further Education Authority in the Capital Territory in its report for 1975-76 outlined what it referred to as a ‘Strategy Plan’ for the Australian Capital Territory for the period 1977 to 1 987. In that report the Authority pointed out:

That TAFE should be available to all members of the community above school leaving age, and be regarded as an acceptable alternative to other streams of post-secondary education. That funds should be provided in like proportion to other areas of education for facilities, buildings and equipment. To satisfy these requirements a TAFE college should be established to serve each major area of the A.C.T., with the opportunity to achieve equal status and to develop its own character and identity through the range of general and other specialised courses provided.

The Australian Capital Territory population in 1976 was about 200 000. It attracted a proportional TAFE enrolment, according to the report to which I have referred, of 6.8 per cent, which was a significant increase from 5 per cent in 1969. That report suggested that by 1987 the student participation rate might reach a plateau of about 8 per cent. It suggested also that by 1987 the following colleges would be required in the Australian Capital Territory: The Canberra Technical and Further Education College at Reid, with some other additions including one at Belconnen, which is now being completed and others at Lyneham and Fyshwick, which are in existence; a college at Bruce, which is now under construction and a further stage of which is required for completion in the period 1979 to 1984; a college at Woden, with further stages to be completed between 1982 and 1984; a college at Tuggeranong, required by about 1984-85 and, of course, the School of Art, with a permanent location currently under consideration.

On 10 November last year the Minister for Education announced a number of changes in the administration of technical and further education in the Capital Territory. These refer to the 4 institutions here, for which 4 councils were established. These are councils for the Canberra Technical and Further Education College, the Bruce Technical and Further Education College, the Canberra School of Art and the Canberra School of Music. I think it should be noted that this administrative system will include adult migrant education in the Capital Territory, which is to be integrated with courses at the Canberra and Bruce colleges. These 4 councils which have been established are consistent with the Government’s policy of decentralisation of decision making and of community participation in that process of decision making. The overall administration of technical and further education in the Capital Territory lies with the Commonwealth Department of Education. This again follows the Commonwealth Government’s assuming wider responsibility for these matters in the Territory.

A Standing Committee on Further Education has also been established in the Capital Territory by the Minister for Education to co-ordinate activities of the 4 councils to which I have referred and to deal with other aspects of further education here. The Standing Committee will be convened by the Department of Education and will advise the Department on matters relating to further education. It will include, quite properly, the chairman of each council and the principal or director of each of the 4 institutions involved. Because co-ordination is so important the Minister has made it clear that further arrangements for close consultations with all involved in this process will be developed. On 10 November the Minister stated the following in relation to this matter:

For broad planning purposes in Australian Capital Territory education the Department will develop consultation arrangements involving other educational agencies including the Australian National University and the Canberra College of Advanced Education and the non-government schools, as well as the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly, the Department of the Capital Territory and the National Capital Development Commission.

Again, I think this emphasises the importance which the Government attaches to co-ordination in this very important field of education. The importance which has been attached by the present Government to technical and further education in the Capital Territory has been indicated by the Government’s support for the development of technical and further education institutions in the Territory. These new arrangements to which I have just referred for better coordination of tertiary education, with particular emphasis on technical and further education, have been accompanied by expenditure of $ 1 6m on the defined government further education system this year, compared with SI 4m in the previous year.

There is one matter in particular which I should like to raise with the Minister at this point, that is, that the Tertiary Education Commission Bill raises the question of the role of the Tertiary Education Commission with respect to technical and further education in the Territory. At the moment funding, for example, is handled directly between the Department of Education, in its role with respect to technical and further education, and the Treasury. There is a question as to what role the Tertiary Education Commission, which this Bill seeks to establish, will play in that process in the Territory. I ask the Minister whether perhaps he might comment on this particular point concerning the role that the Tertiary Education Commission might have in this respect.

Finally, I should like to comment on the Commonwealth Teaching Service Amendment Bill, which the Senate is also considering. As the Minister pointed out in his second reading speech, the Bill makes special long service leave provisions for New South Wales technical teachers who joined the Commonwealth Teaching Service between 3 1 December last year and 1 April this year and who were engaged in full time teaching duties in a technical institution in the Australian Capital Territory. I have discussed this Bill with the A.C.T. Teachers’ Federation, which indicated its support. Indeed, it urged that this sort of action should be taken. I support both Bills before the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Carrick) adjourned.

page 839

COMMONWEALTH BUREAU OF ROADS (REPEAL) BILL 1977

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I mo ve:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

The PRESIDENT:

– Is leave granted?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– No.

The PRESIDENT:

– Leave is not granted.

Senator CARRICK:

– As I understand it, the text of the statement was made available to the Opposition in accordance with ordinary protocol.

The purpose of this Bill is to repeal legislation enacted in 1964 to create the Commonwealth Bureau of Roads. As honourable senators know a new professional research body is being created which will be responsible for coordinated research and advice to the Government on all aspects of the transport sector. This body will result from the amalgamation of the Bureau of Transport Economics and the Commonwealth Bureau of Roads. It will carry on the existing functions of both bodies but be more broadly based and capable of initiating additional and more comprehensive investigations. The new body to be known as the Bureau of Transport Economics will be more effective we believe in undertaking and co-ordinating this related work than the present two separate organisations.

In deciding to amalgamate the 2 bureaus, the Government has taken into account the changes that have occurred in the transport sector of this country in recent years and the background of the 2 bureaus themselves. The decision has not been taken lightly. There is growing world wide concern, shared by the Government at the enormous and increasing costs of transport. There is an urgent need to reduce those costs. To achieve this we need to employ the most efficient transport mode, or combination of modes, for each particular transport task in the most efficient way. There is a definite need to coordinate transport activities if the gains accruing from technological advances in industry are not to be eroded by the increasing costs of transport. As honourable senators will be only too well aware, the cost of transport in a country as large and as isolated as ours is important to the welfare of the nation. As Australians we must be prepared to use every opportunity to reduce transport costs while at the same time to improve our transport system.

The Australian transport industry has not only expanded rapidly over the past few decades, but has undergone almost revolutionary changes in technology and organisation. It is incumbent on us as a nation to adapt to and to profit from those changes; to encourage further innovation; to maintain and improve the efficiency of the industry. We must always be ready and prepared to restructure our institutions in order to best meet our rapidly and continuously changing transport industry scene. Policy decisions in regard to one transport mode must take into account the implications for other modes. We should not invest huge sums in one particular transport area without first ensuring that the investment is soundly based and is meeting the requirements of the community. In this regard it is instructive to consider the enormous increase in the level of Commonwealth funds provided to the States for road construction, maintenance and associated purposes since the first Commonwealth assistance grants to the States for roads in 1922-23. In that year a sum of $500,000 was provided. Next year, 1977-78 a total or $475m will be provided to the States for this purpose.

Until the end of the 1950s, the actual needs for road works in the various States were not, in general, subject to any comprehensive analysis. Similarly needs were not specifically considered when the total allocation of Commonwealth funds to the States was arrived at each year. By the late 1950s, with the great changes taking place in road transport, and the increasing level of roads expenditure, it became apparent that the methods of allocation were not satisfactory. There had in fact developed a need for an expert body to investigate and advise the Government on matters relating to roads and road finance. To cater for this need the Government established the Commonwealth Bureau of Roads in 1964. The Bureau’s main function was, and I quote from section 14 (A) of the Bureau of Roads Act 1964:

To investigate and from time to time report to the Minister on matters relating to roads or road transport for the purpose of assisting the Government of the Commonwealth in the consideration by the Government of the grant of financial assistance by the Parliament to the States in connection with roads or road transport.

The Bureau was formed and constituted in February 1966 but did not become fully operational until 1967. By the beginning of 1969 however, the Bureau had reported to the then Minister detailing the road works it found to be warranted, the availability of resources to carry out those works and a resultant roads program. The Commonwealth Aid Roads Act 1969 was based on those recommendations. Since its first report the Bureau has produced further major -reports on roads in Australia. The present structure of Acts providing assistance for roads is largely based upon those reports. The Acts constitute a radical departure from the previous Commonwealth Air Roads Acts.

The Commonwealth Bureau of Roads has of course made a number of other important contributions to research in the transport field. It has been a leader and innovator in the fields of transport data collection and of analytical and evaluation procedures. It has developed and adapted these techniques to total systems of public works rather than the project approach which unfortunately is still predominant in many other public works areas. The Bureau’s aim and achievement has been to provide a framework for evaluation of the medium to long-term outlook for road transport. It has been a leader in seeking and gaining public participation in the evaluation of programs. With such impressive achievements, the decision to change the operations of the Bureau has obviously not been taken without very deep and careful consideration by the Government.

The other part of the new Bureau of Transport Economics arose out of the growing complexity of intermodal operations and the increasing importance of the transport sector as a whole, during the 1960s. It became apparent that the Government required expert advice on all facets of transporting people, freight and raw materials and not just road transport. To provide that advice the Bureau of Transport Economics was created in 1971.

The BTE, like the Bureau of Roads is a professional research body with staff drawn from a number of disciplines. It provides expertise on all aspects of the Australian transport sector. Its organisation is different from that of the Bureau of Roads only in that it is attached to the Department of Transport. It is important to realise however that the BTE has similar autonomy to the Bureau of Roads. For instance, the Director has direct access to the Minister for Transport on all matters relating to the Bureau’s work. There is a considerable misunderstanding in the minds of some people who think that the BTE is a division within the Department of Transport and is thus subject to direct influence by the Department. It is true that the BTE receives administrative support from the Department of Transport. This allows for considerable cost savings but does not put the Department in a position where it is able to alter the professional advice the BTE gives. The BTE has no less and no more independence in this regard than the Bureau of Roads. The independence of the BTE’s advice and its Director’s free access to the Minister are established facts. There will certainly be no erosion of these rights as a result of amalgamation. The new body will act as independently in undertaking research and supplying advice as the Commonwealth Bureau of Roads and the BTE have in the past.

The principal role of the BTE has been to provide expert advice to assist the Government in formulating policy for the transport area. Its advice has been related to the reduction of transport costs, the improvement of transport efficiency, the co-ordination of transport systems and the rationalisation of planning for future transport facilities. The BTE has carried out a large number of diverse studies of airports, harbours, railway and public transport systems and inter-regional transport flows. Its studies have covered a much wider field than that of the Bureau of Roads. I stress the important point however that those studies have inevitably involved assessments related to roads and road transport. There has been a necessary and inevitable transgression by the BTE into the Bureau of Roads field.

In its shorter life span, the BTE, like the Bureau of Roads, has attained an impressive record of professional achievement. It has been accepted both in Australia and overseas as a highly competent research organisation in the transport field. More importantly neither the integrity nor independence of its operation has ever been challenged.

As I have already said the Government gave very deep and detailed consideration to the ways in which the effectiveness of these 2 Bureaus might be further improved in order to meet changing industrial developments and demands. For instance the Government sought and received advice from a number of sources including the staff of the 2 bureaus before making its decision. Having regard to the nature of the work required to be undertaken, the related skills of the 2 staffs and the general scarcity of those skills and the high administrative cost of maintaining separate bodies the Government concluded that the resources of the 2 bureaus should be amalgamated to form a strong integrated transport research body. The benefits to be gained from amalgamating the 2 bureaus are clear. The staffs of each bureau will be able to gain a greater insight into the problems of the other. An insight and an understanding that is essential for the effective handling of transport problems and their optimal solution. The new BTE will enable the full weight of total available expertise to be brought to bear on specific, complex and vital transport problem areas. Scarce professional resources can be employed to the greatest advantage possible and considerable administative savings can be achieved. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 841

ADJOURNMENT

Australian Capital Territory: Medical Services -Union Amalgamations -Community Radio Stations

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! In accordance with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator BAUME:
New South Wales

– On 3 1 March in the adjournment debate Senator Ryan drew the attention of the Senate to a serious situation which exists in the Australian Capital Territory with regard to the provision of medical services. I am one of 3 doctors who serve in the Senate. I believe that each of us trained under a system where there is a mix between salaried and private doctors providing the best kind of care. This is what we are used to in the major cities of Australia. It is the kind of situation which should come to operate in Canberra.

Senator Ryan quite correctly drew attention to a situation in Canberra which is far from satisfactory; a situation which has given many people cause for concern. It is unfortunate that in performing what I believe was a useful service she did not have adequate concern for the complete accuracy of all the facts she stated. I think in order to do justice to the Minister for Health ( Mr Hunt) who has been consistently concerned about the position in the Australian Capital Territory it is necessary to put the record straight and to indicate what the position is in the A.C.T. at present, to indicate the initiatives that are under way and to indicate the good faith that has been shown by the Government in its concern to improve the situation operating between the 2 branches of the medical profession in Canberra.

Let me make it quite clear. As I have already stated, the matter to which Senator Ryan adverted is important. The situation is intolerable. I believe she was quite correct to raise the matter. She said: . . the Minister has made no progress towards reestablishing proper professional relationships between the two parts of the medical profession referred to. He has made no progress towards re-establishing proper professional behaviour on the part of the ACTM A -

That is the Australian Capital Territory Medical Association- members towards public patients.

The problems have become worse in the last 12 months during which Mr Hunt has been Minister for Health.

These statements are incorrect. Mr Hunt has deliberately and carefully opened up negotiations with all the parties to the dispute in Canberra. Mr Hunt sought agreement to the appointment of an outside arbitrator. Mr Hunt was able to secure the agreement of one of the most eminent men in Australian medicine, a former President of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, a professor at the University of Melbourne, to come to this city to examine the situation and to produce a report. I refer to Professor E. S. R. Hughes. The Hughes report made to the Minister late last year has served as the basis for a solution to the problems between the groups of doctors in the Australian Capital Territory. There has been considerable progress directly as a result of the intervention, the activity and the efforts of Mr Hunt. It is not really helpful to the argument to indicate, even by inference, that he has not played his part in taking the kind of initiatives which will lead to a resolution of the situation.

Senator Ryan stated that undue influence has been exerted on the present Government by the ACTMA. I know of no evidence of any undue influence by anyone on this Government. This Government is committed to the proper provision of medical services in the A.C.T. I say to Senator Ryan that that includes a mixed system. That includes the proper provision of salaried medical officers. It is a fiction to believe that this Government has anything but a commitment to the proper provision of salaried care.

Our record in the Australian Capital Territory is sometimes forgotten. The introduction of health centres was an initiative of our side of politics. The Llewellyn Davies report from which the health centre initiatives came was presented to our Government in 1969 and we started the construction of the first health centre. We have remained committed to the provision of balanced services, including salaried services. We are under no undue influence from either side in this argument. If the honourable senator wants to indicate that the ACTMA is exerting undue influence, let her do so and demonstrate how and where and produce the facts.

The honourable senator went on to say that there have been resignations and that there has been inadequate response on the part of the Government trying to cope with the replacement of these medical officers. There have been 10 resignations of salaried medical officers in the A.C.T. in the past 2 years. The honourable senator omitted to mention that during that period there have been 4 new appointments and that 9 positions have been advertised and recruitment action is in hand. It does not alter the fact that there have been 10 resignations. I believe that some of those resignations would have occurred because of the hostile climate that exists in Canberra which has made it difficult for doctors to practise. I am not for one minute underestimating the seriousness or the distastefulness of the situation from both sides which has existed in this city. But to say that our Government has taken no action is simply not true. To imply that all the resignations have been because of the conflict in the A.C.T. is also not true. One of the people, a pediatrician, Dr Garry Kneebone, left Canberra to become professor of pediatrics at Flinders University. Dr John Corry, a very close friend of mine, resigned to leave medicine and to undertake a different- course of study and a different form of activity. Some of the resignations are normal turnover that one would expect. Dr Teik Oh, who was director of intensive care, has taken up the position of director of intensive care at a very senior hospital in Perth. It is important that the Senate understands that although there have been 10 resignations, there have been 4 new appointments and there have been 9 positions advertised with recruitment action in hand on those positions. The Minister is in fact taking very effective action and monitoring closely what is going on in the A.C.T. I think it has been unfair to suggest that Mr Hunt has not effectively intervened.

Senator Ryan:

– I do not deny her right to do this- indicated that in her view that patients in the Australian Capital Territory have been disadvantaged by certain things that have taken place. This is simply not true. She has been misinformed about the financial implications of the modified fee for service arrangements which have been introduced. They will in fact cost half as much as the sessional arrangements which were proposed for the same visiting doctors under the Australian Labor Party’s proposals when that Party was in government. Let us be quite clear on this. The Labor Government said that private doctors could work in the hospitals and it would cost $X. Under our new modified fee for service arrangements it will cost half as much. We are as concerned about economy as anyone else is but we saw the suggestion put forward as being economically sound, lt allowed the doctors to do their jobs and this meant that the patients could continue to receive care. The honourable senator has completely misunderstood the effect of the arrangements which now apply in Canberra as a result of the Hughes report and the changes to Medibank. We have allowed patients in this city the maximum choice.

All patients can now be seen by both salaried and private practising doctors regardless of their insurance status. The only difference is whether the insurance company or the hospital pays for that care. The private practising doctors have agreed to treat public patients.

Further, Senator Ryan has slandered in the Senate the private specialists who have been appointed for a period of 5 years. She asserted that they were appointed regardless of competence. She must substantiate that claim against the judgment of the Appointments Committee which appointed those doctors. That Committee of 6 people included the President of the College of Surgeons. It scrutinised the qualifications of every specialist who applied. Not one of the salaried specialists appointed by the former Government had to go through such a rigorous selection procedure. In fact, so unsatisfactory were the selection procedures which applied when the salaried doctors were first appointed that two of the colleges removed the accreditation of Canberra hospitals for post-graduate teaching because they were so dissatisfied with the selection procedures. They were the College of Surgeons and the Faculty of Anaesthetists. To claim that patients in Canberra have been deprived of public service is an astonishing claim. Seventy per cent of the people in Canberra, a very affluent city, are covered for private insurance. I have already said that every patient in this city can be seen in hospital by either salaried doctors or private doctors; there is no discrimination.

The inaccuracies in what was stated by Senator Ryan should not detract from the central point that she was making. It cannot be in the best interests of this community, the doctors, or Australian medicine, to have a quite unnecessary and bitter fight continuing years after it should have been resolved. There is a place in this city for all practitioners. There is a place for the salaried doctors who have been appointed and whose position will continue to be secure. I for one could not envisage a return to what is essentially a system suitable only for a small country town. Canberra is now a large city. It deserves the medical services of a large city. Equally, I could not envisage a situation such as the one threatening in 1973 and 1974 in which private practising doctors faced potential exclusion from the hospital services. There are many doctors of goodwill on both sides in Canberra. Most of the private practising doctors and most of the salaried specialists are people of goodwill and want nothing more than to get back to treating their patients in friendship and amity.

I support as publicly as I know how the general message that Senator Ryan was promoting that the sooner the haters and the unforgiving on each side can forget their differences, the sooner we will return to a proper system of care in Canberra. I am grateful that the honourable senator raised this matter. But I leave the Senate with an assurance that the Minister for Health is actively and continuously pursuing every avenue to resolve this conflict and that he has done more than any single person to bring resolution as close as it is at present.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I want to ventilate a matter in the Senate tonight and to ask the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Senator Durack) whether he will give an indication of the role the Australian Government is playing in the pending amalgamation between the Health and Research Employees Association of Australia and the Hospital Employees Federation, New South Wales No. 1 Branch. I think it is fitting to raise this matter at a time when there is so much discussion about streamlining trade union procedures. Senator Durack, as the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, has responsibility for the Concord Repatriation Hospital, the bulk of whose employees would be covered by the Hospital Employees Federation, No. 1 Branch. For that reason I am anxious to know the role his departmental officers have played in this merger.

In addition, Senator Durack represents in this chamber the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street). Without traversing too much ground, the fact is that the Health and Research Employees Association has an excellent record in New South Wales. Its secretary, Mr Keith Clark, is a highly respected trade union figure, and it produces a first class journal, the Health Standard. I advance those points in favour of the Association. The other union, which is serviced by a very dedicated secretary, Mr Les Butler, would have no more than 1600 or 1800 people and it is obvious that in these times of financial demands on trade unions those 1 600 or 1 800 people will receive better service through this amalgamation.

I understand that there have been quite protracted negotiations, and as late as the middle of last week Mr Butler spoke to me and said that he believed that some of the road blocks could be removed by either Senator Durack, the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, or Mr Street, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. I emphasise that I do not know of even a minority group in either union which is resisting the change, On the other hand, one union has a relatively cheap annual membership fee and I would hate to think that a merger would be costly to the members of the union. I conclude by saying that as an industrial Diogenes I want to get the truth of the role the Commonwealth Government is playing in facilitating this overdue merger.

Senator WHEELDON:
Western Australia

– Some weeks ago in an interim report from the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, which has been inquiring into matters relating to the Middle East, some unfavourable mention was made of radio station 3CR in Melbourne, a so-called community radio station. Since that time another episode has occurred which I should like to bring to the attention of the Senate and of the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, who has some responsibility for supervising these matters and is a member of the Government which at least has a connection with radio station 3CR. Radio station 3CR is apparently managed by an organisation known as the Community Radio Federation, which has affiliated to it a number of disparate organisations known as community groups.

An application was made during the past weeks by an organisation in Melbourne known as Paths to Peace. That is an organisation consisting predominantly of Jewish Australians who are concerned about the present conflict in the Middle East. The organisation has associations with political parties in Israel, which I think could be accurately described as Left Wing political parties and which take a position that could be regarded as super-doveish and well beyond the existing policy of the present Israeli Government with regard to the proposals they put forward for a settlement of the problems arising from the dispute between Israel and its neighbours. When an application was made by Paths to Peace for affiliation with the Community Radio Federation it was rejected by the committee of the Community Radio Federation on the ground that Paths to Peace was a Zionist and therefore racist organisation.

I think there are a number of obvious conclusions that one can draw from this decision. The first is that it does give some evidence of the alarming growth of anti-semitism in this country which is clothed with the euphemism of opposition to Zionism, but from my experience with people who have been putting forward some of the allegedly anti-Zionist arguments I think this goes well beyond the bounds of legitimate political debate to the extent of being racist in the terminology which is used and racist in the propositions which are put forward. Whatever one may think about that, the fact is that Paths to Peace is at least as much a community organisation as the other organisations which are affiliated with the Community Radio Federation which was established by the Australian Government in order to give various community organisations the opportunity to express their views on the topics that interest them and their members.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It was established by the Labor Government.

Senator WHEELDON:

– It was established by the Labor Government and it has been continued by the present Government. The intention of establishing community radio stations was to enable people and various voluntary organisations to have an opportunity to disseminate what they thought about matters that concerned them to people who could listen to the radio. I think what also came out with regard to this action by the Community Radio Federation quite clearly is that if Paths to Peace is not eligible for affiliation to the Federation, is not allowed to have a voice on radio station 3CR, then no other Jewish organisation would be able to be heard on this station, because the least militantly Zionist of all the organisations of Jewish people or other people who are concerned about the continued existence of the State of Israel is this very organisation, Paths to Peace. It is an organisation which is critical of the Israeli Government and is critical even of Mapam, the left wing member of the Labor alignment, for not being sufficiently conciliatory in attitudes towards the Palestinian organisations and what are referred to as the Arab claims. So I repeat that if this body is excluded from having any right to broadcast on station 3CR then no Jewish organisation in Australia would be able to be heard on that station.

I think that this, apart from illustrating the anti-semitism, which I do not think has reached the level at which it may be described as rampant but certainly is growing at a distressing rate in this society, is clearly an improper use of a community radio station. There are organisations with a great many differing ideologies and beliefs which are represented at present and yet to the best of my knowledge this organisation, which is expressing in the mildest possible way support for the continued existence of Israel, is precluded from having any voice. A number of the people who are responsible for this action which has been taken against Paths to Peace would be the very people who would be the first to cry McCarthyism if anybody were to do anything to limit their right to freedom of speech.

I would agree, of course, that the people who constitute the Community Radio Federation are entitled to express their view. It always has been the view of the Australian Labor Party that they should be able to express their view. We established such stations as 3CR so that they would have the opportunity to express their view. But while we ought to be concerned about McCarthyism I believe we also ought to be concerned about Stalinism. What is being practised by the Committee of the Community Radio Federation is blatant Stalinism, if that is what you want to call it, or McCarthyism, if that is what you want to call it. I believe that the Minister, whatever his precise relationship is with the people who are responsible for the issuing of licences to 3CR or other community radio stations and for regulating their broadcasting, ought to examine this matter. It is an intolerable situation that citizens of this country are paying taxes for the maintenance of the radio broadcasting system in Australia, that a government establishes a radio station in order to allow free participation by all sorts of diverse political, cultural and social organisations over the radio networks and yet one group is singled out and is not allowed to express its point of view. It is not the sort of situation that ought to be allowed in any democratic country and it is certainly not a situation that ought to be allowed to continue in Australia.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I will respond briefly to the remarks of Senator Wheeldon. First, let me say that Senator Wheeldon was good enough to indicate to me that he was proposing to raise this matter in the adjournment debate. I had some little time to seek information. It is true that radio station 3CR is a public broadcasting station with a limited licence. It is a community station established by the previous Government and, as I am advised, with particularly strong trade union and, I think, Labor Party membership. I say that in no combative sense but merely to give the background as such. I have no immediate evidence to offer with regard to the assertion that Senator Wheeldon makes. If the reasons for rejecting this organisation are antiZionist and anti-Semitic, they are to be condemned roundly and deplored. There is no place in this country for that kind of activity.

I have no immediate information. If Senator Wheeldon is able to give me any further information, I would be happy to receive it. I will then invite my colleague, the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Eric Robinson), to investigate it further. I am aware from the brief opportunity I have had by way of inquiry that, in fact, the Jewish community has asserted in the past that 3CR appears to be anti- Jewish. If this is so, again I state that the matter is a serious one. I would be grateful to the honourable senator if he would let me have the relevant information.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

– I want to make a brief statement in reference to what Senator Carrick has said on this matter. Firstly, I endorse the matter of principle that has been raised by my colleague Senator Wheeldon, in relation to radio station 3CR and I respect the remarks of the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) on the same subject matter. I think that I should correct him on one matter. That was the suggestion that station 3CR has some affiliation with or indeed, receives support from the Australian Labor Party. To illustrate the point I want to make about that, I would invite the Minister to listen to the broadcasts of 3CR on one or two occasions and particularly to the programs which are devoted to the President of the Australian Labor Party, Mr R. J. Hawke. If he had any doubts about the station’s connection or affiliation with the Labor Party, he should listen to those programs. I am sure that would put to rest any doubts he has. I wanted to establish that because I appreciate that the Minister put his remarks in a tentative way. There is no association with the Labor Party in Victoria.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans ‘ Affairs · LP

– I refer to the matter raised by Senator Mulvihill earlier in this debate. I received advice from him about the general nature of the matter he was raising. However, I did not appreciate the particulars involved and have not been able to obtain any advice in regard to the discussions for amalgamation which have taken place, I gather, between the Health and Research Employees Union and the Hospital Employees Federation of Australia, No. 1 Branch, in respect of their mutual members at the Concord Hospital. I noted his concern at the attitude possibly being taken by officers of my Department. He queried whether officers of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations might also be concerned. Because I was not aware of the actual nature of the matter, I was not able to obtain any information that I can give to the Senate or to Senator Mulvihill this evening.

Apparently the secretaries of the 2 unions concerned are amicably discussing these matters. Apparently Senator Mulvihill has spoken to both of them. I suggest that they detail any of the particular matters which they feel are causing problems and on which either my Department or the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations may be of help. I think that would be a useful starting point. If they wish to see me, I would be available to see them and to talk about these matters. At this stage I cannot take the matter any further. I will certainly obtain whatever information I can and hold myself in readiness to discuss the matter with the parties.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 11.32 p.m.

page 847

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Bass Strait Islands: Navigation Lights (Question No. 1)

Senator Rae:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 8 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Is the light situated on Deal Island in Bass Strait frequently obscured by cloud.
  2. Are many lights in that area now serviced by helicopter and are not attended by light keepers.
  3. Is the Bass Pyramid Rock an isolated Island in the general shipping lane from northern Tasmanian ports to Sydney.
  4. Will the Minister investigate the desirability and cost of installing an automatic light on Bass Pyramid Rock to facilitate navigation in that notoriously difficult part of Bass Strait.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Although detailed records are not kept, it is known that Deal Island is occasionally obscured by cloud. Mariners are alerted to the fact by a warning in the Admiralty ‘List of Lights’ that the Deal Island light is ‘ frequently obscured by fog’.
  2. Most of the lights in the Bass Strait area are serviced by Departmental vessels but servicing by helicopter and light aircraft is also used. Deal Island is the only station in that immediate area which is an attended station.
  3. Bass Pyramid Rock (or Pyramid Rock) is a small island west of Flinders Island, close to shipping tracks between northern Tasmanian pons and Sydney. It is an isolated feature with considerable navigable water in its immediate vicinity.
  4. The provision of additional lights on a number of islands in Bass Strait in the vicinity of the Kent, Hogan and Curtis groups, which includes Bass Pyramid Rock, is currently under review.

Department of Social Security: Facilities for Confidential Interviews (Question No. 13)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Social

Security, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) How many offices of the Department of Social Security in each State and Territory do not have facilities for conducting confidential interviews.
  2. ) Where are these offices located in each State and Territory, and for each office what plans are being made to provide these facilities.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

  1. 1 ) The Department operates from 143 offices which have a public contact role ( 120 decentralised offices and 23 separate elements of the State Headquarters in each capital city). 1 attach a great deal of importance to ensuring that there are facilities in each of these offices for clients to be interviewed in privacy. Although all of these offices are able to provide facilities for conducting confidential interviews, some 55 do not have offices especially provided for this purpose. A high priority has been accorded to ensuring that appropriate facilities are provided at all offices and the Department is pursuing a program to achieve this objective.

  2. The relevant details and locations of the 143 offices are:

    1. 87 offices have rooms especially provided for conducting confidential interviews: they are located as follows:

New South Wales 34 offices

Victoria 5 offices

Queensland 23 offices

South Australia 9 offices

Western Australia 7 offices

Tasmania 8 offices

Australian Capital Territory 1 office

  1. 55 offices have rooms which can be made available, by temporary relocation of staff, for conducting confidential interviews: these are:

New South Wales 12 offices

Victoria 24 offices

Queensland 2 offices

South Australia 8 offices

Western Australia 7 offices

Northern Territory 2 offices

  1. 1 office in South Australia has an area enclosed by acoustic screens for conducting confidential interviews.

Public Service Retirement (Question No. 30)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters, upon notice, on 8 March 1977:

Is the Public Service Board actively discouraging publicservants from retiring, as was claimed in an article in The Australian dated 21 January 1977. If so, (a) what are the details, and (b) what is the full text of the letter written by the Board to all Federal departments requesting personnel officers and supervisors to have confidential interviews with those Public Service employees seeking to resign.

Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Public Service Board has advised that the answer to the honourable senator’s question is no.

The Public Service Board has, for some years, encouraged departments to interview officers who are retiring, in order to clarify any questions the officer might have in regard to his retirement. As a good employer, the Board is now seeking to extend this assistance to public servants who have submitted resignations.

The letter to which the honourable senator has referred was issued by the Public Service Board on 14 October 1976 and asked departments, wherever possible, to interview officers who had submitted resignations. This followed a few instances where officers had resigned when this might not have been the most appropriate course to take. For example, a resignation prompted by ill health may in fact warrant invalidity retirement, and a grant of leave without pay might be more appropriate than a resignation when an officer wishes to care for a sick relative.

Sewerage Program: Queensland (Question No. 43)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 8 March 1977:

With respect to part (b) of the Treasurer’s reply to Senate Question No. 1275 relating to funds for sewerage works in Queensland, has the Queensland Government made a formal submission requesting additional funds for sewerage works. If so, what are the details.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

Yes. It would not be appropriate for me to provide details for the reason given in my reply to the honourable senator on Question No. 1270 (Hansard, 6 December 1976, page 2677).

Commonwealth Employment Service: Agency Fees (Question No. 54)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 8 March 1977:

What fees are currently payable to each of the agencies of the Commonwealth Employment Service which were listed in answer to Question No. 1476.

Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The amount of remuneration paid to individual agents of the Commonwealth Employment Service is a confidential matter between the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations and the agent.

Drugs: Effects on Unborn Children (Question No. 69)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 8 March 1977:

Has the Government deferred funding for the planned national agency to collect information on the effects of drugs on unborn children. If so, (a) why, and (b) when does the Minister expect that funds will become available for this purpose.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

In 1974 the Congenital Abnormalities Sub-Committee of the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee put forward a proposal for a monitoring scheme aimed at providing information in respect of all births occurring in Australia. The proposal was endorsed in principle subject to my Department carrying out a feasibility study.

As the Department was aware that two States, New South Wales and Western Australia, were already collecting similar information for their own uses, a Steering Committee was established to examine the proposal in detail in relation to existing and other proposed schemes. However, before any real study was undertaken by the Committee it was disbanded when it became apparent that its recommendations would involve expenditure and expansion of activities which would not be in accordance with the Government’s policy of constraints on public spending.

In the meantime, the Congenital Abnormalities SubCommittee is continuing to examine all relevant reports received through the Adverse Drug Reactions reporting scheme. However, it would also welcome any other reports from the medical profession of suspected teratogenic effects of drugs. In addition it is anxious to receive reports of congenital abnormalities where an environmental teratogen is suspected.

Commonwealth Employment Service: Training of Counter Staff (Question No. 71)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 8 March 1977:

What training is provided to counter staff in offices of the Commonwealth Employment Service.

Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Training of counter staff is mainly done on the job. It involves newly appointed staff working with experienced officers for up to 6 months to gain the knowledge and experience required to adequately perform their duties. Counter staff are supervised by an Assistant Employment Office Manager or a Senior Employment Officer who can provide any additional assistance required.

An off-the-job training programme has been developed for introduction shortly, which aims to provide additional formal session work for counter officers complementary to their on-the-job training. It provides for more systematic instruction on such matters as the introduction of clients to the CES employment system, and the issue, receipt and processing of unemployment, sickness and special benefit forms.

Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation (Question No. 81)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 9 March 1 977:

When does the Minister expect to be able to announce the name of the Chairman of the Meat and Livestock Corporation and the role and responsibilities of the Corporation.

Senator Cotton:
LP

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

Before an announcement can be made concerning the chairmanship of the proposed Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation, legislation providing for the composition, functions and powers of the Corporation is required. As soon as the Government has determined the structure of the Corporation, this legislation will be prepared.

Proserpine Airport (Question No. 83)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

With reference to the Minister’s reply to Question No. 1477 concerning the upgrading of Proserpine Airport, can the Minister advise (a) what are the details of the financial assistance requested from the Commonwealth Government by Ansett Airlines of Australia, (b) what financial assistance has the Commonwealth Government decided to provide, (c) what are the details of terminal facilities improvements proposed for Proserpine Airport, (d) what is the estimated cost of the proposed improvements to terminal facilities, and (e) will the Commonwealth Government or Ansett Airlines of Australia be meeting the cost of proposed improvements to terminal facilities.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. Whilst Ansett Airlines of Australia is initially funding the project, the Proserpine Shire Council, as owner of the aerodrome, has requested that the cost of development (except terminal) and maintenance of the aerodrome be accepted under the local ownership plan with the Government contributing SO per cent of the $1.8m development costs of runway, taxiway, apron etc., 100 per cent of the installation of navigation aids and communication facilities- $0.2 1 m, 50 per cent of the estimated $70,000 per annum aerodrome maintenance costs and 100 per cent of the costs of maintenance of navigational aids and communication facilities- estimated $26,000 per annum.
  2. No decision has yet been made by the Commonwealth Government on the level of funds, if any, to be provided.
  3. A new terminal for Boeing 727 services and associated facilities is proposed.
  4. d ) The estimated cost of providing the terminal facilities is $500,000.
  5. Ansett Airlines of Australia and TAA will meet the cost of the terminal facilities as this is an airline responsibility.

Minor Traffic Engineering and Road Safety Improvements Program (Question No. 85)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

When does the Minister expect to be able to announce details of future funding under the Minor Traffic Engineering and Road Safety Improvements Programme (MITERS), given that the current MITERS program expires on 30 June 1977.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

At the 50th Australian Transport Advisory Council meeting of25 February 1977 Mr Nixon announced the Commonwealth Government’s decision to continue the roads assistance programs including MITERS in 1977-78. He proposed that of the total allocation to roads of $475m, SI4m should be allocated to the MITERS category, distributed ‘to the States as follows:

However Mr Nixon has invited State Ministers to suggest variations in his proposed allocations where they consider it necessary. The allocations finally submitted to Parliament may therefore vary somewhat from the above figures.

Social Welfare Planning Ministry: ACTU Proposal (Question No. 92)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 8 March 1977:

Is the Prime Minister giving serious consideration to the proposal by the Australian Council of Trade Unions that a social welfare planning ministry be established in Australia. If so, when is it likely that a decision will be reached.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

I am not aware of the proposal to which the honourable senator refers. Of relevance in this context, however, is that the Task Force on Co-ordination in Welfare and Health was asked in its terms of reference to report on the continuing machinery which should be established to co-ordinate social policy development at the Commonwealth level. This will be done in the second report of the Task Force which is expected to be presented to me about the middle of this year.

Australia Post and Telecom Australia: Recreation Leave (Question No. 93)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 8 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) How is the number of additional days recreation leave for prescribed isolated districts in Queensland determined for staff employed by the Postal Commission and by Telecom Australia.
  2. Why are there marked differences in the number of additional days recreation leave in towns in relatively close proximity, for example, 5 days per year for Port Douglas, 4 days per year for Cairns and 2 days for Mareeba.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. The number of additional days recreation leave granted each year to staff of Australia Post and Telecom Australia for service in prescribed isolated districts is determined for each district on the basis of its climate and isolation. In assessing the degree of isolation involved, the factors of distance from capital cities and other large towns, population and availability of transport services are taken into account. The criteria are the same as those used by the Public Service Board and in practice Australia Post and Telecom Australia have adopted the amounts of additional leave already assessed by the Board for each district.
  2. The differences in the number of days determined for towns in relatively close proximity are the result of differences in the degree of isolation of the towns concerned. For example, Port Douglas (5 days) is rated equal to Cairns (4 days) in respect to climate, but is rated as more isolated because of its smaller population and its lesser transport facilities. Port Douglas is rated as having both a more severe climate and greater isolation than Mareeba (2 days). Cairns is rated as equal to Mareeba in isolation, but having a more severe climate.

Australia Post and Telecom Australia: Recreation Leave (Question No. 94)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 8 March 1977:

Why have staff employed by the Postal Commission and Telecom Australia in the following towns recently had a reduction in the number of additional days allocated to them as recreation leave for being stationed in a prescribed isolated district, (a) Ayr, (b) Boulia, (c) Bowen, (d) Cairns, (e) Roma, (f) St George, (g) Townsville, and (h) Windorah.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

I am advised by Australia Post and Telecom Australia that there has been no reduction in the additional leave entitlements of staff stationed in the isolated districts mentioned.

Australia Post and Telecom Australia: Temporary Line Staff (Question No. 96)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 8 March 1977:

Is it official policy of Telecom Australia and Australia Post that minors under the age of 1 8 years are not to be employed as temporary line staff. If so, why?

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

Minors under the age of 1 8 years are not excluded from employment as temporary line staff by Telecom Australia. No line staff are employed by Australia Post.

Japanese Shipbuilding Arrangements (Question No. 102)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 8 March 1977:

Has Japan offered to reduce its shipyard production, raise export prices on ships, and limit the number of orders taken from European nations, at the request of European shipbuilders who are facing grave difficulties. If so, what effect will this decision have on the present Australian Government’s decision to place orders for two vessels for the Australian National Line with Japanese shipbuilders.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

In an effort to assist European shipbuilders, the Japanese Government through its Delegation to the OECD at a Working Party on Shipbuilding in February 1 977 offered to take the following ‘exceptional and additional measures ‘ which it proposed would apply from 1 January 1977 until 31 December 1978: increasing export prices of Japanese built ships encouragement of efforts towards adopting measures to restrain the export of ships to European countries proving to be in exceptionally difficult circumstances.

The Japanese Delegation also indicated its Government’s willingness to strengthen then existing measures for adjustment of working hours in the Japanese shipbuilding industry.

The Japanese Government has now instructed Japanese shipbuilders to increase prices on orders placed after 1 January 1977 by 5 percent.

This decision will have no bearing on the contractual arrangements between the Australian National Line and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries relating to the purchase of the second two IS 000 ton bulk carriers ordered by ANL as its option to have these vessels built in Japan was exercised prior to I January 1977, the date from which the existing Japanese arrangements became operative.

Australian Industry: Stimulation of Productivity (Question No. 104)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Productivity, upon notice, on 8 March 1977:

  1. What action is the Minister’s Department taking to stimulate productivity in Australian industry?
  2. What liaison does the Minister’s Department have with the Departments of (a) Business and Consumer Affairs, (b) Industry and Commerce and (c) Employment and Industrial Relations, in its efforts to stimulate productivity?
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Department of Productivity draws together various elements of Commonwealth Government activities directed towards productivity improvement. Many factors affect productivity. The following are examples only of current actions in that regard by the Department:

Its Working Environment Division is concerned with human relations and is doing work in the area of labour /management co-operation. The Division is also concerned with physical working conditions such as lighting, ventilation, noise and general workplace design. The Division is closely linked with the Productivity Promotion Council of Australia and Productivity Groups.

The National Materials Handling Bureau is a communication bridge between sources and users of technology in materials handling, packaging and physical distribution; it is also a source in itself. The Bureau’s role is to achieve productivity improvement through wider adoption of better practices in those fields.

The Patent Office is the repository of technical information contained in Australian and overseas patent specifications. The Department is extending the dissemination of this information as a productivity improvement initiative.

The Government factories are the repository of high technology because of the nature of their functions. There is technology transfer between the factories and industry. A group with experience gained in providing an industrial engineering service to the Government factories also provides advice to industry as requested.

The Government’s industrial research and development grants scheme is a responsibility of the Productivity portfolio.

The Department is responsible for the Government’s contribution to industrial design promotion.

The Assistance to Inventors Scheme is managed by the Department.

Interfirm comparison studies are prepared for firms in the manufacturing and tertiary sectors.

Various Information Services are provided- for example, the Australian Manufacturing Technology Information Service (AMTIS); Patent Information Service; Occupational Safety and Health Information Services; and General Productivity Information Services.

Industrial training is a responsibility of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations in conjunction with the Minister for Productivity.

The Department co-operates with other bodies in fostering productivity improvement- for example the Standards Association of Australia and the Australian Organisation for Quality Control.

  1. The Department liaises on a continuous basis with the Departments mentioned. It is central to the role of the Department of Productivity that it operates in close collaboration with other Commonwealth departments and bodies, State departments, various other bodies and employer/employee organisations.

Cocos (Keeling) Islands: Currency (Question No. 119)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Was a directive issued by the Treasurer in 1975 to Mr John Clunies Ross that the practice of using currency other than Australian currency was to cease on Cocos (Keeling) Islands.
  2. Has the directive, issued in 1975, since been withdrawn or ignored.
  3. Are any steps being taken to ensure only the use of Australian currency in the Cocos (Keeling) Islands.
Senator Withers:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

  1. The then Treasurer wrote to Mr Clunies Ross in October 1975 to draw his attention to the provisions of the Currency Act and its application to the Territory of Cocos (Keeling) Islands. Mr Clunies Ross was advised of the then Government’s decision, as announced in the Senate on 10 September 1 975 by the honourable senator.
  2. and (3) Mr Clunies Ross replied to the then Treasurer and commented on the position as he saw it. The current position is that tokens are still being used on Home Island. The Government currently has the matter under consideration.

New South Wales Airports: Capital and Maintenance Expenditure (Question No. 120)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 8 March 1977:

What amount of money has been set aside for expenditure this financial year at each of the airports in New South Wales that are used by Trans-Australia Airlines, Airlines of New South Wales, East West Airlines and Masling Airways.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

Money set aside for capital and maintenance works this financial year at the airports in question, but not including day to day maintenance and operational expenditure, is as follows:

Although Sydney Airport is served by the particular companies mentioned, it has not been included in the list, as the facilities of this airport are also available for a number of other operators.

Commonwealth Police Force (Question No. 122)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) What is the total strength of officers and other ranks of the Commonwealth Police Force.
  2. How many are stationed in each of the capital cities of Australia, and elsewhere.
  3. Is the Force at full strength in each of these locations. If not, where is it understaffed and by how many.
  4. What steps have been taken in recent months to bring the Force up to strength.
Senator Withers:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

  1. As at 15 March 1977 the total strength was 1510 (a ceiling has been imposed of 1510 on an approved establishment of 1648).
  1. The Force has an approved establishment and strength as follows:
  1. Constant effort is being made to recruit suitable persons to the Force. Since 1 January 1977, sixty-four persons have commenced duty with the Force.

Alternative Energy Sources (Question No. 134)

Senator Knight:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources, upon notice, on 8 March 1977:

Can the Minister say approximately what funds are being expended in Australia, from both Government and private sources, on the development of alternative energy sources, particularly (a) solar energy, (b) nuclear energy, (c) ocean wave energy, and (d) geothermal energy.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

The most complete information on research and development expenditure related to alternative sources of energy which is available to the Government at the present time is set out in the answer to Question No. 910 on page 2009 of Hansard of 16 November 1976 and the answer to Question No. 741 on page 265 of Hansardof 24 August 1976.

Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry (Question No. 135)

Senator Knight:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources, upon notice, on 8 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Does the First Report of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry recommend that a national energy policy should be developed and reviewed regularly.
  2. Will the Minister outline the present position and can he state what action will be taken to implement the recommendation of the Fox Inquiry.
  3. Will the Minister consult with his Ministerial colleagues with responsibility in relevant areas in implementing this recommendation.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes.
  2. The Government recognises the importance of taking early and effective action to develop a detailed national energy policy which takes account of the relevant scientific, technological, economic, social and political issues and which clearly identifies Australia’s priorities in the energy field. Because of the dynamic nature and the far reaching effects of energy policy decisions, this is a task which the Government cannot, and will not, undertake in isolation.

The Government has, therefore, established a National Energy Advisory Committee composed of representatives drawn from government, industry, universities and labour to provide advice on energy matters and assist in the formulation and development of a national energy policy. This body met for the first time on Monday, 2 1 March 1977, and decided, inter alia, to establish four standing working groups which would undertake studies in the areas allocated to them. As well as contributing their own expertise, the members of these groups will seek advice and opinion from a range of sources by conferring with others working in the relevant fields. Set out below are the convenors of the various standing groups together with the areas of special responsibility.

Standing Group No. 1 -Convenor, Professor L. A. Endersbee, Dean of the Faculty of Engineering, Monash University. General energy matters including coal, electricity generation, conservation of energy and environmental aspects of energy.

Standing Group No. 2- Convenor, Professor Stuart Harris, Professor of Resource Economics, Australian National University. Energy resources, trade and forecasting.

Standing Group No. 3-Convenor, Professor F. B. Bull, Deputy Chairman, Australian Universities Commission. All aspects of new energy technologies for Australia.

Standing Group No. 4- Convenor, Mr G. Lynch, Former Director, Esso Australia Ltd. Production and utilisation of oil and natural gas in Australia. Matters relating to transport.

Since gaining office the Government has taken a number of other steps which will have an important bearing upon the development of the nation ‘s energy reserves. These include the formation of clear guidelines on foreign investment, and the taxation measures announced in the last Budget.

In view of their responsibility and control over much of the production and consumption of Australian energy materials, it is important that the Federal Government maintain close liaison with the State Governments on energy matters. For this reason, the Federal and State Governments have established the Australian Minerals and Energy Council to serve as a forum for consultation between the relevant Commonwealth and State Ministers on the nation’s energy needs, resources and policies. At its first meeting on 4 March 1977, the Council agreed that there was a need for the Commonwealth and States to consult on a wide range of energy matters including the preparation of estimates of Australia’s energy production and demand; the delineation of available resources having regard to possible end use; the economic and energy policy implications of projected energy developments; the prices and relative prices of alternative forms of energy, and energy research and development policy.

  1. Yes, in accordance with normal practice.

Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry (Question No. 136)

Senator Knight:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources, upon notice, on 8 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Does the First Report of the Ranger Environmental Inquiry recommend that a program of energy conservation be instituted nationally.
  2. Will the Minister outline the current program and can he state what action will be taken to implement the recommendation of the Fox Inquiry.
  3. Will the Minister consult with his Ministerial colleagues with responsibility in relevant areas in implementing this recommendation.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  2. See also my answer to Question No. 1 35. It is Government policy to encourage economy in the use of energy, especially in regard to the conservation of our dwindling domestic oil reserves. An effective national program of energy conservation is, of course, an objective which can only be fully realised through willing co-operation between Federal and State Governments. Accordingly, the Commonwealth will be consulting the States on this matter through the medium of the Australian Minerals and Energy Council.

Also, in addressing the first meeting of the National Energy Advisory Committee I nominated conservation of energy as one of two specific areas to which the Government would like the Committee to direct its attention during the course of the coming year.

  1. Yes, in accordance with norma) practice.

Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry (Question No. 137)

Senator Knight:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources, upon notice, on 8 March 1 977:

  1. 1 ) Does the First Report of the Ranger Environmental Inquiry recommend that steps should be taken immediately to institute full and energetic programs of research and development into (a) liquid fuels to replace petroleum and (b) energy sources other than fossil fuels and nuclear fission.
  2. Will the Minister state the present approach and can he state what action will be taken to implement the recommendation of the Fox Inquiry.
  3. Will the Minister consult with his Ministerial colleagues with responsibility in relevant areas, in implementing this recommendation.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes.
  2. See also my answer to Question No. 135. In my opening address at the first meeting of the National Energy Advisory Committee I nominated energy research and development as one of the two specific areas to which the Government would like the Committee to direct its attention during the course of the coming year.
  3. Yes, in accordance with normal practice.

Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet: Apprentices (Question No. 146)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 8 March 1977:

  1. 1) In what trades have apprentices been employed in the Prime Minister’s Department since 1 July 1970.
  2. By branch, for each year from 1970 to 1976, what was (a) the total number of apprentices employed, and (b) the total number of first year apprentices engaged.
  3. In 1977, what is (a) the total number of apprentices employed, and (b) the total number of first year apprentices engaged, in each branch of the Department.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) to (3) No trade apprenticeship schemes have operated in my Department during the period covered by the question.

Department of National Resources: Apprentices (Question No. 147)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources, upon notice, on 8 March, 1977:

  1. 1 ) In what trades have apprentices been employed in the Department of National Resources since 1 July, 1970.
  2. By Branch, for each year from 1970 to 1976, what was (a) the total number of apprentices employed and (b) the total number of first year apprentices engaged.
  3. In 1977, what is (a) the total number of apprentices employed and (b) the total number of first year apprentices engaged, in each Branch of the Department.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. Nil.
  2. Nil.
  3. Nil.

Department of Overseas Trade: Apprentices (Question No. 148)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Overseas Trade, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) In what trades have apprentices been employed in the Department of Overseas Trade since 1 July 1970.
  2. By branch, for each year from 1970 to 1976, what was (a) the total number of apprentices employed and (b) the total number of first year apprentices engaged.
  3. In 1977, what is (a) the total number of apprentices employed and (b) the total number of first year apprentices engaged, in each branch of the Department.
Senator Cotton:
LP

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

There is no trade category of employment within the Department of Overseas Trade and there is no avenue for the employment of apprentices in the Department.

Department of the Treasury: Apprentices (Question No. 149)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) In what trades have apprentices been employed in the Department of the Treasury since 1 July 1970.
  2. By branch, for each year from 1970 to 1976, what was (a) the total number of apprentices employed and (b) the total number of first year apprentices engaged.
  3. In 1977, what is (a) the total number of apprentices employed and (b) the total number of first year apprentices engaged, in each branch of the Department.
Senator Cotton:
LP

– The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) Apprentices have been employed in the trades of Fitting and Turning and Electrical Fitting in the Department of the Treasury.
  2. The Royal Australian Mint has been the only employer of apprentices in the Department in the period from 1970 to 1976. Details of the numbers are:
  3. When the Department of Finance was created in December 1 976, the Royal Australian Mint became a part of that Department. The new Department of the Treasury has no apprentices employed.

Department of Employment and Industrial Relations: Apprentices (Question No. 1S3)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 8 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) In what trades have apprentices been employed in the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations since 1 July 1970.
  2. By Division, for each year from 1970 to 1976, what was (a) the total number of apprentices employed and (b) the total number of first year apprentices engaged.
  3. In 1977, what is (a) the total number of apprentices employed and (b) the total number of first year apprentices engaged in each branch of the Department.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) Since 1 July 1 970 the only trade in which apprentices have been employed in the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations has been the cooking trade.
  2. Between 1970 and 1976 total number of apprentices employed and the total number of first year apprentices engaged were as follows:

  1. (a) Seven.

    1. Two. All these apprentices are employed in the proposed Transitory Accommodation and Food Services Branch. This Branch is now responsible for Department cafeterias which had previously been within the Divisions mentioned in (2 ) above.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 20 April 1977, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1977/19770420_senate_30_s72/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant