Senate
3 May 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 1061

DEATHS OF MR A. O. BADMAN AND MR A. HENDRICKSON

The PRESIDENT:

– It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death last week of Albert Oliver Badman, a former senator for the State of South Australia from July 1932 till September 1937, and a former member of the House of Representatives for the division of Grey in South Australia from October 1937 to August 1943; and also of the death of Albion Hendrickson, a former senator for the State of Victoria from July 1 947 till June 1971.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

-Mr President, I ask for leave of the Senate to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator O’BYRNE:

– I thank the Senate for granting leave. I very briefly refer to the sad event of the passing of a great friend and colleague of mine, Albion (Bert) Hendrickson. I am certain he was also a friend of honourable senators who knew him. As you mentioned in your announcement, Mr President, Bert Hendrickson served in the Senate from 1947 until 1 97 1 . He came here with a background of a wide experience of life and he made some very sound and sincere contributions to the debates in the Senate. He was born in the vicinity of Maryborough in Victoria and went to school in Maryborough. He joined the Postmaster General’s Department and was a life member of the Amalgamated Postal Workers Union. During the war years he was secretary to the Minister for Trade and Customs. He was elected to the Senate in 1946 and he took his seat in 1947. During his time here he served on numerous committees and generally was a very highly respected member of this chamber. He made a sound contribution to the debates here and in the party room and on the administrative side of the Australian Labor Party in Victoria where he was held in very high esteem. I take this opportunity of placing on record my sincere sorrow at his passing. I wish to convey to his widow, his son and daughters, the sincere appreciation of the Senate for the contribution which he made and for the sterling service which he gave to the Senate and to his country.

The PRESIDENT:

– I invite honourable senators to stand in silence as a mark of respect to the memory of the deceased.

Honourable senators having stood in their places-

The PRESIDENT:

– I thank honourable senators.

page 1061

PETITIONS

Pensions

Senator SIBRAA:
NEW SOUTH WALES

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

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate, 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 to pensioners.

That proposals to amend the Consumer Price Index by eliminating particular items from the Index could adversely affect the value of future increases in age 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 CPI 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.

The Clerk:

– Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:

Education

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

That the reduction of Federal funding for State education will inevitably lead to a lowering of standards in education and reduced opportunities for our children’s future.

Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the Federal Government accepts the recommendation of the Schools’ Commission Report on the Triennium 1976-1978 as minimum standards in Australian education. That the growth of needs in education be recognised by the honourable members of the Senate.

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

Petition received.

Pensions

To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate. 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 to pensioners.

That proposals to amend the consumer price index by eliminating particular items from the index could adversely affect the value of future increases in age 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 reductions in the value of any future entitlements to pensioners.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Cotton and Senator Scott.

Petitions received.

page 1062

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ESPIONAGE ACTIVITIES IN AUSTRALIA

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Is the Government satisfied that it is sufficiently aware of espionage activities of foreign powers in Australia? In particular, does the Government consider that it is kept sufficiently informed of the activities of the Central Intelligence Agency to the extent that the activities of that body do not in any way interfere with the sovereign rights of the Australian Government?

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

-I shall have to refer this question to the Prime Minister to get a detailed answer to the honourable senator, but as far as I know the answer to both questions is yes. The honourable senator should draw upon the knowledge he gained during the 3 years he was in government between 1972 and 1975 and draw his own conclusions from what his then ministerial colleagues learned about this matter from their own confidential briefings.

page 1062

QUESTION

MIGRANT UNEMPLOYMENT

Senator LAJOVIC:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. Recently I directed a question to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations concerning his response to results of a survey on migrant unemployment. The survey, conducted by a Monash University research team, found that migrant unemployment was higher than that of Australian born workers. In answering these assertions the Minister stated that those conclusions could not be regarded as accurate due to possible imperfections in the sample and the paucity of relevant information available for measuring this parameter. I thus ask the Minister whether there is any possibility of improving the facilities for collecting data which could be used in order to derive a meaningful and reliable measurement of migrant unemployment. If such data could be obtained it would help to clarify the confusion about this subject created by many conflicting statements that have appeared recently in the media and in the Parliament.

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

-Senator Lajovic asked me this question some time ago and I undertook to obtain a detailed answer for him from the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. The Minister has provided a written answer in some detail to that question. It is certainly true that the survey conducted by Monash University, to which the honourable senator has referred both in the previous question and today, is open to considerable criticism, the reason being that the size and selection of the sample may have affected the results as it was confined to a total of 320 people from 3 Melbourne suburbs Clayton, Notting Hill and Mount Waverley. The selection was predominantly confined to semi-skilled and unskilled occupational groups. The Australian Bureau of Statistics, through its quarterly survey of the labour force, produces information on unemployment amongst persons born overseas and keeps a record of those statistics by reference to the period of the arrival in Australia of the persons concerned. The details of the latest survey carried out by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in November 1976 are available and have been referred to in the answer already given to Senator Lajovic. However, I understand that the honourable senator is concerned to know whether the Commonwealth Employment Service keeps statistics of this kind and whether more detailed information could be obtained from it. I will certainly pass on to the Minister his request for further consideration of this matter.

page 1062

QUESTION

REFERENDUM ADVERTISING

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– My question is directed to the Minister for Administrative Services who is responsible for electoral matters. Has his attention been drawn to an advertisement appearing in last Saturday’s Sydney Morning Herald seeking financial support for the No case in the forthcoming referendum, which is purported to be issued by the New South Wales

No Case Committee in the names of Senator Kathy Martin of Queensland, Senator Peter Rae of Tasmania and a person who is described in the advertisement as ‘Senator Jack Kain’. Is it a fact that there was once a Senator Jack Kane but that he was defeated at an election in New South Wales as long ago as May 1 974? Is a person who is no longer a senator entitled to put himself forward to the public as such? If not, is this a case of fraudulent advertising? What action, if any, can the Government take in such a matter?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-My attention had not been drawn to the advertisement but it has now. I shall certainly have a look at it. As I recall, the facts outlined by Senator Douglas McClelland concerning former Senator Kane are correct. He came here, I think, in 197 1 and left at the double dissolution in 1 974. From memory, they are the dates between which he was in this Parliament. I undertake to the honourable senator to have a look at the advertisement and, should I think it necessary, I shall refer it to the proper authorities.

page 1063

QUESTION

TORRENS ISLAND QUARANTINE STATION

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

-Can the Minister representing the Minister for Health advise what progress is being made in upgrading the Torrens Island quarantine station for the receipt of imported livestock? Will the Minister be applying for funds in the next Budget? Is there a date by which it is hoped the station will be operative?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · VICTORIA · LP

– I understand that until recently both human and animal quarantine facilities were maintained at the Torrens Island quarantine station. However, during 1976 the station was closed for human quarantine purposes and work commenced on proposals to upgrade progressively the animal quarantine facilities at the station so that a wider range of large imported animals could be satisfactorily processed. At present the station caters for imported cats, dogs and horses. No funds have been allocated for this new work during 1976-77. A decision to proceed during 1 977-78 and the timing of commencement of construction will depend on budgetary considerations for the forthcoming Budget.

page 1063

QUESTION

MINISTER FOR THE NORTHERN TERRITORY: VISIT TO DARWIN

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

-Can the Minister representing the Minister for the Northern Territory inform the Parliament whether the Minister for the Northern Territory visited Darwin on Monday, 2 May, for the purpose of assessing the situation? What situation did the Minister assess? How did the Minister travel to the Northern Territory? How many persons accompanied the Minister? If he used a Royal Australian Air Force plane, what was the total cost of the exercise? Was the Minister aware that it was common knowledge before he boarded his flight to Darwin that there was little or no danger of the cyclone crossing the coast at Darwin and that the cyclone was developing into a quite normal tropical rain depression? Was this knowledge conveyed to the Minister or was there a total breakdown in communications?

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

-The precise details of all the matters that the honourable senator raised is not known to me. During the weekend just passed the Bureau of Meteorology had recorded on its radar a most intense cyclone. I was alerted on Saturday morning that it was a matter of concern as the cyclone appeared to be following the path of Cyclone Tracy. It was unusual that a cyclone of that intensity some 300 kilometres from Darwin should have shown up on the radar. There had been some difficulty with equipment. This was righted quickly. I alerted the Minister for the Northern Territory of the problem on Saturday. My recollection is that on Saturday evening the cyclone had stopped its movement and was held in the one position. The situation was considered to be satisfactory. During Sunday, to use the words of the Bureau, the cyclone had re-coursed and was headed on a direct path to Darwin with increased intensity. Later on Sunday a satellite photograph showed that the cyclone was diffused in some way and that the eye of the cyclone was not as intense as it had been shown to be earlier.

I am aware that the Minister for the Northern Territory left for Darwin. My understanding is that he did not leave yesterday. I was under the impression that he left today. I may be incorrect and I shall advise the honourable senator. I formed the impression because the Minister requested me to carry out a duty for him this morning, which I did. If” he did leave yesterday, I am unable to say the type of transport he used or, in actual fact, the reason for his leaving. But I should imagine he would have gone not purely for the purpose of taking an interest in the cyclone. I heard of other matters last week which needed his attention. If there is further information that could be given to the honourable senator, I shall let him have it.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I wish to ask a supplementary question, Mr President. I appreciate the lengthy answer given by the Minister for Science but he omitted to let me know whether he had been advised of the total cost of the exercise. If he would contract to provide me with that information I should be happy to let the question stand where it is.

Senator WEBSTER:

-At times one has to deal with ridiculous questions in the Senate and that is just one such question. As if I am likely to know at question time the cost of an operation which has not yet been completed! I can only say to the honourable senator that a growing amount of intelligence appears to have been shown by the Opposition. This came to the fore recently with Senator McLaren quoting from the platform and policies of the Liberal and National Country parties but it does not appear to have gathered any force with the Opposition at the present time. I am quite sure that if Senator Keeffe in a quieter moment were to reflect on the question he has asked he would realise that it is not an appropriate question to ask at question time.

page 1064

QUESTION

REFERENDUMS OF 21 MAY

Senator WOOD:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate: Has he seen a report in this morning’s Sydney Morning Herald under the signature of Mr Peter Bowers in which it is stated that the Prime Minister has warned or alerted officials of the Liberal Party that if the referendum fails to be carried he will bring on a Senate election before the Budget in order to find a time when it is more favourable to the Government?

Senator Missen:

– He did not say that.

Senator WOOD:

– That interjection came from a man who was against the referendum. He is now all for it. Maybe he hopes that it will get him into the Ministry. It was reported that the purpose of the referendum is that the Prime Minister is trying to find the most favourable time for a Senate election. Does this not very clearly indicate that the Prime Minister’s stated reasons for holding the referendum are untrue; that the real reason is that the Prime Minister is fishing around to find the most suitable time for an election in the hope that he will find a more appropriate time to return to office; and that the purpose of this referendum is to delay a Senate election as long as possible in the hope that he will have things in better shape than he has at the present time?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I am interested to find that the honourable senator gets a lot of support for his proposition from the Labor Party but none from us. One wonders therefore whether Senator Wood wants the continuation in Canberra of a LiberalNational Country Party government. If he does not he ought to say so in the bluntest possible terms. In answer to the question, no, I have not seen a report by Mr Peter Bowers in this morning’s Sydney Morning

Herald.

Senator Wood:

– It was on the front page.

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I was doing things other than reading newspapers this morning. If some honourable senators have nothing else to do on a Tuesday morning but to read newspapers I congratulate them, but I happened to go to my first meeting this morning at 8.30 and I have been at meetings most of the day.

Senator O’Byrne:

– You would beat the 2 Ronnies on this one.

Senator WITHERS:

-That is quite right. At least before Senator Douglas McClelland asked his question he gave me a copy of the matter to which he wished to allude. If Senator Wood wants to see all sorts of plots and deviousness in the holding of the referendum he is entitled to see them. I am totally convinced that on 2 1 May next the Australian electorate will see the 4 referendum questions as sensible and fair and as proposals which will put decency into Australian politics. I have yet to have anybody tell me that he is opposed to holding elections for the Senate and the House of Representatives on the same day. Who is opposed to that? Nobody seemed to mind that happening for most of the first 63 years of this century.

I think that those honourable senators who have not already done so ought to read the Senate Hansard report of, I think, August, September 1906 of a debate on a Bill introduced in this place by a Senator Keating from Tasmania. It was the first Bill to bring about the first referendum. The whole purpose of that Bill was to bring about simultaneous elections. I might say that one thing happened then that also happened recently and that was that 10 senatorsnot the same senators voted against it. The other thing that is very noteworthy about that referendum is that it was the first referendum to be put to the people and that referendum was one of the four ever put to the people to be carried by a majority of 4 States. In 1906 only 6 years away from the founding of this nation people realised that it was the intention of the founding fathers to have simultaneous elections. Those honourable senators who care to read the debate and to read Senator Keating ‘s speech will see that he admitted that the Bill to which I have referred might not achieve the Government’s intention totally and that he did invite honourable senators to think up any idea whereby the

Government could be assisted to make absolutely certain that there would be simultaneous elections and said that he would welcome such a proposition. If one looks through the No division lists and the Yes division lists in those days I think that one will find that the people who really worked to bring about the federation of Australia were on the Yes division lists in that period.

Senator WOOD:

– I wish to ask a supplementary question, Mr President. In view of the fact that the Leader of the Government in the Senate has gone so far back, I ask him whether he has read and will again read the No case on the 1974 referendum proposals. Is it not a fact that he is one of the people on this side of the House who wrote that No case?

Senator WITHERS:

– Yes, I was one of the subscribers to and perhaps authors of the No case. I thought that one of the hallmarks of people in politics acting sensibly was to admit that they had made a mistake when they had done so and to do so quite frankly. I admit that I was wrong in 1974.

Opposition senators- Oh!

Senator WITHERS:

-I admit it. How unusual it is for a politician to admit that he was wrong! There are those who are not prepared to admit that they were wrong. Most of us make mistakes occasionally but not all of us. I except those who resile from that proposition.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– Can you be wrong a second time?

Senator WITHERS:

-Yes, but it is generally bigamy to be wrong a second time.

Senator Button:

– It is big of you to make that concession.

Senator WITHERS:

-I am prepared to admit that I was wrong. I have learned by experience. There are some who never learn. There has been a lot of changing of views by many people in this place over a number of years. Merely because one did something 3 years ago is not to say that one cannot learn something in the meantime. I have learned something in the meantime. For what it is worth people may quarrel with it I am convinced in my mind that simultaneous elections will not do to the Senate those things that I asserted in 1974 they would do. Might I say in conclusion that I asserted all those things in 1974 but, luckily for me, I was never asked to prove them? Let those who now wish to proclaim those things that I then asserted prove the truth of my then assertions.

page 1065

QUESTION

INFLATION RATE

Senator BUTTON:

-Has the Minister representing the Treasurer seen the forecast contained in the last review of the Melbourne University Institute of Applied Economics and Social Research which predicts a 14 per cent to 15 per cent rate of inflation during this calendar year and a continuation of that rate in 1978? Is that prediction consistent with the Government’s own predictions on this matter and, if not, what are the differences between the predictions of that body and those of the Government?

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

– I have not seen the publication, although I have sent for it. It normally comes to me and I read it with some scepticism. I have seen the newspaper comments on what it is said the publication states. It seems to me that, as normal, it is wrong. It is nearly always wrong. This time it appears to be even more wrong than usual. The Government expects the inflationary trend to continue downwards. It expects the calculation contained in that publication to be proved wrong. If it does not prove to be wrong, I shall apologise most humbly some 6 months from now.

page 1065

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BRANDY

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. With the surplus of red wine grapes in the Australian wine industry at the present time, which is causing grave concern in the industry, will the Minister give immediate consideration I emphasise ‘immediate consideration’ to either increasing the import duty or imposing quotas on the importation of overseas brandy, which would allow those grapes to be absorbed in the increased production of Australian brandy and so alleviate what has now become a critical situation in the Australian wine industry?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I shall refer the question to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs.

page 1065

QUESTION

GENERAL MOTORS-HOLDEN’S

Senator SIBRAA:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. In the event that General MotorsHolden’s Pty Ltd proceeds with its planned one week lay-off of production employees, will the Government regard such action as constituting a lockout both in principle and in effect and argue for the appropriate course of action before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, whom I represent, has already expressed his concern about this matter. I shall refer Senator Sibraa ‘s question to him and hope to obtain an early reply.

page 1066

QUESTION

EDUCATION: INNOVATIONS PROJECTS

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

-My question is addressed to the Minister for Education. Following the allocation of $3.5m of Commonwealth funds for 1977 to support projects relating to innovations and change in primary and secondary education, can the Minister say whether the approved projects will be made public, in view of the fact that this area is of great concern and interest to parents?

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

– The practice that is adopted with innovations programs when they are decided upon is to publish them in batches from time to time, to make them known and to publish each year all the innovations programs in the report for that year. Only recently a statement and a fairly large batch of innovations were published, and that statement would be available to Senator Walters. As I have said, from time to time such matters are set out in the report of the Schools Commission under the States Grants Act for the year.

page 1066

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY: STAFF SHORTAGES

Senator COLEMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. I refer to an answer given by the Minister to a question asked by Senator Cavanagh on Tuesday, 26 April, in relation to staff shortages in the Department of Social Security. In her reply the Minister stated that she had had a letter from the member for Collie in Western Australia, the Hon. T. Jones, M.L.A., complaining that the Department in Perth will not service queries from members of Parliament or from the Minister. I have had 2 such complaints from members of State parliament, and I had direct evidence of the ban when endeavouring to obtain information on behalf of a constituent on Friday of last week. As the ban relates basically to overtime which has been caused by the staff ceilings applied to the Department, will the Minister advise what action is being taken to alleviate the situation in Western Australia? I am given to understand that the Department is understaffed by approximately 85 to 90 people in the training and relief areas at the moment. Although there has been an appropriation of some 29 people over the last few days, this will not make a great deal of difference in these areas. I am also given to understand that there was a further meeting in Perth this morning. Is the Minister in a position to advise what decisions or recommendations were made at that meeting?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– There are difficulties in South Australia and Western Australia. A meeting was called in South Australia this morning. As I understand it, the meeting was still continuing a short time ago. There have been public statements by members of the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association and, indeed, public advertisements from the South Australian branch mentioning actions to be proposed as motions to be put before the meeting in South Australia today. I am unable to advise any conclusion to the difficulties in both these States. Discussions are proceeding with the Public Service Board and with the Federal Secretariat of the ACOA. As soon as I am able to advise some conclusion to these discussions I shall do so. It is extremely difficult for a Department such as mine to function when officers of the Department have decided that certain duties are not to be carried out by them. To decide selectively that some duties would not cause hardship overlooks the integration of the work of the Department. I am hopeful that as a result of the discussions and the sense of responsibility accepted by staff members, these matters can soon be resolved.

Senator COLEMAN:

– I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister advise the number of staff in the Department in Western Australia? What is the staff ceiling and how soon will it be filled?

Senator GUILFOYLE:

-I do not have with me the figure for the staff ceiling or the number presently engaged in Western Australia. I shall make that information part of the complete report that I give on those 2 States when I am able to do so.

page 1066

QUESTION

PRITCHARD STEAM CAR PROJECT

Senator MISSEN:

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Productivity. I refer to a report in the Age of 7 April 1977 which states that the Pritchard steam car project has run out of funds and that approaches made to the Government for support have yet to be resolved. Can the Minister give an assurance that a decision will shortly be made in respect to Federal Government support into research on the Pritchard steam car?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-I shall refer that question to the Minister for Productivity.

page 1067

QUESTION

ALLEGED INVOLVEMENT OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY IN AUSTRALIAN POLITICS

Senator O’BYRNE:

-I direct a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to the allegations of CIA involvement in Australian politics and trade unions. The Minister no doubt is aware of the statement made by the Prime Minister on 27 April that he would see what information might be available. Is this information available? If not, when will it be released to the Senate so that we can ascertain the veracity of these grave allegations concerning interference by another country in the internal affairs of Australia?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I shall have to seek that information from the Prime Minister. That I shall do for the honourable senator.

page 1067

QUESTION

ASSISTANCE TO SOLOMON ISLANDS

Senator KNIGHT:
ACT

– I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs to the recent earthquake that affected the Solomon Islands. In view of the critical stage of the development, both political and economic, of the Solomon Islands, what assistance has the Government provided to the people of the Solomon Islands? What assistance is proposed?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I have a briefing note from my colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, which states:

A series of severe earthquakes struck the Solomon Islands on 20-21 April 1977. Major landslides occurred on the south side of Guadalcanal which was the most seriously affected area. Heavy rains have since complicated relief operations.

In response to a request from the Solomons Government on 23 April for the services of a helicopter and crews for rescue and relief operations, an Iroquois helicopter and crews as well as medical supplies were immediately uplifted to Honiara by Hercules aircraft (23 April).

On 28 April the Solomons Government requested 50 tents capable of accommodating 8-10 people. Commercial tents were not suitable for the type of accommodation required and arrangements were made to draw upon Army stocks. The consignment was despatched by commercial air charter on 29 April. It is anticipated that the helicopter will cease operations on 7 May and that the total Australian assistance will amount to about $73,000. As many gardens have been destroyed Australia will continue to watch the situation closely and stands ready to provide additional assistance which might be requested. In broadcast statements both the Solomon Islands Governor and his Chief Minister have been forthcoming with their thanks for the prompt assistance rendered by Australia.

page 1067

QUESTION

SUPERSONIC FLIGHTS

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development. By way of preface I refer to an earlier environment impact statement which was made on the proposed Concorde aircraft flights to this continent. I now ask the Minister: Do we more or less leave that decision as it was taken or, in the light of later decibel readings at Heathrow Airport and subsequently at North American airports, are we likely to have a reevaluation of the evidence? As a corollary to that, I ask: What is happening about the working party of scientists who were looking at the ozone displacement which could be compounded by Concorde and other high flying aircraft?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– In recent weeks I have not had cause to seek the most up-to-date information on the evaluation of Concorde aircraft flights. I am aware that the Department of Transport and the Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development have been in constant contact with evaluation studies undertaken throughout the world. Senator Mulvihill will be aware that the original environment impact study was a British study of which we had the benefit together with supplementation. We had our own measurements taken during the proving flights of the Concorde aircraft from Melbourne to Singapore across the continent. Senator Mulvihill will be aware that Concorde is flying commercially on quite a number of routes in the world. Therefore it can be evaluated.

I have mentioned in the Senate many times a fact to which Senator Mulvihill adverted and that is that one should not look at Concorde as being unique. For example, in Australia we have, I suppose, some 23 FU 1aircraft and some 100 Mirage aircraft. All of them fly supersonically. In the world there are many thousands of such aircraft. Every day on the continent of Europe there are supersonic flights. The honourable senator asked me whether there had been any later reevaluation of the impact on the ozone layer. I can say only that the last information I had was that scientists felt that no perceptible damage was being done. In case there is any later information I shall refer the question to my colleague.

page 1068

QUESTION

EAST TIMOR

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs refers to a recent report about a visit by 2 Australian diplomats to various centres in Timor and a statement by an Australian Ambassador which reported upon some aspects of that trip. I ask the Minister whether he will ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs to make available to the Parliament, this week if possible, the results of that visit. It would appearprobably the Minister will agree- that the Press is getting a considerable amount of information about Timor which is not made available to the Parliament. I think the Minister will agree too that Parliament is entitled to have some information on this matter because of the interest of honourable senators from both sides.

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-The honourable senator was good enough to give me a copy of the article out of today’s newspaper. I have had the advantage of reading it. The request which the honourable senator makes is quite reasonable. I shall certainly pass it on to my colleague and ask him to consider it.

page 1068

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN MEAT AND LIVESTOCK CORPORATION

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. I refer to a ministerial Press release issued by the Minister for Primary Industry on 27 April relating to the setting up of the body to be known as the ‘Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation’ which will replace the present Australian Meat Board. Is the Minister aware of the deep disappointment of that section of the industry engaged in the purchase, processing, packaging and marketing of the product that its representation on the new Corporation will drop from the present 20 per cent to 1 1 per cent? How realistic is this proposal having regard to the vital and essential role of that sector, a number of members of which are co-operative organisations with a close, vital and sympathetic relationship with the producer in both a physical and on-going financial sense? Can the Minister say from what area of experience or expertise the 2 ‘specially qualified members’ will come? In view of the traditional and vital role of the processor/exporter in the industry, as evidenced by the fact that he has an investment of $2,000m and employs some 60 000 people, will the Minister review the proposed structure of the Corporation so as to enable that sector to have its present level of representation?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– That is a very long question, and perhaps the best thing I can do is to offer to the honourable senator after question time all the information which I have on this subject, which was brought together in the Press statement to which he referred. I know something about this matter. The people on the processing side of the industry had a long talk to me prior to the setting up of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation, and the views they expressed to me were passed on to the Department of Primary Industry and to the Minister for Primary Industry. As I went through the matter very carefully it seemed to me that a fair balance of representation had been achieved right across the scene, because this Corporation will represent more than just one group. I know that some people are saying that they ought to have total control of the Meat and Livestock Corporation in order to preserve their own position in the industry. I can see why they would want that but I cannot see any validity in it. A lot of people are involved in the meat and livestock industries. There are not only the producers of cattle but also the people who buy cattle, the people who transport cattle, the people who process cattle for local consumption, the people who process cattle for export, the people who take risks with the plant that is used and the people who trade and have to export overseas, which involves market hazards such as having to wait for their money. Then there is the Australian consumer who buys and consumes the meat. In addition, and not to be forgotten, are the men and women who work in the industry in the various processing plants and shops. So there is a broad range of interests. I cannot see therefore that any section ought to have total power over the Corporation. I know where Senator Devitt ‘s concern probably originated and I understand it, but it seems to me that a fair balance of representation has been struck. The Minister for Primary Industry has had a tremendous number of representations from groups with wide ranging interests. I shall put the honourable senator’s case to the Minister and shall make available to the honourable senator all the information that I have which may help him.

page 1068

QUESTION

SOWING OF VEGETABLE SEEDS

Senator WALTERS:

-Can the Minister for Science say whether the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation has assessed the value to Australian vegetable growers of the fluid drill used for the sowing of pre-germinated vegetable seeds presently being used for experimental purposes in the United Kingdom?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– My attention was drawn to an article which appeared in the news media regarding the planting of certain types of seed by a new method. I took it to be quite an advance in agricultural research. It involves seeds which are of a very light nature, such as carrot seeds, and which may float in the wind being planted through a drill in a type of toothpaste mixture. It is similar to toothpaste coming out of a toothpaste tube. This gives the grower the opportunity to plant the seed not only in the proper fashion as regards the correct spacing but also with sufficient moisture and a correct mix of fertiliser to see to its germination. It appeared that a great advance could be made in growing certain types of vegetable seeds and other seeds. I referred that article to the CSIRO for its evaluation. As yet I have not received a response. I realise that this matter is of immense importance, particularly for growers in Tasmania, and I acknowledge the great interest that Senator Walters has in it.

page 1069

QUESTION

HOLIDAY CARE PROGRAMS

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Social Security. Is it true that, of the 47 Victorian applications for assistance in the May vacation holiday care programs, only 19 were funded and then in most cases were funded only as to a proportion of the amount sought? Is it true, despite the Minister’s emphasis on ‘care’ in these programs, that because those receiving funding received advice, at least in the case of Victoria, only one week before the beginning of the vacation, and because of the lack of funding and reduced funding, most of those planned programs have been reduced in size and have become at best minding operations? Is it true that hundreds of children around Australia will now be left to their own devices throughout the fortnight’s break? What were the criteria on which funding was made available? Is it true that the applications for funding were returned to the Minister by the Office of Child Care on 25 March and therefore lay on her table for 34 days before the Minister made the announcements?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I am not aware of whether the figure of 19 out of 47 Victorian applications being funded is absolutely accurate. It is true that last week we announced the funding which had been approved for the school holiday programs through the Office of Child Care. The total amount of the program is $149,972. There has been some Press comment about halving the school holiday program, but I point out that funding for the program in May 1976 was $98,000 and that for 1975 it was $74,000. So it could hardly be said that the expenditure of $ 149,000 in May this year represents a halving of the program. As to the subject of care and the composition of the program, having decided in December last year that an amount of about $140,000 would be available for the program, the main criterion was that we would look first at those organisations which had conducted successful holiday programs last year and which had re-applied for funds this year. As I understand it, most of those organisations have been funded again for May this year. I understand that a variety of programs had been approved formerly and had been accepted by the community. I had not heard previously that there was a lack of care in the programs which had been funded in previous years, nor had I heard some of the assertions which have been made today.

As to the assertion that material from the Office of Child Care was given to my office on 25 March, that is quite inaccurate. The first statements from the Office of Child Care to my office that had any meaning at all represented recommendations for 2 States and I believe that they arrived about 6 April. On 1 8 April the full program, with recommendations for all States, reached my office. At that time priorities had to be decided because the recommendations representated an amount far in excess of the amount that had been agreed upon with the Office in December last year. If any further information is required I will provide it to the honourable senator, but I want to say that the expenditure of almost $150,000 on vacation care programs represents a sizable contribution to the care of children whose parents are absent from the home and whose parents are unable to plan programs for them during the holiday period.

page 1069

QUESTION

CASUAL SENATE VACANCIES

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I preface my question, which is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, by stating that I fully support the convention that a State government should fill a casual vacancy in the Senate with a senator of the same political persuasion as the senator who is being replaced. Is the Minister aware that delegates at the Hobart meeting agreed that it was impossible to find a form of words that would provide for all contingencies when filling a casual Senate vacancy, as did the 1958-59 Joint Committee on Constitutional Review? Why did the Government not write into the Constitution Alteration (Senate Casual Vacancies) Bill reference to a casual vacancy caused by the death or bona fide illness of a senator? Why did the Government proceed with this Bill in the knowledge that it did not conform with the spirit of the Constitutional Convention in Hobart? Under the existing provisions of the Bill, how does the Government propose filling a casual vacancy caused by the death or bona fide illness of (a) an independent senator, (b) a senator who resigns from his party, (c) a senator who has been expelled from his party and (d) a senator whose party has merged with or broken away from another party? Finally, as a political party is not defined in the proposed legislation, can the Minister indicate how this would be determined?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

– I am delighted to know that the honourable senator supports the principle that no matter how a vacancy occurs in the Senate the replacement senator should come from the same political party. I take it that that is the proposition that the honourable senator puts forward.

Senator Jessop:

– I mentioned that the State government should fill the vacancy.

Senator WITHERS:

-I do not know of any person who has got mixed up in the referenda campaign yet who has been prepared to say he does not support without reservation the proposition that no matter how a vacancy occurs in this place the replacement senator should come from the same party.

Senator Button- Tell Joh Bjelke-Petersen that.

Senator WITHERS:

-I am really talking about this Parliament. Admittedly the Premier of Queensland has certain views of his own which are not my views and were not my views when the replacement of Senator Murphy came about, nor were they my views when the replacement of Senator Milliner came about. Honourable senators will remember that when Senator Wriedt moved a motion I moved an amendment to it which was supported without dissent in this place that the view of this place was that the practice ought to be adhered to. That is on the record; it is quite well known. It is correct that at the Hobart Convention an amendment was moved to limit this proposition to casual vacancies occurring as a result of bona fide illness.

Senator Jessop:

-And death.

Senator WITHERS:

-Death or bona fide illness; that is right. I think a provision concerning bona fide illness is impossible to write into the Constitution but casual vacancies occurring otherwise are not impossible to provide for. The fact that the Joint Committee on Constitutional Review 1958-59 was unable to find a set of words sufficient to write into the Constitution is not a sufficient excuse to say that the present Government and the Parliament have not found a way. The honourable senator asks about 4 classes of people. He referred first to an independent. I thought we all knew that the position of an independent would remain as it is under the present Constitution. The honourable senator also referred to a senator who resigned from his party after having been chosen by the people as being a member of that party and taking his seat as a member of that party. That senator would be replaced by a senator from the party to which the former senator belonged when he was chosen to come into this place and when he took his seat.

Senator Jessop:

– In other words, Senator Hall would be replaced by a member of the Liberal Movement.

Senator WITHERS:

-No, senator. I wish you people would try to get some facts straight. As I understand it, Senator Hall- he can speak for himself later if he so desires- came in here as a member of the Liberal Movement. As I understand what happened in South Australia, there was an amalgamation in fact, and I imagine at law, of the Liberal Movement and the Liberal Party of Australia, South Australian Division. So one party is now subsumed within the other. I think that is what happens in the (c) and (d) situations. This is a matter of fact for a Court of Disputed Returns to determine at the time. That is why one has provisions within the Commonwealth Electoral Act, certainly within the Constitution and within our own Standing Orders, as to disputed returns on election of senators, no matter how chosen. Should there be dispute as to whether one belonged to a certain political party or not, or as to the definition of a political party, they would be matters for a court of disputed returns to settle. Since a long way back that court has comprised a single justice of the High Court from whose decision there is no right of appeal. That system has worked successfully in the past and I see no reason for its not working successfully in the future.

The honourable senator asked: What is a political party? I suppose that since 1948 political parties have been mentioned in the Commonwealth Electoral Act. I think all of us at present in this chamber signed 2 forms when we nominated to be chosen as senators. One form was for nomination and the other was directed to the Electoral Officer of our State, indicating the order in which we wanted to appear on the ballot paper. That order was not picked by those nominating, it was picked by the party which endorsed us. It was not something that arose accidentally.

The fact that political parties might not be recognised in many places does not seem to deter people from attempting occasionally to recognise them. I doubt that any honourable senator on my side of the chamber has not been to meetings of the Liberal Party where there have been requests that party affiliations of candidates for election be shown on ballot papers. That proposition is supported in some places and opposed in others. Yet I have never heard anybody pose the proposition that it would be wicked, improper or not right to put party designations on ballot papers. Therefore, we believe that what the Parliament has done in presenting the second referendum question is fair, decent, sensible and capable of implementation. I say again that I have yet to find anybody in the community or any member of the Federal Parliament who does not say that he believes totally and absolutely that replacement senators ought to come from the same party as the senator they are replacing. All that the Parliament is doing in submitting this referendum to the people is to make that absolutely certain in the future. I must say that I am somewhat suspicious of people who say they subscribe to the principle but are not prepared to write it into the Constitution.

page 1071

QUESTION

VISITORS TO DEFENCE BASES

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs: Are overseas visitors or personnel arriving by direct flight at Pine Gap and other foreign bases in Australia exempted from customary immigration, health or customs checks, or subjected to different immigration, health or customs checks from other overseas visitors? If so, how can this fact be reconciled with the statement made by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs that the same provisions and checks would apply? If not, can the Minister explain the reported fact that direct flights from overseas to Pine Gap with no clearance through Richmond Royal Australian Air Force base near Sydney have occurred?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I am not able to supply the information requested by the honourable senator. I shall refer his question to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs for reply.

page 1071

QUESTION

LIVESTOCK EXPORTS

Senator ARCHER:

-Can the Minister representing the Minister for Overseas Trade advise what progress is being made and what is the attitude of the Government in respect of the export of livestock, in view of the statement reported to have been made by a Mr J. O Toole that a 5-month ban would be imposed on exports to certain countries which he nominated? Does the Government agree with that proposed action? If not, what course of action does it propose to follow?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-I do not know Mr J. O Toole, nor have I heard, read or seen any reports of what he said. The question relates to a matter of some importance, nevertheless, because I believe we do have a capacity to enlarge our exports of livestock. I think that Tasmania in particular has an opportunity to become a stud farm in general for export purposes. I have always thought that, but I mention it just by the way. I shall make inquiries from the responsible Minister for the honourable senator. It may well be that the matter falls within the responsibility of the Minister for Health as well as the Minister for Primary Industry.

page 1071

QUESTION

EAST TIMOR

Senator McINTOSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to the report on atrocities in East Timor that was prepared by Mr Jim Dunn. In view of the fact that this report was forwarded to the Government early in February, will the Minister state when the Government intends to make a statement relating to the allegations contained in the report?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I will request that information from my colleague for the honourable senator.

page 1071

QUESTION

PINE GAP FACILITY

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I desire to ask a question of the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I ask: Is it a fact, as reported, that the Americans at Pine Gap have monitoring equipment that permits them to intercept any messages into or out of Australia? If the Minister has no knowledge of that, would it be possible to introduce such a system into Pine Gap without the knowledge of the Australian Government?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I have no personal knowledge one way or the other as to the first question asked by the honourable senator, nor do I have any such knowledge as to the second question, but, as to the second question, I will make inquiries of the Prime Minister for the honourable senator.

page 1071

QUESTION

VACATION CHILDREN’S CARE PROGRAMS

Senator GRIMES:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister for Social Security. It relates to the question asked previously by Senator Melzer. I ask: Is it a fact that 27 000 children benefited from the

Commonwealth assistance provided in the May 1976 vacation children’s care programs whereas only 2 1 000 children will benefit from the programs in May of this year, despite the increase in expenditure? Can the Minister give the reasons for the disparity in numbers, if the figures are correct?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I am unable to confirm the accuracy of the figures quoted by the honourable senator. The programs approved for this year cover a variety of programs in the various States- different types of programs. It could be that there is a difference in the number of children who will benefit, although I do not know whether that would be the only criteria on which we would judge them entirely. Some are longer term programs; others are daily or weekly programs. As far as I am concerned the applications that were funded and were successful in the previous year were given priority for funding this year. If it is a fact those which catered for larger numbers have been removed from the programs by their own choice because they have not made application that could result in a difference in numbers. However, the amount of funds that has been provided has been increased from $98,000 to $149,000. It would seem to me that the programs that have been chosen on this occasion should provide a variety of occupations and plans for children. I hope that they will be beneficial to the children who will attend the programs that have been arranged.

page 1072

QUESTION

PINE GAP FACILITY

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. Is it a fact that the joint defence facility at Pine Gap near Alice Springs is under the control of the Australian Government and that all movement of personnel, either United States or Australian personnel, is regulated by the Australian Department of Defence?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I thank the honourable senator for reminding me of that. I believe it to be correct, but I will seek the information and confirm it for him.

page 1072

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT: BUREAU OF STATISTICS SURVEY

Senator COLSTON:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Is it a fact that the Australian Bureau of Statistics has, on behalf of the Queensland Government, recently conducted a survey of persons registered for employment with the Commonwealth Employment Service? If so, to what use will that survey be put by the Queensland Government and on whose authority was the survey conducted? Since the Commonwealth Government is responsible for the Commonwealth Employment Service, could it be regarded as an abuse of the operations of either the Bureau of Statistics or the Commonwealth Employment Service or of both for this survey to be conducted for the Queensland Government?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– The question began with the comment ‘is it a fact’ and arising out of that query a number of propositions or conjectures was advanced, some of which, to say the least, are slightly curious and may be a little offensive. What I will do for the honourable senator is get an answer from the Treasurer to a question that properly should be on notice.

page 1072

QUESTION

MUSEUMS, NATIONAL COLLECTIONS AND PUBLIC LIBRARIES

Senator WITHERS:
LP

– Last week Senator Douglas McClelland asked me a question without notice concerning reports of committees of inquiry into museums and national collections and public libraries. To ensure that there is no confusion, I would like to clarify the reply that I gave to him at that time. The interdepartmental group on the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Museums and National Collections has reported to me and its report is to be considered by the Government. The interdepartmental group on the Committee of Inquiry into Public Libraries has not yet reported to me, but I expect its report very shortly.

page 1072

JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE NEW AND PERMANENT PARLIAMENT HOUSE

The PRESIDENT:

– I bring up the first report of the Joint Standing Committee on the New and Permanent Parliament House, together with the minutes of proceedings.

On 24 March 1927 the Commonwealth Parliament resolved that the next sitting of the Parliament would be at the Federal Capital, Canberra. The Parliament, on 9 May 1927, moved into a building that was a compromise solution- one that was neither a monumental permanent structure nor a cheap temporary one. It was a provisional Parliament House meant to serve only until the 1 970s. We have occupied it for 50 years. In December 1965 the first Joint Select Committee on the New and Permanent Parliament House was established to inquire into certain aspects of a new and permanent parliament house. Since that date, a tremendous amount of time and effort has been spent by members and senators in planning the new building.

The site of the new and permanent parliament house was debated and resolved by the Parliament Act 1974. By this Act, Parliament determined that the site is Capital Hill. Following determination of that issue the Joint Standing Committee was established in 1975 and reestablished in 1976 to act for and represent the Parliament, as the client for the new and permanent parliament house, in all matters concerned with the planning, design and construction of the new and permanent parliament house and all matters incidental thereto. The first report which I have just presented is, in essence, a progress report. The Committee has agreed unanimously to a program which would enable a fully functioning stage 1 parliament house to be constructed and occupied by 26 January 1988- the 200th anniversary of European settlement in Australia. I must stress that the Committee’s decision does not involve the expenditure of any significant funds for at least 2 years. No specific government expenditure or commitment will be required before the 1979-80 Budget.

In order that some comprehension of the way in which the national capital building could be designed appropriately to its environment on Capital Hill, an artist’s impression was drawn. There is no design and that artist’s impression serves no purpose other than to assist in seeing a building on the site. Studies of the mass of a building show that a balance can be achieved between the lines of a building while retaining the natural beauty of the site. Artists’ impressions in the report illustrate this. They show how a cone shaped building, for example, could be used to reinforce the hill shape and how the radial road pattern can be visually extended into the building to form courtyards and access corridors. It is stressed that the sketches are not the proposed design but merely an example of the effect a building may have on Capital Hill.

The Committee’s first report coincides with celebrations to mark the 50th anniversary of the opening of the provisional Parliament House. The opportunity now lies ahead to take the first step towards marking the 200th Australia Day celebrations by opening the new and permanent parliament house on 26 January 1988.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– by leave- I move:

I do so for a number of reasons, but particularly so that there will be an opportunity for the Senate to debate the matter. All honourable senators will wish to read the report before that time, and I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1073

AUSTRALIAN WINE BOARD

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

– Pursuant to section 29 of the Wine Overseas Marketing Act 1929 I present the annual report of the Australian Wine Board for the year 1975-76.

page 1073

TRANSPORT (PLANNING AND RESEARCH) ACT 1974

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present a report prepared by the Department of Transport titled The Transport (Planning and Research) Act 1974- Report on Progress to 30 June 1976. Due to the limited numbers available, reference copies of this report have been placed in the Parliamentary Library. The report was produced at the request of State authorities and provides an example of the co-operation between the States and the Commonwealth which is being achieved under the Act.

page 1073

CONSIDERATION OF BOUNTY BILLS

Motion (by Senator Withers) 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 Automatic Data Processing Equipment Bounty Bill, the Bed Sheeting Bounty Bill and the Agricultural Tractors Bounty Amendment Bill being put in one motion at each stage, and the consideration of such Bills together in Committee of the Whole.

page 1073

QUESTION

ESTIMATES COMMITTEES

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeaderof the Government · LP

– I move:

I advise the Senate that if all Estimates committees have concluded their hearings by 6 p.m. the Senate will resume at 8 p.m. Should any Committee be considering Estimates at 6 p.m. the Senate will not resume until the ringing of the bells or 10.15 p.m. at the ringing of the bells, whichever is the earlier.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

The PRESIDENT:

– The sitting of the Senate is suspended until the ringing of the bells to enable Estimates committees to meet. The committees will meet at 4 p.m. Committee A will meet in the Senate Chamber, Committee E will meet in Committee Room No. 1 and Committee F will meet in Senate Committee Room No. 5. The bells will be rung for 2 minutes prior to the meeting of Estimates committees.

Sitting suspended from 4.49 to 10.15 p.m.

page 1074

INSURANCE AMENDMENT BILL 1977

Bills received from the House of Representatives.

Motion (by Senator Cotton) agreed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of the Bills being put in one motion at each stage, and the consideration of such Bills together in Committee of the Whole.

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

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

Second Readings

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

– I move:

I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speeches in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

The speeches read as follows-

Insurance Amendment Bill 1977

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Insurance Act 1973- to strengthen its administrative machinery and to remove a number of anomalies. The Bill will up-date certain provisions and provide for the transfer of the appeals jurisdiction of the Insurance Tribunal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Since the Insurance Act came into full operation on 1 August 1974, the Insurance Commissioner has been processing applications from insurers seeking authority to carry on insurance business in Australia. I am pleased to be able to say that the task of processing these applications is nearing completion. The Commissioner has gained a great deal of practical experience in the supervision of insurance companies. As a direct result, a number of weaknesses and anomalies in the legislation has become apparent. This Bill will remedy these defects and the opportunity is being taken to improve the Act in other ways.

There are 6 specific points that I should mention. First, honourable senators will be aware of the debate within and outside the accounting profession on the treatment of future tax benefits in the accounts of companies. The Government wishes to put this matter beyond doubt so far as the Insurance Act is concerned. The Bill provides for the specific exclusion of such contingent benefits from an insurer’s assets for the purposes of calculating its margin of solvency under the Act. Secondly, provision has also been made to clarify the situation with regard to the inclusion of guarantees in an insurer’s assets for solvency purposes.

Thirdly, it is proposed that insurance companies be able to omit from the calculation of their annual premium income for purposes of the Act amounts they have collected for onward transmission to the States or Territories in the form of fire brigade levies, stamp duties and other similar charges. Fourthly, under the Act as it now stands, an insurer that has been refused an authority to carry on business cannot be properly directed as to the way it should run off commitments previously entered into. It is now proposed to tighten this aspect of the Act by empowering the Treasurer to give directions to such an insurer in relation to the meeting of commitments under contracts of insurance previously entered into.

Fifthly, it has become apparent that a considerable amount of insurance is being sent to unauthorised insurers overseas through agents in Australia. Section 1 1 3 of the existing Act- which has not yet been proclaimed- prohibits such a practice. Following consultation with the industry, we have decided to allow exemptions from this prohibition, so as to increase the flexibility of the provision. The amendments make provision to obtain more information on business going to the unauthorised market overseas. The amendments also require those sending business to the overseas market on behalf of Australian clients to notify those clients that they have insurance cover which is outside the supervision of the Australian Act. I add that neither the existing legislation nor the proposed amendments to it unduly restricts the freedom of individuals or companies in Australia to obtain insurance cover overseas. The legislation regulates the precise way in which this can be done consistent with the general intent of the Act. Sixthly, it is proposed to transfer the responsibility for having appeals under the Insurance Act from the Insurance Tribunal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

I should also mention one matter in respect of which we have decided not to amend either the Insurance Act 1973 or the Life Insurance Act 1945. The Labor Government announced in 1973 that it would introduce amendments under which proposals relating to the establishment of new insurance companies would be examined on the basis of national interest criteria. Arrangements to achieve that have since applied on an administrative basis without the backing of legislation. This matter has recently been reviewed in depth. We have concluded that these arrangements are unnecessary having regard to the effectiveness of existing legislation designed to ensure the financial soundness of insurance companies. I emphasise, however, that proposals by overseas interests will continue to be subject to examination under the Government’s foreign investment policy. The various amendments effected by this Bill have been developed in close consultation with the general insurance industry. Although they are generally more of a machinery than a policy nature we believe that they will contribute in a significant way to the effective supervision of the industry.

Finally, a substantial weakness has recently become apparent in the Insurance Act and it has been found necessary to provide an adequate basis on which to institute proceedings against an authorised insurer for late lodgment of returns. It is emphasised that the requirement that an authorised insurer make detailed returns and statements at specified intervals is fundamental to the effective administration of the legislation. Thus the amendment in clause 34A would enable the Commissioner to prosecute in appropriate cases for late lodgment of returns. It has been drafted along the lines of sub-section 12 (4) of the Companies Ordinance of the Australian Capital Territory and will facilitate the Commissioner’s task of proving the non-lodgment of documents to the satisfaction of the court. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Life Insurance Amendment Bill 1977

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Life Insurance Act 1945. More specifically the Bill will up-date and improve the existing supervisory machinery established by the Act, to take account of changes in money values and business practices. It will facilitate appeals against administrative decisions. It will bring the Act into line with the Government’s policy of divesting the

High Court of its original jurisdiction under Commonwealth statutes and conferring it on other appropriate courts.

The Life Insurance Act since its introduction over 3 1 years ago has been singularly successfuly in preventing failures among life insurance companies in Australia. It has brought about a degree of stability in the industry which has few rivals anywhere else in the world. However, changing conditions, changing forms of policies and changing public demand and expectations have made it desirable to up-date some areas of the legislation. At the same time new problems have arisen which are not covered in the Act at all. With this in mind, the Government views the current set of proposed amendments to the Life Insurance Act as a forerunner to a much wider review to determine what kind of supervisory legislation is best suited to Australia’s life insurance industry in the future.

It is proposed to strengthen the supervision over registered life insurers. The Bill requires them to seek permission from the life Insurance Commission before they commence a form of business other than life or general insurance. However, the Commissioner will not be able to refuse an insurer permission to enter a noninsurance area unless he is satisfied that such entry would be to the detriment of existing and prospective policy owners.

The existing legislation provides that a life insurance company shall not invest directly or indirectly in another such company. This is obviously unworkable as almost all companies listed on the stock exchange would have some link with a life insurer merely because life insurers are large investors in shares. It is proposed to relax this particular provision. New safeguards will however enable the life insurance commissioner to oversee certain investment outlets where the investments of particular kinds exceed specified limits. Investments in companies related to life insurance companies, mutual funds and unit trusts will come under this provision.

The Bill also provides for an insurer to have a prospectus seeking investment in its debentures approved by the Life Insurance Commissioner before the debenture issue can be made. This is consistent with the existing provision which requires approval of the Commissioner of an insurer’s share prospectus before issue. Provision has also been made to have the Commissioner fully informed when a take-over is made for a registered life insurance company.

To increase the effectiveness of the Commissioner’s supervision and generally speed up the collection of data, it is proposed to shorten the period a company has in which to lodge returns. In future balance sheets and other financial returns will be required 5 months after the close of its financial year. The period for the submission of the actuarial abstract and statement will be shortened to 6 months.

Provision has been made for the abolition of the requirement for a life insurance company to lodge and maintain a deposit with the Treasurer. The necessity for authorised general insurers under the Insurance Act to lodge and maintain deposits has been abolished. It has been found, both here and overseas, that the maintenance of deposits has served little or no practical purpose because of changes in money values.

Of considerable benefit to policy owners and their dependants are the proposals to amend money values referred to in a number of sections of the Act and to allow for the values to be altered by regulation in the future. I mention as a particular example the proposal that probate or administration on a policy need not be applied for until the total value reaches $6,000- the current amount is $2,000.

Clause 36 in the Bill has the effect of allowing the Fourth Schedule to the Act to be changed by regulation. This will enable greater flexibility in periods of changes in interest rates and has significant implications in terms of increased benefits to policy owners. I might explain that the purpose of the Fourth Schedule to the Act is to ensure that life companies calculate the liabilities that will accrue under policies in the future and the funds that will be available to meet them in an actuarially sound way. At present, the basis is based on interest rates and other factors applying many years ago. It is restricting companies in the benefits they can provide. The necessity to liberalise the minimum valuation basis in the Fourth Schedule and the concern felt in the industry that changes be made as soon as possible are fully appreciated by the Government. Priority will be given to drafting the necessary regulations.

It is proposed to transfer the responsibility for the hearing of certain appeals under the Life Insurance Act from the High Court to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. In addition, the number of administrative acts of the Life Insurance Commissioner against which an appeal can be lodged has been increased. The opportunity has been taken to divest the High Court of its original jurisdiction under the Act and to transfer that jurisdiction to other appropriate courts. There are also a number of formal amendments which will bring the Act into line with current drafting practices.

Because of the highly technical nature of life insurance and the effect any amendments to the Act are likely to have on the industry and policy owners, the amendments effected by this Bill have been developed in close consultation with the life insurance industry. We are confident that these amendments, although only a beginning to the major task of modernising the Life Insurance Act, will bring considerable benefits to life insurance as a whole. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Keeffe) adjourned.

page 1076

STATES GRANTS (DWELLINGS FOR PENSIONERS) AMENDMENT 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 move:

I seek leave to incorporate the text of the second reading speech in Hansard

The PRESIDENT:

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

The speech read as follows-

The purpose of this Bill is to implement the Government’s decision to extend the period of operation of the States Grants (Dwellings for Pensioners) Act 1974 by one year to 30 June 1978. The amending legislation will provide an additional amount of $ 10m in interest-free nonrepayable grants to the States in 1977-78 to finance provision by their housing authorities of self-contained units of accommodation for a range of single pensioners entitled to supplementary assistance. The eligible categories are age, invalid and class B widow pensioners and Service pensioners who are permanently unemployable, suffering from tuberculosis or are in receipt of a pension because of age.

Under the current legislation $30m in grants has been made available for the same purpose over the 3-year period from 1 July 1974 to 30 June 1977. To date this has enabled approval of building schemes to provide a total of 20 1 7 units of accommodation. As the States collectively have committed $29.3m of the $30m appropriated under the current legislation the Government considered that the program would lose momentum if there was any delay in committing funds for 1 977-78. It is for this reason that the Bill to amend the present Act is being introduced now. It will enable the States to plan for further construction in the coming financial year and thus preserve continuity in their programs.

The amending legislation is intended to remove the existing requirement for the States to submit for the Commonwealth Minister’s approval details of each building scheme to be financed under the program. Instead, grants will be authorised on the basis of schemes nominated by the States. Detailed planning of each project is a State responsibility and the removal of the requirement for approval is consistent with the Government’s concept of Commonwealth-State relations. The Government is closely studying the reports of the Task Force on Co-ordination in Welfare and Health and of the Committee of Inquiry into the Care of the Aged and Infirm. Both these reports present major reviews of Government policy in relation to the care of the aged. Extension of the existing dwellings for pensioners scheme for one year will allow time for consideration of relevant recommendations of these reports and the introduction of changes considered necessary. It will also allow for consideration of the housing of the aged within the context of discussions for new CommonwealthState housing arrangements to take effect from July 1978.

The additional $10m has been apportioned between the States in the same ratio as the original $30m was made available under the 1974 legislation. This was based on the numbers of single pensioners in receipt of supplementary assistance in each State. Thus the amount payable to each State in 1 977-78 will be:

I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Keeffe) adjourned.

page 1077

NEW ZEALAND RE-EXPORTS (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 Durack) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans’ Affairs · LP

– I move:

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

The PRESIDENT:

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

The speech read as follows-

The New Zealand Re-exports Act of 1924 was introduced to provide, in relation to goods which after importation into New Zealand were reexported to Australia, a concessional basis of valuation for duty purposes outside the normal valuation provisions of Part VIII of the Customs Act. This is done by providing that, subject to proper certification, the value for duty of such reexports will, with some time limit safeguards, be the sum of the current domestic value of the goods in the country of original export and the charges for placing the goods ‘free on board ‘ for export to New Zealand, increased by a statutory 10 per cent. The Act and the reciprocal New Zealand legislation in relation to re-exports from Australia to New Zealand each no doubt served its respective purpose well for many years. However, because of faster and more frequent shipping services and the advent and development of air cargo, the facility has been little used of recent years and is seen at present as providing, for a very small number of overseas suppliers, little more than an option for filling certain orders either direct or from stocks held in New Zealand or in Australia, as the case may be. Since adoption by Australia last year of a modified Brussels Definition of Value there has been no requirement for import documents to show the current domestic value of goods in the country of export and, because of this, Australia is not able to fulfil its part in the scheme by providing the certifications required under the reciprocal New Zealand legislation. Furthermore the Brussels Convention on the Valuation of Goods for Customs Purposes, to which Australia intends to accede in due course, enjoins contracting parties to take all necessary steps as soon as circumstances permit, to conform to the provisions of the Convention which do not allow for bi-lateral agreements outside those provisions. Because of Australia’s movement away from the system of valuation on which the arrangement between the two countries depends, and because of duties and obligations which Australia accepts, or will accept, in relation to the Valuation Convention, the Government has decided, in consultation with representatives of the New Zealand Government, to repeal the Act. New Zealand has indicated in the consultations to which I have referred, that it raises no objection to the repeal of the Australian legislation and it is understood that the New Zealand authorities will arrange for the repeal of their relevant regulations to coincide with the coming into effect of the Australian repeal Act. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Keeffe) adjourned.

page 1078

ADJOURNMENT

Tertiary Education Allowance Scheme- Commonwealth Employment Service: Relocation Assistance Scheme

Motion (by Senator Carrick) proposed:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– I wish to speak briefly of an anomaly in the regulations governing the payment of tertiary student allowances. The specific case concerns a Mr Howard Smith, an elector of Western Australia, but presumably other students have been similarly affected in the past and are likely to be similarly affected in the future unless the regulation is changed. I wrote to the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) on 8 March and received a substantive reply on 1 5 April. Mr Smith was a trainee teacher bonded to the Education Department of Western Australia. He completed 2 years of a 3-year training course and received an allowance from the Department for the 2 years to 30 December 1976. In December 1976 he notified the State Education Department of his intention to transfer to Murdoch University to undertake a history and economics course, and became a fulltime student this year. The State Education Department did not terminate its bond until 9 March 1 977. Mr Smith did not receive the training allowance from the Western Australian Department of Education from 30 December to 9 March because he was no longer continuing with teacher training, and he did not receive any assistance under the Student Assistance Act of 1973 because regulation 34 ( 1 ) (c) states that a person is not eligible for assistance if he is a party to a training agreement. For that 10-week period between 30 December 1976 and 9 March 1977 Mr Smith fell between 2 stools, so to speak, and received no allowance from either State or Federal sources.

It seems quite clear that regulation 34(1) (c) was designed to prevent double payments of student training allowances from different authorities and of course, as such, is fully justifiable. But I doubt very much that it was intended that it should apply in this case when payment under one training agreement had been terminated but because the agreement had not been formally terminated the person was precluded from obtaining the Commonwealth assistance to which he would have been entitled had the agreement with the State authority been terminated and to which he was entitled and in fact did receive after 9 March. So I ask the Minister to give some consideration to this regulation with a view to framing some appropriate amendment that would enable a person in a case such as this and persons in the future who may be affected in this way to receive the training allowance, which I think the intention of the Act requires. I realise that there may be difficulties in setting a precedent here but I also ask the Minister to consider making an ex gratia payment in this case for the 10 weeks from 30 December.

Senator DONALD CAMERON:
South Australia

– The matter that concerns me is the Commonwealth Employment Service administration of the relocation allowance. I have raised this matter with officers in South Australia, with the Assistant Director in South Australia and at the Estimates Committee hearing but I have still not received satisfaction that the statement of the scheme put out by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) in September has been followed. I refer to the case of Mr Frank Duthie who was living at 41 Suffolk Street, Glenelg. He is a married man with 4 children. He has been unemployed and in receipt of unemployment benefits for 6 months. He was living in one room of a flat with his mother-in-law.

His mother-in-law received notice that she had to vacate the flat within 2 weeks. She did, and he was allowed to stay there a further 2 weeks. He had an offer of a job at Blackwood, which is about 30 miles from Adelaide. The conditions of employment included a house provided rent free. He was to be paid $70 a week for 3 days ‘ work a week with the possibility of full time work later on. He accepted the job but, having been unemployed for 6 months he had no money to get his furniture transferred to Blackwood. He applied at the Glenelg office of the Commonwealth Employment Service for assistance under the relocation scheme and was advised by an officer there that because the job was not full time he was not eligible for any assistance.

Later, this matter was referred to me. I had a look at the conditions and requirements of the scheme. I rang the officer and complained that this man had been unemployed for 6 months; that he was living in one room with 4 children in a house that was rented by his mother-in-law; that he was genuinely seeking employment; that he had a job to go to but could not go unless he had about $160 to get his furniture transferred to Blackwood. The officer told me that the man did not qualify for the scheme because the job to which he was going was not a firm offer of employment. I contacted Mr Duthie regarding this allegation from the officer that the reason he was not given relocation assistance was that he did not have a firm offer of a job. The officer had told me that this information was relayed to the office by telephone. Mr Duthie informed me that he had not told the officer at Glenelg any such thing by telephone; that as a matter of fact he had called in to the office and told the officer about the firm job for 3 days a week at $70 a week. He said that what the officer was alleging was not quite correct. So we have a difference of opinion regarding the reason for his not getting relocation assistance. As a result of the mishandling of this matter by the officers in Adelaide Mr Duthie not only lost the job but also lost the opportunity of a house in which he and his 4 children could have lived.

For a further 8 weeks Mr Duthie received unemployment benefit. He looked everywhere in the State for employment. He tried at Whyalla. He even put in a full day in Nuriootpa going around wineries and vineyards seeking employment. He had an offer of a house at Nuriootpa from the South Australian Housing Trust. He could not take the house because he could not find a job. During this time he was receiving unemployment benefit at the rate of about $107 a week. The Department of Social Security paid him $856 for those 8 weeks whereas for about $160 it could have transported his furniture to the locality where he had employment and a house. He contacted me last week to advise that he had another job and a house to go to. Again he was rejected for his relocation assistance.

I rang the Glenelg office and spoke to the person who had previously told me that the reason Mr Duthie did not get the relocation assistance was that he did not have a firm offer of a job. I asked the officer again why Mr Duthie did not receive the assistance when he applied the first time. The officer said that it was because it was only part time work. I reminded the officer that on the first occasion I spoke to him he had told me the reason Mr Duthie did not receive the assistance because he did not have a firm offer of a job. The officer went away and looked up a file. He then said: ‘That is right. I did tell you that’.

Apparently the officer told me one thing and told the applicant for the relocation assistance another thing.

Last Friday I again rang because the man was getting desperate. He had an offer of a job at Chapman’s Factory in Nairne, about 30 miles from Adelaide. He also had an offer of a house from the South Australian Housing Trust at Brukunga, a few miles away. He was told that the Department would not pay the cost of transferring his furniture to Brukunga. I rang the Assistant Director of the Department in Adelaide and asked him whether employment had to be full time to qualify for the relocation assistance. He said ‘I do not know. I will find out and let you know.’ I asked a similar question at the sitting of Estimates Committee F last Thursday and was given a similar answer. The Committee was dealing with expenditure of $200,000 for payment of relocation assistance this financial year. I refer to page 192 of transcript of Estimates Committee F of 28 April 1977. The First Assistant Secretary, Management and Secretariat Division of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations said:

I can only state to the best of my knowledge the scheme relates only to full time employment or training under NEAT leading to full time employment, and similarly that the scheme relates only to people changing their permanent place of residence, and therefore excludes persons who have no permanent place of residence. I would willingly confirm that to the Committee and put the precise words down that are in our instructions, but I do not have them in front of me at the moment.

Later on, after questioning, Senator Durack said:

As I understand it, officers are being asked and are going to check on whether the scheme covers the condition that it be full time employment and that it be a change of permanent residence, and the Committee can be told that. Then it will be something that can be dealt with separately with Senator Cameron.

I am still waiting for the information from Mr Wood. I have not checked with other Committee members to see whether they have received the information.

I was trying to advise Mr Duthie about his entitlement under this scheme. I refer now to a news release that was issued by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) on 12 September last year. It is headed Relocation Assistance Scheme’. Part of it reads:

Mr Street today announced the introduction of a major new Manpower measure, the Relocation Assistance Scheme, to operate initially for 12 months. The Scheme is directed toward overcoming the employment difficulties of unemployed persons who are unable to secure continuing employment in their present locality, and are without prospects of doing so, even with retraining.

Assistance will be made available to these persons to enable them to move to another locality to take up either employment or training under NEAT leading to employment.

This Scheme will provide financial assistance in relation to fares, removal expenses, re-establishment allowance in a new location, and certain other costs incurred by persons changing their place of permanent residence.

Details of assistance available are attached.

Application requirements will be announced as soon as possible.

Mr President, I seek leave to have the document incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

The document read as follows-

NEWS RELEASE FROM THE MINISTER FOR EMPLOYMENT AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS THE HONOURABLE TONY STREET, M.P.

Embargo: 5 pm 12/9/76

Relocation Assistance Scheme

Mr Street today announced the introduction of a major new Manpower measure, the Relocation Assistance Scheme, to operate initially for 12 months. The Scheme is directed toward overcoming the employment difficulties of unemployed persons who are unable to secure continuing employment in their present locality, and are without prospects of doing so, even with retraining.

Assistance will be made available to these persons to enable them to move to another locality to take up either employment or training under NEAT leading to employment.

This Scheme will provide financial assistance in relation to fares, removal expenses, re-establishment allowance in a new location, and certain other costs incurred by persons changing their place of permanent residence.

Details of assistance available are attached.

Application requirements will be announced as soon as possible.

This Scheme complements and is integrated with other manpower measures, such as NEAT and the placement services of the CES. Assistance under the Relocation Assistance Scheme will be available only after full consideration of the employment and training prospects of the individual in his present locality and after assessment of employment prospects in the new locality.

The Scheme, which will be administered through the Commonwealth Employment Service, is intended to apply as from 1 October 1976.

CANBERRA

12 September 1976

69/76

Details of Assistance i Fares: Up to the value of approved economy class public transport costs for the journey:

for the applicant to travel to the new area for employment and/or training interview;

for the applicant and spouse, if any, to travel to the new area for one exploratory visit to examine living conditions and return home;

for the applicant and/or family to move to take up residence in the new area;

if the applicant moves to employment ahead of his family, to allow him or her two return visits to the family. ii Removal expenses: Refund of the cost of removing household and personal effects to the new area up to a maximum of $500; iii Re-establishment allowance: $200 for the applicant, $100 for one adult dependant and $50 for each additional dependant; and iv Legal and Agents’ Fees or Rental Allowance: A contribution towards legal and agents’ fees for the sale of a home in his/her present area, and the purchase or lease of a home in the new area within 12 months of the relocation up to a maximum of $500; or alternatively this allowance can be made in respect of up to one month’s advance rent for persons seeking tenanted accommodation.

Entitlements in respect of all forms of assistance will be reduced by an amount equivalent to financial assistance towards relocation received from any other source, such as previous or prospective employer, where an award or agreement provides for assistance applicable to cover specific relocation costs.

Assistance is not available in respect of expenses incurred without prior authorisation of the CES.

Cost Example

The estimated costs of relocating a four member family over a distance of some 750 km are:

Senator DONALD CAMERON:

-This document contains no reference earlier to a requirement of full time employment so today I sought from the Legislative Research Service of the Parliamentary Library information on the application requirements. I received a document from which I shall read. It is headed ‘Relocation Assistance Scheme’ and the following appears under the heading ‘ Application Requirements ‘:

In order to qualify for assistance under the scheme applicants

must be registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service (CES);

must be unemployed or in the situation of being made redundant in the near future;

must be unable, even with retraining, to find employment in their present locality;

must be willing to move and take up residence in a new place;

as a general rule, must not have received assistance previously;

must be going to permanent, continuing employment; and

in the case of recent school leavers, must have been registered with CES for 6 months.

So there is nothing in the application requirements to indicate that for an employee to receive relocation assistance he has to be in full time employment. I think the officers of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations misled Mr Duthie, who is genuinely seeking employment. They made a mistake and are now trying to cover up for that mistake. I telephoned the person in charge of the relocation assistance scheme in the Department’s central office in Melbourne and he is not aware of any provision that the employment has to be full time. Unfortunately, through this bungling and mess up in interpreting the scheme, Mr Duthie lost the job and the house, as I previously mentioned. He was in a predicament and was very worried. His landlord had told him that he had to get out because the landlord’s daughter-in-law was going there to live. Those people even started to move furniture into his apartment where he was living with his 4 children. Still the Commonwealth Employment Service in Adelaide would not budge and give him one cent towards having his furniture transferred to a little place 30 miles out of Adelaide.

After getting the second job and the offer of a house he again made a request to the same officers in Glenelg and was told: ‘Yes, everything will be all right this time. You will have no worries. Get 3 quotes from furniture removalists. When you have the quotes come back to me and we will make arrangements for the removalist submitting the cheapest quote to transfer your furniture to Brukunga’. He obtained 3 quotes, the cheapest being $ 1 84. He was told to accept that quote and that he would receive money to pay for transferring his furniture to Brukunga. After making all the arrangements, after having his hopes built up about having a job and a house to which he could take his family, he was told: ‘No, you are not entitled to the assistance because there are other unemployed persons in the vicinity of Nairne and Brukunga’. On these 2 occasions wrong information has been given and an officer of the Commonwealth Employment Service in Adelaide has told me untruths and tried to mislead me.

I still am not satisfied that the officer in Adelaide, the Assisting Director or Mr Wood, in the information he gave at the hearings of the Estimates Committee, told us the requirements of the scheme. If they have secret requirements regarding part time and full time employment, why are we not told about them? How are we expected to find employment for people who are unemployed when they are being misled by officers of that Department in accordance with some secret document that we cannot obtain? Despite all my efforts to obtain the correct instructions about requirements for eligibility under the scheme, I am unable to do so. I do not think anybody knows, even the Minister himself, whether the application of the relocation assistance scheme applies to full time employees or part time employees. I have no doubt he will alter the scheme now to say that it applies to full time employees only. I have no doubt about that. I raise this matter to enable the Minister to correct the injustice that has been done to this family which was desperately seeking employment in South Australia.

These people were so desperate that they were prepared to go anywhere interstate. Anyone who is prepared to accept a job on $70 a week with a house provided, which is $37 a week less than he was getting on unemployment benefits, to me is genuine. He should have been encouraged to take this job and the house, not told untruths by inefficient officers of the Department in Adelaide. I ask the Minister to take up with his colleague, Mr Street, whether a gratuity should be paid to Mr Duthie. This man should be reimbursed for the cost of his furniture being transported to Brukunga. Under the scheme he also should be paid the 2 weeks’ rental from the South Australian Housing Trust for the rented house at Brukunga and also the deposit that was required by the South Australian Housing Trust. I raise this matter in the hope that the Minister will rectify this mistake and that the same mistake will never happen again.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I refer to the matter raised by Senator Walsh concerning, I think, a Mr Howard Smith of Parmelia in Western Australia. As I understand it- I have in front of me a copy of correspondence from Senator Walsh to me and my reply to him of some weeks later- Mr Howard Smith was for 2 years a bonded student of the Western Australian Department of Education. I think it should be understood that as a bonded student- whilst I am not clear on the specific bond conditions in Western Australia, they would be similar to those in other States- he would have been receiving special privileges, special payments higher than provided for in the Tertiary Education Allowance Scheme. Studentships in general are not unilateral arrangements. In other words, they are not payments that can be terminated, without some degree of penalty, by the student concerned. A TEAS student of course can terminate a TEAS allowance at a time but a bond in itself is in fact a contractural instrument whereby in consideration of considerable allowances and payments made to the student during the course of 3 years the student undertakes certain commitments thereafter. It is not clear at this moment as to when Mr

Howard Smith approached the Department of Education and sought to terminate his bond. It is clear from my own -

Senator Walsh:

– December.

Senator CARRICK:

-It is not in Senator Walsh ‘s letter. I accept his interjection that it was in December. It is clear that the Department of Education terminated his bond on 9 March. Assuming that an approach was made to the Department in December, what I do not know is the reasons for the delay of some 2 months or so in that regard; nor indeed do I know what conditions or penalties, if any, were exacted by the Department in the termination of the bond. It seems to me, on the initial perusal, that this case does not call for any alteration of the regulations; what it calls for, firstly, is an understanding of the arrangements of the bond, the discussions which may or may not have gone on between Mr Howard Smith and the Department, and some understanding of the reasons for the delay. If the matter were one on which the Department could agree to a termination on a December date for Mr Howard Smith the TEAS allowance would, of course, be retrospective. There is no provision in the regulations for any intervention at a ministerial level, nor do I think at this moment on the evidence before me that there ought to be. Once one opens such doors there are difficulties of supervision, control and equity. I simply say that I shall seek through my Department further inquiries from the Western Australian Department as to the reason for the delay of 2 months and as to whether the State Department could in any sense of equity terminate the bond at the end of December. If so, of course, the TEAS allowance could be reconsidered.

Senator DURACK:
Minister for Veterans’ Affairs · Western Australia · LP

– The matter that Senator Donald Cameron raised this evening concerning the application of the relocation assistance scheme to people obtaining pan time employment was, as he has said, raised by him at the meeting of Estimates Committee F last week. The officer who was present there indicated to the Committee that he would endeavour to obtain the answer for Senator Donald Cameron and the Committee. As far as I know that has not yet been given to the Committee. However, it is less than a week since the matter was raised before the Committee and the Committee finished its deliberations only this evening. In the normal course of events the information sought would be made available to the Committee in time for its report. That is the normal practice. I should hope that that would apply here. I gathered from Senator Donald Cameron’s remarks this evening that the matter is perhaps more urgent than that, although I think at this stage that the particular matter regarding the repayment that has been sought is perhaps one that could await the final advice to the Committee.

If I had been advised earlier in the day as to the specific point that was to be raised tonight I may have been able to obtain some information for the debate this evening. However, I was not so advised and I have not been able to obtain any information in the time available to me. I shall advise the Minister for employment and Industrial relations (Mr Street) of the matters that Senator Donald Cameron has raised this evening. I would simply say that the question obviously raises a matter of interpretation of the scheme, as I indicated at the Estimates Committee meeting when Senator Donald Cameron raised it. He does seem to have raised a matter of substance and no doubt of some difficulty.

Senator Donald Cameron made some fairly strong allegations of the Department in Adelaide. He spoke of mis-truths, bungling, cover-ups and one thing and another. I think that his allegations at this stage are hardly justified on the evidence that has been so far presented. As I have said, it does seem as though there is a real question at issue as to whether this scheme applies to people who obtain only part-time employment. The general replies that have been received from officers in Adelaide and at the Estimates Committee meeting certainly senior officers of the Department were before the Estimates Committee when the honourable senator raised the matter clearly indicated that in their opinion it did not apply to part-time employment. So, I think it is a little bit hard to jump to any conclusions about the inefficiencies of or whatever is alleged against the officers in the South Australian Department. It seems to me that this raises a question which may well have to be decided by the Minister himself. The matter was raised last Tuesday by Senator Donald Cameron. It is no doubt being considered by senior departmental officials and, for all I know, by the Minister himself at this stage. I shall simply pass on the remarks and ask that they be given more urgent consideration, although the fact that they were raised at the Estimates Committee would lead me to expect that they were indeed being given such consideration.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 10.51 p.m.

page 1083

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Land Prices: Queensland (Question No. 22)

Senator Colston:

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

What are the estimated Commonwealth funds that would have been received to date by the Queensland Government had the Premier of Queensland agreed to the Federal Government’s proposal for the stabilisation of land prices, contained in a letter from the former Prime Minister to the Premier dated 27 December 1972.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

I do not intend to attempt the hypothetical calculation that would be required to answer the honourable senator’s question.

Clare Weir (Question No. 24)

Senator Colston:

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

Did the former Prime Minister write to the Premier of Queensland on 17 September 1974, advising that a grant of $3m would be made available towards construction of Clare Weir. If so, what action has been taken on this matter since the dispatch of that letter.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

The Queensland Grant (Clare Weir) Act 1974 authorised a Commonwealth grant of $3m to Queensland towards the cost of constructing a weir on the Burdekin River near Clare in North Queensland. The honourable senator will be aware from Budget Paper No. 7 of 1976-77 (page 190) that provision has been made for a total payment of $2. 551m in 1976-77, being the outstanding balance of the allocation made to the State.

Australian National Playwrights Conference: Commonwealth Support (Question No. 45)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in the Arts, upon notice, on 8 March 1 977:

Has the Federal Government refused to provide financial support for the Australian National Playwrights Conference to be held in Canberra in May 1977. If so, why.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

Both the Theatre Board and the Literature Board of the Australia Council have provided support for the 1977 Australian National Playwrights Conference. The Literature

Board made a grant of$ 1,500 to pay readers to assess playscripts submitted to the Conference (grant paid in December 1976). The Theatre Board, at its January meeting, approved a grant of $8,000 towards the general expenses of the Conference.

North Queensland Flooding: Federal Assistance (Question No. 79)

Senator Colston:

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

Has the Queensland Government made a formal submission seeking Federal assistance for victims of recent flooding in north Queensland. If so, (a) what are the details of the submission, and (b) when does the Federal Government expect to be in a position to reply to the Queensland Government.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

The Commonwealth has agreed, subject to the application of established terms and conditions relating to natural disaster assistance, to a request by the Queensland Premier that it support, in respect of these floods, expenditures on the following measures: relief of personal hardship and distress; restoration of State, local and semi-government assets; concessional loans to eligible primary producers; and concessional loans to small businesses.

Correspondence from Queensland Premier to Prime Minister (Question No. 101)

Senator Colston:

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

Has the Premier of Queensland written any confidential letters to the Prime Minister since 13 February 1977. If so, how many.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

It is in accordance with usual practice that information of this nature should be regarded as confidential.

Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations (Question No. 303)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs, upon notice, on 15 March 1977:

Is the Queensland Government refusing to take part in the Advisory Council for Inter-governmental Relations. If so, (a) what reasons has the Queensland Government advanced for not taking part, (b) have any other States adopted the same attitude as Queensland, and (c) what effect will

Queensland ‘s decision have on the function and operation of the Council.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

The Queensland Government has notified the Commonwealth Government that it is to withdraw from its agreement to participate in the affairs of the Advisory Council for Intergovernment Relations.

1 understand that the Queensland Government believes that the increase in local government representation on the Council from 3 to 6 members will result in disproportionate representation for that sphere of government.

No. All other States are to be represented on the Council.

The Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations Act 1976 provides that the performance of the functions of the Council is not affected by reason of there being a vacancy or vacancies in the membership of the Council. The Council has sufficient members under the provisions of the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations Act to enable it to commence to perform its functions. The Council is due to meet in the near future. The Commonwealth Government regrets Queensland’s decision to withdraw from membership of the Council and I wish to emphasise that this decision in no way excludes Queensland from the Council membership in the future, subject, of course, to that Government’s agreement to the local government component of the Council.

Medibank: Health Insurance (Question No. 108)

Senator Colston:

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

Has the Queensland Premier advised the Federal Government that his State will not support any moves for dearer private health insurance or for an increase in the Medibank levy. If so, (a) what are the details of Mr Bjelke-Petersen’s advice; (b) can the non-support of a State Government affect Commonwealth decisions on either of these two matters; and (c) does the Federal Government intend to raise these two matters at the next Premier’s Conference.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

I am not aware of any advices by the Premier of Queensland setting out the views of his Government on speculated increases in the Medibank levy or in the cost of private health insurance. I would mention that it is in accordance with usual practice that the nature of communications which may or may not have passed between governments should be treated as confidential.

Aerojet Caterers Pty Ltd (Question No. 116)

Senator Mulvihill:

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

  1. What are the terms and conditions under which Aerojet Caterers operate services at Tullamarine Airport.
  2. Does this firm have similar operations in other capital city airports.
  3. 3 ) What responsibility does the Department of Transport impose on such caterers to ensure good industrial relations are maintained with their employees.
  4. What is the name of the personnel and/or industrial officer employed by Aerojet Caterers at Tullamarine Airport.
  5. 5 ) Were Tullamarine Aerojet catering facilities closed on Monday, 7 February 1977, due to Aerojet ‘s personnel manager’s inability to achieve harmonious industrial relations with his staff.
  6. Would the cancellation of the existing tender held by Aerojet Caterers be considered if the actions the person referred to in (4) continue.
  7. Does the Minister contemplate an early examination of Aerojet Caterers time sheets for the past twelve months to ascertain if award obligations are being observed.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Aerojet Caterers Pty Ltd was the successful tenderer for the food and liquor concession in the Melbourne Airport terminal building.

Concession lease period is twelve years certain with further option of five years.

Company pays Government a rental and a concession fee based on a percentage of gross sales.

  1. No.
  2. Concession lessees must conduct their businesses to the satisfaction of the Secretary to the Department of Transport. They must also obey all Commonwealth and State Acts of Parliament and the rules, regulations and planning schemes made thereunder.
  3. MrK.Saffrey
  4. The catering facilities were closed for several days including the date mentioned for reasons known only to the parties concerned.
  5. Cancellation of the contract for any reason would require prior legal advice.
  6. The Company has assured the Department of Transport that award conditions are being observed and there are no previous complaints of this nature. In view of the size of the task of examining records of some 200 employees I do not propose requesting the State Department of Labour and Industry to make an examination at this time.

Community Youth Support Scheme (Question No. 234)

Senator Georges:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 10 March 1977:

  1. Can the Minister outline the numbers of youths who have participated in the Community Youth Support Scheme.
  2. 2 ) How much has been spent in each State on the scheme.
  3. What organisations have received support under the scheme.
  4. What are the numbers of youth and organisations assisted under the scheme in each employment district in Queensland.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The actual numbers of young people expected to participate in each CYSS project is estimated by an organisation when applying for a grant. On this basis it is estimated that about 1 4 000 young people are likely to participate in those projects approved up to 31 March 1977. Because the involvement of young people in projects is voluntary and not for fixed periods and because projects may provide repeating programmes or services, actual participation figures are not readily available at present. However I expect to be able to provide the actual number of participants shortly.
  2. The following figures show the amount of money spent in each State on CYSS projects as at 3 1 March 1977.

N.S.W.$25,282 S.A. $6,639

Vic. $88,030 W.A.S 13,328

Qld $72,618 Tas. $12,401

  1. 1 refer the honourable senator to my answer to House of Representatives Question No. 178, which was published in the Hansard of20 April 1977(pages 1077-1079).
  2. The following table provides a breakdown for each employment district in Queensland according to the numbers of organisations in receipt of grants under the Scheme and the estimated number of youths taking part.

Education: Expenditure (Question No. 2S0)

Senator Georges:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 10 March 1977:

  1. Does public sector expenditure on education in 1 975-76 in relation to gross domestic product put the percentage at 6.0 per cent.
  2. Is it the case that for preceding years the percentages were 6.2 per cent, 5.0 per cent, 4.7 per cent, 4.6 per cent and 4.3 per cent (1970-71).
  3. Does the 6.0 per cent in 1975-76 represent the first decline in public sector expenditure on education in relation to gross domestic product.
  4. Can the Minister provide financial details creating this decline in 1975-76.
  5. Are any projected figures on public sector expenditure on education in relation to gross domestic product available for 1976-77.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

In answer to parliamentary Question No. 1352 on 30 November 1976 1 provided an estimate of final public sector expenditure on education in Australia for 1975-76 in relation to gross domestic product. The percentage was 6.0. A revised estimate for 1975-76 is now 5.9 per cent. For the previous five years the corresponding figures were: 1974-75. 5.7 per cent; 1973-74, 4.5 percent; 1972-73, 4.2 per cent; 1971-72, 4.1 percent; 1970-71, 3.8 percent.

The figures quoted by the honourable senator for the five years preceding 1975-76 represent public sector outlay on education as a percentage of gross domestic product. The corresponding figure for 1 975-76 is 6.5 per cent.

The Bureau of Statistics makes the distribution between final public sector expenditure and public sector outlay on the grounds that a significant part of outlays, e.g. student assistance, is in the form of transfer payments to the private sector.

There has, therefore, been no decline in expenditure on education as a percentage of gross domestic product, from 1974-75 to 1975-76. It is not possible, at this stage, to provide a projection for 1976-77, because of difficulties in estimating GDP.

Queensland Women’s Refuges: Federal Grants (Question No. 271)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 10 March 1977:

Is the Queensland Government withholding from use funds provided to it by the Commonwealth Government for women’s shelters. If so, what are the details.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

The Queensland Government has not passed on funds from the 1976-77 Commonwealth block grant under the Community Health Program to two women’s refuges, one in Brisbane and the other in Townsville.

This was raised with the Premier of Queensland by the Prime Minister, but the Premier later indicated that his Government adhered to the position that it would not pass on funds from this block grant to these refuges.

The question of alternative methods of providing Commonwealth financial assistance to these refuges is currently under consideration and I expect that an announcement will be made in due course.

Pensions: Allowable Income (Question No. 291)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 15 March 1977:

What is the estimated cost on current figures of raising the present $20 per week limit which pensioners may earn before their pension is reduced to, (a) $30 per week, and (b) $40 per week.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. The estimated annual gross cost of increasing the allowable income for single pensioners by 50 per cent to raise it from $20 to $30 per week with a similar proportional increase to raise the allowable income for married couples from $34.50 to $5 1 .75 per week, is $53m.
  2. The estimated annual gross cost of increasing by 100 per cent the allowable income for single pensioners and married couples is $ 10 1 m.

The above estimates do not make allowance for any tax clawback.

Computerised Axial Tomography (Question No. 325)

Senator Baume:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 16 March 1977: () Has a new rebate scale been proposed for a specialist medical examination called computerised axial tomography.

  1. ls the Department of Health proposing two separate fee scales for this procedure, one for private consulting specialists and the other for the same examination being carried out in hospitals.
  2. On what basis has it been decided that the same procedure, possibly carried out by the same doctor on different days in different locations should attract a differential rebate level.
  3. Will the Minister agree that the capital costs will be just as real for a hospital or health service as they are for a private doctor and that a more appropriate method of adjustment might be to adjust the percentage of the fee which a hospital doctor might claim for performing a service for which he has not provided the capital, equipment or staff.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Medical benefits for computerised axial tomography services were introduced with effect from 1 November 1 976.
  2. Two scales of benefits are payable in respect of services rendered on and from 1 November 1976- one where the service is rendered by a practitioner in private practice not using recognised hospital facilities; the second where the service is rendered in respect of a private patient using the hospital’s facilities.
  3. The two scales of benefits payable are designed to return the same level of personal remuneration to a practitioner in respect of each type of service. The higher rates of benefits payable in respect of practitioners in private practice recognise that these practitioners have to meet charges related to the cost of the equipment and should be entitled to a return on funds invested. The schedule fees and benefits were determined on the basis that they would be reviewed in June 1977.
  4. lt is recognised that the cost of purchasing and installing the special equipment necessary to carry out computerised axial tomography could be as great for a hospital as it would for a private doctor.

However, the financing of capital equipment in recognised hospitals and in private practice is based on different considerations. State governments are responsible for the provision of finance and the allocation of priorities in respect of capital equipment in recognised hospitals. Capital equipment, or the replacement of capital equipment, is provided on the basis of need as a public service. Revenue derived from the provision of services using capital equipment is, in the main, directed towards meeting operating costs.

On the other hand, funds for the provision of capital equipment in private practice are provided on the basis that revenue derived from the provision of services using capital equipment provides for depreciation and a return on invested capital, as well as meeting operating expenses. Discussions are continuing with various associations having an interest in computerised axial tomography to determine the appropriate fees and benefits for these services and also the percentage of the fee which should be applied, in the case of services rendered using hospital equipment, towards the hospital costs.

Airports: Navigational Aids (Question No. 334)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 17 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) In each State and Territory, which airports are used by commercial aircraft.
  2. In each State and Territory which airports used by commercial aircraft have non-directional beacons.
  3. Which of the airports, which do not have nondirectional beacons, have navigational aids other than nondirectional beacons and what are these aids.
  4. At which of the airports which do not have nondirectional beacons is it possible to use navigational aids for nearby airports, and what are the details for each.
  5. For each airport with no non-directional beacon (a) when is it expected that a non-directional beacon will be installed, and (b) what is the estimated cost of installing a non-directional beacon.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. Airports used by commercial aircraft in each State and Territory are:

Queensland- Abingdon Downs, Alpha, Aramac, Augustus Downs, Aurukun, Barcaldine, Bamaga, Beagle, Bedourie, Birdsville, Bizant. Blackall, Blackwater, Bolwarra, Boulia, Bowen, Brampton Island, Brisbane, Bulimba, Bundaberg, Burketown, Cairns, Caloundra, Canobie, Charleville, Charters Towers, Clermont, Chillagoe, Concurry, Coen, Collinsville, Cooktown, Coolangatta, Cunnanmulla, Croydon, Dalby, Davenport Downs, Day Dream Island, Delta Downs Station, Dirranbandi, Dixie, Doomadgee, Drumduff, Dunbar, Dunk Island, Durhan Downs, Edward River, Emerald, Gamboola, Georgetown, Gladstone, Glengyle, Goondiwindi, Great Keppel Island, Happy Bay, Hayman Island, Heathlands, Hervey Bay, Highbury, Horn Island, Hughenden, Iffley, Inkerman, Iron Range, Isisford, Julia Creek, Kalpower, Kamileroi Station, Karumba, Koolatah, Kowanyama, Lakefield, Laura Station, Lawn Hill Station, Lizard Island, Longreach, Mackay, Mareeba, Maroochydore, Maryborough, Merluna, Miners Lake, Miranda Downs, Mitchell, Monto, Moranbah, Moreton, Mornington Island, Mt Isa, Musgrave, Muttaburra, Noosa Heads, Normanton, Palm Island, Proserpine, Quilpie, Richmond, Rockhampton, Rokeby, Roma, Rutland Plains, Saibai Island, Shute Harbour, South Molle Island, St George, Surat, Thangool, Thursday Island, Toowoomba, Torwood, Townsville (RAAF), Vanrook Station, Weipa, Windorah, Winton, Wondoola, Wrotham Park Station and Yorke Island.

New South Wales- Albury, Armidale, Bankstown, Bathurst, Belmont (Newcastle), Bourke, Broken Hill, Camden, Casino, Cessnock, Cobar, Coffs Harbour, Cooma, Coonabarabran, Coonamble, Cootamundra, Condobolin, Cowra, Deniliquin, Dubbo, Glen Innes, Grafton (Pillar Valley), Griffith, Gunnedah, Inverell, Kempsey, Lismore, Lord Howe Island, Merimbula, Moree, Moruya, Mudgee, Narrabri, Narrandera, Newcastle (Williamstown RAAF), Norfolk Island, Nowra, Nyngan, Orange, Parkes, Port Macquarie, Quirindi, Scone, Sydney, Tamworth, Taree, Temora, Tumut, Wagga Wagga, Walgett, West Wyalong and Young.

Victoria- Bairnsdale, Essendon, Hamilton, Latrobe Valley, Melbourne, Mildura, Portland, Shepparton, Swan Hill, Warracknabeal, Warrnambool and West Sale.

South Australia- Adelaide, Amata, American River, Andamooka, Ceduna, Cleve, Coober Pedy, Coorabie, De Rose Hill Station, Dicks Plains, Edinburgh, Ernabella, Eucla, Kingscote, Koonibba, Leigh Creek, Lock, Millicent, Minnipa, Mt Dare Station, Mt Gambier, Naracoorte, Nullabor, Oodnadatta, Parndana, Penneshaw, Penong, Pt Lincoln, Port Augusta, Port Pirie, Renmark, Streaky Bay, Tarcoola, Tieyon Station, Whyalla, Woomera, Wudinna, Yalata Mission, Yangoongabbie and Yorketown.

Western Australia- Albany, Balgo Hills, Bedford Downs, Beverley Springs, Billiluna Station, Broome, Carnarvon, Cherrabun, Christmas Creek, Cue, Derby, Esperance, Fitzroy Crossing, Geraldton, Gibb River, Glenroy, Gordon Downs, Halls Creek, Kalgoorlie, Kalumburu, Karratha, Kununurra, Lansdowne, Laverton, Learmonth, Leonora, Lissadell, Marble Bar, Margaret River, Meekatharra, Mitchell Plateau, Mt Goldsworthy, Mt House, Mt Magnet, Newman, Nicholson, Norseman, Onslow, Paraburdoo, Perth, Port Hedland, Rosewood, Rottnest Island, Sandstone, Shark Bay, Shaw River, Shay Gap, Springvale, Sturt Creek, Tableland, Tom Price, Wiluna, Windarra, Yalgoo and Yeslirrie.

Northern Territory- Alice Springs, Ammaroo, Andado, Anningie, Annitowa, Argadargada, Ayers Rock, Bathurst Island, Birrindudu, Borroloola, Brunette Downs, Cooinda, Croker Island, Daly River Mission, Darwin (RAAF), Docker River, Elcho Island, Elkedra, Gapuwiyak, Garden Point, Gove, Groote Eylandt, Haasts Bluff, Hooker Creek, Idracowra, Indiana, Inverway, Jabiru, Jervois, Kalkgurung, Katherine, Kildurk, Kirkimbie, Lake Nash, Limbunya, Lucy Creek, Maningrida, McArthur River, Milingimbi, Mittiebah, Mt Cavenagh, Mt Denison, Mt Riddock, Mulga Park, Napperby, Narwietooma, Numbulwar, Oenpelli, Ooratippra, Ord River, Papunya, Plenty River, Port Keats, Ramingining, Ringwood, Robinson River, Roper River, Snake Bay, Sth Goulburn Island, Tennant Creek, Vaughan Springs, Victoria River Downs, Waterloo, Wave Hill, Willowra, Wittenoon and Yuendumu.

Australian Capital Territory- Canberra (RAAF).

Tasmania- Devonport, Flinders Island, Hobart, King Island, Launceston and Wynyard.

  1. Airports used by commercial aircraft in each State and Territory which have non-directional beacons are:

Queensland- Barcaldine, Birdsville, Blackall, Boulia, Bowen, Brisbane, Bundaberg, Cairns, Charleville, Clermont, Cloncurry, Coen, Cooktown, Coolangatta, Emerald, Gayndah, Georgetown, Gladstone, Goondiwindi, Hayman Island, Hughenden, Iron Range, Julia Creek, Kowanyama, Longreach, Mackay, Maryborough, Mt Isa, Normanton, Prosperine, Richmond, Rockhampton, Roma, St George, Thursday Island, Townsville (RAAF), Weipa, Windorah and Winton.

New South Wales- Albury, Armidale, Bankstown, Bathurst, Bourke, Broken Hill, Camden, Casino, Cobar, Coffs Harbour, Condobolin, Cooma, Coonabarabran, Coonamble, Cootamundra, Cowra, Deniliquin, Dubbo, Glen Innes, Grafton (Pillar Valley), Griffith, Gunnedah, Inverell, Lismore, Lord Howe Island, Merimbula, Moree, Moruya, Mudgee, Narrabri, Narrandera, Newcastle (Williamtown RAAF), Norfolk Island, Nowra (Navy), Nyngan, Orange, Parkes, Pt Macquarie, Quirindi, Scone, Sydney, Tamworth, Taree, Temora, Wagga Wagga (RAAF), Walgett, West Wyalong.

Victoria- Bairnsdale, Essendon, Hamilton, Mildura, Portland, Swan Hill, Warracknabeal, Warrnambool and West Sale (RAAF).

South Australia- Adelaide, Andamooka, Ceduna, Coober Pedy, Kingscote, Leigh Creek, Minnipa, Mt Gambier, Oodnadatta, Pt Lincoln, Whyalla and Woomera.

Western Australia- Albany, Balgo Hills, Broome, Carnarvon, Derby, Esperence, Fitzroy Crossing, Geraldton, Gibb River, Halls Creek, Kalgoorlie, Karratha, Kununurra, Laverton, Learmonth (RAAF), Leonora, Meekatharra, Mt Magnet, Newman, Norseman, Onslow, Paraburdoo, Perth, Port Hedland, Rottnest Island and Wittenoom.

Northern Territory- Alice Springs, Brunette Downs, Darwin (RAAF), Gove, Groote Eylandt, Hooker Creek, Jervois, Maningrida, McArthur River, Roper River, Tennant Creek, Victoria River Downs and Wave Hill.

Australian Capital Territory- Canberra ( RAAF ).

Tasmania-Devonport, Flinders Island, Hobart, King Island, Launceston and Wynyard.

  1. None.
  2. None.
  3. (a) No additional non-directional beacon installations funded by the Government are proposed at present, (b) Typical basic cost of installing a low power nondirectional beacon is $44,000.

In answering this question, commercial aircraft have been taken to be those engaged in Regular Public Transport services and those operated under Air Navigation Regulations 201 and 203. Also in listing aerodromes provided with nondirectional beacons only those which have NDB instrument approach procedures published in the Aeronautical Information Publication have been included.

Technical and Further Education (Question No. 339)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 17 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) What technical and further education institutions are there in Australia?
  2. What are the full-time, part-time and external enrolments, of these institutions?
  3. How many teaching staff are employed by each institution?
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

Preliminary statistics of technical and further education for 1976 are presently available in aggregate form only for each of the authorities responsible for the provision of technical and further education in Australia. Detailed statistics in respect of individual technical and further education institutions are currently being compiled by the Technical and Further Education Commission. I shall arrange for this information to be provided to the honourable senator as soon as it is available.

Tertiary Education Enrolments (Question No. 342)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 17 March 1977:

What percentage of school leavers in 1975 enrolled in tertiary institutions in 1976.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

Of these persons who left school in 1975, 9.S per cent and 8.9 per cent were attending universities and colleges of advanced education respectively in April 1976.

Commonwealth Government Offices (Question No. 343)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 22 February 1977:

  1. Which Commonwealth Government offices are located in:

    1. Sydney
    2. Melbourne
    3. Brisbane
    4. Penh
    5. Adelaide
    6. Hobart
  2. What is the area of (a) rented office space and (b) office space owned by the Commonwealth Government in each of these cities.
  3. 3 ) What is the average rental paid by the Commonwealth Government for office space in each of these cities.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. I ) The following offices of Commonwealth departments are located in all of the capital cities listed above:

Administrative Services

Attorney-General ‘s

Business and Consumer Affairs

Construction

Defence

Education

Employment and Industrial Relations

Foreign Affairs

Health

Overseas Trade

Primary Industry

Prime Minister and Cabinet

Science

Social Security

Transport

Finance

Veterans ‘Affairs

In addition, the following offices of Commonwealth Departments are located in the capital cities indicated:

Environment, Housing and Community DevelopmentSydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Brisbane, Hobart.

Industry and Commerce- Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide.

Immigration and Ethnic Affairs- Sydney, Adelaide Brisbane, Perth, Hobart. National Resources-Sydney, Melbourne, Perth.

Postal and Telecommunications- Brisbane, Adelaide, Hobart.

Northern Territory-Brisbane._

Aboriginal Affairs-Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth, Hoban.

Treasury- Brisbane, Perth.

(2)-

(3)-

Rail Freights (Question No. 351)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 17 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) What are the rates of freight charged by each State and Australian Government railway system for the carriage of (a) coal (according to each grade carried), (b) wheat, (c) superphosphate, (d) sorghum, and (e) barley.
  2. Are the rates charged by each State railway system published rates, or negotiated rates between each system and the consignor.
  3. If the rates are negotiated, what is the rate for each sub-contract for the above commodities, negotiated by each railway system since 1 June 1976.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Published freight rates for the goods concerned vary according to distance. The following rates apply for carriage over distances of 100 and 500 km respectively as examples of the published rates expressed in dollars per tonne.
  1. and (3) In common with most commercial enterprises the railways may offer larger consignors rates which are negotiated on the basis of special conditions such as quantity carried and term of contract. Details of such special rate contracts are confidential between the systems and clients concerned.

Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament (Question No. 367)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 22 March 1977:

When does the Government propose to table legislation concerning the pecuniary interests of members of the Federal Parliament.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

I refer the honourable senator to my answer to Question No. 1305 (Hansard, 9 December 1976, page 2988). The matters are still under consideration. When a final decision is made on the implementation of any of the various proposals under consideration, the Government will also make a decision on the appropriate method of implementing them. Implementation of proposals relating to the pecuniary interests of members of the Commonwealth Parliament does not necessarily require legislation; they could be implemented by amendments to Standing Orders, by resolution, or by sessional orders of the Houses.

Whaling (Question No. 457)

Senator Missen:

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

  1. Has the Cheynes Beach Whaling Station at Albany, Western Australia, been granted a licence for 1977. If so, under what conditions has the licence been granted.
  2. Can the Government give an assurance that Australian representatives on the International Whaling Commission will continue to press for a total ban on all whaling.
Senator Cotton:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Cheynes Beach Whaling Company, which only catches sperm whales, was issued licences for its Albany land station, its three whale catchers and its spotter aircraft, on 13 December 1976, valid to 31 December 1977. The land station licence is subject to conditions requiring that processing of each whale be commenced not later than 3 hours after it was taken but not before it has been measured by an inspector in accordance with the Whaling Regulations. The whale catcher licences are subject to the same conditions and to further conditions, preventing the use of the catchers to take sperm whales measuring more than 13.7 metres in waters north of 40° S or to take sperm whales after the Company’s quota (508 males, 116 females) is achieved. In addition under section 10 of the Whaling Act Whaling Notice No.1 prohibits the taking or killing of female sperm whales accompanied by calves or suckling whales and Whaling Notice No. 7 the taking or killing of sperm whales less than 9.2 metres in length in all Australian whaling waters as specified in the notices.
  2. It is the policy of the Government to support management measures recommended by the International Whaling Commission on the basis of advice from the IWC Scientific Committee. There is no scientific basis for imposing a ban on all whaling. Selective moratoria on whaling are imposed in respect of those species and stocks which might be endangered.

Shark Meshing

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

-On 25 February 1977 (Hansard, page 445) Senator Colston asked me a question without notice concerning a report in the Australian Financial Review of 6 December 1976 that Dr George Heinsohn, a Senior Lecturer in Zoology at James Cook University, had called for a study of the effects upon the marine environment of shark meshing. In my reply I said that I did not think that the matter raised in the question fell within the responsibility of my Department and I suggested that the question would probably more properly be directed either to the responsible State Department or to the Minister for Primary Industry in this Parliament. I undertook to see whether the question as it relates to fisheries falls within the responsibility of my Department.

I am now able to inform the honourable senator that the matter raised in his question is not a matter falling within my responsibilities. I understand, however, that the Queensland Government has a shark meshing program which is directed towards reducing the likelihood of shark attacks at bathing beaches in Queensland. The honourable senator may care to take the matter up with the Director of the Queensland Fisheries Service.

Northern Territory: Pensioners and Low Income Earners

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

– On 25 February (Hansard, page 444) Senator Keeffe asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for the Northern Territory, a question without notice concerning concessions for pensioners and low income earners in the Northern Territory. The following answer is provided to the honourable senator’s question:

The rates on which concessions are requested for pensioners and low income earners are.currently under review in the Northern Territory. On completion of the review, consideration will be given to the granting to pensioners and low income earners in the Northern Territory of concessions on general and other rates in line with those applying in the Australian Capital Territory and States of the Commonwealth.

Darwin Museum

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

– On 22 March (Hansard, page 335) Senator Robertson asked me, as the then Acting Minister for the Northern Territory, a question without notice, concerning the need for permanent facilities to store and exhibit the valuable items which had been housed in the Darwin Museum prior to its destruction by Cyclone Tracy. The Minister for the Northern Territory has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

It would be generally agreed that the storage and display of Museums and Art Galleries Board collections since the cyclone in 1974 have been maintained under unsatisfactory conditions. A formal application for an appropriate site for a new museum was lodged by the Director of Museums on 6 April 1977.

Tasmania: Water Resource Projects

Senator Withers:
LP

– In response to a question without notice Senator Harradine asked me as Minister representing the Minister for National Resources on 29 March, I undertook to seek information at the earliest date regarding the evaluation by the Commonwealth of water resources projects in Tasmania. The Acting Minister for National Resources has provided the following information:

In 1974, the previous Government invited the States to submit works programs for water resource development for the ensuing five to ten years as a basis for selection by the Commonwealth of projects for financial assistance in accordance with its objectives in the water area. The evaluation of these programs has not yet commenced with the change of Government, and the procedures to evaluate the programs lapsed.

The present Government does not have a program of assistance to the States for water projects. It is of the view that the new Commonwealth/State financial arrangements should provide greater flexibility to the States in ordering their own priorities in water resource matters.

Nevertheless, the attention of the honourable senator is drawn to the current inquiry by the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources on the role of the Commonwealth in the assessment, planning, development and management of Australia’s water resources. It is hoped that the report of the inquiry will provide valuable guidance to the Government in respect of this important matter.

Northern Territory: Sale of Caravans

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

– On 31 March (Hansard, page 696) Senator Robertson asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for the Northern Territory, a question, without notice, concerning the sale of caravans in the Northern Territory. The Minister for the Northern Territory has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Some 1200 caravans were purchased after Cyclone Tracy to provide emergency accommodation for those who lost their homes in the cyclone. The reconstruction programs of both of the Darwin Reconstruction Commission and the Northern Territory Housing Commission have advanced to the stage where a great many of these caravans are no longer required for emergency accommodation. Permanent housing is, or will shortly be, available for those who lost their homes in the cyclone.

The Government is therefore in the process of liquidating its investment to secure the best return available, whether this be by sale in bulk lots by tender or by auction of selected lots from time to time.

In disposing of these caravans, care will be taken to avoid discriminating aagainst those in Darwin whose livelihood would be prejudiced by a saturation of the local caravan market. Small groups of caravans will be made available from time to time for sale in Darwin, whilst at the same time ensuring that some form of balance in the local market is maintained.

Prices and Wages Freeze: Perishables

Senator Withers:
LP

-On 20 April 1977 (Hansard, page 787) Senator Gietzelt asked me, as Minister representing the Prime Minister, a question, without notice, concerning the inclusion of perishables in the current proposals for a prices and incomes pause. The Prime Minister has supplied the following information for answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Messages seeking agreement to the prices and incomes pause went to major national organisations in these fields. In addition, together with three other Ministers, I met with employer representatives including representatives of organisations of primary producers, manufacturers and retailers who indicated willingness to support the initiatives of Governments in respect of prices and incomes restraint.

The Government proposed that in the event of broad agreement being reached on the prices and incomes pause, a special group comprising representatives of employers, unions and the Prices Justification Tribunal be formed to advise on the implementation of the agreement.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 3 May 1977, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1977/19770503_senate_30_s73/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant