30th Parliament · 2nd Session
The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Condor Laucke) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers.
page 1967
– Order! It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death yesterday of Edgar Wylie Prowse, a senator for the State of Western Australia from July 1 962 till December 1973.
– by leave- I seek to convey the thoughts of the members of the National Country Party on this sad occasion. The National Country Party has lost a long-term stalwart and one of its most distinguished elders with the death yesterday of Edgar Wylie Prowse. His passing afflicts me and my parliamentary colleagues with a deep sense of bereavement. Edgar was a close friend of mine and a colleague and my thoughts of him would hold no reserve as to his morality, his capacity and his excellence of performance while he was a senator. I admired, too, his many other qualities- his unmistakable honesty, his wisdom and sincerity, his quiet but marked sense of humour and the strength he drew from his Christian beliefs.
Senator Prowse died in the role to which he was born- as a son of the soil- having worked on his farm the day before his death. He gave a lifetime of service to the people of Western Australia in farming organisations, in local government and in politics. The wide experience and expert knowledge he had gained as a Bachelor of Agricultural Science and as a working farmer enabled him to discharge his duties in each of those spheres with great authority and competence. In 1974 the Western Australian Branch of the Country Party rewarded him with life membership. He had been its Vice-President in 1 956-57 and its President from 1 958 to 1 962.
He was elected to the Senate in 1961 and served this chamber and his State with distinction in a variety of roles before ill health forced his retirement in 1973. He was Chairman of Committees for the last two of his 12 years of Senate service. His knowledge and understanding of problems which from time to time confronted the rural industries were frequently demonstrated in the Senate. I well remember his quickly seeing the core of the problem or the fault in a piece of legislation that others had missed. In that context alone his insight resulted in service of inestimable value to many Australians, particularly primary producers. He was a sound advocate of the Senate and its place in the parliamentary scene. I would like to quote the following brief passage from the last speech he made in the Senate chamber:
Great and proper concern has been expressed I think, Tor the Senate as part of the Commonwealth structure. 1 agree that we should not by inadvertence or eagerness, in any way denigrate the status, significance and role of the Senate.
Throughout the time I knew Edgar Prowse, he was supported by a wonderful woman in his wife, Lucy. The stability of his home was a contributing factor to the high standards he brought to this place. His family will know that his life and service stand as a monument. His wife, son and daughters have our deep sympathy in their bereavement.
– I invite honourable senators to stand in silence as a mark of respect to the memory of the former senator.
Honourable senators having stood in their places-
– I thank honourable senators.
page 1967
– I present the following petition from 1 343 citizens:
To the Honourable the President and members or the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned Meat and Livestock Producers of New South Wales respectfully request that the States House set up a suitable Committee of Review to consider the State rights of Meat and Livestock Producers.
Your petitioners humbly request that the Senate specifically investigate the following matters and determine if-
Meat and livestock producers in all States and Territories of Australia cannot be adequately represented by the new Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation legislation.
The Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation is subject to unnecessary domination by the Federal Government through the Minister for Primary Industry.
The Producer Consultative Group established hy regulation is unduly subject to party political pressures.
The Australian Meal and Livestock Corporation should be given powers to trade on the home market allowing the States and Territories to approve enabling complementary legislation.
Your petitioners therefore pray that the needs of Meat and Livestock Producers of Australia will in no way jeopardise other citizens in the meat industry.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received and read.
– Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:
To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
That the delays between the announcements of each quarterly movement in the Consumer Price Index and their application as a percentage increase in age and invalid pensions is excessive, unnecessary, discriminatory and a cause of economic distress.
That proposals to amend the Consumer Price Index by eliminating particular items from the Index could adversely affect the value of future increases in aged and invalid pensions and thus be a cause of additional economic hardship to pensioners.
The foregoing facts impel your petitioners to ask the Australian Government as a matter of urgency to:
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Primmer.
Petition received.
To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
Objection to the Metric system and request the Government to restore the Imperial system.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Withers.
Petition received.
page 1968
page 1968
-I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I ask: Has he seen the statement made by the 5 members of the Jackson Committeea statement which 1 understand was released last night- including its chairman, Mr Carnegie, of Conzinc Rio Tinto of Australia, in which they have added to criticism of the White Paper on manufacturing which was brought down recently by the Government? This criticism adds to that expressed by the Associated Chambers of Manufactures of Australia, the Australian Chamber of Commerce, the Australian Woolgrowers and Graziers Council and the Australian Farmers Federation. Will the Government now admit that the White Paper does not recognise the need for structural change, that it fails to give guidelines on exchange rate and foreign investment policy and that it fails to detail the social implications of industry and industrial relations? In view of the fact that the Parliament is almost in recess, are we to assume that manufacturing industry in Australia will have to wait another 3 months before knowing precisely what are the Government ‘s intentions in respect of this sector?
– I have not seen the statement to which Senator Wriedt has referred. Looking at the program for the Senate today, I doubt whether I will be able to have much time during the day to study the statement, but I shall certainly do so as soon asI can. I agree that the members of the Jackson Committee who apparently made that statement-I take Senator Wriedt ‘s word for it that they did- have valuable views on and great knowledge of the subject. As regards the other parts of the question, the White Paper which was tabled by the Minister for Industry and Commerce last week represents a major achievement by the Government- a major exercise by the Government- over a long period in which it has given great weight and consideration to the views of all the interested groups and manifold areas concerned with this vitally important sector of Australian economic life. The Government certainly does not admit for one moment that there has been any failure in the exercise; indeed, it would claim that the exercise has made a valuable contribution to future policies and the consideration of policies in relation to this matter.
page 1968
– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. I refer to an item in the AM program yesterday on the Government’s proposal for the establishment of a Human Rights Commission. The Australian Broadcasting Commission announcer introduced the particular segment by saying:
Australia does not have a Bill of Human Rights and an attempt by the Labor Government to have the UN Human Rights Charter written into Federal legislation was defeated by the Opposition Parties in the Senate.
In fact, the Bill that the Labor Government introduced was never brought forward for debate in this chamber and lapsed when Parliament was prorogued early in 1974 for the Royal Visit. This inaccuracy was drawn to the attention of the ABC by me yesterday, but no correction has been made. I was advised this morning by the producer of the program that he regarded the matter as a technicality. I ask: Will the Minister draw this matter to the attention of the Australian Broadcasting Commission and seek an explanation as to the circumstances in which a mis-statement of fact is regarded by the Commission as a technicality?
-I shall certainly draw the attention of the Minister for Post and Telecommunications to the facts as stated by Senator Chaney. In fact, I shall invite him to draw the matter to the attention of the ABC itself. It is quite clear that any body in the communications field, particularly one that is given a statutory obligation to be independent and therefore to be objective in its reporting, should be scrupulously accurate in its statements. I think it is fair to say that the AM program is one that is very widely listened to and that therefore people could be forgiven for using it as a basis for forming their judgments. It can be a very useful public commentary provided that it sticks to the terms of the Broadcasting and Television Act in relation to objectivity. I think therefore that those who handle the program must be scrupulous in this regard. It is clear that this was no technicality and that that judgment must be regarded as incorrect. However unwittingly, and I put that on it as such, it was a wrong statement. The fact is that the Bill was not defeated. The fact is that by a judgment of the then Labor Government it was elected to let the Bill lapse. On that basis I shall bring the matter to the attention of my colleague and ask him to draw it to the attention of the Commission itself.
page 1969
– I preface my question by reminding the Leader of the Government in the Senate that last week he indicated that he would endeavour to set aside sufficient time this week for debate to take place on the nuclear safeguards statement and on the Fox Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry second report. Because of the amount of legislation to be dealt with today, will the Minister agree that there is now insufficient time available for the Senate this week to enable such a debate to take place in this chamber? Because the subject is of such national importance, will the Minister assure the Senate that the Government will set aside time early in the Budget session for such a debate to take place?
-What about next Monday?
-I notice that one honourable senator opposite suggests that we should debate this matter next Monday. I do not think there would be a great deal of enthusiasm for that suggestion. I recall discussing this matter with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Subject to nothing extraordinary intervening, it would be my intention to set aside Government business on the first Thursday of the Budget session to debate these matters. If the Opposition wanted to continue after 6 p.m. that day it might wish to surrender general business so that we can debate this matter till 10.30 that night. I think we ought to worry about those details in the first week back. But as I said, my present intention is for this matter to be debated on the Thursday of the first sitting week.
page 1969
– I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development. The Victorian Government, according to today’s Press, was yesterday urged to sell land and to use the money for housing purposes. Such a suggestion prompts me to ask: Would the Government consider having an investigation instituted to test the question in depth and in particular to establish the level to which extensive public sector purchase of land has contributed to the degree of increase in the price of residential land and to test the economics of the whole theory of vast advance purchases of land?
-The question asked by Senator Archer is of great significance in terms of the home ownership capacity of the ordinary Australian family. It is doubly important because in recent years the cost of serviced land has. moved from about 25 per cent of the overall cost of a house to 40 per cent or even 50 per cent. It could be said that serviced land costs are really now the dominant part of the overall cost of a house. There have been a number of tests of government intervention by way of government land development and government housing alongside the free enterprise system, government land banks and land banks. From my former knowledge of this matter there is no indication at all that the public sector intervention has in any way done anything to provide a cheaper form of serviced land or a cheaper type of house. In fact some of the evidence is to the contrary.
– In Adelaide?
-The Government -
– In Adelaide?
-In due course and at another time I would be happy to give figures of land development costs in Adelaide- the cost of serviced land and the competing costs of the private sector in land development. In some States difficulty has been experienced in selling government owned serviced land in competition with the ordinary free market. I think that has been the general picture around Australia.
My understanding is that the Government is to set up an inquiry into the cost of land, land servicing and general home building. This is a matter of profound importance because so much is involved in terms of” holding charges, in terms of delays in getting permits at State and local government level and in terms of the duress that is implied by authorities. Another consideration is the shelving by semi-governmental authorities of their responsibilities and forcing on to the developers of the land jobs such as the installation of mains and pumping stations on the perimeters. Because it is such a complex matter, it is not one that can be answered in the compass of the question. I would hope that the Government inquiry would reveal the facts which are vital to the matter of home ownership in Australia.
page 1970
– My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, who represents the Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence. The question refers to the future of the Woomera rocket range. The Minister might have seen a Press report yesterday that one of the subjects for discussion between the Prime Minister and his group and United Kingdom authorities was to be whether the Woomera rocket range might be activated again. My second question refers to my recent question which the Minister will recall about Service trials which were to be held at Woomera and the report that they were being held in May. I ask the Minister whether he can provide any information in respect of the first question. As to the second question, can he say whether those trials have been completed? If he has not any information, can he get it?
– I have not any information on either of those matters within my brief. I will see whether I can get it today for the honourable senator. If I cannot get it today, I will write to him as early as possible.
page 1970
-My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. I ask the Minister: In the light of yesterday’s announcement on the licensing or the legalisation of citizen band radio, will the Government give consideration to the return of confiscated radio sets to private owners?
-I think it is a good thing that the Government has been able to make such a general announcement. It will be greeted with acclaim very widely.
– Not by all, Senator.
– Apparently not by Senator Georges.
– I am prepared to admit that I have serious reservations.
– If by interjection Senator Georges says it is not an unqualified blessing, that may well be so. What I was proceeding to say was that in the administration it will be enormously complex to make value judgments on the whole situation of licensing and the general supervision of citizen band radios. So, really, the announcement itself simply triggers off a whole host of other matters. As to the specifics in the question, I am not clear of the circumstances under which the confiscations occurred and I would be hesitant to make any statement because of any legal proceedings or the implications of those proceedings in respect of breaches of the existing law; but to the extent that the question raises what seems to me to be an important point and has some aspect of equity, I will bring it to the attention of my colleague to see what can be done.
page 1970
-I direct a question to the Minister for Science. The Minister may recall a question I asked him recently about fishing surveys in the waters around the east coast of Tasmania and the north-east region of Tasmania, and the reported catches which gave encouragement to the belief that this area had excellent potential for further development of commercial fishing. Can the Minister say what survey work is currently going on in that region? What are the results so far of the survey? Will the programs being undertaken by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and other interested agencies, government or otherwise, be continued?
– I am unable to say anything about surveys by other government departments. The matter of the survey of waters adjacent to Tasmania has been a responsibility of the
CSIRO. My understanding is that from 1949 the CSIRO Division of Fisheries and Oceanography undertook studies of various fish such as pilchards, shark, barracouta and fishes of the continental slope such as gemfish, deep sea trevally and ling in the vicinity of Tasmania. In 1975 the CSIRO chartered a small trawler, the Courageous, which began operations in November of that year and for a vessel of this size, which is about 28 metres, the Courageous has been equipped with the most modern electronic fish finding and fish counting equipment and technology available in the world.
It has been doing this work in Tasmanian and South Australian waters as well as in Western Australian waters. I think that at the moment it is in Northern Territory waters. The primary mission of the Courageous in its period in Tasmanian waters was to assess the size, movement and potential yield of the jack mackerel stock in south-eastern Australian waters. While attending to this mission, a considerable amount of time has been spent in working-up exercises, most of which will be completed after the vessel has been refitted, which will be done next August.
The jack mackerel studies and working-up exercises are viewed as a part of a project concerned more with the resources of south-eastern Australian waters than with those of the Tasmanian waters alone. Nevertheless, the work has involved a great deal of research in the vicinity of Tasmania during the 18 months for which the vessel has been in operation. There has been a total of 1 1 5 mid-water trawls and 34 bottom trawls in the various areas around Tasmania. There have been no bottom trawls on the west coast of Tasmania because of the adverse sea conditions which make it extremely hazardous to deploy the gear. The mid-water trawls are providing information on the abundance and distribution of mackerel. They are showing that there is an abundance of light fish suitable for fish meal and possibly suitable for fish silage. After its refit in August the Courageous will continue the studies of jack mackerel until some time in 1978, when this will be completed. Subsequently the vessel probably will be assigned to missions off other parts of the Australian coast.
page 1971
– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources or the Minister representing the Minister for Overseas Trade. Is it true that there is a large trade in Australian opals which are purchased on the opal fields by foreign merchants who then often smuggle them out of Australia for further processing? What action can be taken to ensure that Australia and the opal processing industry receive a fair return for opals?
– I shall answer that question, as far as I can, on behalf of my colleague the Minister for National Resources. I am aware that the opal industry is a thriving business in Australia. I have no knowledge of the matters directly raised by the honourable senator. I shall take the question up with my colleague in another place and ask him for a detailed reply.
page 1971
– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources, arises out of a question asked by Senator Mcintosh earlier in the week. Is the Minister aware of a statement attributed to the Acting General Manager of the Australian Gas Light Co., Mr M. J. Williams, in which he called on the Federal Government to construct a natural gas pipeline from Dampier in Western Australia to the eastern seaboard? Has the Government investigated the possibility of building such a pipeline to fuel Australia’s major industrial centres and also to provide gas for the export market? If not, will the Government consider this proposal?
-If gas is to go on to the export market, I fail to see why it need be piped right across Australia, processed in Sydney and then exported. For the life of me, I cannot see why it cannot be processed in Western Australia and then exported. This proposal strikes me as some sort of interesting pipe dream of some people in New South Wales in order to gain for themselves a benefit which rightly belongs to Western Australians. As to the other question which the honourable senator asks, I think it was answered the other day, although not necessarily by me. There are some problems about costing these pipelines across Australia. I have a belief at the moment that a lot is being talked about the whole subject in the public area without there being much knowledge of it.
page 1971
– The Minister for Social Security will be aware of the termination of the employment of 355 employees of Consolidated Meat Holdings Ltd at Albury-Wodonga due to the fact that industrial disruption had made operations uneconomic. This meant that the plant had to be closed down. The closing down was announced while a strike was in operation and details of the situation leading up to the strike were given by me in a question asked of the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations on Monday, I think, of this week. Can the Minister clarify the position of these striking employees in relation to unemployment benefits?
– The information that I have in regard to this matter is that 355 members of the Australian Meat Industry Employees Union employed by Consolidated Meat Holdings Ltd at Wodonga recently went on strike in support of a log of claims for improved wages and conditions. The strike ended on Wednesday, 1 June, and the workers were to have resumed duty the following day. However, because the union has not or will not guarantee that the production levels at the meatworks will be maintained, the management of Consolidated Meat Holdings Ltd has refused to re-engage the workers and has closed down the works. It is understood that for some time the Victorian branch of the AMIEU has been involved in rolling strikes within the meat industry over a 19-point log of claims which includes demands for a $20 a week wage increase and a 9-day working fortnight. It is also understood that the union has refused to take the log of claims to arbitration.
In view of this, there is some doubt as to whether the men are now unemployed as a result of direct industrial action or whether, as some sources indicate, Consolidated Meat Holdings Ltd has closed down for purely economic reasons. If that were the case it is quite likely that the recent industrial disruptions in the meat industry have been a major contributing factor. Accordingly, it is not possible at this point to say whether the 355 men stood down as of 1 June can qualify for unemployment benefit. Inquiries are being made with the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations and as soon as further information is available a determination will be made with regard to their eligibility for unemployment benefit. I regard the matter as one of some urgency. I am closely in touch with Mr Street, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, to have his advice with regard to the industrial situation and whether the men are eligible for unemployment benefit under the Act.
page 1972
-I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for
Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. By way of preface I refer to a statement emanating from the spokesman in the Senate on foreign affairs under the McMahon Government, Senator Wright, who said that people advocating the fragmentation of Yugoslavia endangered world peace because such action would disturb the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the Warsaw Pact power balances, bearing in mind Yugoslavia’s non-aligned role. I ask the Minister whether the action in the last 3 days of denying entry to Australia of several Croatians is based upon the thesis expounded by Senator Wright and also adhered to by the Whitlam Government.
– The action in the past few days with regard to the refusal of entry to two Croatian people was a decision taken by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs because he believed that on the information available to him it would not be in the interests of the Australian community for the people in question to visit Australia. The Minister has made some statements and I draw from a transcript of an interview which he gave on the PM program on 1 June. He said that when the applications were dealt with overseas not all the factors were taken into account. As soon as information came to him which added to the information that we already had he decided that it was not in the best interests of the Australian community for these people to visit Australia. He therefore gave instructions for them not to enter. He insisted that he believed that the action he had now taken was in the best interests of the Australian people. He went on to point out that there is a lot of public comment which gives a detrimental image to the Croatians who are living in Australia and said that the vast majority of people of Croatian origins in Australia are decent, law abiding, fine Australian people but in the past there have been some who have given the Croatian community as a whole a bad name. He emphasised that the Croatian community in Australia are worthwhile citizens but in the case with which we are dealing at the moment he felt that it was not in the best interests of the Australian people for the visas to be issued.
– I ask a supplementary question. The Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs would be aware that we have been told year after year in Senate Estimates Committees that our offices in Latin American countries, where these gentlemen received their visas, were given a list of organisations that have to be looked at. I would like to know why the officers were not able to make the correct decision in the first instance rather than the matter having to be grappled with at this end. I think honourable senators know that in the Estimates Committees we have received that answer for the last 3 years. I do not expect an answer now but I would like to know how our officers in Latin America fumbled the ball on this occasion.
– I am not able to give a detailed response as to how this application was passed at the overseas offices but, as Mr MacKellar has said, the system does demonstrate that it works well. In spite of the fact that not all the implications of the visit were assessed at the point of issuing the visa, sufficient information became available to allow us to act before the people actually arrived in Australia. I know that to say that the application was dealt with in that way overseas does not answer Senator Mulvihill’s question as to how the situation developed but it does show that the Minister, prior to the entry of these people, had sufficient information to allow him to determine that it was not in the best interests of Australia for the visa to proceed.
page 1973
-Has the Minister representing the Treasurer seen this week’s report from the Chairman of the Australian Finance Conference that the annual rate of inflation, after allowing for Medibank changes, had fallen by about 5 per cent over the last year?
– Fallen to what?
-Can the Minister equate that statement with statements we have heard this week from members of the Opposition? Senator Georges is going on about it now.
-I think I said the other day that all around Australia people are using different statistics and different indicators to prove what they want to prove for their own satisfaction. As I understand it, the facts are that inflation is falling and will continue to fall because of the Government’s present economic policies.
page 1973
– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I am aware that questions have already been asked in the other place on this subject. My having explained that will perhaps prevent the Minister from giving me a ‘No, no’ answer. I ask: Will the Government conduct an inquiry into allegations made by the Western Australian newspaper proprietor, Mr Lang Hancock, that he was aware of the recommendations being made in the second Fox report and that he had contacted various Ministers about five of those recommendations before the report was presented? If not, why not, as the allegations raise serious questions about the security of all commission reports? If the answer is yes, what form will the inquiry take? Will Mr Hancock be called on to divulge his source of information, and the Ministers to produce the telexes that Mr Hancock states he sent to them? Does the Minister not agree that it is intolerable that a person so closely involved in the very industry under inquiry should be able to make allegations of this nature without substantiation?
-It seems a rather strange procedure that some person in the community can make an allegation, as Mr Hancock has done, and then the Government has to prove that his allegation is true. I should have thought that the onus would now rest on Mr Hancock. If Mr Hancock says he had information, then I think he ought to disclose what information he had and where he got it. I think that the onus fairly rests upon him to prove his statement and not on the Government to disprove the statement, which is really what the honourable senator is saying when she asks about an inquiry. We are getting into a rather nonsense area. If the honourable senator is worried about the telex, that telex hardly indicates any great knowledge. Has the honourable senator seen the telex?
– No.
-Then I will read it to her so that she may see how substantial the allegation is. The telex from Mr Hancock reads as follows:
There is not one recommendation in the second Fox report (according to Press speculation) which is practical.
I emphasise the words ‘according to Press speculation’.
I allude to
All of these recommendations, if adopted, are detrimental to Australia ‘s best interests.
The world expects your Government to follow free enterprise free market principles.
If the honourable senator believes that, as a result of a telex of that nature and content, the Government should commence an inquiry when the telex itself contains the words ‘There is not one recommendation in the second Fox report (according to Press speculation)’, I really think she ought to spend her time doing something more useful in the Senate.
-Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question of the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I asked the Minister did he not agree that it was intolerable that a person so closely involved in the very industry under inquiry should be able to make those allegations without substantiation. At that time I was not aware of what the telex contained. Does not the telex indicate that Mr Hancock was well and truly aware of the recommendations of the Fox inquiry report before it was presented?
-If the honourable senator cannot hear, perhaps she may be able to read. Therefore, I ask for leave to have the telex incorporated in Hansard.
-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.
The telex read as follows-
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
Inward Teleprinter Message
Referred to at on
VT+
Primin AA620 1 8 plse standby bcast 93629 clo +
Primin AA620 1 8bcast conn ga plse
NatmiAA93629
May 23, 1977 Teleprint
TO: Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser, Prime Minister’s Office Canberra
Hon. Doug Anthony, Dept. Of Nat. Resources, Canberra
Mr John Martyr, Parliament House, Canberra
Senator Reg Withers, Canberra
Hon. Joh Bjelke-Petersen, Premier of Queensland
There is not one recommendation in the second Fox report (according to Press speculation) which is practical. I allude to:
The Federal Government taking direct control of the mining and export of Australia’ s uranium reserves (nationalisation).
That uranium mines be developed in order of Government choice (socialism).
That they be limited to four (monopoly creation).
That the Kakadu National Park be doubled in size (catering to subversive interests to destroy mining).
That they exact promises of non warlike use from purchasers (naive).
All of these recommendations, if adopted, are detrimental to Australia’s best interests.
The world expects your Government to follow free enterprise free market principles.
Regards,
LANG HANCOCK
NatmiAA93629
page 1974
– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. I refer to an answer I received to a previous question in relation to military decorations given by the United States of America and the former government of South Vietnam to Australian servicemen while on active duty in South Vietnam. Will the Minister reconsider the position which he stated, namely, that the rules for the wearing of such decorations are based on regulations laid down by the British authorities? Will he amend the present arrangements so that such decorations can be worn by Australian servicemen?
-I recall the question being asked. My friend and colleague, Senator Sir Magnus Cormack, was kind enough to do some research on this matter in his inimitable fashion. Evidently, the history of the matter goes back to a remark by Queen Victoria about the Crimean War. I forget the exact phraseology but I will attempt to get it for the honourable senator. It has been a long-standing practice. It was introduced by a monarch in the last century. I think it is fair that the Australian Government, now that we have a Queen of Australia, should look at the matter to see what are the proper regulations and directions for the wearing of decorations by Australians in the late twentieth century.
page 1974
-My question, which is directed to the Minister for Education, refers to the guidelines for the 1978-1980 rolling triennium for education funding which the Minister has just released. The guidelines recommend that the Schools Commission cut spending on joint programs for services and development and special projects, which is the innovations program, by $4m. Is this drastic cut in the only program to which all schools, teachers and parents have access being made partly in order to provide for the amount of $2m the Government envisages being allocated in 1978 to schools in levels 1 and 2, the 2 top categories of nongovernment schools? Does this recommended reallocation of funds from a general program to the better off non-government schools signify an end to the policy of funding schools on the basis of need?
– The Labor Opposition and therefore Senator Ryan must know that I will be bringing down the guidelines in approximately 30 minutes and that until then all copies of the guidelines that have been released have been embargoed. The situation is that they are not for use until that embargo expires. Therefore, by whatever method Senator Ryan may have achieved whatever information she has, she must know that her question is totally improper and is a complete disregard of a protocol long-standing in the Senate. It therefore deserves the full contempt I propose to give it.
page 1975
– I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to the international Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which, I understand, Australia has signed but not yet ratified. As this important international covenant is essential to the Human Rights Commission Bill and as it expresses fundamental civil and political rights, including the right to equality in voting and representation, can the Minister say whether the covenant will be ratified in the near future?
-I believe that whether the covenant will be ratified in the future is a matter which is still under consideration. As the honourable senator would know, my colleague the Attorney-General has introduced into the other place a Bill concerning this matter. I imagine that by the time the Bill reaches the Senate the Government will be in a better position to inform the honourable senator of its intentions. As the honourable senator will know, quite long negotiations have been conducted by the Attorney with the various States in an attempt to obtain joint Commonwealth-State cooperation in this matter. The Commonwealth has been reluctant to move without the full Federal-State co-operation. I think that by the time we return early in the Budget session this matter may begin to be resolved. Certainly there will be an opportunity during the debate on this Bill for the Government’s intentions to be made more clear.
page 1975
– My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. I ask: Is it true that orders to cut 43 staff from the Community and Social Welfare Branch of her Department in Victoria are still proceeding despite the Minister’s allocation of 96 additional staff, and that staff members’ demotions and removals will be implemented on this coming Monday, 6 June? Is it true that staff have refused to be shifted until the position is clarified by the Director? Finally, is it a fact that this will overload staff, including welfare staff remaining in the Branch, who are already overloaded with demands for their services because of the existing inordinately high levels of unemployment?
– There have been a lot of questions in recent days regarding staff in my Department. I have announced increases to staff which have been approved by the Acting Prime Minister. I have stated also that the DirectorGeneral and the State Directors will meet next week with regard to allocations of staff within the Department. I have no further detailed information concerning any specific section in any office of the Department. I hope that the outcome of the discussions which the Director-General will hold next week will enable management of the Department to use the 9000-plus staff who are now in the Department to give an effective and efficient service to the people of Australia. I have asked the Director-General to give particular attention to the deployment of the staff in the best way in which they can be used to give the service which the Government believes the people of Australia should receive. Whatever decisions are taken with regard to any individual section will remain an outcome of the meeting next week. If any decision is taken that requires public announcement, that announcement will be made after those decisions have been taken. In the meantime, I have asked for this matter to be treated as a matter of urgency in order to have the Department functioning effectively and efficiently. I hope that this will be achieved shortly.
page 1975
-I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for the Northern Territory. What is the Government’s attitude to building a levee bank to the north of the township of Katherine, Northern Territory, to protect the town from flooding by the Katherine River? What is the estimated cost and feasibility of the project, bearing in mind the cost of flood damage to the town, its community and industrial and residential development and the fact that more land in the town would be usable than is now considered possible?
– I cannot answer directly the honourable senator’s question relating to cost. My understanding of the background of the matter is that a report was prepared in about 1970 by the Mines and Water Resources Branch of the then Department of the Interior. That report detailed the susceptibility, extent, depth and frequency of flooding in Katherine. Levee protection of existing urban areas in Katherine was proposed in a report prepared in 1973 by an independent consultant. However, the risks involved in maintaining levees subject to high heads of water are considerable, and the Government will need to be assured of the safety of any such project before it proceeds. An investigation into the overall development of the Katherine River, including water supply, irrigation, recreation and flooding aspects, is currently being given priority by the Water Resources Branch of the Department. Possible variations of the alignment of the proposed levee are being covered in that study, and until the study is completed it is not possible to provide a cost estimate of the project.
page 1976
-My question is directed to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs. Has he now realised that his socalled federalism pipedream that he puffed has floated off into the limbo of lost causes and that the State Premiers and some of his colleagues have treated it with the contempt that it deserves?
– I have welcomed every question, on federalism, that the Labor Opposition has kindly asked me over the months particularly when those questions show their rejection of centralism, I mean federalism, and their commitment -
– A Freudian slip.
– Yes, a Freudian slip. I welcome these questions which show their rejection of federalism and their commitment to the old type Whitlam centralism which would rob the States of the money they are now getting. As I have been asked whether the so-called pipe dream has floated off, I want to say to Senator O’Byrne, because he has invited me to answer the question, and to the people of Australia that with almost every step of the whole of the federalism programs the Premiers have agreed willingly and unanimously. No Premier has ever queried the total amount that was given under the 33.6 per cent formula as being other than very generous, and no Premier has queried the equalisation arrangements applying to the distribution of funds. In fact, there remain only 2 matters of dispute between the Premiers. There is the question of the body that will do the review of relativities, and on this the Premiers hold different ideas. Is it strange therefore that when there is a dispute between the Premiers the Commonwealth may have to resolve the matter?
The second matter is that the Premiers have the opportunity, if they wish to take it, of either cutting taxes or of putting on a surcharge. Since the Premiers have been the greatest advocates of cutting taxation and we have given them an abundance of more revenue, do Senator O’Byrne and the Australian Labor Party say that they are opposed to giving the States a fixed percentage of growth revenue which the Labor Premier of South Australia said was vital to the survival of the States? Are they opposed to giving to the States this year substantially more than the Whitlam Government formula would have given them? If not, what are they opposed to, or are they merely just crying out? The simple fact is that when we ask them to say what they are opposed to they have no opposition. How can they oppose what the Premiers have said? How can they oppose giving more money to the States? How can they oppose giving more money to local government?
– I quoted to you the other day statements by the Premiers opposing it.
– I repeat that the Labor Party has never said which one of these proposals it would oppose in government. Would it oppose the 33.6 per cent formula if it got back into government, God forbid? Would it reverse this formula? Let us listen to the answer. Because we have had some hundreds of questions from the Opposition condemning federalism, I ask honourable senators opposite now: If they got back in government would they reverse the Fraser Government’s policy on federalism? There is the answer for Senator O’Byrne- a total silence. Honourable senators opposite know that what we are doing is good for the Premiers. Not one honourable senator opposite has the guts to get up and say he would reverse this policy. It is good for the Premiers.
page 1976
– My question is directed to the Minister assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs. In view of the claim he has just made that all the State Premiers agree with Stage I of federalism, quite apart from the other factors, I ask whether Queensland Premier, Mr BjelkePetersen, had this to say at the Premiers Conference:
But we want to know from you before we completely commit ourselves to this. How are we to be treated. Are we to be struck with this miserly 33 per cent of personal income tax when you have all the other revenue?
I also ask: Does the Minister recall the question by Senator Walsh on 1 7 April last year in which Senator Walsh asked him whether he would give a commitment that total payments to the States in the first 3 years of federalism would equal the 58 per cent increase in real terms that had obtained under the 3 years of Labor government? Does the Minister recall giving an unqualified yes in answer to that question? Does he still stand by that answer?
– Since the Opposition has a habit of asking questions on this matter I, in reply, ask Senator Wriedt to say where he got what he now states authoritatively -
– The newspapers are full of it, and you know it.
-Senator Wriedt did not say that he was quoting from what was purported in a newspaper to be a statement from the Premiers Conference. He said that he was quoting from something which was an extract of the transcript of the Conference, or that is what he was implying. Is he in fact quoting from a document which he has no right to possess, or is he quoting from hearsay?
– I rise to a point of order. I understood that the function of question time was to give the Opposition and back bench senators an opportunity to question Ministers and the Government. This is not an appropriate answer to a question. The Minister is asking a series of questions.
– It is well and truly appreciated that questions must be direct and answers must be given precisely and without debate. Senator Carrick will continue with his reply.
– Whether in the abstraction of selective phrases what was said by the Queensland Premier, was quoted by Senator Wriedt, out of context or in context, I repeat that all Premiers agreed to Stage I of fiscal federalism with the exception of the present argument between the Premiers as to the committee on relativities. All agreed. As to the second part of Senator Wriedt ‘s question, I think I have said four times: See my answers given on a number of occasions in the past, as recorded in Hansard.
– I ask a supplementary question. Senator Carrick should not imagine that he can escape the question as easily as that. If his mind is so clear on these matters, why does he not say yes or no to the second part of my question? Why does he not tell us that he is going to meet the commitment and the undertaking that he gave us in April 1976? In respect of the Minister’s questions about the use of extracts of transcripts, I ask: Is he aware that the Prime Minister said at that conference that Premiers Conferences are about as confidential as if they were held in the middle of Pitt Street?
– As to the second situation, honourable senators will note that Senator Wriedt does not state that the reference purports to be something he read in the newspapers. He states it emphatically as though he has read it in a transcript which he has no right to have and which he knows he has no right to have. As to the first part of the supplementary question, Senator Wriedt has my replies as recorded in Hansard to which he can specifically refer.
page 1977
-Will the Minister representing the Minister for Transport indicate what response the Government is obtaining to its desire to have regional airfields controlled by local government authorities?
– I am not aware of the progress made in this matter. I know it is important. I shall refer the question to my colleague in another place and seek an answer.
page 1977
– I direct a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. The Minister may recall a question on notice which was asked by a member of the House of Representatives to which he answered in effect that the Grants Commission in its assessment of the special grant of $27m made to Queensland in 1974-75 included a component of $7,085,000 which represented the loss incurred by the Brisbane City Council’s urban bus services. Is he aware that the Queensland Government has refused to remit the $7m to the Brisbane City Council, thus causing grave financial difficulties for the Council and having obvious harmful consequences for public transport in Brisbane. Can the Minister advise whether he or the Federal Government can take any action to ensure that the Federal funds made available for Brisbane City Council bus services can be passed on to that Council?
-I am not aware that there is a dispute between the Queensland Government and the Brisbane City Council over the sum of $7,085,000. As I understand it, the Grants Commission assesses what is due to a State. How it assesses what ought to be paid in the form of disability grants is for the Grants
Commission to decide. If there is a dispute between the Brisbane City Council and the State Government they ought to resolve it themselves. I cannot see how either the Commonwealth Government or the Grants Commission itself could intervene in that dispute. As the honourable senator is interested in this matter I shall see whether the Chairman of the Grants Commission can provide any further information to him.
page 1978
– My question is directed to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs. It relates to the desire of the New South Wales Government to spend money on improvements on railways and to statements by the Premier of New South Wales casting doubt upon assertions that New South Wales is in a good financial situation. Will the Minister confirm the present financial situation of New South Wales? Is that State running a surplus on current account? What is the size of that surplus? Does the State have available to it considerable resources to apply to railways if it so wishes?
-The authoritative figures published as to the operation of accounts at the end of March this year after 9 months ‘ operation show that New South Wales is approximately $1llm in surplus. That is substantially more than the surplus at this time last year. Therefore, New South Wales has a capacity of its own. I remind the honourable senator that the New South Wales Government, in common with a number of other State governments, when it put together its current Budget elected to give tax cuts, thus forgoing revenue rather than using the money which would otherwise have been available to pursue policies. When a government elects to do that, in its view tax cuts are more vital than the policies it proposes to implement. One can say only that New South Wales at that time was far more concerned to give tax cuts than to apply moneys to the improvement of government transport and the safety of those passengers who travel by rail in that State. This is a matter entirely for the State Government. No number of alibis will judge it. In any case, the Premier, Mr Wran, will have to explain to his own colleagues at a meeting of the Loan Council why he, more than anyone else, should get special relief. It will not be the Commonwealth but his own colleagues who will be judging his particular circumstances.
page 1978
– My question is addressed to Senator Carrick in his capacity as a Minister. I refer to the answer which he gave to Senator Wriedt earlier this morning regarding the transcript of the Premiers Conference. Firstly, was the Minister saying in that answer that if Senator Wriedt found that transcript, for example, on a Melbourne bus he would not be entitled to read it? Secondly, does the Minister recall that in 1975 he and others quoted in this place from confidential government documents relating to the alleged loans affair? I ask the Minister: What, if any, is the difference?
-A11 1 tried to do on both occasions was to elicit from Senator Wriedt the source from which he was quoting, and I was told that source. Was he quoting from newspaper articles or was he quoting from the document? If Senator Wriedt, as the Leader of the Opposition, was quoting from the document, he knows the position quite well, as we all do. I must confess that I did not know until some weeks ago; I had believed that after a lapse of time the Premiers Conference documents became public, and I had to correct a statement I had made to that effect in the Parliament.
– Why should they not be made public?
-I do not know that. I think it would be highly desirable that they should. An intuitive judgment is made after a certain lapse of time that that should be done. I do not believe that, in the long term, these documents should not be made public. The Premiers themselves elect to hold the Premiers Conference in camera. That is a decision made by the Premiers in the Premiers Conference. Because of that decision, the transcript of proceedings becomes private. Therefore there is a protocol in that regard. I remind the honourable senator that if he looks at the 1975 debates he will find that what we said was that the documents concerned purported to be facsimiles of documents. In any case, we had available to us during the discussion documents which were said to be the documents concerned. In other words, we had available to us documents which were stated by the Government of the day to be the Executive Council documents. They were the fundamental documents on which the case rested.
page 1978
-I do not recollect that definition, but if we are describing what the Premiers Conference has been in the 30 years in which we have had uniform taxation, we could not get a better description. Since the advent of uniform taxation the Premiers Conference has ceased to be a dialogue in conference on co-operative issues or on national and State issues. It became simply a wrangle over the cut-up of the cake, as Senator Sir Magnus Cormack has said. In fact, under the Whitlam Government it came to be a summoning to Canberra of the Premiers as whimpering schoolboys to be told what they would get and then to be sent away with a flea in their ear. That is precisely what it became. We are setting out to change all that. It will be noted from the silence of Labor Opposition senators that they do not intend to reverse the clock and that they have nothing really to criticise in what we are doing.
– I call the Opposition Whip, Senator Georges.
page 1979
– I am attracted by that recommendation of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence which states that the shipbuilding industry should be considered as a defence need. I regard that recommendation as being an admirable one.
– This is another speech.
-Mr President, if I am called suddenly to ask a question, I always bow -
– Order! I must explain immediately that I thought Senator Georges indicated that he wished to ask a question. For that reason I called him as the Opposition Whip.
-I apologise to you, Mr President. I offer my apologies.
- Mr President, I raise a point of order. Today’s order of business sheet indicates that I shall be putting down the report about which Senator Georges proposes to ask a question. Therefore, I think the question is out of order.
-Mr President, I wish to speak to the point of order. If what Senator Sir Magnus Cormack says is correct, how was a newspaper able to present an article giving details of the report upon which I was about to base my question? It is a reasonable question to ask. Is the recommendation, as revealed in the Age this morning, a recommendation that the Government is prepared to accept?
- Mr President, I suggest that, under the Standing Orders of the Senate and the recommendations of the Standing Orders Committee to the Senate, a question relating to a report should be properly addressed to the senator who is in charge of that item of Senate business- in this context, myself. I do not think any Minister is in a position to answer the question.
- Mr President, I address myself to the point of order. Whilst I respect Senator Sir Magnus Cormack ‘s opinion greatly, on this occasion his point is not well taken. I put it to you, Mr President, that what Senator Georges is saying is that in this morning’s Press- I think in all the newspapers- there appears a report on the recommendations and conclusions of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. Of course, one of the conclusions concerns shipbuilding. The conclusions have been printed by the Press. In those circumstances, it seems to me that Senator Georges properly may ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate or the Minister representing the Minister for Transport a question concerning the matter. Whether either Minister seeks to answer it is another matter.
– Order! I call the Leader of the Government in the Senate.
-Senator Georges did not say to whom he addressed the question, so I will answer it.
– He has not asked it yet.
-I am sorry. Senator Georges has not asked his question yet? I thought he had.
– I am sorry for causing so much confusion. I direct the question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate.
-I have not seen the Press report. I certainly have not seen the report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. If I had seen it, that would be a breach of privilege. I think every honourable senator would be interested to know how a report to be presented today is disclosed in this morning’s newspapers. I would have thought that knowledge of the contents of the report would have been confined to members of the Committee. The position is rather interesting. All I can say is that naturally the Government will read the report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence with interest. If Senator Georges asks me a question concerning it during the Budget session after the Government has read the report, I may be able to indicate the Government ‘s view.
page 1980
-by leave-Mr President, I wish to make a personal statement relating to an article which appeared in yesterday’s edition of the Brisbane Courier-Mail under the heading ‘Case against PM adjourned’. The article reads:
Six charges of conspiracy, brought against the Prime Minister (Mr Fraser) and 2 other political leaders by an Aborigine, were adjourned to 29 June in court yesterday.
The article goes on to set out the details of the case. It then says:
Mr N. H. Snedden appeared for Munro- he is the complainant- and Mr John Button for Mr Fraser, Mr Viner and Mr Bjelke-Petersen. . . .
Although it has been said recently that some people are out of touch with the Labor movement, I have never gone as far as being in touch with Mr Bjelke-Petersen, Mr Fraser, or the other defendant, Mr Viner. The article does not relate to me; it relates to somebody altogether different, who I believe is a legal practitioner in Canberra.
page 1980
-The day before yesterday Senator Walters asked whether I, representing the Attorney-General, could give an assurance that under the new Legal Aid Commission legislation the existing staff quotas at legal aid offices in each State would be maintained. I sought an answer from the Attorney-General, which is as follows: It is intended that, pursuant to agreements currently being negotiated with State governments, funds will be provided which will at least maintain the present level of staffing.
page 1980
– For the information of honourable senators I present the recommendations, addresses and report by the delegation leader of the Commonwealth Youth Program Meeting of Young Commonwealth Leaders in Jamaica during May 1977.
page 1980
Senator CARRICK (New South Wales-
Minister for Education)- Pursuant to section 1 1 of the States Grants (Nature Conservation) Act 1974 I present an agreement in relation to the provision of financial assistance to Queensland for land acquisition for nature conservation purposes at Cape Cleveland and other areas. 1976-77.
-by leave- I move:
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
page 1980
– For the information of honourable senators I present the eighth report of the Committee on Overseas Professional Qualifications, December 1976.
page 1980
Senator SIR MAGNUS CORMACK (Victoria) For the information of honourable senators I lay on the table an interim report from the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence relating to industrial support for defence needs and allied matters. I seek leave to make a brief statement relating to that report.
-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.
-This interim report is tabled now because the Committee feels that the issues it raises should be brought before the Parliament at the earliest opportunity. Each of its chapters is self contained and embraces conclusions and recommendations related to the chapters now tabled. The balance of the report dealing primarily with the important electronics industry will be presented to the Parliament in the Budget sittings of Parliament in August. It is not proposed to move that the interim report be printed at this time as it is intended that the printing motion will be moved when all sections of the report are complete. Meanwhile copies of the interim report in its present form will be available for study by interested parties.
In conclusion, I commend Mr David Harrier. D.S.C., M.P., and Senator Bishop- Chairman and Deputy Chairman respectively of the Subcommitteeand their fellows for their efforts in bringing this report to the whole Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence and, through that Committee, to the Parliament. To that statement I should like to add some observations for the interest of honourable senators that has been aroused by Senator Georges’ question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Withers) this morning. I have noted a general misunderstanding of this interim report in the newspapers. The conclusions are based upon 2 criteria which must be borne in mind. The first criterion is what we have described as a low level scenario defence of the situation and the second is a high level scenario of the defence situation. In other words, and more plainly, the Government must make strategic decisions in advance on defence preparations based upon those assessments. As a further explanation, because of the pressing business in the Senate yesterday I withheld this report. It was tabled in the House of Representatives. That explains why articles on the report appeared in the newspapers this morning.
-Mr President, I seek leave to make a short statement on this matter.
-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.
-Briefly, I want to support what Senator Sir Magnus Cormack has said. I want firstly to thank him, because he chairs the full Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, the Chairman of the Sub-committee and members of the Sub-committee who spent more than 12 months in their investigations and studies, the results of which are now in one document. Senators should note that for the first time there is in one document, with the exception of the material on the electronics industry, most of the relevant material upon which senators, the public and experts might be able to assess the question of what are appropriate industrial support needs.
My personal general conclusion resulting from the recommendations and conclusions of the Committee is that there is an urgent need to do something about industrial support within Australia if we are to meet defence needs. The Committee made recommendations on matters with which we all have had experience. For example, honourable senators will recall that this matter has been frequently debated in the Senate. In 1970 during the debate on the Supply Bills a motion was passed relating to the urgent need to maintain a defence capacity. It is unfortunate that in recent years there has been a run down in the work load of staff, including professional staff, of the Government factories and private industry. The Committee put its mind to points of view which might correct that situation.
Finally, I refer to the shipbuilding industry which also was mentioned in the report. I recommend to honourable senators and to the public generally that they study the conclusions and recommendations which have come from the Committee. It could well be, in the view of Committee members- this view was endorsed by the whole Committee- that the proposed package deal could be a solution to the problem in the shipbuilding industry and it might correct the very sad position in respect of Newcastle and Whyalla.
page 1981
Ministerial Statement
- Mr President, I seek leave to make 2 related statements, the first on the membership of the Tertiary Education Commission and the second relating to the guidelines for the education commissions for the 1978-80 rolling triennium.
-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.
Tertiary Education Commission: Membership
– I wish to inform the Senate that the new Tertiary Education Commission is to be established on 22 June 1977, and I wish to announce the membership of the Commission and its 3 associated councils. The Tertiary Education Commission Act 1977 provides for the Commission to have a full-time Chairman, three other full-time members, and five part-time members. Each of the full-time Commissioners is also Chairman of one of the 3 Councils provided for under the Act. Each Council also has eight part-time members. The full-time Chairman of the Commission is to be Professor Peter Karmel, at present Chairman of the Universities Commission. The other full-time members will be Mr H. K. Coughlan, who is at present Chairman of the Technical and Further Education Commission, Professor D. N. F. Dunbar, Deputy Vice-Chancellor of the Australian National University, and Dr H. S. Houston, Assistant Principal, Canberra College of Advanced Education. Mr Coughlan will be Chairman of the new Technical and Further Education Council, Professor Dunbar Chairman of the Universities Council and Dr Houston Chairman of the Advanced Education Council.
The part-time members of the Commission will be:
Mr Clifford Dolan, Senior VicePresident of the Australian Council of Trade Unions.
Mr Reuben Goldsworthy, Principal of Woodville High School, South Australia
Sir David Griffin, Chairman of Nabalco Pty Ltd
Mrs Caroline Searby, Victoria
Dr David Fraser, Paediatrician, Queensland
The part-time members of the 3 Councils are to be as follows:
Universities Council
Professor L. W. Cox, Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at the University of Adelaide.
Professor P. J. Fensham, Professor of Education, Monash University
Professor H. Gelber, Professor of Political Science, University of Tasmania
Professor L. J. Kramer, Professor of Australian Literature, University of Sydney
Mr R. K. Chambers, Chairman of Perspectum Pty Ltd, Sydney, Management Consultants
Mr B. W. Rowland, barrister, practising in Perth.
Dr W. L. Hughes, Managing Director of Walkers Ltd, Maryborough, Queensland
Dr P. S. Lang, grazier and member of the Advisory Group of the Australian Wool Harvesting Project, Victoria.
Advanced Education Council
Dr L. J. Barker, Director, Darling Downs Institute of Advanced Education
Dr A. M. Fraser, Director, Queensland Institute of Technology
Dr D. A. Jecks, Principal, Churchlands College, Western Australia
Mr A. W. Wilkinson, General Manager of Personnel and Administration, Shell CompanyVictoria.
Mr R. D. McMullen, Student Counsellor and Careers Adviser, Swinburne College of Technology, Victoria.
Mr P. G. E. Cox, Chartered Accountant and a Commissioner of the Interstate Corporate Affairs Commission- New South Wales.
Professor Emeritus G. H. Newstead, formerly Head of the Department of Engineering Physics, Institute of Advanced Studies, Australian National University and Professor of Electrical
Engineering, University of TasmaniaTasmania.
Mrs N. Ford, solicitor, Traralgon, Victoria. President of the Australian Federation of Business and Professional Women.
Technical and Further Education Council
Mr P. W. Fleming, Director of Staff Development, Public Service Board of South Australia
Mr P. E. F. Kirby, First Assistant Secretary, Manpower and Economic Policy Division, Commonwealth Department of Employment and Industrial Relations- Victoria
Miss P. Seitz, Adult Education Officer with the Victorian Council of Adult Education.
Mr H. Hauenschild, President of the Queensland Trades and Labor Council.
Mr G. Lees, Principal, Brunswick Technical School, Victoria
Mr M. A. Watson, Director, New South Wales Department of Technical and Further Education
Mr J. A. Rickard, Managing Director, MTM Limited- Tasmania.
Mr D. M. Swan, Director and Chief Executive, United Packages Limited, Queensland
I am able to make available to honourable senators who would like further information biographical details of members of the Commission and councils. But in a moment, with your permission, Mr President, I shall seek leave to have those details incorporated in Hansard.
I wish to thank publicly those members who have given Australia valuable service on the Universities Commission, Commission on Advanced Education and Technical and Further Education Commission, but who will not be serving on the new Commission or its Councils. In particular, I wish to express the Government’s appreciation to the Chairman of the Commission on Advanced Education, Dr E. S. Swinbourne and the Deputy Chairman of the Universities Commission, Professor F. B. Bull, neither of whom will be serving on the Tertiary Education Commission. Both Dr Swinbourne and Professor Bull have given distinguished service to Australian education. Mr President, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a document containing the biographies of the members.
-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.
The document read as follows-
THE TERTIARY EDUCATION COMMISSION AND ITS COUNCILS MEMBERSHIP
The Commission
Chairman
Professor Peter Henry Karmel ( A.C.T. )
Professor Karmel has been chairman of the Universities Commission since 1971. He was previously Professor of Economics at Adelaide University, Principal of the Bedford Park campus of Adelaide University, vice chancellor of Flinders University and chancellor of the University of Papua-New Guinea.
Full-time Members
Mr Herbert Keith Coughlan (A.C.T.)
Mr Coughlan has been chairman of the Technical and Further Education Commission since its inception in 1975. He was formerly a senior assistant secretary in the Department of Education and Science from 1968 to 1972 and an associate commissioner with the Cities Commission from 1973 to 1975.
Professor David Noel Ferguson Dunbar ( A.C.T. )
Professor Dunbar has been deputy vice-chancellor of the Australian National University, Canberra, since 1968. He has been Professor of Physics in the University’s School of General Studies since I960.
DrH.S. Houston (A.C.T.)
Dr Houston has been assistant principal of the Canberra College of Advanced Education since 1973. He is an expert in the field of teacher education.
Part-time Members
MrC. Dolan(Vic)
Mr Dolan is national secretary of the Electrical Trades Union of Australia and senior vice-president of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. He is a member of the Technical and Further Education Commission and a member of the Committee of Inquiry into Education and Training.
Dr D. B. Fraser (Qld)
Dr Fraser is a consultant paediatrician to the Prince Charles Hospital in Brisbane. He has been a part-time lecturer in the Department of Child Health at the University of Queensland for the past ten years and a member of the council of the North Brisbane College of Advanced Education for the past three years.
Mrs Caroline Searby ( Vic. )
Mrs Searby is a member of the Committee of Management of the Royal Children’s Hospital, Melbourne and a member of the executive of the Free Kindergarten Union of Victoria.
Sir David Griffin
Sir David Griffin has been chairman of Nabalco Pty Ltd since 1964. He is a director of the Gove joint venture, chairman of Nabalco Engineering Pty Ltd and deputy chairman of Swiss Aluminium Mining Australia Pty Ltd. He was Lord Mayor ofSydney from 1972 to 1973.
MrR.Goldsworthy(S.A.)
Mr Goldsworthy is principal of Woodville High School, South Australia. He is a member of the Executive Institute of Teachers, a member of the South Australian High School Principals Association. He is a member of the South Australian Board of Advanced Education and a member of the South Australian Teachers Classifications Board.
Universities Council
Chairman:
Professor Dunbar
Members:
Professor L. W. Cox(S.A.)
Professor Cox has been a member of the Universities Commission since 1976. He has been Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at Adelaide University since 1958 and was formerly senior lecturer in Obstetrics and Gynaecology at the University of Otago, New Zealand.
Professor P. J. Fensham ( Vic.)
Professor Fensham has been Professor of Education at Monash University. Melbourne, since 1967 and was formerly lecturer, senior lecturer and reader in physical chemistry at Melbourne University from 1956 to 1967. He has doctorates in physical chemistry and social psychology from Bristol and Cambridge universities respectively. Professor Fensham is a member of UNESCO and its Australian national committee for education and has represented Australia at UNESCO conferences overseas.
Professor H. Gelber(Tas.)
Professor Gelber has been Professor of Political Science and head of the Department of Political Science at the University of Tasmania since 1975. He was formerly Reader in Politics at Monash University, Research Associate at Harvard University’s Centre for International Affairs, Visiting Professor of Political Science at Yale and Visitor at Nuffield College, Oxford University. He is president of the Combined Council of Parents of Independent Schools of Tasmania, chairman of the Pacific Institute, Melbourne, a member of the International Institute for Strategic Studies and a member of the Australasian Political Science Association.
Professor L. J. Kramer ( N.S. W. )
Professor Kramer has been a member of the Universities Commission since 1974 and is Professor of Australian Literature at the University ofSydney. She is a trustee of the Australian Museum, a member of the Council of the Alexander Mackie College of Advanced Education and president of the Australian Council for Educational Standards. She was a member of the National Literature Board of Review from 1970 to 1973 and is a member of the N.S.W. Corrective Services Advisory Council.
MrR. K. Chambers (N.S.W.)
Mr Chambers is a management consultant and consultant psychologist. He is chairman of Perspectum Pty Ltd, Sydney, a firm of management consultants specialising in organisation development, training, marketing and educational counselling. He is a member of the N.S.W. Minister for Health’s advisory committee for registration of psychologists and chairman of the registration committee of the N.S.W. branch of the Australian Psychological Society. Mr Chambers is a member of the Australian Institute of Management and a member of the Institute of Management Consultants.
Mr B. W. Rowland (W.A.)
Mr Rowland is a barrister practising in Perth. He was a member and chairman of the W.A. Law Reform Commission from 1969 to 1974, president of the W.A. Law Society from 1973 to 1975 and a visiting lecturer at the University of Western Australia’s Law School in 1972 and 1973.
DrW.L. Hughes (Qld)
Dr Hughes has been a member of the Universities Commission since 1965. He has been managing director of Walkers Ltd, Maryborough. Queensland, since 1967 and was the company’s general manager from 1954 to 1967. He is also chairman of Export Finance and Insurance Corporation, a director of MIM Holdings Ltd and a director of Hyne and Sons Pty Ltd.
Dr P. S. Lang (Vic.)
Dr Lang is a grazier and has been a member of the Advisory Group of the Australian Wool Harvesting Project since 1973. He was president of the Graziers Association of Victoria from 1970 to 1973 and a member of the executive of the Australian Woolgrowers and Graziers Association from 1 968 to 1 973. He was a member of the Victorian State committee of the CSIRO from 1964 to 1970. the Victoria Institute of Colleges from 1 968 to 1 970 and a part-time associate Commissioner of the Industries Assistance Commission from 1975 to 1976.
Advanced Education Council
Chairman: Dr H. S. Houston
Members:
Dr L. J. Barker (Qld)
Dr Barker has been director of the Darling Downs Institute of Advanced Education since 1 967. He held a number of teaching, lecturing and administrative posts in the Victorian Department of Education from 1958 to 1967. He is a fellow of the Australian College of Education and a member of the Australian Institute of Management.
Dr A. M. Fraser (Qld
Dr Fraser has been a part.time member of the Commission on Advanced Education since 1973. He has been director of the Queensland Institute of Technology since 1966 and a member of the Queensland Board of Advanced Education since 1971. He is currently a member of the Committee of Inquiry into Education and Training.
Dr D. A. Jecks (W.A.)
Dr Jecks has been principal of Churchlands College, Western Australia, since its inception in 1971 and was previously senior lecturer in educational administration at Sydney University from 1968 to 1971. He is chairman of the Western Australian Council for Special Education and vicepresident of the Australian Association of Principals of Colleges of Teacher Education.
Mr A. W.Wilkinson (Vic.)
Mr Wilkinson is a director of the Shell group of companies in Australia and general manager of personnel and administration. His responsibilities in the company include career planning, manpower planning and industrial relations. He is a member of the advisory committee of the Graduate Careers Council.
Mr R. D. McMullen ( Vic.
Mr McMullen has been a part.time member of the Commission of Advanced Education since 1974. He has been student counsellor and careers advisor at Swinburne College of Technology, Melbourne, since 1971 and a member of the council of the Victorian Institute of Colleges since 1973.
Mr P. G. E. Cox ( N.S.W.
Mr Cox is a chartered accountant and a commissioner of the interstate Corporate Affairs Commission. He is director of a number of companies. From I960 to 1974 he was a member and chairman of the New South Wales Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants and was a member of the Institute’s national council from 1966 to 1974.
Professor Emeritus G. H. Newstead (A.C.T.)
Professor Newstead has been a member of the Australian Council for Awards on Advanced Education since 1972. He was head of the Department of Engineering Physics in the Institute of Advanced Studies at the Australian National University from 1965 to 1970 and previously Professor of Electrical’ engineering at the University of Tasmania from 1957-1965. He has been a member of the Tasmanian Council of Advanced Education and an associate commissioner of the Hydro-Electric Commission of Tasmania.
Mrs N. Ford
Mrs Ford is a solicitor and lives in Taralgar, Victoria. She is a member of the Board of Studies and the Board of Examiners in the School of Business Studies at the Gippsland Institute of Advanced Education. She is a member of the Gippsland Regional Council, president of the Australian Federation of Business and Professional Women and a member of various other voluntary organisations.
Technical and Further Education Council
Chairman: Mr Coughlan
Members:
Mr P. W. Fleming
Mr Fleming has been director of staff development for the Public Service Board of South Australia since 1 972. He was a member of the Australian Committee on Technical and Further Education from 1973 to 1975 and the Technical and Further Education Commission from 1975 to 1977. He was chairman of the committee which surveyed training needs in industry, commerce and government for the South Australian Government in 1 972 and is currently a member of the Committee of Inquiry into Post-Secondary Education in South Australia.
Mr P. E. F. Kirby
Mr Kirby is first assistant secretary of the Manpower and Economic Policy Division of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. He was formerly first assistant secretary of the Manpower Development and Operations No. 1 Division and assistant secretary of the Manpower Policy and Planning Branch.
Miss P. Seitz
Miss Seitz has been an adult education officer with the Victorian Council of Adult Education for the past six years and is a member of the executive of the Australian Association for Adult Education. She is currently working on a project funded by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs to develop adult education programs in Aboriginal communities and works part time at Monash University. Melbourne, in a project designed to promote continuing education in the professions.
Mr H. Hauenschild
Mr Hauenschild is president of the Queensland Trades and Labor Council. He was Queensland secretary of the Boilermakers Union from 1969 to 1972 and has been State president of the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union since 1972.
MrG. Lees
Mr Lees has been a member ot the Technical and runner Education Commission since 1975. He was president of the Technical Teachers Association of Victoria from 1969 to 1974 and is at present principal of Brunswick Technical School.
Mr M. A. Watson
Mr Watson is director of the N.S.W. Department of Technical and Further Education. He was deputy director of the N.S.W. Department of Technical Education from 1971 to 1976.
Mr J. A. Rickard
Mr Rickard has been managing director of MTM Ltd since 1973 and is director of a number of other companies. He was formerly marketing director for James North (Australia) Ltd from 1967 to” 1973. He is a member of the Metal Industries Association, a member of the Safety Engineering Society or Australia, a member of the Tasmanian Intermediate Technology Group, the Chamber of Industries, the National Safety Council of Australia, the Company Directors Association and the Australian Confederation of Contractors Associations. He was formerly a spokesman for the safety equipment industry on tariffs and trade matters.
MrD.M. Swan (Qld)
Mr Swan has been director and chief” executive of United Packages Ltd. in Brisbane since 1975. He graduated from the Royal Military College, Duntroon, in 1954 and resigned in 1958 as a captain in the Pacific Islands Regiment. He was South Australian Manager for ESSO Australia and later general manager of the materials handling group of Brambles Industries Ltd.
– by leave- The list of appointees to these various bodies contains some very distinguished names in the academic and education areas. I am not familiar with all of them. On behalf of the Opposition I accept that the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) has considered very carefully all these appointments. They are very important because they will have an important influence on the determination of government policy on education in the years to come. As the Labor Party did not oppose this new structure, we wish it well. We feel certain that those persons who have been appointed will give to the Government their best advice on what is best for education. I do not wish to say any more on this particular matter at the moment. The further statement which the Minister will be putting down immediately contains the real essence of government policy in respect of education so I shall postpone my remarks until after that statement has been put down.
– If the Leader of the Opposition desires to adjourn the debate on this statement, he can seek leave to do so after I have put down the second statement. In that way it can be debated in future. I make that offer to him.
– I appreciate the offer of the Minister. I do not think that it is necessary to adjourn the debate at this stage. However. I think it is too early for anyone to pass or to attempt to pass judgment on the composition of the commissions.
– I thank Senator Wriedt. I should like to say that within the limits of the membership of the commissions we have tried to get a balance. I would be very happy if honourable senators at any time suggested to me the sins of omission and commission. No doubt they will.
Guidelines for Education Commissions
-The Government has determined guidelines for 1978 and subsequent years of the 1978-80 rolling triennium within the context of its preparations for the 1977-78 Budget. In arriving at its decisions the Government has had to reconcile the aspirations at all levels of education with its policy of containing inflation, which necessarily involves restraint in public expenditure, and reducing the level of the deficit in the Commonwealth Budget.
It will be recalled that the previous government in 1975 reduced the total level of expenditure under the education commission’s programs for 1976. This Government restored triennial planning on a rolling basis for 1977 and adopted levels of expenditure for that year which restored real growth to the education programs. It also established guidelines for each Commission for planning purposes only for the subsequent years of the rolling triennium 1978 and 1979. In accordance with the rolling triennium principle, the Government has now determined firm guidelines for 1978, to which the education commissions will be invited to respond in presenting their next reports. It has also provided indicative planning guidelines for the next stages of the rolling triennium, that is, for 1 979 and 1 980.
The guidelines for 1978 which form part of this statement will establish base levels of expenditure for 1 978 at the same real level as for 1 977 in the case of universities, colleges of advanced education- subject to additional funds for nongovernment teachers colleges- and schools. For technical and further education the 1978 base level of expenditure will be 10 per cent higher in real terms than for 1 977. The guidelines provide for a total expenditure on the programs administered by the education commissions of $ 1.740.7m in 1978- expressed in December 1976 cost levels. The amount for each commission in 1 978 compared with 1 977 is:
These have been funded in a separate way previously.
For 1978 the cost supplementation adjustments will be limited to the wages and salaries component in recurrent programs. There will no longer be cost supplementation for capital programs. This variation in the cost supplementation arrangements reflects in part the more favourable tendering climate for capital projects and also is seen as an incentive to the State authorities and institutions concerned to seek to achieve economies in their operations, while maintaining services to students. For the years 1979 and 1980 the planning guidelines provide for a real growth in the base programs of 2 per cent each year for the tertiary area as a whole and of 1 per cent each year for schools, together with continuation of the cost supplementation arrangements which are to apply during 1978.
In arriving at its decisions, the Government has confirmed its intention to assist in maintaining education expenditure in the States at a high level. It has been mindful also of the special responsibility the States carry, especially for government schools and for TAFE, and of the significantly improved capacity of the States under the revised Commonwealth-State financial arrangements to contribute to these activities from their own resources. The Tertiary Education Commission and the Schools Commission are each asked to present their reports by the end of August.
I now turn to the guidelines for the Tertiary Education Commission for the 1978-80 rolling triennium. The Tertiary Education Commission should prepare its recommendations for 1978 and subsequent years of the 1978-80 rolling triennium on the basis set out later. In accordance with the provisions of the Tertiary Education Commission Act, the Commission will have the overall responsibility for recommending programs for each of the sectors within these guidelines; the Commission’s report will incorporate in full the reports of the Universities Council, the Advanced Education Council and the Technical and Further Education Council. For the year 1978 the Commission may exercise a degree of discretion in recommending the final allocation between recurrent and capital expenditure within the total funds determined for each sector.
page 1986
For universities and colleges the base funds allocated for 1978 will each be at the same level in real terms as the base allocation for 1977, subject to additional funds for non-government teachers colleges within the advanced education program as set out later. For 1978 the Government expects the university sector to maintain its intake of students at the present level. Intake for the colleges of advanced education sector should not exceed the level of 1 977.
The Government is concerned about the implications of the serious imbalance between supply and demand for teachers that at present appears to be in prospect over the next decade. The Government wishes to have some advice from the Commission on its assessment of the situation together with advice on the available options for policy consideration in both the short and longer terms. The Commission should examine the findings of the working party of the Advanced Education Council on this subject when they become available. In particular, the Commission should explore with State and other authorities the scope for a reduction in preservice teacher education intakes.
In deciding upon the levels of funding it will recommend for capital expenditure in 1978, the Government expects the Commission to review all projects, except those for which contractual building commitments have been entered into. If necessary, the Commission should review the timetable of commencements and progress of new projects under existing programs both for 1 977 and subsequently, so as to ensure that total capital expenditure in 1978 is contained within the total funds allocated. No new universities or colleges of advanced education are to be established within the triennium.
It is the Government’s intention to proceed with the development of the Australian Maritime College as quickly as resources permit. Within the allocations for the advanced education sector, it has placed an upper limit of $2m capital and $385,000 recurrent on the College’s funds for 1978. It will be a matter for the Commission to advise on a program for the College, after having assessed proposals from the Interim Council of the College and in the context of the total requirements of advanced education.
The Government intends to introduce a revised program of recurrent assistance to nongovernment teachers colleges to operate from the beginning of 1978. This is in recognition of the particular need for these colleges to contribute directly towards the preparation of teachers for the non-government schools. The provision of capital assistance for these colleges in future years is to be examined in greater detail by the Commission. An additional allocation of $3.08m for recurrent purposes is included in the total recurrent funds for the advanced education sector in 1978 for this purpose. This amount includes the transfer of $ 1 .2 1 m from the subsidy presently being provided by the Department of Education to certain non-government tertiary institutions. A separate statement will be issued with details of these new arrangements.
page 1987
The allocation for technical and further education in the States in 1978 will be a base program representing an increase of 10 per cent in real terms over the base allocation for 1977. The Government asks the Commission to pay special attention to the requirements of this sector and to develop co-operative arrangements with the States for the allocation of resources in accordance with their degrees of need and on the understanding that the States will continue to discharge in full their own financial responsibilities in this area.
page 1987
In formulating its recommendations, the Commission should have regard to the overall provision of opportunities for tertiary education, including the greater rationalisation of the use of resources and the more extensive use of facilities throughout the year. The Commission should continue to examine in a rigorous way any proposal for the lengthening or upgrading of established courses and should comment on these issues in its report.
The Commission is asked not to support the introduction of any new courses, or the expansion of existing courses, for basic nurse education within educational institutions. It is the Government’s intention to establish a review of arrangements for nurse education after appropriate consultation with both health and education authorities.
Expenditure in 1978
The Government will provide the following base level of funds for 1 978:
Cost supplementation will be maintained to the end of 1977 under existing arrangements. Supplementation of the 1978 program for cost increases during that year will be limited to increases in respect of the wages and salaries components of recurrent grants (including the fees reimbursement component in the technical and further education sector).
Expenditure in 1979 and 1980
For planning purposes, the base program level for 1979 for the 3 tertiary sectors taken together will be determined by adjusting fully the sum of the base amounts for 1978 for increases in relevant costs (wages and salaries, non-salary recurrent costs, and capital costs) during that year. The amount thus determined will be increased by 2 per cent and will be subject to the same revised cost supplementation arrangements which are to apply during 1978. A similar arrangement will apply for the year 1980 with the adjusted 1979 base program being increased by 2 per cent.
The Commission is invited to plan for 1979 and 1 980 on this basis, particularly in relation to the allocation of resources among the 3 sectors, and having regard to the Government’s wish to continue to give priority to the technical and further education sector. In addition, the Commission is free to undertake longer-term reviews.
page 1987
I turn now to the Schools Commission guidelines for 1978-80 rolling triennium. The Government asks the Schools Commission to make its recommendations for the 1978-80 rolling triennium on the basis I now set out. All sums are expressed in December 1976 cost levels.
Expenditure in 1978
The Government is providing grants totalling $57 lm in December 1976 cost levels as the base level for the programs of the Commission in the States during 1978. This program comprising $156.7m capital and $414.3m in recurrent, represents the same level in real terms as in 1 977. As in the past, the precise level of grants may be varied in accordance with the actual level of enrolments in non-government schools. The Commission may exercise some discretion in recommending the final allocation in 1978 between recurrent and capital expenditure. Cost supplementation will be maintained to the end of 1977 under existing arrangements. Supplementation of the 1978 program for cost increases during that year will be limited to increases in respect of the wages and salaries components of recurrent expenditure for both general and special purpose programs. The Government expects that States will continue to discharge their own financial responsibilities to government and non-government schools. The Government notes the significantly improved capacity of the States under the revised Commonwealth/ State financial arrangements to contribute to these activities from their own resources.
The Government has indicated the following views on the allocations for particular programs. In drawing up its recommendations the Government expects that the Commission will make provision for the continuation of special purpose programs such as those for handicapped children, for migrants, for disadvantaged schoolsincluding those in country areas-and for children in institutions. In order to contribute some part of the additional funds required to meet the costs of other evolving programs, the Government suggests that the Commission seeks to achieve savings of the order of $4m on the joint programs for services and development and for special projects. Within the funds available under these guidelines, the Government expects the Commission to consult each State on the balance of expenditure between general recurrent and capital programs for government schools. In the case of recurrent funds for non-government schools the Government wishes the Commission to include in its recommendations provision for the additional cost of the previously announced policy of automatically linking grants to nongovernment schools to per pupil expenditures in government schools. The Government also wishes the Commission to make recommendations as a first step towards the implementation of the Government’s policy of providing a basic per pupil grant to non-government schools equal to 20 per cent of running costs per pupil in government schools. The Government envisages an amount of $2m being allocated in 1978 to schools in Levels 1 and 2 for this purpose. The Government wishes the Commission to increase the capital program for non-government schools by $3m, specifically to assist building programs in newly expanding areas of population. In general recognition of this problem, the Government asks the Commission to draw it to the attention of the State Planning and Finance Committees in determining their priorities for the administration of the overall capital program.
Expenditure in 1979 and 1980
For planning purposes the base program for 1979 will be determined by adjusting fully the base amount for 1 978 for increases in relevant costs- wages and salaries, non-salary recurrent costs, building and equipment costs- during that year. The amount thus determined will be increased by one per cent and will be subject to the same revised cost supplementation arrangements which are to apply during 1978. A similar arrangement will apply for the year 1980 with the adjusted 1979 base program being increased by one per cent. The Commission is invited to plan for 1979 and 1980 on this basis. In addition, the Commission is free to undertake longer term reviews. I commend both statements to the Senate.
– by leave- The Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) has put down a quite lengthy and detailed statement, the implications of which require a considerable degree of study. Even though he had the courtesy to provide me with a copy of the statement earlier, it has not been possible for me to make a complete analysis of it. One thing comes through very clearly, and that is that this is the first evidence and statement by this Government of its retreat from education. The situation is as simple as that.
The very things which, for months, we have been saying would occur and which the Minister has denied repeatedly are now here in writing. The evidence is in the statement by the Government. Let me prove that point. When this Government came to office it claimed that it would protect education. It claimed that it would ensure the maintenance of the initiatives which we had taken over 3 years, on a scale never seen before in the history of this country, to lift education from the doldrums it had got into under 23 years of Liberal-Country Party government. This Government claimed that education would not be allowed to slide back, whether it was government schools, non-government schools or any other part of education.
In the last few months we have said that this Government would retreat. Here is the evidence. Last year certain claims were made about the real growth which would occur in education over the so-called rolling triennium of this Government. It is a rolling triennium all right. It is rolling like a drunken man just about to fall over. The Minister said that there would be a 2 per cent increase in real terms for schools, a 2 per cent increase for universities and colleges of advanced education, and a 5 per cent increase for technical education. On so many occasions he said that there would be no retreat. On 4 November last year he stated:
I wish to emphasise that the Government has no intention of retreating from its undertaking to support real growth in the education programs on which the commissions make recommendations.
I can remember the Minister coming into this chamber on 30 March of this year, during an urgency debate on education, and stating, with reference to the Australian Labor Party:
Last year its members made a lot of noise and uttered a lot of untrue statements and a lot of false scares and apprehensions around the place and all of them were proven wrong.
I ask the Minister: Who is wrong now? Is it the Opposition, or it the Government? He went on to state:
Day after day. day after day the Labor Party was peddling some new scare that there were going to be cuts, just as Senator Wriedt said here today, with not a tittle of reason, that there had been cuts in federal education spending.
Now what do we see? We see a freeze on funds and no real growth. The big retreat has started. Let every Premier, every State Education Minister, every State Treasurer, every parent organisation and every teacher organisation throughout Australia now know what is in store for them in the years ahead under the federalism policy of the Liberal Government. At no time was there ever any intention to maintain anything like the level of commitment of the Labor Government.
For months we have had to listen to the Minister, who has had the gall to come into this chamber time after time and tell us how, under new federalism, the Liberal Government intended to maintain its commitment to the education system. What does he think the 2 per cent increase in real terms means to those government and non-government schools which have increased enrolments? It means virtually a freezing. Even those funds have been taken away from them. It is very difficult for me to quote precisely from the statement because it is fairly lengthy, but it is quite evident, as the Minister says, that there will no longer be cost supplementation for capital programs. Further on we find that capital programs are virtually finished. That is what it amounts to. It means at least a $35m reduction in the area where schools are still needed. If the States want to impose a double income tax and build the schools themselves, that is all right by Mr Fraser and Senator Carrick.
This charade of a 10 per cent increase for technical education is designed to look good. To put the picture clear let me quote the figures again. We are dealing with 4 areas of educationuniversities, colleges of advanced education, technical and further education, and schools. In round figures the total expenditure will be $ 1,700m. The universities, colleges of advanced education and the schools, which constitute the major part, will receive about $ 1 ,600m. There is no increase for them. Their funds are frozen. So technical and further education will receive an extra 10 per cent, which amounts to a magnificent $9m out of $ 1,700m, and that is this Government’s commitment to education. I am appalled. I know that it is late in the session and we want to get through our program today, but I am appalled to think that in view of all the stories we have heard over the past few months about how much this Government was prepared to maintain its commitment to, as the Minister used to call them, massive and exciting programs, there will be nobody in the States, in the education department, amongst the teachers and the parents, who will see anything exciting about this little exercise.
Without delaying the Senate unduly, let me make a few comments about the future and what this document means. It shows without question that the future for education in this country under the Liberal Government is bleak. The States have been told that they must discharge their financial responsibilities. What does that mean? It means simply that more and more of the cost will be passed back to them. If those States are not able to provide the educational facilities which the children and the parents in those States are entitled to have, that is just too bad. We have listened to Senator Carrick harping continually about how much better off the States are under the new federalism. He keeps talking about an extra $90m that they will receive this year under general revenue grants.
Today at question time I asked him whether he would restate and commit himself- not that the commitments are worth anything, I supposeto the statement he made to Senator Walsh last year that the Government would increase the total payments to the States as did the Labor Government, because education is vitally affected in this area of specific purpose payments. All the time he kept talking about this extra $90m under general revenue grants he was taking funds away with the other hand. Sir Charles Court, the Liberal Premier of Western Australia, fully aware of the situation said:
We do not want to be mesmerised by the $90m because when sums are done that $90m is going to look mighty sick when all the other factors are taken into account.
That is an accurate picture of the problem that they face. It is unfortunate, and perhaps deliberate, that this statement has been brought down on the last day of sitting, which is not the time to have a proper debate on it. I close by saying that this is a vindication of the warnings we have given as an Opposition. We have been told that we were deliberately scaremongering and trying to create an atmosphere of uncertainty throughout the education systems in Australia. Perhaps now that has been exposed for what it is. We were right. We knew it was going to happen because there is not the commitment on the part of this Government that it claims to have. I regret that education throughout this country can now look forward to a bleak future because the States will not be able to do the things they wish to do and to maintain their standards unless the
Commonwealth accepts its responsibility. Obviously the Commonwealth has opted out of that responsibility. I seek leave to continue my remarks.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
page 1990
Motion ( by Senator Withers) agreed to:
That the Senate at its rising adjourn till Tuesday, 16 August 1 977, at 2.30 p.m., or such other day and hour as may be fixed by the President, or, in the event of the President being unavailable owing to illness or other cause, by the Chairman of Committees, and that the day and hour of meeting so determined shall be notified to each senator by telegram or letter.
page 1990
Motion (by Senator Withers) agreed to:
That leave of absence be granted to every member of the Senate from the termination of the sitting this day to the day on which the Senate next meets.
page 1990
Debate resumed from 1 June, on motion by Senator Durack:
That the Bills be now read a second time.
-The purpose of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Bill is to establish the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation and to set up the basis of the financing of the operations of the proposed new Corporation. As I am sure everyone in the Senate is aware, the meat industry of Australia has been suffering great difficulties in the last three or four years. That has been due to a number of factors, but essentially to the decline in the market returns for meat products, especially our overseas markets, and also to the very large increase in the supply of beef in the last few years. I indicate immediately that the Opposition will not oppose the Bill, although it will move some amendments in the Committee stage. I suppose an observation that should be made relates to the time the Government has taken to bring forward this legislation. It will be recalled that under the Labor Government there was a restructuring of 3 marketing authorities involving the wool industry, the dairy industry and the apple and pear industry. It would be fair to say that during that time a certain pattern of restructuring was established. This Corporation appears to follow that pattern, and therefore we support the concept behind it.
One of the most contentious issues affecting the producer is the question of producer representation on the Corporation. During the time of the Labor Government, as Minister for Agriculture I had the responsibility of piloting through these new reforms. I can well recall the objections which were raised by producer organisations to the possibility of them not having majority representation on the marketing authorities. But after persuasion and discussion the producer groups came to accept the fact that it would be better if the personnel on the corporations were people more expert- I think that is a fair word to use- in the marketing of their products; that it would be to the benefit of producers to ensure that those people on the corporations could do the best job for the meat industry and other primary industries. That certainly applied in respect to the wool industry. Exactly the same approach was taken when we restructured the old apple and pear board and then the dairy board. Again, there were discussions about representation. But really no problems arose by that time because the new boards, with the new expertise appointed to them- men of very great ability- had demonstrated the value of that form of restructuring.
I do not know what has happened in the meantime but obviously something has gone basically wrong. Mr Sinclair, the Minister for Primary Industry, and this Government are putting up, as I read it, a Corporation of almost identical structure to that which the Labor Government proposed but there is now an uproar throughout the whole of the rural sector about it. Only yesterday we saw about 1 500 producers at a demonstration outside Parliament House. They produced a petition concerning producer control which was presented in the Senate this morning. I do not know what the Minister or the Government has done to these people to stir them up in this manner. I do not know whether they have been ignored, whether there has not been sufficient consultation or whether there has not been sufficient explanation. I do not know what the position is but it does not say much for the sort of liaison that exists between this Government and the rural people. There is no point in imposing something on anybody. Certainly, it is not possible to impose something on farmers; they do not take it. If I understand what has occurred. I can only come to the conclusion that the Minister has not taken very much trouble to talk with the rural people and to help them to understand that the intentions of the Government in introducing this legislation are for their own benefit.
There are a couple of matters which I will refer to briefly now before we reach the Committee stage. I refer firstly to the restrictions which are being placed on the Corporation. A reading of the Bill gives the impression that the Minister wants to maintain some sort of control over the day to day commercial activities of the Corporation. I do not know why the Minister would want to do that. If he were convinced in his mind that he would be appointing competent people to the Corporation, the last thing he ought to do or should want to do is to tell them how to run the Corporation. But there is no doubt that the clause referring to that matter suggests that that is the case. I notice from the petition presented to the Senate this morning that, in fact, the producers are making that very point. I think that they are entitled to make the point.
The same comment applies in regard to the restrictions placed on the Corporation in respect of trade within Australia. The Government, for some reason or other, is saying that the Corporation cannot do that. Why should not it do so? The bulk of our meat production is marketed in Australia. Is the Corporation being restricted because this will influence some of the very powerful friends that pay large amounts of money to the Liberal and National Country parties? Is it that the Government does not want to see their activities interfered with? That is the only reason I can see for the Government being prepared to hamstring the Corporation. If it is to be a body which can act in the commercial market, it ought to be able to make a commercial judgment as to whether it should involve itself in certain trading activities. I would have thought that advocates of the free enterprise system would support that principle but it appears that it does not apply in relation to a government trading body. Unless the corporation, as the producers themselves have pointed out in their petition, is allowed to make those commercial judgments in its own right, obviously it will not achieve the progress which it should achieve. That will be to the detriment to the industry as a whole. Although the Opposition is not opposing the legislation, it will move amendments at the Committee stage. I will confine my further remarks until we reach that stage.
– Due to the restriction on time allowed for this debate, I will confine my remarks to what I consider to be the pertinent points in the Bills. Senator Wriedt made what was for him a rather loose speech. It definitely was not up to his normal standards. I intend to refer to 3 matters which he discussed. He talked about the protest yesterday as if it is some rather unique function that has happened only since this Government returned to office. He has a very short memory. If he lent his mind to the matter no doubt he would recall the tremendous amount of protest all over Australia from the rural section during the region of the Labor Government. He talks about ministerial control and attempts to assert that this new Bill allows the Minister to impose more control. In fact, as I will demonstrate later, the Minister will be exerting less control over the direct functions of the new corporation. He referred also rather loosely to the lack of control over trade within Australia. He, above all, should know that this Government has no power whatsoever to legislate in that area.
There has been general dissatisfaction with the present Meat Board in 2 areas. The first is the lack of communication between producers and the Board itself. I agree with that criticism. I think that it is quite a valid criticism to make. The second general criticism is that meat prices are too low. I suggest that that is quite an unfair criticism of the present Meat Board. Australia is the largest exporter of meat in the world. The percentage of meat that is exported is growing. The numbers of cattle in Australia are growing alarmingly. An Australian marketing board cannot be expected to have more than a slight influence on the price that we receive overseas. There was general agreement that the present Meat Board needs to be changed. In passing I would like to pay tribute to the present Board. There are many fine people on that Board. They have done their very best within the restrictions placed upon them and limited by the terms of reference under which they have to operate. They have done a first-class job. In particular I wish to pay tribute to Mr Paddy Dempster of Western Australia, a grower-member, who has been on that Board for many years.
Leading up to the introduction of this legislation, there were many months of consultations with grower organisations and with other interested groups. In fact, the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) has stated that something like 200 representations were made to him. Together with Senator Lewis and Senator
Archer, who both strongly support this legislation, I am a member of the Government Parties back bench rural committee. The committee received about the same number of representations as the Minister received. It is rather interesting, in the light of the protest yesterday, to consider the 2 things that the producers say that they want. Firstly, they want the Board to appoint their nominees to the Board. They have that now. Secondly, they want a majority membership of the Board. They have that now. Yet they say that the present Board is not functioning properly.
Briefly, I intend to underline some of the differences between the new corporation and the present Board. The new corporation is to have much wider powers, particularly over livestock exports. I will come back to that later. It will have the power to act independently of the Ministerthis underlines the statement which was made by Senator Wriedt- within guidelines established by the Corporation in consultation with the Minister. So provided it works within those guidelines it is quite entitled to act completely independently of ministerial control. The Corporation has much wider trading powers, and these will be assisted by its right to borrow money. The only restriction on its power to borrow money is that any borrowing must be approved by the Treasurer, and that is a reasonable restriction. It also will have much wider powers over the control of shipping, and this too is quite important.
The present Board has a membership of ten, comprising 6 producers, 2 representatives of processors and 2 of exporters. The new Corporation is designed to have a membership of nine, comprising 4 producer representatives, one representative of processors and exporters, one Government nominee, 2 people with special qualifications and one chairman. Senator Wriedt pointed out that its structure is identical with the structure of the Australian Wool Corporation which is recognised by all wool growers as contributing a great deal to the wool industry.
One very important feature of this legislation is the formation of consultative groups which will play a large role in communications between growers, exporters, manufacturers and the Corporation. It will advise the Corporation on day to day problems in the industry. Another quite important role will be to nominate new members of the Corporation. The Minister has the right to select names from a panel submitted by the producer consultative group. The formation of the consultative groups will be carried out by regulation in the short term, but it is expected that this will be confirmed by legislation at a later date. I urge the Minister to consider having Western Australia represented by 3 members on the consultative groups and make a special plea that one of the grower representatives on the Corporation should be from Western Australia. The meat industry in Western Australia has some unique problems. It is a vast State, and there are different problems in different parts of the State. For instance, the Kimberleys in the north has different problems from those of the great southern area where the bulk of the cattle are found. The great southern area has mostly mixed farming. Many farmers in this area run only cattle, but the majority have a mixture of cattle and other stock. Western Australia supplies just on 75 per cent of live sheep exports, and for this reason alone it should have ample representation on the Corporation and on the consultative groups.
The formation of the consultative groups is still being hotly debated, but I recommend very strongly to the grower organisations that they bend their minds to this problem. The method of election or appointment has still not been decided, and I think it is terribly important that it be determined. It has been suggested by the Minister that the Producer Consultative Group be elected by a poll of producers. I ask the Minister to reconsider that suggestion, for 3 reasons. Firstly, the cost of establishing a list of producers and of voting is astronomical. Secondly, the timing will create problems because it is recognised in the legislation that the two Consultative Groups have to be formed and be functioning before the Corporation can be formed. The other reason is a little more difficult to explain. In Australia we have a very strong, well organised group of producer organisations. If the organisations were entitled to nominate members to the consultative group they could be used as a forum to communicate with growers.
In summary I recommend that the Minister should give thought to the possibility of using the present organisations as a forum to nominate members to the consultative group. I have seen this process in action in New Zealand. Members of the meat board and the wool board in New Zealand are elected in this way. It can probably be described as an electoral college system. It works very well there. It must be remembered that New Zealand has only one grower organisation. If the Minister and the Government persevere with the election of the consultative group several criteria must be considered. First of all, we must not have this consultative group elected, for instance, by Victorian dairy farmers, Western
Australian wheat producers and Queensland sugar producers. This would happen if every person who is connected with the raising of cows or sheep had a vote for this consultative group. 1 am saying that the minimum stock numbers requirement must be sufficiently high to make sure that the genuine meat producers elect their own consultative group. I strongly recommend multiple voting for this group so that the meat producers themselves are the people who elect their own consultative group.
In the brief time left to me in this debate I urge the new Corporation, when it is formed, to proceed with all haste in the implementation of meat classification. This will be a important function of the Corporation. It will improve the knowledge of the producers. It will tell them exactly the sort of stock that the consumer requires. Another important function of this new Corporation will be to try to reduce costs. Costs are one of the greatest problems in the whole of the rural area. A reduction in inflation will help overcome those problems. If the Corporation can initiate moves to reduce the handling costs- the slaughter costs, the processing costs and the freight costs- it will contribute a great deal to the industry. I also urge the Corporation, when dealing with the subject of live sheep exports, to consult with the State governments and with the State Ministers for Agriculture. We have reached, after painful negotiations, an understanding with the various unions involved in Western Australia regarding this important trade. I urge the new Corporation, when it becomes functional, to take cognisance of and consult very closely with State governments on this matter. I wish the new Corporation well.
– Again I wish to place on record a protest about the indecent haste with which this Government has introduced this legislation and about the way in which it is forcing the legislation through the chamber. The major Bill in the 4 Bills that are being dealt with at the moment is the one concerning the establishment of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation. This matter has provoked an enormous amount of criticism of the Government in general and of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) in particular from beef producers, and meat producers generally, over the last 6 or 8 months. While some of this criticism is perhaps harsh, it is a well known fact that the present Minister for Primary Industry is one of the most slothful and indolent of all the Ministers in this slothful
Government. For that reason at least the criticism which has been heaped upon him- the demands for Sinclair to resign, to get out- is certainly well deserved.
It reflects, of course, on the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) that he should have allowed this situation to continue. The Minister for Primary Industry was clearly not applying himself to the job for which he is responsible. The Minister for Primary Industry has been talking about establishing this Corporation since October last year. On Friday of last week the Bill finally appeared in the House of Representatives. In an attempt to get the Minister off the hook, Mr S. A. J. Fletcher the President of the National Country Party in Western Australia is playing the Country Party’s old game of blaming its Liberal Party allies for everything that is unpopular and everything that goes wrong. I cannot understand how members of the Liberal Party continue to tolerate this treachery by their minority so-called coalition allies. The President of the National Country Party in Western Australia said that the Federal Government’s controversial decisions should be blamed on Federal Liberal members of Parliament. According to Mr Fletcher, people like Senator Chaney and Senator Thomas who preceded me in this debate are the people to blame for the inadequacies of this Bill which a Country Party Minister for Primary Industry has introduced. Mr Fletcher said: . . producers should recognise who were the real villains.
He went on to identify the real villains as the 4 Western Australian Liberal Party members of the backbench rural committee.
- Senator Chaney is not a member.
- Mr Fletcher made general reference to all Federal Liberal members of Parliament being responsible for this legislation and a more specific reference to the 4 Western Australian Liberal Party backbench members of the rural committee. I think they are Senator Thomas, Mr Drummond, Mr Bungey and Mr Hyde. Apart from sharing the general culpability of all members of the Liberal Party for the deficiencies of this legislation, those four bear a double responsibility according to Mr Fletcher.
– You are voting for it are you not?
– Of course we are voting for it. What option have we? We are moving amendments in an attempt to improve it. I thank Senator Baume for his interjection. This Corporation is urgently required. Events of the last year or so have shown the urgent need for reform in the marketing and export of Australian meat. The best piece of legislation that this Government can introduce is this shoddy, ill considered, halfbaked Bill which was brought down last Friday in the House of Representatives. Of course we are voting for it because it represents some improvement on the existing situation. It is far inferior to what could have been introduced if the present Minister for Primary Industry was not so slothful and incompetent.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Young)- Order! Senator Walsh, you should be careful in your choice of language. You are within Standing Orders at present but if you go much further you will be outside Standing Orders.
-I sympathise with members of the Liberal Party in their discomfort. I see that they do not like to hear what their so-called Country Party allies in Western Australia say about them. They do not like the attention of the public being drawn to the fact that the Country Party continually stabs the Liberal Party in the back. Mr Fletcher continued:
It is all very well to blame the Minister for Primary Industry, but it should be remembered that as a Minister he is bound to abide by Cabinet decisions.
The industry should also remember that the NCP is a minority partner in the inner Cabinet, which would tend to be influenced by the back-bench rural committee.
That proposition which Mr Fletcher puts forward is an interesting one. What Mr Fletcher is saying is that the National Country Party does not have the numbers in Cabinet and therefore is totally ineffective. That is not a proposition which I would seriously dispute. However, it interests me that the President of the National Country Party in Western Australia shares my view that the Country Party is a minority party in government, that it is totally ineffective, and that, therefore, there is no reason for its existence. Given that the President of the Country Party in one State at least has tacitly acknowledged that there is no reason for the existence of that Party, I fail to understand why members of the Liberal Party continue to tolerate this treachery which is exemplified yet again by Mr Fletcher, the Western Australian President of the Country Party. The Country Party has been doing this sort of thing for as long as I can remember. I do not know why the mugs opposite do not wake up. In relation to everything popular that is done in the bush, the Country Party says: ‘We were responsible for that’. In relation to everything that is unpopular and unfortunate, it says: ‘Do not blame us; that was the Liberal Party’.
– Why do you not speak about the Bill?
– An honourable senator has asked me to say something in detail about the Bill. All of my remarks are highly relevant to the Bill. I would like to mention one other point. As well as the humbugs, charlatans and poseurs of the Country Party, there are some so-called independent or rebellious senators in the Liberal Party who have been muttering, albeit not quite so openly or so brazenly as the Country Party, about their alleged opposition to the legislation and their sympathy with the producer groups who have been pressing for changes. There is one particular so-called rebel or rebellious Liberal Party senator who has been giving a sympathetic hearing in private to the producer groups who have been complaining. I want to place on record that that particular pseudorebellious Liberal, Senator Martin, has ducked out of the Senate today-
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Young)- Order! Senator Walsh, you will withdraw those remarks. It is not for you to say who is rebellious and who is not rebellious in this chamber.
– Which remarks-‘ Who is rebellious ‘?
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT- You said that Senator Martin is rebellious.
– I withdraw the remarks. I would not have thought that Senator Martin would object to that description being applied to her. I think she was claiming some credit for it a couple of weeks ago.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I suggest that Senator Walsh returns to discussion of the Bill.
-It is relevant to the Bill, I suggest with respect, Mr Acting Deputy President, to point out that people who have been criticising this legislation- members of Parliament like Senator Martin- are not even here when it is being discussed. Senator Martin has ducked back to Queensland and will not be held responsible for anything that happens today concerning this legislation.
Let me read part of the legislation to the Senate to demonstrate the slothful way in which it has been prepared and is being presented. It is an insult to the Parliament. Clause 6, which is to be found in Part II of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation Bill, reads:
There is established by this section a Corporation by the name of the Australian M-eat and Live-stock Corporation.
Clause 19, which deals with the members of the Corporation representing livestock producers, reads:
So, it is reasonably clear to this stage that the Corporation Bill will be established and that its members will be nominated by, inter alia, a producer consultative group. That begs the question: What is the producer consultative group? Clause 41, which is to be found in Part VI of the Bill, reads:
For the purposes of this Act, there are hereby established-
. . . the Live-stock Producers Consultative Group;
. . . the Meat and Live-stock Exporters and Abattoir Operators Consultative Group; and
. . . the Australian Meat Industry Conference.
There suddenly everything stops. We do not have the faintest idea of the manner in which these consultative groups, these components of the Meat and Live-stock Corporation, will be elected. The voting entitlement of the persons who form these consultative groups is not stated; their method of election is not stated. So, we are given no idea whatsoever about these matters. The Corporation itself will comprise members of these consultative groups, plus a government employee. Their names will be submitted by the consultative groups, which exist in name only. They just do not exist in reality; they exist only because this Bill asserts that they exist. I suppose that eventually even the present Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) might get around to doing something to establish these groups. What will be the voting entitlement? How will the elections for the consultative groups be conducted? Surely any government which wished to retain any shred of credibility would have worked these matters out and made a clear statement before having the audacity to introduce such a bill into the Parliament.
The Opposition will press these questions again at the Committee stage. If the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Senator Durack) sees fit to answer the questions- that would be a substantial improvement on his preformance over the last few days- I ask him, in fact, I challenge him to tell us, before this so-called House of review passes yet another Bill that was introduced into the House of Representatives only last Thursday, who will be entitled to vote and what will be the method of election. Finally-
– Hear, hear!
– I notice that my friends in the Liberal Party are saying: ‘Hear, hear!’. Again I sympathise with them in the acute embarrassment inflicted upon them by their treacherous National Country Party colleagues who say: ‘Do not blame the National Country Party Minister for Primary Industry for this dreadful Bill; blame the Liberal Party in general, and in particular the 4 Western Australian Liberal Party back benchers on the Rural CommitteeSenator Thomas, Mr Bungey, Mr Hyde and Mr Drummond ‘. I wish to dissociate myself from the libel of those 4 people committed by the President of the National Country Party in Western Australia. Whatever deficiencies those 4 people may have, they all have a far better grasp of this matter, and of every other matter, than any National Country Party politician I can name off the cuff. Certainly, they have devoted more attention to this matter and have a far better grasp of it than has the Minister for Primary Industry.
If the Minister for Primary Industry cannot perform better in the future than he has in the past, the Prime Minister will be abdicating his responsibility if he allows the situation to continue. Either Mr Sinclair should be replaced as Minister for Primary Industry- sacked as Minister for Primary Industry- as producer groups all over Australia have been demanding for several months, or at least he should be sacked as Leader of the House. The record demonstrates so clearly that, however well he may be performing as Leader of the House- I think he is quite skilful in that position- he is not discharging adequately his duties as Minister for Primary Industry. The final responsibility for that untenable situation clearly rests with the Prime Minister himself.
– I support the Bills. Because of the need for brevity in what we say on this occasion, I shall not spend much time talking about the most recent contribution from Senator Walsh. Perhaps I will spend one minute on it- and maybe even that is more than it deserves. Senator Walsh seems to be intent on suggesting that there is a rift in the coalition and that the division may be seen clearly in what happened during the development of this legislation. I emphasise that the legislation that is before us today is the result of the combined Parties and the combined
Government committee. It is the result of examination by the joint Party room. It has the approval of both those bodies. There is no indication at all, and never has been, that there is any sort of problem relating to it that is referable to the Parties comprising this Government.
As usual Senator Walsh seems to take objection to the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Sinclair, in the performance of his duties in this Parliament. I am sure that Mr Sinclair is capable of looking after himself, even against the attacks of Senator Walsh. He certainly would be one of the most highly regarded members of the Government in this country so there is really no need for me to say more than that in regard to Mr Sinclair. Senator Walsh asked, among other things: ‘Who will be entitled to vote? Why is this not written into the legislation?’ Of course the formation of the consultative group is still being discussed and there is still a measure of disunity among the industry organisations. When the final decision is made on who shall vote and how, it will be written into the Act. I think that is a proper and responsible attitude to take.
This legislation is the result of a long and continuing period, running into a considerable number of months, of discussions between the organisations, their representatives and this Government, including Mr Sinclair in particular. The situation has about it a measure of irony because in the course of those months there was an insistence that there was a real urgency to bring this Corporation into operation. Indeed from time to time the Minister has been accused of procrastination. Yet now that the legislation has been finalised-not that it cannot be improved in the passage of time; most pieces of legislation can be improved in the passage of time- and it has been brought to fruition before this session ends, the criticism, only in some quarters now, is that it has been done too quickly. It is pretty difficult when first we are accused of procrastinating, and then when the goods are produced it is suggested that we have produced them too quickly. One of the problems that has been inherent in this whole procedure and one of the unfortunate circumstances is that there has been present real and distinguishable disunity among the producer organisations. I hope that in the course of the next few months there will be a much greater measure of unity because the ultimate survival of every individual in the rural industry is dependent on unity between the organisations that represent them.
The purpose of this legislation is to form a corporation to take the place of the Australian Meat Board. There was an urgency in the request from most of the producer organisations around Australia that this should be a matter of high priority. The corporation that has been produced is, I believe, a proper and responsible compromise and a base upon which can be built the ultimate solutions of an industry in Australia which has been suffering extremely bad times in recent years. Of course we have to recognise that the mere establishment of this corporation, even though it may be- and I believe it will be- an extremely effective body, will not of itself be the solution to the massive problems that confront the Australian beef industry.
Statutory control in Australia is nothing new in the marketing of beef or meat for export. It has existed since 1935, with the exception, of the years 1943-46. There was a restructuring of the Meat Board in 1946 and 1964 and some minor changes took place in 1 969. Statutory control has been part and parcel of the export of beef in this country for all those years.
The industry has come through some extraordinarily difficult years. What happened in those years in some sense reminds us of the disastrous wool situation which in 1 970 led to the establishment of the Australian Wool Commission which was the prelude to the Australian Wool Corporation. The Corporation was virtually the saviour of the wool industry of this country. As a result of those disastrous times, vast numbers of Australian producers sought to save themselvesand who would not do this- by moving from a wool industry into a beef industry that looked more hopeful. They did so at extreme cost. We saw them selling their sheep at about 50c a head and purchasing cattle at $ 1 20 a head. These were the sorts of circumstances that resulted in the wrong sort of country being used in the cattle industry. In many instances this added to the difficulties. The difficulties were added to by sources outside the control of this country. In 1973 and 1974 there was a cattle boom and it was followed by a tragic slump. This was associated with the loss of the United Kingdom market upon its entry into the European Economic Community. This slump was added to by the problem of the energy crisis around the world which denied some of our major markets sufficient funds to enter into the market for beef cattle. These are the sorts of tragic and, in some measure, uncontrollable factors that have created the problems in the beef industry and which are the reason for the state the industry is in today.
This Corporation is the first realistic attempt to give us a structural base from which the industry may climb into new markets, into new methods and into new presentation. I believe it is an effective and proper base. I believe that when the great mass of Australian producers sit down and divorce themselves from emotionalism and look at the thing from a realistic and reasonable point of view, they will agree that it is a proper and useful base.
In the confines of a minute or two, may I just refer to the composition of the Corporation. This is almost the only point on which there is much real disunity at this time. Indeed, the composition of the Corporation has been accepted by a very significant number of producer organisations. As time goes by, I am sure that the Corporation’s performance will gain it a far wider acceptance. Four members out of the 9 members of the Corporation are to be producers. This at least is a very significant involvement. It is a 45 per cent involvement, if put in statistical terms. But it is more than that because within the legislation there is a provision which states that there will be no quorum of the Corporation unless a producer is present. So this is another area in which there is a real measure of producer control.
Basically, I believe it is important that there be maximum involvement but it has to be within a structure that recognises that the beef industry and the meat industry are vertically integrated industries. One cannot look totally at the base, at the beginning, at the production of livestock in terms other than as it relates to ultimate consumption. There has to be recognition of this sort of progress. This sort of structure, whilst giving the producer a very significant involvement, in fact by far the most significant involvement, also recognises the importance of the exporter, the importance of the man with special qualifications. Surely- I believe most reasonable producers would agree with me- in the long term the survival and the development of this industry is basically dependent on the expertise that represents and promotes it.
I believe that this legislation does not give undue control to the Minister. In fact, he will have less control over the new Corporation than he has had over the Australian Meat Board. In certain areas it is essential to have some measure of control. In every area of control the Minister has to realise that whatever control he exerts is published in the Gazette and published in the annual report of the Corporation. This means that the measure of responsibility that lies with the Minister is quite enormous. It seems strange to me that one could think that Ministers are so unrealistic that they would not recognise that responsibility. We hope and believe that this Corporation will represent a responsible compromise in a situation that has to be remedied. It represents a proper base. The efficacy of this Corporation will depend largely now upon the industry getting behind it. Any legislation in the last resort is effective only insofar as it is recognised and promoted by the people it is meant to defend. I support the Corporation and the Bills that are being considered cognately in this debate.
– It has often been said that farmers as a group are conservative. I believe that to be a truism. It has been said of farmers in the industry in which I was engaged for years that one could push them face down in the mud and they would not kick but once one put one ‘s foot on the back of their necks they might start to do something. I think that is a truism also. The great debate relative to the beef industry that has been carried on around the Commonwealth in recent times has shown that when conditions are bad, given the right leadership and the right circumstances, Australian farmers can become very militant. That is the situation as I have perceived it in recent months. In all the rural areas to which one has been able to go groups of farmers are talking politics, being prepared to put their jobs on the line, to shoot stock and to take actions that they have never taken in years past to bring to the attention of this Parliament and the people of Australia the dire circumstances in which they and their industry find themselves at this point of time.
Make no mistake, there is a need for a vigorous, dynamic meat and livestock corporation to take some control and to play some role in the marketing and exporting of Australian meat. Whether the Corporation that will be established under this Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Bill will be dynamic enough perhaps only time will tell. For myself, I am somewhat sceptical. I am particularly perturbed by the amount of control the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) is contemplating exercising over the Corporation. Surely to goodness any Minister should act as we saw the previous Minister for Agriculture, Senator Wriedt, act when he established corporations. He had confidence in the men he appointed to those corporations and from then on played a hands off policy. That is the way it should be. If there are not sufficient people in Australia to control and run a corporation of this size and type then all Australians should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. I believe the men are there and the Minister should get out of the field and leave it to the people who know something about it.
One of the things that has concerned me for a number of years has been the control of our meat industry by exporters. The supplement that has been presented with the Australian Meat Board report each year lists some 248 companies with licences to export meat. 1 think that that is a luxury that the livestock industry could well do without. There are 248 companies which have export licences. I have explained to the Senate on other occasions the situation that prevails when an overseas company wishes to buy meat in Australia and the role that such companies play. They play one of these 248 exporting companies off against another and knock down the prices- in the same way as the Japanese knocked down prices for our minerals prior to Rex Connor becoming a Minister in the Labor Government. The end result is a depleted price which is reflected in the saleyards in the following week, month or 12 months. The farmers of Australia are the losers. As far as I am concerned, there is no requirement for 248 companies to have licences to export meat. I hope that the Bill will give to the Corporation sufficient teeth to allow it to go alone if required. 1 hope that it will not be subject to pressures from overseas buyers but will act in the interests of the Australian beef producer.
I should like briefly to deal with one other matter. If one message is coming through very loud and very clear in the rural areas of Australia at the present time, it is the feelings of the livestock producers vis-a-vis the auction system. It is easy as a member of Parliament to become somewhat alienated from one’s traditional environment. I have to admit that about 3 months ago I visited my local sale yards for the first time in about 3 years. All of a sudden, I realised what a lucky dip, what a raffle, the auction system is. I sat there for a couple of hours and watched cattle of the same style, the same type and the same conformation go through the selling yards and saw the price vary from $40 to $50 a head. I was made painfully aware of the loss the producers are suffering because of the way in which the saleyards are run. It is something at which everybody, I think, should look. If they realised the way that cattle are handled under the current auction system in Australia, they would realise that there is a great loss to this community. Cattle are prodded, poked, belted, chased, dogged, flogged and knocked down. I am sure that if the same treatment was given to pet dogs or to pet cats the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals would come down with a very heavy hand on the people involved.
– That would be the minority.
-It is not the minority. It is the majority. It is a shocking system. I believe that the next lead that should be taken by the cattle producers of Australia is to get away from the auction system and to establish some form of classification for meat. They should take action similar to action taken by their counterparts in New Zealand which has been successful for years.
– I regret that having taken 12 months to put my story together I will have to deliver it in 10 minutes. I am rather disappointed. I should like to raise a couple of points with respect to this legislation. No witness which the Senate Standing Committee on Trade and Commerce interviewed said at any stage that the Government should keep out of the area of control of the meat industry. No one said that controls were not necessary. I am not upset by the degree of authority that has been vested in the Minister in this legislation in the areas specified. I should like to draw attention to a table that was produced in the House of Representatives Hansard. I seek leave to have this table incorporated in Hansard.
-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.
The table read as follow-
– What date was it in Hansard!
– It appeared in the House of Representatives Hansard of 3 1 May 1977. In view of the way that the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Wriedt) complained about the powers of the Minister, I was rather surprised to find that in the amendments that he circulated it is proposed that a new clause 9A would give about five times more power to the Minister than presently proposed. It states:
The Minister may give directions to the Corporation concerning the performance of the functions and the exercise of the powers and the Corporation shall comply with those directions.
Senator Primmer and Senator Wriedt, in their parsimonious way, said that the Minister had too much power. If the Opposition’s amendment does not give total, utter and complete power then I do not know what else does. With the greatest respect, I cannot see that one person can be expected to have the same degree of oversight of the operation of the Corporation as the Minister. I would not expect the producers or processors to be able to exercise the same degree of oversight.
Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.
– Prior to the suspension of the sitting I was talking about various provisions of the Bill. The next one on which I should like to comment concerns the numerical strength of the bodies to comprise the membership of the Corporation. I fully support the proposal to have 4 producer representatives. I believe that there is ample security and safety in the Bill for the producers. I must say that I believe that if the producers are represented by 4 of the 9 members and they are unable to sway one more member to gain a majority, I would have to think that the proposition they were putting forward may lack some strength in itself. I can honestly say that I believe that to change the Bill in this respect at this stage would not give the producer members any more strength and that I think it would only weaken the potential to have another man with more expertise on the Corporation.
I have endeavoured to judge all the schemes that have been raised with me by various people from sections of the community who have shown an interest in the Bill on the basis of whether they are likely to bring more money in the system for the producers. Of all the schemes that I have heard put forward on representation, the directions of the Minister for Primary Industry and so on, I have not seen one that would tend to make any more money available to the industry. I think the best advice I can give to the people who are concerned about the Bill is that they should bear in mind that such schemes must produce more money before they would be an improvement. With the Corporation being set up in the way in which it is proposed it is certainly going to throw a lot more responsibility on the producer to ensure that they get the people on whom they can count on the Corporation.
It has been said in the past that the members of the Australian Meat Board have not reported back satisfactorily and so on. I do not blame any particular group for this. I know that it is a fact and I know that this is the opportunity to change the situation. The quality of the people elected to the Corporation will be of paramount importance. But I cannot see how it would have made any difference to a lot of the fundamental issues that were raised in the past if there had been 4, 6 or 66 producer members of the Australian Meat Board. If representation by a majority of producer members would fix it we would not be here today discussing the Bill. It gets back to a matter of expertise and having the best people possible. I am particularly grateful to the Minister for including the appeal provisions as to both licensing and trading in clauses 12 (4) and 13 (4). I have had very strenuous representations from my home State on this matter. The group which did this work is to be congratulated on the presentation it made and the fact that we have been able to have these clauses included in the Bill. I regard them as being most valuable inclusions.
Classification is being talked about. I should like to say that classification is to me a most necessary tool in the marketing of meat, but I suggest that people should not pin all their hopes on it solving their problems. There is no way that classification will either solve the problems or add one dollar to meat marketing in Australia. It will rearrange the meat marketing and in the longer term it will certainly improve the situation. I noticed that one of the leaders of the farming community- I think he was from Victoriastated the other day that meat classification would solve all the ills. It certainly would not and I would not like it to be thought that at any stage it would be likely to do so.
The marketing of meat is where the real issue arises. This is where the expertise is particularly needed. In this regard I saw a comment by one of our major customer countries, as reported in the Bulletin a few weeks ago, that I thought was an absolute classic in careful marketing. I would like to refer to it at this stage. The Japanese Ambassador was reported in the Bulletin of 7 May as saying:
I cannot say and do not even know whether the coming quota will be the same, more or less than the previous one. But the tonnage will definitely fall within one of these 3 options.
Our biggest hope for the future lies in Japan, even having regard to that sort of inscrutable comment. I think that probably the biggest single task that I see before the proposed Corporation is the need to get more co-operation between the Japanese Government and the Japanese industry. If we can get a better inlet into Japan at a reasonable marketable price I think that many of the other problems that we see today will suddenly disappear.
I would like to deal with a couple of other matters very quickly. One is disease eradication. We are considering disease eradication legislation cognately with other meat industry legislation. I do not think the way in which we are dealing with this group of Bills does justice to the disease eradication Bills. I cannot stress too strongly or place too highly the importance of disease eradication. I do not think enough is being done in this area by the States and by the Federal Government. I do not think that the producers sufficiently understand the significance of the problem. I urge the Government to expand the disease eradication program in every way possible and to try to achieve a disease free situation by about 1 98 1 or 1 982 at the latest. The longer disease is not eradicated the more expensive this problem will become. It is horrible to think of the advantage other cattle producing countries will have in a market situation if we do not eliminate the risk of disease. I ask the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) and the Government to think very seriously about this matter and to take the necessary action.
Another matter I raise concerns livestock exports. I believe that currently meat is our fifth largest export earner and that export income from livestock is still very small. We need countries to develop a taste for meat, and we can meet that demand by exporting livestock. A very excellent investigation recently completed by the Department of Overseas Trade sets out the position. I would have liked to have referred to some figures from this work but time does not permit me to do so. This is an area on which I believe the o new Corporation could spend a great deal of time. I believe that we could go a long way towards improving the position if the producers of Australia considered exporting livestock as an alternative to selling meat. Of course, we would need to get a little co-operation from men like Mr 0 ‘Toole in Melbourne.
I thank the Tasmanian producers and processors for the relationship that I have been able to establish with them over the last 12 months. Representatives of both the Tasmanian Farmers Federation and the Tasmanian Farmers, Stockowners and Orchardists Association have been terrifically co-operative. I appreciate the manner in which we have been able to have regular discussions. The Meat Exporters Association of Tasmania has also been very cooperative. I am proud to say that I know of no other State that could compare with Tasmania in the co-operation that exists between sections of the industry. They have all worked together. They have met together. Recently they even formed a consortium to achieve better shipping arrangements into Tasmania. Action of this sort has done wonders for the producers. As a result Tasmanian livestock producers have received the highest prices this year of any State in Australia.
In conclusion I would ask 2 questions of the Minister for Veterans Affairs (Senator Durack) for consideration. I asked these questions of the Minister for Primary Industry earlier. I now formally ask them in this place. First, would the Minister be prepared to place the points in question under some sort of surveillance or reconsideration in 12 months time so that we can then see whether any problem has arisen in any of the heated areas? Secondly, would the Minister preclude nominations of people with special qualifications if they came from either producer or processor representatives or would they be acceptable if their special qualifications were good enough?
– In speaking on the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Bill I join with my Leader, Senator Wriedt, with my colleague, Senator Walsh, and with many people in the beef industry in criticising the Government for the haste in which this legislation has been brought before the Parliament. We know, as - Senator Walsh pointed out, that the first opportunity members of the Opposition had to look at the legislation was on Thursday of last week when it was introduced in the other place. I note <nhat when Senator Scott was speaking he did refer to the fact that the joint coalition Parties had given long and serious consideration to the legislation. That astounds me because in an article in the Australian Financial Review of 23 May by Mr Michael Byrnes we read:
Mr Sinclair’s office confirmed on Friday that the Bill for the establishment of the corporation would go to the joint party room this Wednesday, and would be presented to the House on either Wednesday or Thursday of this week.
Mr Sinclair’s office confirmed that the joint parties did not see the legislation until Wednesday. It came into the House of Representatives on Thursday. Yet Senator Scott tells the Senate and the people at large- the people who are interested in this legislation- that the joint parties had given long and careful consideration to the legislation. They might have given long and careful consideration to what they thought might or should be in the Bill. But as Mr Sinclair’s office has confirmed, not one of those members knew until Wednesday of last week what were the contents of the legislation. My complaint and the complaint of other members of the Opposition has been that we did not have time. I had to rush around here last Friday to get some copies of the legislation to send it out to the people who were interested in it so that I could get their reaction and some comment. But it was impossible to do this because if we sent the information out over the weekend we could not get a response before it was debated in the House of Representatives.
I met a lot of cattle men who came to Canberra yesterday. I met with them in Kings Hall. On the conversations I had with them I would say that very few of them ever supported the Labor Party.
– They are disenchanted.
– They are very disenchanted, as I will mention later. In conversation with them, they expressed their utmost disgust that this legislation should be railroaded through this Parliament when they were not aware of the contents of the legislation. They were most bitter about it. I think the Labor Party would have won a lot of friends amongst these people. I was able to point out to them that the Labor Party’s resources committee was not able to consider the legislation until we called a special meeting on Monday at 10 a.m. to have a look at the legislation. So much for Senator Scott saying that long and careful consideration had been given to the legislation! If he is correct in what he says, I must say that communications between the Country Party and the people who normally vote Country Party in New South Wales are sadly lacking because none of those people who were at Parliament House yesterday had any communications or had had any discussions with their Country Party representatives in both Houses of this Parliament as to what the legislation was all about. We now find that because these organisations have not been given the opportunity to study the legislation they have said that they are contemplating taking legal action against the legislation when it is passed. I have no doubt that they will. In the same article by Michael Byrnes it is also reported:
Other industry organisations are taking legal advice on what obstructionist action might be taken if the corporation is established as previously proposed.
This week’s campaign against the corporation will follow last week’s blockading of the Gracemere saleyards. Rockhampton, by 200 graziers, transport officers and others in protest against the legislation.
Last Friday Mr Sinclair met with a stormy reception in Rockhampton when he addressed a meeting of cattlemen.
Mr Parkes of the Australian Cattlemen’s Union; and I understand that a senator in this chamber from Queensland has a very close association with the Cattlemen’s Union but unfortunately she is not here today to take part in this debate, as Senator Walsh pointed out- said:
They really blasted him. But he (Mr Sinclair) stuck to this guns. Maybe he is prepared to sacrifice a few backbenchers to get the legislation through.
Those are exactly the sentiments that were expressed to me by the cattlemen who assembled in Canberra yesterday. They are very disenchanted with Mr Sinclair and the dictatorial attitude that he is taking towards their industry. I point out that they are not the only section of primary industry which is very disenchanted with Mr Sinclair. When I spoke here some time ago on a primary industry Bill dealing with the fruit industry. I was able to illustrate from the many Press cuttings to which I referred that Mr Sinclair had already fallen foul of the fruit growers of Australia because he would not do anything to help them over a stile. That referred to the fact that he would not agree to convert a loan to fruit canners in South Australia to a direct grant as the Australian Labor Party Government did when it was in office and as the State Labor Government in South Australia has done.
Senator Scott said that Mr Sinclair was well able to look after himself. No one would argue with that statement. However, a great many farmers are of the opinion that Mr Sinclair is not able to look after their interests. I think that is proven -
– That is why they all voted for you at the last election!
– It is the next election that we will look at. I spoke about that when I quoted from that article. If Mr Sinclair is able to look after himself and if he is doing the things the farmers want him to do, why do we find in both today’s Age and Canberra Times a photograph of Mr Sinclair addressing about 1 100 irate cattle producers in front of this Parliament? The headings on the article, which is found on page 10 of the Melbourne Age are:
Angry cattlemen stage protest rally in Canberra, and:
Beef farmers jeer Sinclair.
The article states:
More than 1000 beef farmers jeered and booed the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Sinclair, at a protest rally outside Parliament House yesterday.
The farmers, from beef producing regions of New South Wales, threatened to oppose preselection of sitting MPs in their electorates if a Bill, setting up a new meat export body, is passed by the Senate.
So, those cattlemen put the ultimatum to the Government. They are from New South Wales. We have not yet had a reaction, by way of mass rallies, from beef producers in Queensland, South Australia, Victoria or Western Australia. It is quite evident that, once beef producers over the length and breadth of this country know that this legislation has gone through without the
Senate accepting the amendments proposed by my Party, those producers will be most irate.
It has been said around the corridors of the Parliament that some honourable senators opposite would like to see this Bill deferred until proper consultation can be had with the industry so that some of the problems that exist between the present Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the leaders of the industry can be resolved. Some honourable senators opposite have been reported as having had some misgivings about the legislation. I understand that Senator Wood is one. I saw his name on the speakers list when I looked earlier today. He might have something to say in the interest of the cattle producers from Queensland.
– What is written on that placard in the photograph?
– On that placard is written:
Stop Sinclair’s bull.
I do not know whether that is referring to a jersey bull, a brahmin bull or a hereford bull. Those words ‘Stop Sinclair’s bull’ are quite evident on the front of the placard.
If honourable senators opposite who have some misgivings about the legislation are sincere in their efforts to have it deferred, I suggest that all they need to do is to vote for the Opposition’s first amendment to the Bill, as that automatically defers the legislation because we know that the House of Representatives is not sitting. The legislation automatically will be deferred until the Budget session. That will give the primary producers, particularly the beef producers, ample time to have consultations with Mr Sinclair in an effort to resolve some of their problems. Senator Archer when speaking to this legislation was very critical of one of the amendments which will be moved by the Opposition during the Committee stage. He referred to new clause 9A which the Opposition is proposing to have inserted in the Bill. It reads as follows:
The Minister may give directions to the Corporation concerning the performance of the functions and the exercise of the powers and the Corporation shall comply with those directions.
Senator Archer went on to say that if that amendment was agreed to we would be giving the Minister some outlandish powers, that he would be able to do all sorts of things with the legislation. I want to remind Senator Archer that the clause we are suggesting is exactly the same as section 1 8( 1 ) of the Wheat Industry Stabilisation Act of 1974 which was approved by the National Country Party. What we are proposing, that in day to day matters the Corporation can act without first going to the Minister for approval, applies to the Wheat Board. In objecting to this amendment Senator Archer is doing the very opposite of what the producers want. As the Bill stands, the Corporation members will first have to go to the Minister before they can take any action. Does Senator Archer’s argument mean that the Liberal and National Country Parties now want to change the wheat industry stabilisation legislation as well? I doubt very much that they do, because an amendment to the Wheat Industry Stabilisation Act was assented to on 3 May last year and there was no provision in that amendment to delete section 18(1) of the Act. On the one hand Liberal and National Country Party senators opposite, and particularly Senator Archer, have no complaints about that particular clause being in the Wheat Industry Stabilisation Act, yet when it is put forward as an amendment to tidy up this piece of slip-shod legislation, as Senator Walsh referred to it, they say in criticism that we are giving undue power to the Minister. Quite the reverse will be the case.
I do not intend to speak for much longer but I want to refer to one thing, that is, the attitude taken by Mr Anthony some months ago, an attitude which was quite opposite to the attitude he takes towards the trade union movement. Mr Anthony is reported in the Sydney Morning Herald of 7 March as saying that he wanted the cattlemen to withhold their stock from market to boost prices. Under a Canberra dateline it says:
The Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Anthony, called on cattleproducers yesterday to send fewer stock to saleyards, so as to force up prices.
He is reported as having said:
If there could be some restraint now in sending cattle to saleyards, the producer could help to create conditions in which he will receive better prices for his stock.
The article goes on to say:
If graziers took Mr Anthony’s advice, the bottom could fall out of the market, as happened in 1974, a meat-industry spokesman warned last night.
Mr E. W. Horton, chief executive officer of the Meat and Allied Trades Federation, said graziers had withheld stock from the market after rains in 1 974 but, in May, Japan cut its imports of Australian beef.
When graziers sent their stock in to market in July the market completely collapsed,’ he said. ‘It is not beyond the realms of possibility that this could happen again. ‘
This is always a danger when primary produce has to be marketed under an auction system. The importance and the necessity of having some orderly marketing system of beef in this country is so evident. Until we get it, not only the graziers who produce beef but also the graziers who produce fat lambs will have to run the gauntlet of groups of people getting together in the auction yard and buying as a cartel, with one man buying for the lot and then splitting up the spoils after the auction. This is why the farmers will always be at a disadvantage until we get a proper system of marketing of their produce.
I think it was Senator Archer also who said that the problems of the beef industry would be solved if Australia was able to export more of its beef products to Japan. Evidently Senator Archer has not read the article in today’s Australian which says: ‘It’s a scandal to really beef about’. The article is written by Mr Clive Bolton and deals with some of the things that are going on in Japan. It states:
Cheap Australian beef has become the centre of a massive political scandal in Japan which could become as big as the Lockheed bribes affair.
According to a Japanese journalist who uncovered the mess, it involves millions of dollars and hundreds of people including Tokyo politicians as well as Australian beef producers.
Already the man who exposed the Meat Mafia, as it is being called, has been sacked from his job, ostracised by his friends and had his life threatened.
It all started when Mr Tetsuji Yokota, a writer with the Japanese Meat News Agency, asked the simple question: Why is beef so expensive over here?’
The result was a book called just that- Why is Beef Expensive?
It details exactly how beef can be IS times more expensive in Japan than when it leaves Australia ‘s shores.
Who is getting the rip-off? It is not the beef producer. We want to know who is getting the massive profit which is made between the time when the producer sells his beef at auction here until it goes over the butchers’ counters in Japan to the consumers. The article continues:
It details exactly how beef can be IS times more expensive in Japan than when it leaves Australia ‘s shores.
That is what I am concerned about.
The beef passes through a series of complications which add huge profit margins to unscrupulous Japanese dealers, with the consumer paying through the nose.
The first- and biggest- is the semi-government Live-stock Industry Promotion Corporation (LIPC), which more than doubles the original price.
I will not quote the whole of the article, but I do want to refer to a small section which is very pertinent to the legislation with which we are dealing. It states:
Yokota has got himself into trouble by hinting that the revenue is partly used to fund politicians- with the knowledge of LIPC officials and domestic meat barons, one of whom is said to own a ranch near Brisbane.
According to the article, Yokota said:
It was pressure from this powerful dealer, certain people in the agricultural ministry and LIPC who had me fired from my job’.
It has been claimed by this person that one of the people engaged in these massive mark-ups of prices in Japan is a ranch owner near Brisbane. We as members of Parliament and the beef industry itself ought to be making some very extensive inquiries to find out who this person is. I do not know who he is, but in the interests of the beef producers of this nation we ought to be looking at the matter and trying to find out who he is. As Mr Yokota has pointed out, there is a massive mark-up in beef prices between the point of sale before the cattle are processed in Australia and the time when the meat goes over the counter in the butchers ‘ shops in Japan to the consumers. If that continues, how are we going to assist the beef industry in this country when our commodities overseas are so dear? It has often been said by honourable senators opposite that the greatest problem faced by primary producers in this country is the high wage cost involved in producing any commodity. In view of that article, nobody could claim that the Australian work force is responsible for increasing the price of beef by 15 times between its sale in Australia and its sale in Japan. There are people who do not do any work except with their brains who are manipulating the market, and as a result the beef producer in Australia is suffering.
If this Bill is amended in the way the Opposition wishes it to be amended, the industry itself will have some control over its own product. It is for that reason that I say to honourable senators opposite that it is very important that they agree to the amendments we have put forward. If they do agree to them, I venture to say that they will save a lot of problems for their Country Party colleagues, and Senator Maunsell might be one of them. They will save many problems in the pre-selection ballots that will take place because the beef producers who came to Canberra yesterday are most emphatic that action will be taken if the Government does not move now to protect their interests. Honourable senators opposite always claim that they protect their interests. I say to them that here is an opportunity to do so. If honourable senators opposite support the amendment moved by the Opposition they will be showing clearly by their actions that they support the interests of the beef producers of this country.
-Mr President, I rise to support the Meat and Live-stock Corporation Bill. We have just heard Senator McLaren talk for about 20 minutes. Most of his speech was devoted to the internal policy of the Japanese Government which has protected its industry by imposing taxes. In
Australia, to protect our beef producers, we do not allow the importation of beef. The actions of the Japanese have nothing to do with the beef industry in Australia. This is what the Japanese want to do. It is up to them to decide whether they want to buy our meat. It is up to us at least to decide what price we want for it. I come back to the -
– The Japanese will not buy it if it is too expensive.
– The same thing has happened in regard to sugar. The Japanese Government does not want its people to buy sugar so a tax is placed on it. We place tariffs on imports coming into this country for the same reason. I will not argue with people who have just found out things that everyone else has known for years. I want to support this Bill because the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair), his staff, the Department of Primary Industry and the backbench members of the joint Government parties have been working on it for over 12 months. By the way, most of the back bench members concerned with the legislation represent rural electorates or beef producers or are beef producers themselves. For over 12 months they have been trying to sort out the tangle and the multitude of submissions from producer organisations.
It is most unfortunate in these very bad times for the beef industry that there is so much disunity. Unity should be the order of the day. A united industry could come to the Government and say: ‘This is what we want because it will get us out of our trouble’. Unfortunately, this has not happened. We have had faction fighting ever since the introduction of the legislation was suggested and it has been almost impossible to sort out the morass. I congratulate the Minister and those responsible for bringing in this Bill for at least being able to get something that is supported by most of the producers and which at least deals with the problems that the beef producers have put to the Government. The present situation is not unusual. This case has a parallel with the wool industry. The history of the matter goes back to 1 95 1 when we tried to institute marketing reform in the wool indistry. The faction fighting in the industry prevented that from taking place for 20 years. Eventually it was forced on the industry and now the Australian Wool Corporation is acting in the interests of the wool industry. We do not hear much criticism of the Corporation these days. It is doing its job.
The interesting point is that 2 people can take most of the credit for getting the wool industry out of its problems. One of them was a paint salesman. I do not want to denigrate Sir William Vines but that is what he was before he came to the wool industry. The other man, Alf Maiden, was a public servant. They were not wool producers. The fact is that they applied themselves. They had the expertise. They were brilliant people. They applied themselves to doing something for the industry. They were not fettered in their actions by having to report back to a multitude of people who were not au fait with the facts but who had all the ideas in the world. These 2 gentlemen did not have to face the situation that if they did not do what certain people wanted they would get the sack. No organisation can run on that basis.
It is regrettable that the wool producers, having accepted marketing reform and the floor price scheme, are paying 5 per cent of their gross returns a year into the scheme at a time when they can ill afford it. Had they accepted the scheme prior to 1 95 1 the additional tax paid in that year would have financed the whole scheme, not to mention the losses that have occurred in the interim period. This is the problem that we have today with this particular legislation. This Bill is not as controversial as has been made out by a lot of people. It is just an excuse for the warring factions within the industry to try to gain control of the rank and file. The interesting thing, of course, concerning all the requirements that have been made publicly throughout the Press and elsewhere about what they want to do to Sinclair, what they want to do to this Bill, is that when we talk to those leaders quietly and say, All right, let us get down to basic facts’, they say, No, there is not very much difference between us’. But, of course, they have lit the fires back in the bush in order to try to get the support of the rank and file of their organisations. Consequently, they must appear publicly to be out in front leading.
– Perhaps you need secret ballots.
– I have had a great deal of experience with primary industry organisations. Once we get these things finalised the dust settles and everything is all right again. To give honourable senators a typical example of the emotional outbursts that have been made, I have received-as, I would say, many other members and senators concerned with the beef industry in the various States have received- letters from rank and file people, members of our respective parties, from back in the bush, not from Canberra or from union leaders. They have been writing us letters and telling us how serious the position is. One can almost read between the lines that the difference between prosperity and ruin depends on one person on the Meat Corporation. In other words, if there are 4 members on the Meat Corporation, the producers will be faced with ruin; if there are five members, everything will be all right. This, of course, is what the leaders of some organisations have told these people. This is the big issue. They say that there must be producer control. But when we talk to those particular leaders here in Canberra, they change ground. They say: ‘Oh, no. That is not the problem now. We do not want producer control ‘. But they forget to tell the boys back in the bush. This is the silly situation in which we find ourselves.
The Government has done a lot of ground work on this matter. It has been going on for 12 months. Senator McLaren said: ‘The producers do not know what is going on.’ Every producer organisation months ago was given an outline of what the Bill may contain so that they could send back their reports or criticise it or do what they liked to it. This has been going on for 6 months. That is why all the protests were held last week and the week before. The Cattlemen’s Union representatives have come here saying that they want producer control of the Board. They say that the corporation that the Government is putting forward does not have producer control. They have all known the intent of the Bill for months. Probably if the Government had not told them what was in the Bill there would not be all the shemozzle that is going on now, but the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) has been determined to try to get some sort of unity within the industry. After all, it is the industry which must eventually live with the legislation. It is in their interests and therefore they should know what is best for them.
All that the Government has been trying to do for 12 months is to find out exactly what the industry believes is best for it. As I said before, this has happened to nearly every primary producing organisation or industry in which we have had to try to introduce marketing reform. All I can say, in the limited time that is available- it is unfortunate that on important legislation such as this we are limited in time- is that the sooner we pass this legislation and get on with the job of looking after the interests of the producers and let the warring factions go back to the bush and fight it out in the scrub, the better it will be for this nation and particularly for the beef producers. The next step I would like to see is that once this corporation is set up and it can handle those particular areas where there is Federal responsibility, the Commonwealth should then take a lead in endeavouring to get the States to agree on some form of classification. We can then have some form of minimum price arrangement or encourage some sort of minimum price so that we do not have this situation which occurs today where there is an over-supply of beef. When there is an over-supply of beef in the auction system, the producer is the one who will always suffer. We do not need minimum price provisions when there is an undersupply because the demand is there. If there is an undersupply, the price will go up. That is the situation at the moment. Because of the auction system which the producers have always wanted to retain we have this problem. I think that the sooner we pass this legislation after the 18 months it has taken to get it to this stage the better.
– in reply- I thank Opposition senators and other honourable senators who have spoken for their support of this legislation and for the great economy in the length of speeches. Senator Maunsell hit the nail on the head when he said a few minutes ago that the main thing to do was to get the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation on the statute book, get it working and not spend time in this Parliament debating it further. There has been criticism of the Government by some Opposition speakers for the haste with which this Bill is being put through the Senate today. The fact is that the Government has had under review this whole question of meat marketing for 12 months. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) circulated in September last year his first proposals for reform which ultimately led to this legislation. He and certainly the Party committee on this side of the chamber have received and considered a great many submissionsI think the Minister received about 200- and there has been ample opportunity for consideration of the views of others on this legislation.
asked me 2 questions which I would like to answer before I close this debate. He asked whether the Minister would reconsider the contentious issues in this legislation in, say, 12 months time. The Government, the Minister and the Department of Primary Industry will at all times be keeping the operation of this new Corporation and its associated bodies under surveillance. That is their responsibility, and it is one which this Government will certainly discharge. The Minister has said already that he will consider amendments to some areas of the legislation, particularly concerning consultative groups. He has circulated proposals for the constitution of and election to consultative groups. They are now being debated and there may be subsequent legislation in regard to those matters. However, I fully expect the Minister to be prepared to consider amendments to any aspect of the legislation which may in operation seem desirable.
Senator Archer also asked me whether the Minister would accept nominations from producers or processors for the positions on the Corporation for members with special qualifications. The legislation requires the Minister to consult with producer and processor groups before making these appointments and the appointment of the Chairman. The Minister already has said, and I say on his behalf today, that he is prepared to accept nominations for these positions from producer and processor groups. I hope that these Bills can now have a speedy passage.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bills read a second time.
In Committee
– The Committee is dealing with 6 Bills. Perhaps the easiest way to deal with them would be to take the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Bill first as there are amendments to be moved to it and then to take the other 5 Bills together. Is it the wish of the Committee that we consider the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Bill separately? There being no objection, that course will be followed.
Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Bill 1977
Clauses 1 to 6- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.
Clause 7.
The functions of the Corporation are-
to make reports and suggestions to, and to formulate plans for the consideration of, the Minister with respect to-
– On behalf of the Opposition I move:
The essential difference between the amendment and the clause as it appears in the Bill is that under the amendment the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation would be able to extend its activities within Australia as distinct from being restricted only to export activities. This matter was debated during the second reading stage by honourable senators on the Opposition side. We believe, as was indicated then, that the Corporation should be given this power. It is wrong and quite false to suggest that the Corporation should be restricted in its commercial judgment. It is imperative that if the Corporation is to be successful in its trading activities, it ought to be able to make this commercial judgment and not be inhibited by the clause as it stands now.
– The Government is opposed to this amendment which would allow the Corporation to trade on the domestic market. In the Government’s view this proposal is really back to front. What is needed first is for agreement to be sought with the States. Great discussions would naturally take place on any subject, including the introduction of a scheme to allow the Corporation to trade on the domestic market. It is a State matter in the first place. The Government believes that the matter must be settled at that level first. No such proposal of this kind was canvassed in a serious way during the extensive debate which went on leading up to this legislation.
Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9.
1 ) Without limiting the generality of section 8, the Corporation may-
– On behalf of the Opposition I move:
The principle is the same as I have just indicated. I might say, in response to the reply of the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Senator Durack) on the previous amendment, that it is simple to say that we cannot take this action because the States will not let us. The whole purpose of so much of the activities of marketing, especially with the revamping and restructuring of these marketing boards in Australia, is to give a lead at the national level and let the national aspects of the industries prevail. Therefore, the Federal Government ought to give that lead. Simply because these amendments may be written into the Bill does not mean that the States would never agree to co-operate. I do not believe that. Irrespective of the political colour of individual State governments, if they could see that by allowing the Corporation to trade within Australia the industry would benefit in that it would stimulate markets or consumption or new products, I am sure they would accept a Commonwealth statutory body taking such action. I suspect, as I said earlier, that certain private interests in the meat industry do not want this provision written in, simply because they are afraid that a little more competition from a Commonwealth statutory organisation would not be to their liking. I suggest that this is the real reason for the Government rejecting it.
Amendment negatived.
– I move:
The sub-clause as it stands is one to which not only the Opposition but also wide sections of the primary producers take exception. It is a difficult sub-clause to interpret. It states:
Except with the approval of the Minister, the Corporation shall not engage in trade otherwise than in a manner that accords with commercial practice.
One could place varying interpretations on what that means. I am sure the lawyers could. If it became a matter of debate as to the actual power given to the Minister, the clause is most indefinite. I think its intention is fairly obvious. The Minister will determine what sort of trade the Corporation will deal with in certain conditions. That is the very thing we feel should not be done. If the amendment is accepted the Corporation would simply be required to advise the Minister in writing of its activities. That would not preclude the Corporation from making individual commercial judgments. It astonishes me, as I said earlier and as others have said, that a Minister would wish to burden himself with a whole range of approvals by such a trading corporation. I move the amendment accordingly.
– The Government is not prepared to accept this amendment. As I understand it, its effect would be that the Corporation is charged with the responsibility of acting in accordance with ordinary commercial practice. The Bill recognises that in certain circumstances there may be some special arrangements which the Corporation wished to enter into. Usually this would involve agreements with other governments or government trading corporations. Some of the terms of these agreements may be outside ordinary commercial practice but for which there may be justification. In that case, the Minister’s approval is required and that is the purpose of this clause.
Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to.
Proposed new clause 9a.
– I move:
As we have indicated before, we agree that final authority should be with the Minister. Our argument is not with that final power but with the manner in which the power is exercised. This proposed new clause does not mean that a Minister would interfere with the daily commercial judgments of the Corporation in relation to every contract that it entered into or every initiative that it took, but it does- and quite rightly- give the Minister final authority to protect the interests of the Commonwealth in matters involving policy, financial commitments which the Commonwealth may have entered into, underwriting of borrowings and so on. We do not argue with that. We believe that this is the proper way in which the Minister’s direction should be expressed in the Bill and not as it appears, and as it has already been accepted, in clause 4. So I assume that the Minister intends to reject this one as well.
– The Government will not disappoint Senator Wriedt. We are opposed to the insertion of this proposed new clause 9a.
– You disappoint the primary producers; it does not worry me.
– The primary producers want a Corporation which is independent of ministerial direction. Indeed, I thought that the Opposition was criticising the fact that there is too much ministerial control. It is really an argument about how much ministerial control there should be. The Bill has been drawn up in such a way as to limit ministerial control to certain specific cases:We have already seen a notable example of that in a previous clause which the Committee has agreed to. Indeed, it is rather surprising to find the clause which Senator Wriedt now proposes in the terms that it is, because it would mean- although he says it is to operate only in a very general way- that the Minister could give directions to the Corporation in regard to matters of commercial practice. Yet the Opposition and others have complained about the way in which the provision in regard to ministerial power has been worded in the clause which we debated previously. That provision limits the Minister’s powers to deal only with those occasions when the Corporation might want to operate outside ordinary commercial practice. So it seems to me that the proposal which now seeks to insert this clause is really a contradiction; it is certainly a contradiction of the whole basis of the Minister’s relations with the Corporation, which has been adopted by the Government and which is included in the provisions of this Bill. Accordingly,, the Government is opposed to the amendment.
– In view of what the Minister has said in answer to Senator Wriedt, are we to take it now that the Government intends at some later stage to withdraw the sort of provision we are discussing from the Wheat Stabilization Act?
Proposed new clause negatived.
Clauses 10 to 13- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.
Clause 14.
1 ) A contract for-
– I move:
This amendment clarifies further the point I was making earlier. Clause 14 deals with contracts for the shipment of meat and livestock. Contrary to what the Minister has just said in answer to the previous amendment, the distinction is that the amendment I have just moved seeks to give the Minister overriding power which, as Senator McLaren quite rightly pointed out, is identical to the ministerial power that is contained in the Wheat Industry Stabilization Act. Senator McLaren’s question was a good one: If such power is not suitable in this legislation, why does it remain in the wheat industry legislation? However, that is by the by.
– I did not get an answer to the question, though.
-Perhaps we will get one later. What we in the Opposition are concerned about is that the Minister should not exercise ministerial interference with the commercial activities of the Corporation. This is what leads me to suspect that the Minister’s handling of this whole matter has been very poor, to say the least. There is no reason why the producers in the meat industry should be as stirred up as they are about ministerial control. People in other major rural industries have been subjected to similar legislation and they have accepted the benefits that have flowed to them. But, all of a sudden, we have a near revolution by meat producers in this country because of the way this legislation has been handled. We are not suggesting for one moment that the Minister ought to be able to interfere. If the Minister appoints the right peoplenot hacks of the National Country Party or any other party- to the Corporation, he need have no fears about them exercising their own commercial judgment; but obviously that is not what is intended. In conformity with previous amendments, I move my amendment to this clause.
– The Government is undertaking a review of Australia’s overseas cargo shipping legislation. The power conferred by clause 14 has been included in this legislation pursuant to that review and its likely outcome. The Government believes that various marketing authorities which are entering into freight contracts for the carriage of commodities overseas should not be competing with one another but that there should be a rationalisation of their arrangements and that there should be arrangements with the shipping lines to ensure that as far as possible the most effective use of space on the ships for all types of commodity exports is obtained. It is for the purpose of that general oversight of these export arrangements, in the interests of trying to minimise freight costs, that this power is included. This power will be exercised by the Minister in consultation and co-operation with the Minister for Transport. For those reasons the Government cannot accept this amendment.
Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 15.
1 ) Without limiting the generality of sections 8 and 9. the Corporation may-
The Corporation ma ,, with the consent of the Minister, operate, either on its own behalf or in conjunction with another person, authority or oganization. an undertaking providing services or facilities for use in connexion with the export of Australian meat or live-stock, and may. for that purpose, do all things that arc necessary or convenient to he done for the purpose of acquiring, constructing, establishing or operating such an undertaking.
– In conformity with the previous amendments concerning the power of the Minister, I move:
The amendment seeks to delete those provisions which would require the Corporation to obtain the approval of the Minister or the consent of the Minister in circumstances in which we believe it is simply not necessary.
– The new clause proposed by Senator Wriedt really ties together the issues of ministerial control and the operations of the Corporation on the domestic market that we have been debating. The comments I made in relation to previous clauses apply to this clause. I simply endorse the Government’s reasons for not accepting the amendment.
Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to.
Remainder of Bill- by leave- taken as a whole, and agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN (Senator DrakeBrockman) There are 5 other Bills. The question is that those Bills be agreed to.
Bills agreed to.
– We may now again deal with the 6 Bills together.
Bills reported without amendment or requests: report adopted.
Bills (on motion by Senator Durack) read a third time.
page 2011
Debate resumed from 1 June on motion by Senator Durack:
That the Bills be now read a second time.
-The Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 1977 now before the Senate proposes amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1 966. The Bill puts before honourable senators for their consideration tariff changes since the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1976 was passed during the Budget sittings last year. In the main the amendments give effect to decisions by the Government with respect to certain reports of the Industries Assistance Commission and the Temporary Assistance Authority. The Opposition does not intend to oppose the Bills. We commend to honourable senators the remarks made by our spokesman in another place.
The Customs Tariff Validation Bill (No. 2) 1977 validates tariff changes which relate to certain reports by the Industries Assistance Commission. The Opposition does not intend to oppose the Bill. Again I commend to honourable senators the remarks made by our spokesman in another place.
– in reply- I thank the Opposition for the support of these Bills and hope they may now have a speedy passage.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bills read a second time, and passed through their remaining stages without requests or debate.
page 2011
Debate resumed from 1 June on motion by Senator Guilfoyle:
That the Bill be now read a second time.
-The main purpose of the Health Insurance Amendment Bill it to alter the Health Insurance Act to prevent or to attempt to prevent the abuses of the Health insurance system in this country as a result of the excessive use of pathology services and fraudulent claims by a few pathologists. Incidentally, the Bill also increases the penalties for the so-called kick-back system being used by some unscrupulous pathology laboratories. The Government and the Opposition both agree that the level of increased use of pathology services and the associated abuse has been alarming. Despite the limitations in benefits paid for pathology tests last year, there has been little change in this increase in expenditure on this item.
The situation in pathology is not the same as in other sections of medicine, with the exception of radiology, because the tests done by pathologists are ordered by other doctors. The pathologist himself rarely, if ever, has any contact with the patient directly. I believe that the argument we often hear in this place and outside this place about the delicate doctor-patient relationship which can only be maintained by the fee for service system just does not apply to pathology. The patient has no way of knowing what tests have been done and why those tests have been done. The whole connection is a doctor to doctor one and the patient cannot be blamed for any overuse and abuse of the pathology system.
The situation in regard to pathology and the problem we face in this country- it is also faced in other countries- is a complex one. I believe it is a combination of over-use and abuse. The background to over-use of pathology tests and pathology facilities is a multifaceted one. Medicine has become more scientific and the facilities of science which are used by doctors have become more readily available to all doctors in the community. The tedious, time-consuming, labour-intensive and expensive tests and methods of biochemistry and haematology which were used in the past have been replaced by kits and multi-channel analysers which can do many thousands of tests as easily as they can do one test.
This sort of modern increase in efficiency and facilities does not only apply to pathology, as I shall show later. There is a tendency, and it has been apparent for some time, to do a barrage of tests without thinking rather than to do a select number of tests based on probabilities and on clinical findings in medicine. It is my belief that this tendency has been aggravated by the type of medical education we have today and which we have had for some years. It is scientifically orientated; it is test orientated. It is done in general by a hand-picked upper group of people from our education system in which, in my opinion, scientific methods and values are sometimes overemphasised and the personal approach, the clinical approach, is frequently under-emphasised.
Students do all their training in teaching hospitals. Most doctors do a couple of years after-training in teaching hospitals where tests are done not always to detect disease but as part of a routine, or sometimes, and quite properly, even as part of scientific investigations. I am not suggesting there is anything improper about this but it does create a tendency for people to become very reliant on tests of all types, particularly in pathology. This sort of approach to medicine has been facilitated by those modern methods of analysis which have been of enormous benefit to mankind. But they have made life very difficult for some of the health insurance people and those who fund health care in any country- in fact, that is all of us.
I might add, the computerised, impersonal approach is intruding into other fields. The socalled CAT scanner- the computerised axial tomogram scanner- which is a radiological tool of enormous benefit to mankind and of great value both to doctors and patients, is now being introduced into Australia. Of course, it has been used in the United States for some time. There it has been the subject of much controversy because of the ease with which it can be abused and over-used. One reads articles in the New England Journal of Medicine which refer to CAT fever, the excessive use of this important diagnostic tool. One reads that a general practice in Sydney has ordered one of those scanners to be installed in the practice. The equipment costs some $750,000. One wonders about a general practice having a specialised tool like this and whether it is not the prelude to the problems that have been experienced in that very field in America. I believe, therefore, that it may be very difficult for the Government to avoid passing legislation like this in other areas, particularly in radiology, in the future.
The problem of abuse is simpler. Unhappily, there are a few avaricious people involved in medical practice and associated with medical practitioners, as there are in every other field of endeavour. These people set up rackets and schemes to rip off the consumers, the taxpayers and the health funds. These rackets in general consist of charging for tests that in fact are not done, performing tests that are not ordered or. by various means, ordering tests that are unnecessary. They consist also of paying kickbacks to doctors who therefore are encouraged to use those services or, more frequently, over-use those services. All sorts of methods of kickbacks to various medical practices have been detected, such as cash payments, overseas trips, fur coats, payments to staff, supply of goods or services to staff and even automobiles. Also, some peoplebusinessmen, entrepreneurs and doctors- set up health studios and multi-screening services and lure patients to their organisations, which are paid for by the medical health insurance systems. These people are crooks. They are dishonest. They have abused the system for many yearsbefore the advent of Medibank and probably before the advent of any health insurance. They should be charged and penalised as any other dishonest people are. They are doing more than just taking advantage of the system.
My concern, and the Opposition’s concern, about the changes invoked by this legislation is that they may not be as successful as the Government expects. No matter what arguments there may be for fee for service in other areas of medicine, I do not believe those arguments apply in pathology. Abuse in the pathology system is easy. It is so open to abuse because of a lack of knowledge of what is going on by the patient. In fact, a patient frequently just has blood taken at a doctor’s surgery, it is sent off in a bottle to a pathologist and that is as much contact as the patient has with the pathology laboratory.
– But you would welcome the combing and grouping tests, would you not?
-I certainly would. I realise, as I think everyone in the medical profession realises, that this sort of thing has to come. I think I agree with the Government, although I am not certain, that the abolition of bulk billing which is proposed in this legislation for everyone except pensioners who are eligible for bulk billing could well cut down over-use and some abuse in the field of pathological testing. But I have no evidence for that and I do not believe the Government has any such evidence, although I believe it wishes it did have. We might be able to obtain some evidence when comparisons between those health funds which bulk bill and those which do not are available from the figures produced by the health funds. I think it is of some concern that we do not have the figures yet. I realise that the Government had to act before those figures were available, but I believe that they should be available now.
It was interesting to note that in the debate in this chamber last year when the changes were made to Medibank I predicted that the private funds would not be able to produce figures of their membership and their transactions by April this year, as was hoped. From my knowledge and from the knowledge of others, their methods of accounting and their methods of filing in the past have been such that we believe it would be a great job for them to produce these figures. As the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) said, these figures were supposed to be available in April. They are not here in May. He believes they will be available about August. I hope that when the figures come out we may have some idea of what difference the abolition of bulk billing makes to pathology.
I hope the Government does not intend to abolish bulk billing in other areas. In other areas of pathology bulk billing has been of some advantage to many people. The tendency in pathology has not been for pathologists to charge people before the tests were done. I believe the abolition of bulk billing in other areas may be of disadvantage to patients and certainly would be of great disadvantage so far as administrative costs to the various health funds are concerned. I hope that the additional administrative costs which the abolition of bulk billing will undoubtedly cause to Medibank and those health insurance funds which do bulk bill, are outweighed and counterbalanced by the gains from the prevention of over-use which the Government hopes will result from this legislation.
There is only one matter contained in the Bill which I want to deal with in detail. I will deal with it now rather than take up time during the Committee stage. I refer to the problem that the committees of review which will examine excessive services will face, even with the new provisions related to procedural measures for requesting and performing pathological tests which are being introduced. I am aware that lawyers and parliamentary draftsmen need to use language in Bills which is, in general, obscure to mere mortals like myself and most other people in the Parliament. The definition of ‘excessive services ‘ given at page 1 3 of this Bill seems to me to be so broad as to be almost ludicrous, especially when, so far as I can see, the investigations may take place as a rule more than two or three years after the service has been performed. The Bill states: a reference to excessive services is a reference to professional services, being services in respect of which medical benefit has become or may become payable . . .
I understand that. It continues: that are not reasonably necessary Tor the adequate medical care of the patient concerned . . .
What ‘reasonably necessary’ means and what is adequate medical care would seem to most of us, I suggest, to be difficult to define. It would be difficult to define if the investigation was being conducted after the event-after the patient has either recovered or not recovered. I suppose it is difficult to make strict definitions in areas like this. How services will be proved to be excessive on that sort of definition is, I suggest, very difficult.
Medical costs in this country and every other country are presenting problems. They are high; they are increasing; they are escalating. New techniques, computerised methods and the more efficient methodology used in medicine today have not had the effect of decreasing costs as they have in almost all other fields of endeavour. The medical profession traditionally has been conservative and has been reluctant to have anything to do with investigations or any efforts by government to control medical costs or to create more economic efficiency in their profession. I am pleased because I believe that this attitude is changing. The profession certainly is more willing to look at new ideas of control, regulation and economic rationality and their effect, with the exception, I suppose, of the General Practitioners’ Society in Australia. Most other practitioner groups are willing to look at the situation. They realise that they cannot go on in the way in which they are going at present.
As I said before, I have some doubts about the effectiveness of this legislation because I believe that the lurk merchants in pathology still will be able to get around this sort of legislation. I believe that they will be able to do that because the fee for service situation does not work in an area like pathology when the person who is being paid to do tests-the pathologist- in fact does not do the tests, although he is responsible for the results. The situation has changed so much from the days when it was a very personalised service, when it was a very personal thing for the pathologist or the technicians immediately below him to do the tests. I believe that the system provided for by this Bill may make it a little more difficult for people to abuse the system and to over use the system, but I do not believe the patients will be able to regulate their own pathology tests any more than they can now. They will still not understand the nature of the tests and the necessity or otherwise for those tests.
We do not oppose this legislation because we realise that something has to be done. We have grave doubts about how effective the legislation will be in achieving its aim, but it is better than nothing under the present circumstances. I believe that a combination of control or regulation, if you like, by government and restraint by the profession will be necessary in the future to alter the situation. I do not believe that legislation of this type will work while we have in pathology the system of fee for service for the most minor tests. In fact, the most minor tests are done by machines, although the pathologist who is paid for doing the tests is responsible for those machines. We support the legislation, with the doubts that I have expressed about its effectiveness.
– I want to make some remarks on this Bill in respect of some of the services that are not being rendered to people by the medical profession. I want to refer to a letter that I received from a doctor friend of mine who has pointed out to me one of the problems. I hope that what I have to say will be taken into consideration by the committee of inquiry which is to be set up and which is referred to in the second reading speech of the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle). The Minister said:
At present the Health Insurance Act provides for the establishment of medical services committees of inquiry, consisting of S medical practitioners, whose function it is to inquire into references to them by the Minister concerning the possible rendering of excessive professional services which attract medical benefits payable by Medibank.
I want to refer to that. I hope that when the inquiry is under way it will take into consideration what I have to say here, as has been referred to me by a doctor friend of mine.
He wrote to me pointing out a problem experienced by a lady who is well known to him. He has set out the details. For reasons that will be obvious to everybody, I shall not mention the name of the lady in question. The doctor wrote to me about this lady, who developed a gall bladder complaint. She attended a local general practitioner who is a former President of the Australian Medical Association in South Australia and who happened to be a Liberal Party candidate for a short time. The doctor ordered an X-ray examination of the gall bladder. On receiving the X-ray films he told the lady that he wished to refer her to a particular surgeon, whom he named. She replied that she wished to be referred to the Flinders Medical Centre. The doctor told her that if she wanted to go there she would have to make her own arrangements, but he gave her the name of a person to telephone at the Flinders Medical Centre.
The lady rang the Centre and was told that she could have an appointment 2 weeks later. It is scarcely surprising that she was not given an earlier appointment. If a patient contacted a surgeon without any referral from a general practitioner, either by letter or a telephone call, the surgeon could hardly be expected to regard the matter as urgent. This lady felt so unwell that she went back to the doctor and surrendered, saying that in view of the delay at Flinders she was prepared to be referred to the surgeon of the doctor’s choice, whereupon the doctor wrote a letter of referral to the private surgeon, contacted him by telephone and arranged a prompt consultation, following which she was admitted to hospital as a private patient and operated on. My doctor friend goes on to say:
The concept of freedom of choice seems to have a remarkable meaning for some people. Apparently it means that you have a choice of specialist, provided you choose the same specialist as the one which the GP chooses for you. There could not have been a greater contrast between the doctor’s attitude when the patient made her own choice and when she accepted the doctor’s choice. If she was prepared to go to a particular doctor, the GP was prepared to do his professional duty, which was to ensure that his patient received the prompt specialist treatment which she needed. However, if the patient exercised her choice and chose going to the new Flinders Medical Centre as a public patient, the doctor was prepared neither to write nor to telephone. Whether the patient was seen in one week, one month or one year was of no interest to him at all; in other words, he refused to act in the interests of his patient’s health.
It is utterly despicable that a doctor should so intimidate a patient for political purposes. It is nothing less than a shameful dereliction of professional duty.
The final irony was that the patient not only received an account which exceeded the medical benefit by $75, but also was charged for two additional consultations which were supposed to be covered by the operation fee.
The doctor commented on the lady’s attitude and said that she: . . does not dispute the right of the surgeon to charge what he sees fit, provided that patients have a choice of going elsewhere if they wish, rather than being blackmailed into going to a particular specialist.
Of course not all doctors behave in this way. If a person wants to enter hospital as a public patient, probably most doctors will ensure that their patient gets prompt treatment if it is needed. But it is remarkable that the people who bleat loudest about freedom of choice will uphold that freedom only if a person chooses to be a private patient.
I read quite recently of a doctor in a NSW country hospital who was about to operate on a child. The child had been given an anaesthetic when the doctor discovered that the patient was a Medibank patient, not a private patient; whereupon the child was woken up without the operation being performed. The doctor in this case was disciplined by the local hospital board, which barred him from future use of the hospital.
I believe that this is the same son of thing as the Adelaide case which I have just described. There should be some protection for patients in this situation.
In the first place there should be some sanction against doctors who wilfully neglect their duty. One of the fundamental features of Medibank is the guaranteed right to hospital treatment free of charge and free of means test. I question whether Medibank should make any benefits payable to any doctor who tries to deprive a patient of that right. And when a doctor, in denying that right, takes action deliberately detrimental to his patient’s health, surely stronger sanctions are justified.
Secondly, Medibank should employ consumer advocates who will advise and help people to get their rights under Medibank: that they are not forced to have expensive private treatment, or forced to pay cash in advance for consultations, or any other of the pressure tactics of the practitioners of market-place medicine.
It is high time that the hypocrites who profess to uphold private practice in the ‘interests of patients’ were exposed, lt is quite obvious that where the interests of the doctor and of the patient are in conflict, some doctors will neglect those of the patient.
I am pleased to see that the legislation introduced by the Government -
- Senator, what was the name and address of the doctor who wrote that letter, and what was the name and address of the patient to whom he referred?
– I said when I first raised the matter that I was not going to reveal the name of the patient.
– I ask that the honourable senator table the document from which he quoted so that the Senate may see it.
– Order! A motion can be moved at the end of the honourable senator’s speech.
– I move: ‘That the honourable senator at the conclusion of his speech table the document from which he has been quoting’.
– Order! The honourable senator may move that motion at the end of the speech.
– I was saying that I am very happy to support the legislation that has been introduced by the Government. The purpose of the legislation, as has been pointed out by Senator Grimes, is to prevent people from exploiting the Medibank services and the Health Insurance Act. The Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) said in her second reading speech that a committee of inquiry would be set up. I hope that this inquiry will look at practices of the kind mentioned in my friend’s letter which are indulged in by doctors.
Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK (Victoria) (3.50)- For the information of honourable senators, I move:
– The question is: That the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion say aye; to the contrary no. I think the ayes have it.
- Mr President, May I ask whether the document contains the name of the patient because the doctor who is accused may wish to check the accuracy of the assertions by Senator McLaren. There is no illness mentioned. The patient makes the assertions. The doctor who is challenged should have the right at least to check the facts. No illness is mentioned. No breach of medical ethics would be involved.
– I am concerned about this procedure. I would make the point that we are dealing with a letter which Senator McLaren has read. I understand it contains the name of a patient and it contains the name of a doctor. The letter is written also by a doctor. One wonders whether this sort of document should be tabled without the permission of the patient. I am just concerned about what we are doing.
– The honourable senator opened it up, unfortunately.
– If Senator McLaren is willing to table the document- and I believe the motion has been passed- there is nothing we can do about it.
– On a point of order, I understood that the motion had been put and it had been carried.
– It has been.
– Of course, the honourable senator would not have any concern for anyone who is mentioned in the letter.
– No, I am sorry. I just clarified that point in case you want to take the matter further.
- Mr President, is it all right for me to ask some questions?
– No, not at this stage. Standing order 364 states:
A Document quoted from by a Senator not a Minister of the Crown may be ordered by the Senate to be laid on the table . . .
I call the Minister.
-The Government thanks the Opposition for its support on this legislation. I will refer to the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) the thoughtful comments of Senator Grimes who spoke on behalf of the Opposition. As is understood, this Bill is one which was considered to be necessary because of the need for restraint on increasing medical benefits expenditure on pathology services. We recognise this to be a problem throughout the world but the expenditure figures in Australia led the Government to consider that it was essential to do something to control this expenditure. When we were looking at the figures for the half year in December 1974 we found that the figure was $22m whereas for the half year ended in 1976 the expenditure had risen to $53m. There are other matters in the Bill to which reference has not been made. These matters refer to increased penalties applying in relation to offences and other health program grants. The Government is grateful to the Opposition for its support in the speedy passage of this legislation at this stage of the session.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time.
In Committee
The Bill.
– I am interested in 2 matters. I would like to say a few words on them. I notice that in clause 3 of the Bill the definition of ‘approved pathology practitioner’ is amended to include the Commonwealth. This has been an injustice for many years in my State. Private pathologists have had to compete against Commonwealth Health Laboratories in Hobart and Launceston which have provided these services completely free of charge. This resulted in the private pathologists in those States charging the medical benefit return only and as this in itself was lower than the refund in many of the mainland States, the injustice was multiplied. The position has now been corrected and the Commonwealth Health Laboratories must now charge a fee for service. So, there will be fair competition between the Laboratories and the private practitioners. This is a great step forward.
The second matter to which I refer relates to proposed sub-section 4B (2). The Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle), in her second reading speech, foreshadowed a new schedule of fees for pathology services. This is the first step in equalising the schedules of medical fees throughout Australia. As the schedules stand at present, the schedule fees in the smaller States are far lower than the schedule fees in the larger States. As the Medibank levy is a national levy and is the same for taxpayers in each State, it is a great injustice that patients in my State of Tasmania receive back from the national levy far less benefit than the patients in the larger States receive. I shall give 2 examples. The first example relates to a pathology service which is a sedimentation rate. The pathologist’s schedule fee in New South Wales is $5.50 and the benefit to the patient is $4.70. The Tasmanian schedule fee is $3.50 and the benefit to the patient is $3. So, honourable senators can see how much less patients receive from the national levy.
– But the doctors get more in the other States.
– They do not get exactly the same, as the honourable senator knows only too well. The cost of providing the service in pathology practice in Tasmania is far greater than that in the larger States. In Tasmania pathologists still have to have all the expensive equipment. It has to be available. But the quantity of services is so much less. This adds to the cost of each service. There is the same discrepancy in regard to most of the other specialist medical fees. For another medical service the schedule fee for the whole of New South Wales- that is country areas as well as the cities- is $ 1 60 and the benefit is $155. In Tasmania the specialist is allowed to charge as his schedule fee $1 10 and the patient gets back only $105. The benefit is $50 less. The same service with a general practitioner in New South Wales costs $120 and the benefit is $115. In Tasmania the fee is $95 and the benefit is $90.
There is no justification for these discrepancies, where in a smaller State the specialist schedule fee not only is less than the general practitioner fee but also is less than the benefit the patient of a general practitioner receives in respect of his schedule fee in the larger States. I ask honourable senators to remember that this situation applies to all country areas in New South Wales as well as to the capital city. The result is that specialists in the smaller States are charging more than the schedule fee and the patient who is paying the national Medibank levy has to pay the extra amount out of his own pocket. I am pleased to see that the Government has recognised these anomalies, even though this is only the first step in the equalisation process.
– I wish to take a minute to comment on the remarks made by Senator Walters. I have always agreed with her that it seems quite inequitable that fees in Tasmania should be so much lower than those on the mainland. I believe that the best and fairest solution to this problem is an upward movement in some fees in Tasmania and a downward movement in the outrageous fees charged in New South Wales and Victoria. This may give us some justice. But 1 would not like to give anyone the impression that I believe that Tasmanian fees should rise to the levels that exist in the large mainland cities.
– I simply wish to follow up what Senator Grimes has said. One point in this Bill which has not been recognised is that the recommendations came from a working party which included representatives of the medical profession, of pathologists and of governments. In fact, there is a general downward movement of fees in recognition of the structure that is associated with pathology. While there is an equalisation for Tasmania and other States, there is a reduction in the general fee level payable to pathologists. I think the medical profession can be proud that it has been able to co-operate with Government to work out a new structure and a new scale and to look at something which represents a slight downward movement in the overall fee levels.
– in reply- Senator Walters referred to clause 3 and stated that it now includes the Commonwealth as an approved pathology provider. She mentioned the charging of fees and fair competition. I want to make it clear that I am unable to comment on that matter, as the charging of fees is a matter for Budget consideration by the Government. I just make that point at this stage. With regard to the other matter raised by Senator Walters which has some interest not only for Tasmania but also for other States, it is necessary to say, as Senator Baume reminded us, that it was a working party which provided the background for the Government’s decisions in these matters. The existing schedule fees contained components for overhead costs, appropriate when a lower number of pathology services were requested at the one time. The base period for the overhead component had been 1969. Since 1969 more pathology tests were requested for a patient at the one time, so the unit fee per test had to be reduced to bring the overheads component back to a reasonable level. This was particularly important in New South Wales where the increase in number of tests requested for a patient on the one occasion had increased more than in the other States.
On the basis of claims for pathology services paid by Medibank in September 1976. statistics were obtained of the services requested for individual patients on the one occasion, and a total value of the medical benefits involved computed. In addition, the number of relative value units under the new pathology schedule, which was Appendix A of the report, was also computed. The amount of medical benefits in each State was then divided by the number of relative value units for that State to obtain an average amount of money per relative value unit. In conjunction with information obtained from several private pathology practices in several States the working party agreed to minimising the reduction in the States such as Western Australia and Tasmania and a large reduction for New South Wales. The figures finally adopted were adopted as a fair and reasonable basis for this purpose as the pathologists were not able so far to produce information relevant to the Department’s approach of parity of practice costs and net incomes. However, the Royal College of Pathologists has been aware of this problem for several years, because of requests received from the Fees Bureau of the Australian Medical Association, and is currently pursuing the collection of such information from members of the College in each State.
It is interesting to note the reductions made on a State by State basis and the reduction of disparity between the States. I have two short tables, the first of which shows the relationship of return to pathologists under proposed new schedule fees as compared with previous schedule fees, and the second showing the relativity as between the States of return to pathologists under proposed new schedule fees as compared with previous schedule fees. I seek leave to have those 2 tables incorporated in Hansard.
– Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.
The tables read as follows-
– That is the only comment I wish to make with regard to the matters raised, but at the conclusion of this debate on these Bills, on behalf of the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt), I want to express thanks to the working party and to those who were instrumental in giving the background information to the Government with regard to the decisions that have been taken. The Minister for Health has asked me to place on record on behalf of the Government us appreciation to the following people who were associated with the Pathology Services Working Party: Dr Sidney Sax, the Chairman; representatives of the Australian Medical Association, the Royal College of Pathologists, the Society of Pathologists in private practice; Dr Kramer from the New South Wales Health Commission; Mr C. A. Nettle, Deputy Chairman of the working party, from the Department of Health; Mr V. E. Pickering, Secretary of the working party, from the Department of Health; Dr K. S. Jones of the AMA; Dr Lindsay Thompson of the AMA; Dr Con Reed of the AMA; Dr D. A. Sugerman from the Royal College of Pathologists of Australia, succeeded by Dr N. Carter; Dr David White of the Society of Pathologists in Private Practice; and many other officers of the medical associations, the Department of Health and the Health Insurance Commission.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.
Bill (on motion by Senator Guilfoyle) read a third time.
page 2019
Debate resumed from 2 June, on motion by Senator Durack:
That the Bills be now read a second time.
-The Opposition does not oppose either of these Bills, and we have been totally consistent about that. We have not opposed on 2 previous occasions Bills which were designed to achieve a similar purpose, that is, to put off the proposals to resolve finally the problems of the stevedoring industry according to the Government’s intentions. The effect of the main Bill is to extend the operation of the Stevedoring Industry Act until 1 January next year. The history of the matter is to some degree set out in the second reading speech of the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Senator Durack) and includes an outline of the various conferences and discussions which have taken place, particularly the important conferences under the chairmanship of Mr Justice Robinson of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission.
In indicating that the Opposition supports the Bills, I should say that there are one or two matters relating to the continued extension of this legislation which are of concern to employees of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority. This is the third time since it was first decided that the Authority would be disposed of that the staff of the Authority have been faced with an extension of the life of the Authority. The staff have been inconvenienced considerably through the severe uncertainty relating to the closing date, and accordingly they are particularly concerned about a number of claims. One of those claims relates to increased severance payment of an extra week. A severance agreement has already been negotiated between the Government and the Authority’s staff, but with the further extension and the inconvenience created thereby the staff now believe that they have the basis for a claim for a further week’s payment, and I advise the Government that that is their attitude and intention regarding the matter. Furthermore, what remains of the staff of the Authority is being required to move between various ports to bridge gaps as they appear through retirement and as people leave to take over the jobs in other areas when the opportunity arises.
The other matter of concern to the staff of the Authority is the question of the incentive bonus.
Since last November a bonus at the rate of 5 per cent has operated as a retention attraction for the Authority’s staff. Those remaining on the staff of the Authority now seek an increase in this bonus as the basis for remaining with the Authority until the time for which the legislation is extended expires, and for whatever period the Authority is required to remain in existence and carry out its duties. The staff pointed out that the basis of calculation of the severance payment is different from that on which furlough entitlement is calculated. For furlough entitlement the Authority’s staff can count as service all service with all other government departments and statutory authorities, not just service with the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority. However, for the purpose of calculating severance pay, service is confined to service with the Authority. Again, that is a matter of concern to the staff. I have referred the Senate to these matters so that they are on the record of the Parliament, having regard to the fact that this is the third time these provisions have been extended by legislation of this kind, frequently in circumstances such as today in the dying hours of a session of the Parliament. Mr President, those are the matters which I wish to record in Hansard and of which I wish to inform the Senate. Apart from them, we do not offer substantive opposition to this legislation at this time.
-The circumstances that give rise to the request for extension of time in this matter are very regrettable. It should have been brought to a solution before June of last year, much less remain unresolved in June of this year and drag on. lt should be noted that despite massive redundancy arranged in the industry to provide for the setting up of some new arrangement idle time is still occurring in the industry and for the first 10 months of the year it cost $ 1 3m. I think that the grand total for last year was $14m and the previous highest total was $8m. But I rose to point out two facts which do not lead one to think that the solution of the matter is very clear yet. We have had placed before us what is called the Kirby report. It is the report upon a conference of the interested parties that was conducted by Sir Richard Kirby in order to examine certain conditions of new proposals. I want to draw attention to one specific matter in the report which demands urgent consideration. It is stated on page 70 of the report:
The WWF, Waterside Workers’ Federation reserves its right to seek a continuation of the relevant terms of the present industry agreement. It maintains that the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission has no jurisdiction to determine a matter of prospective retrenchments and it will not agree that any of its members on any port register established pursuant to clause 3.1 (ii) -
That is to say by the employers- . . will be compulsorily retrenched.
It is upon that position of compulsory redundancy, established by strike action and acquiescence in 1972, that the whole of this industry’s troubles are bedevilled. The result is that instead of employment being weekly employment, it is weekly employment at the instance of the employee but it is lifetime employment that is not capable of being terminated by the employer until the employee is aged 65 years. So the waterside workers have established, if they succeed in that claim, lifetime employment on the waterfront.
The effect of that can be seen from a passage that I will quote from the Maritime Worker of 1 5 February 1977. It states:
Under the Early Retirement Agreement reached in December, 1976, 560 watersiders aged 60 and over in Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and Newcastle retired from the industry on January 16, 1977.
The 560 received a special Early Retirement payment equal to 70 per cent of the base wage they would have earned had they continued to work in the industry until aged 65.
The Early Retirement payments to the 560 averaged in excess of $17,000 per man.
In addition to the average payment of more than $ 1 7,000, the retiring 560 received all accumulated payments for long service leave, sick leave, annual leave and their Retirement Pension Fund entitlements.
It goes on:
This provided a total special payment varying between $47,500 for a man exactly 60, down to a payment of about $ 10,000 for a man almost 65.
Then, to sweeten the last little message for the recipients:
Only 5 per cent of the total amount drawn on the retirement is taxable.
Combine that excerpt from the Maritime Worker and that condition that is stated in Mr Justice Kirby ‘s remarkable conference and you realise how near you are to solution when you have that possibility facing private employers in any set-up that may disband the authority and go to private employment. It is almost regrettable that a matter of this sort should not be solved with businesslike expedition and that we are committed to indecision for another half year.
– I enter the debate following Senator Wright only because I had the opportunity last week, with members of our party manpower committee, to meet the senior officers of the Waterside Workers Federation. I notice that in the Minister’s second reading speech Mr Justice
Robinson is referred to as handling these negotiations. I notice further- I think this is a pregnant sentence- that the Minister said:
I am pleased to say that the reduction has been achieved without disruption.
The cases referred to by Senator Wright are not the golden handshake that he implies. Some of the men who are going out under this redundancy program are men in their early fifties, perhaps in their middle fifties. I can assure Senator Wright that some of them have spent 20 or 30 years on the waterfront. Quite a lot of them have permanent limps from foot injuries. Others are missing a joint or two in their fingers. It is not as if these men are going into seclusion in a very easy life because the redundancy money involvedwith all deference to Senator Wright- is not that much when we consider some of the retirement programs of people higher up on the wage and salary scale. I think a nod is as good as a wink for the appropriate estimates committee to know what I am talking about.
I want to emphasise the fact that attempts have been made by Mr Justice Robinson and Sir Richard Kirby to try to take the heat out of the situation. Of course there must be an outlay of a fair expenditure of money for the phasing out of bodies from a work unit. But the fact of the matter is that ultimately, when that stage is reached, there will be a smaller work force. One of the great problems, no matter what our theories may be on this world in which we live, is that technical changes produce devices and units to take the place of the manual operatives. Governments then have the problem of finding alternative employment for them. It is true that many of these men in their middle or late fifties will take part time work. Some may not work. If they do not work, I say to Senator Wright that if these men in their fifties have worked long hours to pay off a home and if they have given 30 years of their life in summer and winter, this is well and good. The point about this quite clearly is that it is a lesson in conciliation. As each year goes by containerisation requires fewer manual operatives. I say that the worker should share in that particular saving.
The only other point I want to make to the Minister for Veteran’s Affairs (Senator Durack), and it is important, concerns the liquor trades union which covers the staff in the Sydney waterfront canteens. Those canteens are now part of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. I have had verbal assurances, on and off, that whatever happens under this new structure, the jobs of those employed in the canteens will not be affected. I know it is sometimes a fragile area, but I would like some indication from the Minister that when discussions in relation to the dismantling of the old stevedoring authority come to fruition he will ensure that the job security of canteen employees is not affected. I know that my opponent, Senator Wright, is aware of the efficiency and culinary ability of the chefs in at least one of these canteens. He knows that they have given good service. I would like an assurance from the Minister that the future employment of these people is not in jeopardy.
– in reply- I thank the Senate for its support of these measures. I will check out the point that Senator Mulvihill raised. Perhaps I will have an answer for him shortly.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bills read a second time.
In Committee
The Bills.
– The matter raised by Senator Mulvihill is dealt with at page 79 of the report by Sir Richard Kirby. The canteens, of course, will be continued, but the employers will be running them, so the need for employees will still be there.
Bills agreed to.
Bills reported without amendment or requests; report adopted.
Bills (on motion by Senator Durack) read a third time.
page 2021
Debate resumed from 2 June, on motion by Senator Carrick:
That the Bill be now read a second time.
-This Bill has been introduced for the purpose of providing funds to the States so that roadworks can be continued for the first 3 months of the next financial year. Later in this debate- I will not speak for very long- I want to point out that this is an area that could be further used to absorb the unemployed, the position of which, according to what I can find out from the latest figures, has not improved. The amount that has been allocated is one-quarter of that set out for the next financial year which is part of the next triennium. The Bill is a short one, and the Opposition does not oppose it. However we take this opportunity to offer some criticism of certain clauses of it. Perhaps the major criticism is that this Bill was not introduced until 31 May. The Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) is not even in Australia. Again, as I complained 2 days ago, the Opposition has not been given time in which to consider properly the Bill before having to discuss it in the Parliament. I hope that when the Budget session starts the Government will take some note of the fact that we have complained several times in this session about the short time given to consider Bills.
This Bill provides only temporary financial arrangements for road funding. There is clear evidence now of the Government’s continuing decision not to produce the sort of federal funding and initiate operations in the field of transport that we were told would happen when the Government was campaigning in 1975. I deal now with another fairly important point of criticism. It is obvious from the Bill and the telex advice sent to the States in the last few days setting out principles to be followed by the major road funding legislation to be introduced in the Budget session- I understand that will probably come in some time about September- that progressive concept of an integrated national transport budget has been abandoned. I do not know whether the Government will undertake further planning in regard to transport but quite obviously it has not done so to date.
The Minister’s announcement of 25 February this year indicated that $475m would be made available in 1977-78 to the States over the range of categories of road construction and maintenance. The amount of $1 18.5m provided in this Bill will meet the need for the first 3 months. This amount, as I have mentioned earlier, is a quarter of $475 m. Let me put into Hansard for the record the way the money is to be apportioned. New South Wales will get $38.45m; Victoria will get $24.725m; Queensland will get $25m; South Australia will get $ 10. lm; Western Australia will get $ 15.05m, and Tasmania will get $5.425m. The Commonwealth and States officers’ committee has been established to develop arrangements for an integrated transport budget but under the Government nothing very worth while has happened in this regard.
A second Australian Transport Advisory Council meeting was held in Hobart on 25 February this year to resume discussions on future road funding. While the Council was meeting was rather contemptuous on the part of the Minister and was done without the knowledge of the States- a statement setting out the details of the $475m was released. At the ATAC meeting in Hobart some considerable disquiet was expressed because the States felt that the action taken was rather insulting and that they ought to have been told about it. It appears that the Minister’s decision was a unilateral one. He released that statement while the Council was still sitting. A third ATAC meeting was held to enable the States- this was a week later- to put a case for reconsideration of their claims and the amount of $475m announced by the Minister. But this meeting also broke up in some disarray. Obviously if the Minister is to take this sort of action it will not bring about harmonious relations with the States. Maybe we are getting used to seeing federalism introduced in a whole different number of categories.
Let me briefly set out in the following terms, facts and figures the broader aspects of road expenditure. In Australia there are about 9 times as many miles of road per head of population as there are in the United Kingdom and 3 times as many as there are in the United States. In Australia there are about 2 2 ¼ times as many miles of railway tracks per head of population as there are in the United Kingdom and about twice as many as there are in the United States. The impact of this is highlighted when we recall that the population of the United States is about 15 times that of Australia. Hence the importance of ensuring that transport investment expenditure is used in a rational, responsible and efficient manner. We will not achieve this until such time as there is a national policy on transport. We do not appear to have anything faintly resembling it at the moment. More recently the need to ensure energy conservation further emphasised the need to have a national approach to transport, an approach that should and could be developed in a co-operative way with the States and by way of consultation. If we are to achieve this we need goodwill on the part of the Commonwealth Government and co-operation from the States.
Transport services are responsible for approximately 27 per cent of our total energy consumption. Of that 27 per cent a major shareapproximately 56 per cent- is used by various forms of road transport. That refers to both commercial and private vehicles. Quite recently a Minister in this Government and a back bench supporter of the Government in the other place said that there ought to be energy conservation and that this was part and parcel of the whole transport program. In the Press release to which I referred earlier the Minister pointed out that the
Commonwealth appropriation for 1978-79 and for 1979-80 would be maintained at a real level at least equal to the $475m which was already announced for the next financial year.
I do not know why the Government persists with burying its head in the sand and claiming that there is no inflation rate. Forward planning in a lot of areas, including transport, indicates that the Government will not make any provision for what the future will bring if the inflation rate continues to rise as it is at the moment or, at least, remains at a very high level. The reduction in real terms could be as high as 10 per cent and certainly not less than 7 per cent. That is looking into only the immediate future. If inflation continues to rise, as is likely, it could be as high as 1 6 per cent or 1 7 per cent. The States reacted with some political violence. One of the more conservative Premiers of Australia, not the Premier of my home State incidentally but the Premier of Western Australia, stated his reaction to the announcement about the allocation of $475 m. He accused the Federal Minister for Transport, Mr Nixon, of juggling road figures and said that he had adopted a carping, critical attitude over road funds. For the benefit of honourable members on the other side of the chamber, Sir Charles also said:
It is time that Mr Nixon and some of the Western Australian Federal members of Parliament realised that Western Australia has urgent road needs and will continue to fight for more road funds, and fight hard.
The point I am making is that the States are less than satisfied. It is not a case of whingeing by State Premiers as somebody on the other side of the Chamber said the other day.
The figures I quoted relating road and rail length in this country to its population highlight the need for a forward planned transport policy. The Labor Government previously recognised the importance of an integrated transport budget and the establishment of co-operative planning procedures. Whilst we do not oppose this legislation I feel that there are a number of points I ought to make in order to get the Government thinking, at least, that it can make more money available in the forthcoming financial year. I hope this will be taken into consideration when the Budget is planned. I have a few figures which deal with the number of unemployed persons. I understand that they are the latest figures available for comparison. In 1974-75, 248 064 people were unemployed- 4. 18 per cent of the work force. In 1975-76, 259 905 people were unemployed- 4.35 per cent of the work force. In 1976-77, 321 183 people were unemployed-5.2 per cent of the work force. This is an increase of approximately 63 000 people unemployed in the space of 12 months under this Government’s policies.
We were told in November 1975 that unemployment would be reduced immediately. It has not been reduced; it has continued to climb. I doubt if the 321 183 people who are now registered as unemployed would consider themselves a myth- a story which the Government has been attempting to create. Unemployment is not a myth. Because many aspects of road construction are labour intensive, it is an area of activity in which the unemployed could be absorbed if more money were made available. The latest figures indicate a drop in the rate of unemployment of only 0.6 per cent compared with the figures for the previous month. It must be sad for many people to see that sort of figure released at this time of the year. It compares dismally with the drop of 3.4 per cent in the unemployment rate in 1976 and 6.5 per cent in 1975, that being the largest drop in the unemployment rate of any year. The lowest unemployment figures were for May 1975, and that was the time when Labor was still in office. As I mentioned at the outset of this debate, the Labor Party does not oppose the Bill.
– in reply- The State Grants (Roads Interim Assistance) Bill 1977 is purely an interim measure. Its aim is to provide finance for the first quarter of the financial year 1977-78 at the rate at which the money is earmarked for the year; that is, onequarter of $475m, or $1 18.75m. The Bill simply provides a bridging device in finance, pending the introduction in the Budget session- presumably in September- of a very comprehensive piece of legislation dealing not only with the year 1977-78 but also with the triennium and foreshadowing the whole pattern of government spending in the various categories. Therefore the legislation is to be viewed in that light.
The Government, since returning to office, has concentrated its full attention to holding discussions with the States through the Australian Transport Advisory Council, consistent with the federalism approach. The States have been allowed full opportunity to comment on these matters, and Parliament will have a major opportunity to debate them in September. So that the Parliament will understand the level of funds provided, I point out that in the triennium 1974-75 to 1976-77 an amount of $ 1,233m was spent. The Commonwealth Government, for the 3 years 1977-78 to 1979-80, envisages spending, in real terms, $ 1,425m at least. The ATAC Press release contained mention of the proposed allocation of $475m, and the State Ministers were advised by letter handed to them at the same time that their proposals would be discussed. In fact, the proposals they put forward were taken up by the Minister and looked at firmly.
Senator Keeffe commented on the idea of integrated transport legislation and said that it has not been introduced. The idea of a multi mobile policy is, of course, an attractive one but an extremely complex one. The Government is having very detailed discussions on it. In fact, the new legislation to be introduced in September will contain provision for co-operative planning by the States, which will be available for adoption by the States if they so wish. I commend the legislation to the Senate.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.
page 2023
– I present the thirteenth report of the Publications Committee.
Report-by leave-adopted.
page 2023
Debate resumed from 1 June, on motion by Senator Durack:
That the Bill be now read a second time.
– The Opposition does not oppose this Bill. It deals mainly with procedural and administrative matters. It repeals the Defence Service Homes Corporation Act 1976. It also provides for amendments to the Defence Services Homes Act 1 9 1 8 to enable the defence service homes scheme to be administered under the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. The Bill provides that the staff employed under the Defence Service Homes Corporation Act will be employed under the Public Service Act. Until this Bill becomes an Act of the Parliament, of course, the Corporation’s staff will be employed as statutory authority staff. A Defence Service Homes Trust Account is to be established for the payment of the Corporation’s capital and interest payments. It will be subject to government audit. The Corporation’s administrative funding will be appropriated through the Department of Veterans ‘ Affairs.
I suggest that it is a pity that a Bill of this nature, along with a number of others, has to be dealt with so expeditiously this afternoon. Normally, this Bill would have given the Parliament an opportunity to debate a very controversial matter- the provision of defence service homes. Because this Bill is only a procedural or machinery Bill, as I have said, the Opposition does not oppose it. Therefore we give it a speedy passage.
-in reply- I thank the Senate for its support of the Bill.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.
page 2024
Debate resumed from 1 June, on motion by Senator Durack:
That the Bill be now read a second time.
-The Opposition opposes this legislation. It is my intention to move the following amendment at the end of my speech in this second reading debate:
At end of motion, add- but the Senate is of the opinion that the Bill should be withdrawn and redrafted to provide for (a) the establishment of an independent statutory Legal Aid Commission to finance, co-ordinate and provide legal assistance in Australia, and (b) the provision of such funds as are necessary to meet the needs of legal aid in Australia ‘.
It is now a quarter to five on the day on which this parliamentary sessional period is scheduled to end, and at this stage the Government brings before the Senate very important legislation such as this. I have foreshadowed an amendment in a particular form, but at the outset I indicate the Opposition’s strongest objection to the abuse of the Parliament by bringing most important legislation of this kind before us at this stage. This is not the first time that has happened this week. For weeks and weeks at the beginning of this year the Senate debated such things as the motion for the adoption of the Address-in-Reply. People even had a second go in the AddressinReply debate to fill in time so that the Senate could continue working and feel relevant. But at this time on this day an important piece of legislation is being brought on for debate, just as yesterday a very important piece of legislation relating to trade practices was brought on for debate and the day before a very important piece of legislation relating to conciliation and arbitration was brought on in this way. All these are matters of vital concern in fields in which this Parliament could be said to have achieved something positive, whether or not we like the particular legislation once it is passed. All that legislation is being rushed through in the course of this week.
I refer the Senate to an editorial in the Canberra Times of yesterday referring to the specific Bill now before us. It is headed: ‘Blitzkrieg Legislation ‘. The editorial deals with the provisions of this important legal aid Bill. The second part of the editorial is headed: ‘Senate needs to act’. During this year we have heard a lot from socalled rebellious senators on the other side of the chamber- rebellious about apples and pears, pretty insignificant referenda and things of that kind. But today for the first time the Senate has been called on by a major newspaper to act in respect of a particular piece of legislation. I wish to read the section of that editorial headed: ‘Senate needs to act’. It states:
Some of the ‘safeguards’ proposed in the Bill are less than convincing: former Federal public servants are not guaranteed equal rights within the State commissions and the criteria for their read mission to the Commonwealth Service seem unnecessarily narrow. In fairness, Mr Ellicott has vowed on a number of occasions to seek the States’ cooperation in providing such safeguards. On the other hand, his approaches so far to Western Australia, one of the two States to legislate to set up a local commission, have met with a lack of any meaningful response.
Questions of honest dealing and courtesy aside, there are many points on which the Bill can be faulted. A strong case cun bc made that legal aid is to a sufficiently large extent a welfare, as distinct from a narrowly legal, issue that the preponderance of lawyers on the proposed commission is inappropriate. Moreover, the Australian Government Lawyers Association is on strong ground when it protests at the destruction of a national career structure for lawyers with a commitment to legal aid.
The editorial then goes on to deal with some further issues in the Bill. Then it states:
Given the Government’s commitment to its ‘federalist’ dogma, it is nevertheless difficult to understand why the Government is unwilling to entertain the intelligent compromise suggested by the unions- and accepted by the South Australian Attorney-General-to staff the autonomous State commissions from the Federal Public Service, so retaining the advantages of a unified career structure. A strong case can be made that legal-aid authorities should be enabled to stand back from the local interests of State legal establishments. Mr Ellicott, by contrast, advocates a system calculated to subjugate Commonwealth-financed legal aid to just those establishments. Too many questions are raised by the Commonwealth Legal Aid Commission Bill to permit its passage at this time. If the Senate is in any shape or form -
– Why do you not incorporate the editorial and save time, Senator?
-I did not have it incorporated because I know Senator Tehan would never read it because he is hoping to go home at 6 o’clock. I am reading it to Senator Tehan now in the hope that he will understand what is in it.
So perhaps he will be good enough to listen. The editorial continues:
If the Senate is in any shape or form-
The word ‘form’ probably refers to Senator Tehan- the ‘House of Review’ it proclaims itself, it will defer action on the measure at least until the Budget session.
I read that portion of the editorial because it relates to many of the matters which concern the Opposition in relation to this legislation. The editorial is quite consistent with the views expressed by Mr Ellicott, then shadow Attorney-General, when the Labor Government introduced the Legal Aid Bill in October 1975. Mr Ellicott said this:
The Opposition believes that a joint committee of both Houses should consider the important legal, social and constitutional issues involved.
It is time . . . that we acted as a Parliament on a matter like this. It is time that we legislated on the basis of an inquiry into the important issues involved.
Admittedly this Government’s Bill is more of a dismantling kind than the sort of legislation which was being discussed in October 1975. But there are still very important issues involved which are of concern to thousands of recipients of legal aid throughout this country, to people working in legal aid and to organisations such as that representing the officers employed by the Australian Legal Aid Office.
One point made by the Canberra Times editorial to which I have referred was that the question of legal aid involves important questions of social issues and important questions of welfare in addition to narrow legal questions. The Bill before the Senate suggests a Commission which one anticipates would be staffed, according to the arrangements for appointment and so on, largely by members of the legal profession. I should like to make a point about the relevant clause in the Bill. The Opposition would like to see included in that clause of the Bill some reference to the interests of other than one representative of the Australian Council of Social Services, to the interests of consumers, as it were, of legal aid. We also want to see included on the Commission some representation from lawyers who are experienced in legal aid and who, if I may use an old-fashioned term, are ‘dedicated’ in the field of legal aid. There are plenty of those about as a result of the activities which arose from the establishment of legal aid services by the Labor Government in the last months of its period of office.
We think that there are too many important issues of that kind which cannot be dealt with adequately in the time available to this Senate. We think that those issues should be stood over and considered in the redrafting of the proposed legislation which is suggested in the amendment I foreshadowed. There are two or three points in our proposed amendment. They establish, in a sense, the essence of our criticisms of the Bill. The first point is that the Bill should provide for the establishment of an independent statutory legal aid commission to finance, co-ordinate and provide legal assistance in Australia. The second point is that the Bill should provide for the provision of funds by the Commonwealth Government as are necessary to meet the needs of legal aid in Australia. Those essential criteria are missing from this legislation. We regard them as fundamental to the development of legal aid as an aspect of welfare services in this country because we happen to believe that access to lawyers in many senses is as important to citizens of this country as access to doctors, though perhaps not as pressing from time to time. But in terms of fundamental rights and in terms of fundamental concepts of equality of opportunity and so on, we believe that access to legal aid is as important as access to medical services.
Today many honourable senators will have received telegrams from bodies such as the Australian Conservation Foundation asking that amendments be introduced in relation to this legislation so that legal aid will be available to participants in environmental law issues. I believe that nobody in the Senate has had time to consider that aspect of this legislation. It might be thought by a Minister who is mindful of those questions that they are matters which should be considered by a committee of this Senate or which should be reconsidered by the Government. We know, of course, that the Government has made certain arrangements with the States. Some of the States are probably satisfied with those arrangements; others are not. Nonetheless, we regard it as an abdication of the responsibility of this Parliament to consider this matter adequately, having regard to the time and the date on which this legislation was introduced into the Senate.
The Bill establishes a commission but gives no guarantee in relation to its independence. It certainly gives no guarantees in relation to the level of funding which will be available and which will be channelled through the Commission. The Legal Aid Commission will be given power to make recommendations to the Attorney-General concerning the provision of legal assistance in Commonwealth matters. From our point of view there is some difficulty in the use of words ‘in Commonwealth matters’. Under the provisions of this Bill, it might well be that a person would be turned away and denied legal aid because he was not applying for legal aid in relation to proceedings under Federal law. Because of the sheer inadequacy of the legislation and the lack of time in which to study it all sorts of possibilities could be pointed out.
I again want to emphasise the point, which was referred to in the Canberra Times editorial, that legal aid should not be seen just as part of the legal system but as part of the welfare system within a democratic society. We have no time to consider those issues here today. But, as I said before, the implicit conclusion which one can draw from the wording of the Bill is that the Commission will be dominated by legal practitioners. We suspect that the Government wants to avoid the Bill being subjected to public scrutiny. The public certainly would demand extensive and substantial amendments to it because the public sees legal aid not as a narrow legal issue but, to a very large extent, as a welfare issue.
Following the quite recent announcement by the Attorney-General (Mr Ellicott) of his intentions regarding this legislation, Professor Sackville, who was commissioned by the Commission of Inquiry into Poverty to prepare a paper on the provision of legal services, issued a Press release in which he criticised the Bill in the following terms, amongst others:
The Bill politicises the service because the Commission’s role, in effect, is limited to making recommendations to the Attorney-General, who retains final authority in relation to the funding of State legal aid commissions and the coordination of their activities.
He went on to say:
The Commission has no power to grant funds directly to legal aid bodies.
That raises the question of what happens to bodies like the Fitzroy Legal Aid Service in Victoria, which is one of the most highly successful legal aid services in this country, I believe. We are concerned also about the fact that there could be an uneven level of delivery of legal aid services to Australian citizens because of the input, if one can put it in those terms, of State governments into their respective legal aid commissions. It is quite possible that if some State governments in terms of their welfare considerations were to give priority to legal aid and others did not we would arrive at a situation in which a built-in inequality of rights in relation to the capacity of people to obtain legal aid would operate throughout the Commonwealth. We believe that the Commission’s lack of independence in regard to this will continue to contribute to the politicisation of legal aid.
The Attorney-General, in pursuing his Government’s new brand of federalism, knows that the Government might eventually have to limit the real amounts of money that are made available by this Parliament for legal aid. That would be an abandonment of a commitment which this Parliament, without much dissent, accepted during the period of the Labor Government. Coupled with this, we believe that the Attorney-General wants to limit the effectiveness of the service. On reading the Bill, that seems to us to be the likely result. The legislation, of course, is a long way from what the then Opposition wanted when the original legislation was introduced and, in particular, is a long way from what the present Attorney-General wanted when he said on 9 April 1 975:
The Opposition -
That is the Liberal-National Country Party Opposition- takes the view that legal aid services should be provided in the most efficient, accountable and accessible form to those in need of it.
In April 1 975 the shadow Attorney-General, in discussing questions of legal aid, included a needs criterion in his speech when he said that legal aid should be provided in the most accessible form to those in need of it. That sort of criterion is completely lacking from this legislation.
– One of the purposes of the Commission is to examine who indeed should get it.
– I turn to the terminology of my amendment which at the beginning of my comments I foreshadowed I would move. I remind Senator Wright, who was absent from the chamber -
– Unavoidably, for a couple of moments.
-Senator Wright, I would not assume otherwise. I know you are always here unless it is unavoidable. I began by saying that the Opposition was extremely concerned that important legislation such as this should be brought into the Parliament at the deathknock All sorts of community bodies are concerned about this legislation, and there should be an opportunity for public discussion of it. The LiberalNational Country Party Opposition in 1 975 saw fit to delay this legislation and suggested that it be referred to a joint committee of this Parliament because the issues involved were so important. The Canberra Times yesterday called on the Senate to act to stop this son of behaviour of government rushing through important legislation on the last day of the sitting.
– You know the propaganda that has been poured into it in the last 2 days.
– I know the propaganda that has been poured into you for the last 70 years.
– You are so presumptuous.
– There is, of course, a conflict between those 2 outpourings, but I would have hoped that Senator Wright, at this stage, would have been influenced by the other propaganda as well, because I know him to be a man of flexibility as well as of integrity. I turn to the words of the amendment which I foreshadowed I would move, because I believe that they encompass the gist of the Opposition’s objections to this legislation. Of course, the most important point of all is the way in which it is being introduced into the Senate. I move:
In so moving, I warn the Senate that if this legislation is rushed through we are taking a retrograde step with great haste. I urge the Senate not to do so.
-Is the amendment seconded?
– Yes, I second the amendment.
-The Senate is debating a Bill to establish a Commonwealth Legal Aid Commission. This legislation is the first step towards putting legal aid on a sound and broad permanent base, embracing all the States, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. I should like brieflybecause of the time factor- to dismiss at once the amendment moved by Senator Button because the worst thing it would do would be to postpone this desirable reform to establish legal aid on a comprehensive basis throughout the whole of the Commonwealth. It is an indication of the concern of the Government that legal aid should be adequate and available to the under-privileged people in the community and that it should be an efficient and comprehensive scheme. There will, of course, be a need for the close co-operation and active interest of the States. Legislation will have to be passed by each State Parliament to make the scheme fully effective. The States claim, not without some justification, that if we are to have an integrated scheme, a State legal aid commission set up by State legislation should control the day to day running of the system in each State. This Government, for its part, recognises this fact, which is consistent with its federalism policy. Of course, the Commonwealth has a limited field of operation, being restricted to legal aid in the Federal area. There is a firm commitment by the Commonwealth to provide funds for the provision of a State-type legal aid commission in the Federal area.
The Attorney-General (Mr Ellicott) is to be congratulated on his initiative in submitting this Bill. It is an indication of the Government’s commitment both financially and in the area in which Federal legal aid is already provided through the Australian Legal Aid Office. It is estimated that the expenditure on legal aid services this financial year, excluding Aboriginal legal aid, which we all know is dealt with separately, will amount to $ 17.95m. As the Attorney-General pointed out in his second reading speech in the House of Representatives, that represents an increase of 43 per cent over and above the amount expended in the previous year. I think that the expenditure increase not only shows the concern of this Government in this area but also is a complete answer to those critics of the Government who are suggesting that in some way legal aid is to be terminated or disbanded by this Government. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I turn now briefly to consider the scheme of the legislation and what it is designed to do. It is intended that each State commission will take over the existing legal aid offices and any State or law society scheme in that State. In my own State of Victoria the Law Institute of Victoria and the Bar Council have been active in supporting the Legal Aid Committee, which is a lawyers’ scheme in that State. The legislation provides for the Commonwealth and each State to enter into a formal agreement under the terms of which the Commonwealth will provide funds for the provision of aid in the Federal area by the State legal aid commissions. The Attorney-General set out the complete framework of the Act in his second reading speech. I shall not do that again. He also stated that 2 States- Western Australia and South Australia- have already passed legislation in regard to this matter.
Some concern has been expressed by the Australian Government Lawyers Association as to the future of its members following the passage of this Bill. Basically, the legislation preserves the right of the present employees of the Australian Legal Aid Office to salary, leave and superannuation entitlements. In general, the arrangements for their transfer to State and Territorial commissions will be on the basis of terms and conditions of service no less favourable than those that they presently enjoy. Indeed, I think it is true to say that this Bill goes as far as it can. There will be a legal agreement between the Commonwealth and each State which will set out the terms and conditions and will deal with the rights of the officers. The Commonwealth’s financial commitment will not be forthcoming under the agreement if the position of the officers is not preserved.
The Attorney-General is seeking to have included in the State legislation provisions which will allow the legal aid commissions to make suitable reciprocal arrangements with each other for the transfer of staff. Similar provisions will be included in the ordinances of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. So as far as possible the promotion and career rights of the officers will be preserved. In the meantime, pending the adoption of legislation in each State and the provision of ordinances in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, there will be no change in the status or conditions of employment of the officers presently employed in the ALAO system. The Government is concerned to ensure that the rights of the officers are fully safeguarded. If the scheme is to operate with complete efficiency and to give services to the underprivileged of Australia, integration of the system with an overall supervisory Commonwealth commission and commissions set up under legislation in each State and the Territories is a vital necessity. As a practising lawyer for the last 30 years, I welcome the initiative of the Commonwealth Government in submitting this legislation to the Parliament and I commend the legislation to the Senate.
– I rise to support the amendment moved by my colleague Senator Button to the Commonwealth Legal Aid Commission Bill 1977. The amendment reads:
At end of motion, add- but the Senate is of the opinion that the Bill should be withdrawn and redrafted to provide for (a) the establishment of an independent statutory Legal Aid Commission to finance, co-ordinate and provide legal assistance in Australia, and (b) the provision of such funds as are necessary to meet the needs of legal aid in Australia. ‘.
In the last few months a significant group of Government senators have made many dramatic and much publicised statements regarding the role of the Senate in our political system. They have stressed, for particular purposes, the role of the Senate as the House of review. They claimed during the recent referendums campaign that the independence of the Senate in its role as a House of review and other roles was being eroded by the referendum proposals put forward by the Government. It repeated the claim that the Senate is a States’ House, it is different from the House of Representatives, it has a difficult role to play and that that role must not be tampered with or eroded in any way. It would seem that these statements, which were made by this significant group of Government senators, were in fact hollow and hypocritical. I make that claim because I would say that far from being a House of review the Senate in the last couple of weeks has not even been a mere duplication of the House of Representatives. The Senate has had less, not more, time to debate and consider the controversial and complex legislation that has come before it.
The failure of the Senate to be able to act as a House of review or even a House in which reasonable debate can take place is clearly exemplified in the Government’s handling of the Commonwealth Legal Aid Commission Bill that is .before us. It has been introduced, as my colleague Senator Button pointed out, in the final stages of this session. It has been introduced with totally inadequate time being made available for discussion. It has been introduced in such an unsatisfactory form that the Opposition has had to move an amendment that it be withdrawn and redrafted.
The legislation before us has 2 main functions. One is to disband the Australian Legal Office and the national legal aid service with the hope, not even the guarantee, that it will be replaced by 6 State and 2 territorial legal aid commissions. The second function of the Bill is to set up a legal aid commission which, to quote again from the Canberra Times editorial of yesterday ‘will be nothing more than a watchdog advisory panel for the Attorney-General’. Why is it that the Government is not prepared to subject this legislation to public scrutiny. As has been pointed out, in 1975 when the Labor Government introduced a legal aid commission Bill, Mr Ellicott, who is now the Attorney-General, and Mr Howard, who is now the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, asked that Labor’s legal aid Bill be referred to a select committee. Why then will not the Government members and Government supporters allow the same consideration of their own Bill which has been introduced so speedily and in such unsatisfactory form?
There are other questions I would like to put to the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Senator Durack) who represents the Attorney-General in this place. How will the poor and needy get legal aid after the passage of this Bill which it appears the Government is determined to railroad through today? After this Bill is forced through, what will happen? Legal aid, according to this Bill, will be administered by State and territorial commissions. But as of now, as we debate this legislation now, there is no State or territorial commission. There is no functioning State legal aid commission in any State. There is no territorial commission in either of the Territories.
Although Western Australia has passed legislation to set up a legal aid commission, that commission has not yet been established. Although I understand that the Attorney-General of Western Australia has been negotiating with the Federal Attorney-General for financial arrangements in order to fund legal aid through the West Australian State legal aid commission, no financial agreement has been reached. The same situation prevails in South Australia. It is now some months since the South Australian Parliament passed legislation to set up a South Australian legal aid commission. Yet, no financial arrangements have been made. There is no legal aid commission in South Australia. Queensland and Tasmania have not even begun negotiations.
An ordinance has been drafted to set up a legal aid commission in the Australian Capital Territory. That ordinance is being discussed by interested members of the community and the legal profession. But again there are no funding arrangements. In the case of the Australian Capital Territory there is not even any executive or administrative body that could administer a territorial legal aid commission because we are still waiting on the Fraser Government to decide on the devolution of powers to a territorial assembly of the Australian Capital Territory. So the provision for legal aid to be administered through State and territorial commissions is premature. There are no such commissions; there are no funding arrangements. The passage of this Bill will mean nothing in terms of setting up, as Senator Tehan has claimed, a new system of funding and administering legal aid.
The Australian Government Lawyers Association opposes the abolition of the national service. This is what will happen following the passage of this Bill. We on the Opposition side support the views of that Association in this matter. It seems to us highly unlikely that small separate legal salaried services in States and Territories will be able to attract lawyers of the same calibre as a national legal aid service has done.
– Or of the dedication.
– Or of the dedication, as my colleague Senator Button points out. It seems to us too that there will be a reduction in expertise following the fragmentation of the national service. The kinds of cases that come before legal aid practitioners are of a special kind. They are usually cases in which the poor and the needy in our community are involved. A national service can evolve an expertise in those areas. But that expertise will be fragmented along with the administrative fragmentation of the legal aid services provided for in this legislation. Similarly, there will be a lack of mobility from State to State or from State to Territory for legal officers. At the moment, under a national scheme where a legal aid officer has a language specialty or expertise in a certain area, that officer could travel to Victoria from South Australia or to a Territory in order to participate in offering legal services where that specialty is needed. Such mobility is desirable; such mobility will be prevented by the setting up of 6 State and 2 Territorial services.
We also anticipate that there will be long delays in reaching agreements about the transfer of staff, although there is provision for the preservation of some rights of officers who are currently members of the national legal aid service. We anticipate that there will be delays and difficulties just as we anticipate very long delays in finally reaching financial agreements with the States and the Territories over funding matters. It seems to us that the ALAO is to be another victim of this Government’s federalism policies and, more importantly, the people who are recipients of aid, the clients of the ALAO, are also to be the victims of federalism.
At this stage I ask: What is the present Government’s stance on legal aid? It was very clear under the Labor Government that there was a commitment to providing equality under the law; that there was a belief that equality under the law was an essential aspect of a democratic system. This same view is expressed by Ronald Sackville, the Commissioner who inquired into the law in relation to poverty and produced the report on legal aid. Commissioner Sackville said:
Lawyers and laymen alike consider it unthinkable that the legal system should discriminate against a person simply because he is poor. Yet even on these uncontentious criteria the law has Tailed to accord equal treatment to all people and has therefore contributed to the perpetuation of poverty in Australia.
It was in order to break that cycle of the perpetuation of poverty in Australia by way of providing equal access to the law that the Australian Labor Government established an Australian Legal Aid Office and a national legal aid service. Now the whole system is to be radically altered.
I draw to the attention of the Senate the principles of legal aid which were set out in the Sackville report. There were 9 principles which I believe would be uncontentious in theory amongst all honourable senators. Yet on each principle that is set out the legislation before us falls short. The first principle is:
Legal aid agencies should provide a full range of services for individuals who require legal advice or assistance, but are unable to alford the fees of private practitioners.
In commenting on that principle, I point out that the ALAO can provide advice to anyone who walks in off the street and asks for it. They may not need legal assistance; they may merely need advice. Private solicitors of course are not equipped to provide free advice in that fashion. As to the criterion of providing aid to those who are unable to afford the fees, we are very pessimistic about the lack of financial agreements in this Bill. There is no guarantee that funds for aid will be sufficient for all those who cannot afford fees. The second principle set out in the Sackville report states:
Legal aid schemes should seek to stimulate legal reforms in the interests of poor and disadvantaged groups in the community.
Again I point out that there is no provision for law reform initiatives in the legislation before us. Certainly, the Commission may decide that it wants to do this; but it is not provided for in the functions set out in clause 6 of the Bill. I say, in passing, that a couple of the functions of the Commission set out in clause 6 of the Bill are ones which we in the Opposition are pleased to see and which we support. One such function is found in clause 6 (c) which states:
Another aspect is set out in sub-clause (h), which states:
We support both those functions; that is, the collecting of statistics and the mounting of public education campaigns. There is no provision for initiatives with regard to law reform. I contend that, with the breaking up of a national legal aid service, the likelihood of initiatives coming from legal aid lawyers is diminished. The third principle set out in the Sackville report is:
Legal aid services should be readily accessible to all who need them and thus should be located not only in central city areas but within the communities they are intended to serve.
I say that national planning according to needs is much better done through a national service and that the Federal Government, in withdrawing from this national service, is abrogating a responsibility which it assumed on taking office. It seems to me to be less likely that 6 State and 2 territorial commissions will be able to plan the proper disposition of legal aid services so that all people have access to them. The fifth principle states:
While it is proper to conserve resources by imposing means tests and other eligibility requirements as well as contributions from applicants, these should be administered flexibly and in a manner that does not deter persons requiring legal aid from applying for assistance.
I comment here that there is no indication in the legislation before us that adequate funds will be available so that the means test can be realistic. I remind those honourable senators who seems to be preoccupied with some other matter at the moment that after the change of government the Attorney-General reduced the means test for eligibility for legal aid to a level well below the poverty line- something approximately $40 a week. Above that amount one was not entitled to legal aid. It is very clear that many people in our community who have an income of more than $40 a week certainly would need legal aid. Another principle relates to providing proper remuneration for private practitioners assisting legally aided persons. That can be done only if there are adequate funds. The eighth principle states:
Legal aid agencies should be accountable to the community they serve and therefore members of local communities should participate in the administration of legal aid services to the maximum extent possible.
My colleague Senator Button has drawn attention already to the inadequacy of the composition of the membership of the Commission from this point of view. There is only one place on the Commission for a non-lawyer. We submit that there should be a much wider community representation. A person who works in and is dedicated to legal aid should be included on the Commission. This is different from a lawyer who takes some legal aid cases. This principle of requiring community involvement certainly is not embodied in the legislation before us. The ninth principle set out in the Sackville report is:
In allocating public funds to legal aid schemes, account should be taken of the need to ensure that resources are used efficiently.
Surely the most efficient use of resources would be achieved by building up and expanding a national service, lt seems to me to be unavoidable that inefficiency will result from breaking a national scheme down into 6 State and 2 territorial schemes. We are totally dissatisfied with the legislation in its present form. We believe that recipients and potential recipients of legal aid are dissatisfied with it. We believe that the practitioners of legal aid in this country, those people who are dedicated to legal aid, also are dissatisfied with it. I support the amendment moved by Senator Button.
– It is impossible in the few minutes available to me to make any detailed examination of this Bill or of the situation of legal aid, in which I have been closely interested for many years now. I am not to be taken as disagreeing with many of the things that have been said by Senator Button and others about the extraordinary situation in which we are forced to rush through this Parliament a Bill of considerable importance such as this one. That is not new. Honourable senators will remember that it happened when the Whitlam Government was in power. We have not learned how to manage this situation. We have a lot of nonsense in the Address-in-Reply debate and other wasteful speeches early in the session and we finish up with important legislation causing a lot of trouble at the end.
That does not mean that it may not be necessaryI think it is necessary- to pass this Bill and I do not support the idea that it should be put back into the melting pot at this stage, as suggested by the amendment. Back in 1975 at a stage when I was handling the Bill in the Senate and we were about to move to send the Bill to a Senate committee, it is a pity that we did not take that opportunity. But that is spilt milk. We have been busy negotiating with some very lacklustre and backward States which have not pushed forward very quickly to co-operate with the Commonwealth in establishing a good and sufficient legal aid scheme. That has not been due to any lack of trying on the part of the AttorneyGeneral of the Commonwealth. I say as a personal remark that I think a lot more might be done, and no doubt it is necessary now to bring these things to some sort of conclusion.
The passage of this Bill gives a firm basis upon which the Attorney-General can proceed to negotiate to some conclusion with the States in obtaining a complete scheme. The delay, on the other hand, might not have been altogether too bad, because in 1975 there was among the private lawyers a great hatred of the Australian Legal Aid Office and those who were salaried officers of legal aid schemes. But I think there has been a great change in the attitude and a realisation that in any legal aid scheme that is any good there needs to be a substantial aspect of a salaried service. At least that is one thing that has come into the consciousness of the private lawyers of this country. They have realised that there is a great advantage in that. I hope that their motives are altogether pure. Sometimes they are not. Nonetheless, I think some wisdom has been gained in the period of delay.
This Bill does not do as much as has been suggested by some honourable senators. It creates a supervising body. It creates a Commonwealth body which in the future will supervise for the Commonwealth Legal Aid Commission the effect of legal aid and it will be able to advise the Attorney-General in the areas where it is good or bad. It also does something to protect the position of those officers who would go across to a State scheme. I think it is accepted that that is going to happen. Those powers which are now in this Bill are a useful basis upon which the Attorney can negotiate and endeavour to obtain proper conditions for those who have served the Commonwealth well in legal aid and who need to be protected, who need to have the right, if necessary, to go back into the Commonwealth Public Service. Although the Bill does not spell this out, I hope the mobility of these people will also be protected in the negotiations that go on with the States. Therefore I say that this Bill provides a base upon which negotiations with the States can be carried out and whereby particular schemes can be developed.
I hope that in the negotiations that go on in the next few months there will be proper protection. I believe there will be a forceful determination to ensure that the schemes which operate in the States are not dominated by the private profession. The private profession should be well represented on them, but I hope that the schemes will not be dominated. I hope, for example, that if the Western Australian scheme is to gather in money from the Commonwealth and operate, it will not be dominated as it is at the moment, with the private profession in control.
– You should not be passing legislation that depends on your hopes.
– No, it depends on negotiations. If those negotiations do not succeed we will be back here. I think every one realises that we may well be back later on with necessary alterations to this legislation when the negotiations with these very diverse States are all completed. It is important that we ensure that there is a salaried service component in the State schemes. That is something which can be achieved. I think it is important to realise that the Commonwealth has great responsibilities. About 80 per cent of the money now spent goes into Commonwealth areas of responsibility, mainly the family law area. Of course it is necessary that the continued influence of the Commonwealth is seen and that it has supervision of the State schemes to ensure that the money is not wasted but is used to the best effect. We must ensure that in the areas where the private profession can best be employed it is employed, and that in the areas where the salaried service can best carry out the duties it is engaged, so that no one group will dominate to the exclusion of the other.
It is unfortunate that this Bill has been hurried and that there has been inadequate time to hear all the representations. Many representations have been made over the years, and we cannot alford to have the scheme continue in the way in which it has been operating for a long time. On balance, I think we should proceed with this Bill because it will provide a base from which the Attorney-General can negotiate proper schemes with the States and introduce proper schemes for the Territory. We will watch their development. I am sure we will take a continued interest in the question of legal aid and that we will see more of the matter in the future. For those reasons, I believe that it is important to pass the Bill and to have the operation brought to some sort of conclusion. If that is not done the States will say: What have you done? What is your basis? How can we negotiate from this?’ I hope that by passing this Bill we will be able to get the States, some of which are quite slow, to come forward and put their own proposals on the line. In that way we will have a good scheme in operation but we must ourselves continue to maintain a close observation of it.
– I rise to support the amendment moved by my colleague Senator Button and to criticise the Government for prostituting the Parliament by the indecent haste with which this legislation has been brought to us for consideration. We can only assume that some of the haste has been caused because there are so many solicitors on the Government benches who will very shortly be out of a job and who perhaps will still be eligible for a job on one of the commissions. In the past we have seen a few Government senators with the courage of their convictions voting against their Government. I doubt that we will see them do it on this Bill. We have heard so much from honourable senators on the Government side about the role of the Senate and the independence of the Senate from the governing House. We have heard the Senate called a States’ House, a House of review. I wish the Minister would tell me when Government senators have had a chance to review this piece of legislation, because I have not. I received it yesterday and endeavoured to read it today so that I could speak on it competently this afternoon. Honourable senators opposite have the opportunity to prove their independence. They have the capacity to support the Opposition’s amendment but I doubt that they will accept that responsibility and take that action.
Time is getting on, but I want to devote the few minutes available to me to making a few points about Western Australia. One cannot help wondering whether the indecent haste with which we are considering this Bill has something to do with the State of Western Australia. I noticed in last night’s Daily News that a summit conference of senior Western Australian and Federal Liberal politicians is to be held in that State on Monday. Presumably the Federal politicians want to be able to say: ‘Look how successful we have been. We have passed the Legal Aid Commission Bill for you’. But the State Government in Western Australia has already legislated for a legal aid commission to operate from 1 July. In my opinion, even that is not sufficient reason for this Bill to be passed. I am sure that all honourable senators have received the same amount of material as I have. There is quite a stack behind me here and there is another stack in my office. I am sure that every member of this chamber has received material relating to this Bill and that none of it has been in favour of the Bill being passed in its present form. To prove that point, I intend to read a telegram which I am sure all honourable senators received from the Australian Legal Aid Office staff association in Western Australia:
The ALAO staff in Western Australia protests at the introduction of the Commonwealth Legal Aid Commission Bill without prior consultation with ALAO staff or their industrial representatives: considers the introduction of the Bill to be a breach of the Attorney-General ‘s undertaking to the Parliament on 1 9 October 1976 -
No one ever believed that the Attorney-General would keep his promise- that the staff who join the Commission will have at least the same terms and conditions of service as they presently enjoy in the ALAO: reaffirms their intention to remain with the Australian Public Service and not to join the State Legal Aid
Commission until legislation is passed guaranteeing (a) a career structure in the Commission: (b) that the staff who join the Commission will have the same terms and conditions particularly as to security of tenure as they enjoy under the Australian Public Service Act: and (c) have mobility of staff to transfer between State commissions: requests that the Bill be deferred to the next sitting of Parliament to enable the staff, their industrial representatives and others interested to properly consider the Bill and make submissions accordingly.
The telegram is signed by the Staff Association of the ALAO, Western Australia. This State Government has been openly encouraged by the Federal Government to commence the Commission’s operation as from 1 July this year. This raises a few questions in my mind. For instance, I want to know how it will operate. Where are its premises to be located? What finance has it got or will it get, and how will that finance be given? Will that finance be in the form of a block grant which will enable a State Premier to refuse to pass it on for the very purpose for which it was intended, as the Queensland Premier has done with a block grant for the women’s refuges? What protection will there be for the staff already employed at the Australian Legal Aid Office? What will happen to the backlog of applications and correspondence that is already held at that office? I ask that question because the present staffing arrangements in Western Australia are totally inadequate to meet the needs of the people who require legal aid.
Late this afternoon I heard a rumour that there has been talk already about an appointment to the State Commission to get it underway as at 1 July in Western Australia. I do not know whether that rumour is based on fact or fiction. But the rumour has it that Mr Justice John Hale is to be appointed to head the Commission. I do not know Mr Justice John Hale. He may be a very genuine person. He may have been involved in legal aid. I have not been able to find anything in the books in which I looked to indicate that he has been involved in the administering of legal aid. But I did find out that he was born in October 1905. If I can add up that makes him 71 years of age already. So it is obvious that the State Government does not intend it to be a long term appointment. The practice in Western Australia for the last 10 years or so has been that judges retire at 70 years of age. Having retired this judge once, apparently it is intended to bring him back again. I wonder how the scheme will operate with a commissioner of that age when 80 per cent of the cases being handled by the Australian Legal Aid Office in most States, and especially in Western Australia, are family law matters. Probably he will be shocked out of his mind at some of the terminology that is used these days.
I want to know what the cost of running the separate legal aid commissions will be in comparison with the Australian Legal Aid Office that is operating already. I want to know whether the Commonwealth has reached an agreement already with the State of Western Australia in regard to the funding of the State legal aid commission. If so, I want to know what amount of funding is proposed as well as the terms of the funding. Perhaps the Minister might like to table the agreement so that at least we can look at it.
I wish to comment on the amount of work that goes through the Australian Legal Aid Office. We would all acknowledge that Western Australia is one of the less populous States of Australia. But the Perth office alone receives between 300 and 400 letters a day, including legal aid applications and solicitors accounts. In addition, about 50 legal aid applications are handed in at the office by individuals. Will the Minister be increasing the staff of the ALAO to handle the backlog? Has there been an increase in applications in recent months and if so, how great is the increase? Senator Tehan mentioned that there had been a 43 per cent increase in the cost of this operation. In fact, the Minister stated this in his second reading speech. I query whether that 43 per cent increase in expenditure related to back payments or whether there will be that percentage increase in the amount of money spent this year. My information is that the money was to pay for past accounts; that is all. There is no genuine increase. The commitment is still for $ 1 m a month and that is all.
Because my time to speak in the debate has just about expired I seek leave to have a number of documents incorporated in Hansard. If Government honourable senators are genuine in relation to this matter they will at least bother to read them. I seek leave to incorporate the following documents in Hansard: A further telegram from the Australian Legal Aid Office in Western Australia; an article from the Australian of 30 May 1977 under the heading ‘Move on legal aid “a threat to standards” ‘; a copy of the article referred to by Senator Button earlier from the Canberra Times of yesterday, Thursday, 2 June, the leading article headed ‘Blitzkrieg legislation’; a telegram from the Tasmanian Conservation Trust Inc.; and 2 documents that have been received from the Australian Government Lawyers Association.
-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.
The documents read as follows-
Porterage paid $ 19.90c . . . Sen Ruth Coleman
Parliament House
Canberra A.C.T
The ALAO staff in Perth- 1 -Protests at the haste in which the legal aid Bill was introduced into Parliament and the Tact that ALAO staff will not have the opportunity of considering the Bill before it passes both Houses. 2-Deplores the breakdown in consultation between the Attorney and his Department on the one hand and the staff and their industrial representatives on the other. 3- Request that the Bill be deferred to enable the Government to consider submissions by all interested parties. 4- Welcomes the responsible attitude of the Government to the publicity surrounding the problems of the Perth office due to inadequate staffing by appointing three additional persons to the staff and by temporarily transferring staff from Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra offices to assist in overcoming those problems.
Rice Staff Representative
LAWYERS IN UPROAR
MOVE ON LEGAL AID THREAT TO STANDARDS’
Lawyers employed by the Federal Government yesterday strongly criticised plans to dismantle the Australian Legal Aid Office.
They claimed a bill being rushed through Parliament before the winter recess would drastically reduce the standard of legal aid services.
The national president of the Australian Government Lawyers Association, Mr H. Logue, is planning urgent meetings with other Public Service unions and the AttorneyGeneral, Mr Ellicott, to request deferral of the controversial bill until the next session of Parliament.
Legislation to rationalise the legal aid system was introduced in Parliament on Friday by Mr Ellicott.
The bill proposes to set up a Commonwealth legal aid commission which will monitor and watch over separate commissions in each State and territory.
The system will replace the Australian Legal Aid Office as well as existing State government and State law society schemes.
Career Prospects
Mr Logue said the decision would affect 165 lawyers working for the Federal Government in legal aid.
The planned changes would shatter the career prospects of many of these lawyers and the effects would bc felt in the service available to the community. “The legislation proposes to break this network of lawyers who have built up expertise in this area into eight small selfcontained units’. Mr Logue said.
The effect will be to lower the potential careers of many lawyers who will look for career prospects elsewhere. “The hiving-off of legal aid office staff to State commissions, in some cases comprising less than a dozen lawyers, can result only in a drastic reduction in the high standard of legal aid services provided to the community.
The proposed Commonwealth commission could be utilised best as a statutory basis for existing legal aid operations.
A matter of immediate concern is the undue haste with which the Federal Government proposes to enact this legislation ‘. Mr Logue said.
Mr Ellicott foreshadowed the Commonwealth commission nearly seven months ago and now the Government proposes to push the bill through the Parliament in only seven days’.
Under the legislation the Aboriginal Legal Service will remain separate.
The setting up of the State commissions will he done by agreement under negotiation between the Commonwealth and the States.
Two States- Western Australia and South Australia- have already passed legislation to set up their commissions, although Mr Ellicott has indicated he is seeking further changes in their laws.
Discussions are continuing with other States.
BLITZKRIEG LEGISLATION
It is difficult to characterise the travesty of the parliamentary process that this week is attending the scheduled passage of the Government’s Commonwealth Legal Aid Commission Bill, but ‘legislation by blitzkrieg’ does not fall far short of the mark. The Bill itself, after several months of rather vague statements of intent and uncertain reassurances by the Attorney-General. Mr Ellicott, was introduced only last Friday. Late yesterday it underwent its second reading in the House of Representatives. Today it is scheduled to go to the Senate: its sponsors yesterday expected that it would he the law of the land, or at worst awaiting the formality of Vice-Regal ratification, by tonight or. at the latest, tomorrow. Only sardonically could it be said that the Parliament is being given an opportunity to truly ‘consider’ the measure at all. Such a distortion of the legislative process is neither reassuring about the state of parliamentary democracy in this country nor a good augury of the practicality of the Bill itself.
Such indecent haste, and its attendant denial of the parliamentary system in its most complete sense, is deplorable enough of itself. But the Commonwealth Legal Aid Commission Bill possesses features which individually demand proper and detailed consideration. The commission contemplated by the Bill is little more than a watchdog advisory panel for the Attorney-General. More importantly, the Bill proposes to dismantle the existing Australian Legal Aid Office, parcelling its operations out to new State commissions, in pursuance of the Government’s vaunted ‘new federalism’, lt envisages the transfer to the State commissions of lawyers at present employed by the ALAO-a proposition which raises the entire question of” the Commonwealth’s relationship with its employees, an issue which surely demands greater consideration than the Government’s parsimonious allocation of time permits.
The fact that the Council of Australian Government Employee Organisations resolved recently to oppose the transfer of Commonwealth staff and functions to the States need not necessarily loom as a major factor in the Government’s consideration of this topic. But that- and normal courtesywould suggest that Mr Ellicott and his department might have permitted greater time than they have for proper consultation on the detailed provisions of the Bill. In particular, it appears that members of the existing ALAO have just cause to fear that their positions will not necessarily be protected on their transfer to the new Slate legal aid commissions.
Senate needs to act
Some of the ‘safeguards’ proposed in the Bill are less than convincing: former Federal public servants are not guaranteed equal rights within the State commissions and the criteria for their readmission to the Commonwealth service seem unnecessarily narrow. In fairness. Mr Ellicott has vowed on a number of occasions to seek the States’ cooperation in providing such safeguards. On the other hand, his approaches so far to Western Australia, one of the two States to legislate to set up a local commission, have met with a lack of any meaningful response.
Questions of honest dealing and courtesy aside, there are many points on which the Bill can be faulted. A strong case can be made that legal aid is to a sufficiently large extent a welfare, as distinct from a narrowly legal, issue that the preponderance of lawyers on the proposed commission is inappropriate. Moreover, the Australian Government Lawyers Association is on strong ground when it protests at the destruction of a national career structure for lawyers with a commitment to legal aid. It is difficult to see how the delivery of such specialist services can be improved by shattering a single service into half a dozen or eight, any more than, for instance, the performance of the Royal Australian Air Force would be enhanced by its division between the States.
Given the Government’s commitment to its ‘federalist’ dogma, it is nevertheless difficult to understand why the Government is unwilling to entertain the intelligent compromise suggested by the unions- and accepted by the South Australian Attorney-General- to staff the autonomous State commissions from the Federal Public Service, so retaining the advantages of a unified career structure. A strong case can be made that legal-aid authorities should be enabled to stand back from the local interests of State legal establishments. Mr Ellicott, by contrast, advocates a system calculated to subjugate Commonwealth-financed legal aid to just those establishments. Too many questions are raised by the Commonwealth Legal Aid Commission Bill to permit its passage at this time. If the Senate is in any shape or form the House of Review’ it proclaims itself, it will defer action on the measure at least until the Budget session.
MSGR . . . Senator D. Grimes
Parliament House
Canberra A.C.T.
Urgently beg you use all your influence to amend Legal Aid Bill to include clause 6(n) specifying aid for matters involving protection maintenance and preservation of the environment
Tas. Conservation Trust Inc. Box 684G (6(n)Tas Inc. 684G)8
LEGAL-AID BODY ‘TOOTHLESS TIGER’
The Government’s proposed Commonwealth Legal Aid Commission will be a ‘toothless tiger’, the Opposition spokesman on Attorney-General matters, Mr Bowen, said yesterday.
The Opposition would be moving to have legislation establishing the commission withdrawn and redrafted.
He was speaking on the Commonwealth Legal Aid Commission Bill 1977, which sets up the commission to operate in conjunction with State and territorial commissions, and safeguards the rights of employees transferring from the Commonwealth to the other commissions.
The people of Australia needed competent legal aid and legal assistance, and the Bill provided neither, Mr Bowen said.
It establishes a commission, but what a toothless tiger of a commission ‘, he said.
The Opposition would be asking for the Bill to be withdrawn and redrafted to establish a statutory legal aid commission to finance, co-ordinate and provide legal aid, and to ensure enough funds were made available for this.
Mr Hodgman (Lib, Tas) said that in the administration of Commonwealth legal-aid schemes, there had been instances where money had not been spent in the areas of greatest need.
In some areas legal aid has actually caused an increase in fees, where they had been at a more reasonable level’, he said.
He denied suggestions that the Government was trying to opt out of legal aid, and said the Attorney-General, Mr Ellicott, had managed to squeeze an extra $5m out ofthe Treasury this financial year for legal aid.
To suggest the Commonwealth is opting out of the scheme is completely and absolutely unjust ‘, he said.
Mr Tony Whitlam (Lab. N.S.W.) said the Prime Minister. Mr Fraser, had promised when he was Leader of the Opposition to abolish the Australian Legal Aid Service, and now he had done it.
You are doing away with existing legal aid in Australia and establishing nothing in its place’, he told Government members.
All the Bill did was to establish a commission to advise the Government on grants to State legal-aid commissions for legal aid in the Commonwealth law field.
Although Mr Ellicott had undertaken to provide safeguards for Australian legal-aid employees, all he promised in the legislation was to try to get the States to make provisions for this in agreements they were to make with the Commonwealth. But no details of these proposed agreements had been made available.
Mr Bowen ‘s amendment, calling for the withdrawal and redrafting of the Bill, was defeated.
The Bill passed all stages after a division won by the Government by 78 votes to 30.
AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT LAWYERS ASSOCIATION
G.P.O. Box E307 Canberra, A.C.T. 2600. 31 May 1977.
Dear Mr Ellicott,
On behalf of CAGEO we wish to confirm our strong opposition to the present intention of the Government to pass the Commonwealth Legal Aid Commission Bill through both Houses of Parliament this week, without sufficient time for adequate consideration of the measure by affected staff associations, welfare organisations and members of the public, and of course by Members of Parliament themselves. This legislation is of great importance to the future of legal aid services in Australia and provides the best opportunity for proper consideration of the implications of the proposed new legal aid scheme which your Government has initiated.
We reiterate that we consider that it is unjustifiable for the Government to proceed with the passing of this legislation in its present form, both from the point of view of the public interest and in view of the fact that it does not meet your firm undertakings to ALAO officers, as the terms and conditions of employment which they would be offered after the takeover by the States should be at least as favourable as those which they presently enjoy.
At the present time the Western Australian Legal Aid Commission Act remains in its original form notwithstanding the representations which we understand you have made to the Western Australian Government to have a number of important amendments made to it, such as the substantial changes to the means by which legal aid applications are considered and granted applications handled. You indicated that we could expect an indication that some favourable changes would be made to that legislation in approximately a fortnight’s time. However, this is unacceptable as six months have already elapsed since you originally took these matters up with the Western Australian Attorney-General, and no change in the situation has occurred in that time.
We also feel that it is most unsatisfactory and unacceptable for provisions concerning the protection of rights of ALAO officers who transfer to State Commissions to be dealt with in a hasty additional part to this Bill, instead of being covered by an amendment to the Officers’ Rights Declaration Act which we understand the Government proposes to introduce and have passed by Parliament during the Budget Session.
It may be that it will not be physically possible to pass any amendments to the present legislation if it is to pass through all stages this week. If this is so, it would re-enforce our argument that this legislation should be deferred to the Budget Session so that proper consideration can be given to it and adequate opportunity for the various issues involved to be identified and as far as possible resolved as a result of consultation and discussion. The fact that Western Australia is anxious for this legislation to be passed quickly is not in our view a sound basis for proceeding with the legislation, particularly as Western Australia has been so recalcitrant in making any commitment to amending its own hastily passed legislation. It can hardly be surprising that we view with reservations your assurance yesterday that amendments to the Western Australian legislation are likely to be agreed to shortly. Surely the Western Australian legislation should be amended first and the Commonwealth legislation passed afterwards, if there is to be any certainty that appropriate amendments will be made to the Western Australian legislation. Such amendments are of great importance to ALAO officers in Western Australia, and the rapid passage of this legislation in the absence of amending legislation is likely to increase the likelihood that ALAO officers in Western Australia will continue to refuse to join the W.A. Legal Aid Commission.
As to the particular matters which we raised yesterday, we confirm the following:
We abide by our basic submission that a nationwide career structure in legal aid should be maintained: and that only by so doing can your undertakings as to the retention of terms and conditions of ALAO officers as favourable as those they have at present be carried out.
We note that taking the Commonwealth Legal Aid Commission Bill and your Second Reading Speech together, you have in fact accepted the principle of what we have been saying. However, implementation of that principle is only effected in part by the legislation and the vital matter of retaining mobility for Legal Aid Officers in the different States and Territories is a matter for future negotiation between the Commonwealth and various States and Territories. The fact that this matter has not, apparently, been raised with the W.A. Government at this time gives rise to grave doubt as to whether such mobility, which should include equal access to vacant positions and portability of rights, will be implemented in part or even at all in the foreseeable future.
In the context of the Government’s determination to proceed with transferring ALAO officers, to the States, at the very minimum Section 21 (3) should be amended to provide for arrangements with a State to provide for equal accessability of ‘eligible persons’ to positions in State Commissions which become vacant, and for portability of all rights from one State Commission to another (including rights at State level). Clause 24 (2) (d) is too narrow and should be amended to encompass the recommendations referred to by the Joint Council in 1973 that not only diminution of advancement opportunities should be a condition for re-appointment in the Australian Public Service, but diminution in circumstances of employment should be a prescribed condition. The provision should be amended accordingly.
Clause 24 ( 8 ) should be amended as it is too narrow in its scope. It should make reference to relevant experience which the officer has had, and in any event, should be altered so that the criteria mentioned arc not exclusive.
As to the structure and functions of the Commonwealth Legal Aid Commission itself, CAGEO considers that it is too heavily weighted towards lawyers and did not guarantee adequate representation of persons who have expertise in welfare and consumer areas. Participation by such people in the Commission is vital if the priorities for the provision of legal aid services are to be properly assessed.
The legislation should also set out the values underlying the provision of legal aid services which the Commission is intended to be guided by. We attach a copy of CAGEO’s submission to the A.C.T. Legislative Assembly which includes a submission on this point on pages 22 and 23.
In addition to these matters we also note that Clause 6. which deals with the functions of the Commission, is unduly narrow in relation to the provision of legal aid services. Paragraph K refers to the determination of applications for the provision of legal or financial assistance by the Commonwealth in Commonwealth matters, but does not provide for the actual provision of such assistance. Furthermore, the determination of such applications is limited to matters in which the Commission is specifically authorised to do so by an Act and otherwise only by direction of the AttorneyGeneral. This means that in most areas in which the ALO provides legal aid the Commission docs not have any authority to handle legal aid matters without a specific direction from the Attorney to do so. This is clearly most unsatisfactory.
As indicated to you yesterday, these arc the matters that flow from our discussions with the Public Service Board. There are other matters which could be dealt with if adequate time is made available.
H.D.LOGUE
General President
F. LEY
General Secretary
The Honourable R. J. Ellicott. Q.C.. M.P. Attorney-General, Parliament House. CANBERRA, A.C.T. 2600
AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT LAWYERS ASSOCIATION
PRESS RELEASE
The Australian Government Lawyers Association calls for the Commonwealth Legal Aid Commission Bill 1977 to he referred to a Committee of the Parliament to considerthe important legal, social and constitutional issues involved. We would hope that the Government would give the Members of the House of Representatives an opportunity to sit on that Committee, but, if it does not, then we call upon the Senate to refer the Bill to a Committee of the Senate for the detailed and careful consideration it warrants.
The provision of legal aid services is a very complex matter. It cannot be dealt with properly by the Parliament in the space of one week. Indeed pans of the Government’s legal aid package are not even before the Commonwealth Parliament. The Government’s proposals rest heavily on State and Territorial legislation, much of which has not even been introduced. The Commonwealth Parliament should be given an opportunity to consider, by means of a Committee, the complete legal aid package. It should know what it is being asked to agree to.
When the previous Labor Government introduced its own legal aid legislation, Mr Howard, now the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, then leading for the Liberal and Country Parties said:
We invite the Government to have an open mind on changes to this Legal Aid Bill because its proposals already have come under attack from a number of people whose respectability in and knowledge of the field of legal aid cannot seriously be called in question. Therefore the Opposition wants the provisions of this Bill to be scrutinised by a Committee of both Houses of Parliament.
Hansard 9 October 1975.
AGLA respectfully agrees with Mr Howard’s comments and notes that they are directly in point in the present situation. The Attorney-General. Mr Ellicott, supported Mr Howard on behalf of the then Opposition and said:
The Opposition takes the view that legal aid services should be provided in the most efficient, accountable and accessible form to those in need of it. For this purpose the Opposition believes that a joint Committee of both Houses should consider the important legal, social and constitutional issues involved.
Itis time, as the honourable member for Bennelong( Mr Howard ) said, that we acted like a Parliament on a matter like this. It is time that we legislated on the basis of an inquiry into the important issues involved.
Hansard 9 October 1975.
AGLA calls for the kind of inquiry proposed by Mr Ellicott in 1975. We note that to date, no such inquiry has been held. It is indeed time that Parliament acted like a Parliament and legislated on the basis of a proper inquiry.
The inquiry proposed is even more urgent in view of the fact that evidence is mounting that the Government’s proposals are not the most effective and the cheapest way to deal with the provision of Legal Aid services. An all-party Committee of the A.C.T. Legislative Assembly enquired into the Legal Aid legislation before the Assembly. It reported as follows at paragraph 1 5 of its report:
This Committee is of the view that the Australian Legal Aid Office should be retained and given statutory responsibilities.
This view, of course, runs completely counter to the Government’s own proposals. Indeed these proposals do not entirely accord with what has been said on previous occasions by Liberal Party spokesmen. On 9 October 1975 Mr Howard said:
We do not believe that the problems of providing an effective legal aid service will be solved simply by leaving the matter to the States- not because we believe that the attempts made by the Stales over the years have not contained a great deal of merit and have not contributed a great deal to the provision of legal aid services, but the fact is that the Commonwealth has a direct constitutional legal responsibility in a number of areas. Therefore, it has a responsibilityto provide legal assistance to those persons who need assistance in respect ofthe operation of Federal law.
Hansard 9 October 1975.
AGLA believes that this statement isentirely correct and that, according to its tenor, the Government’s present proposals are of questionable value. An all party Committee of the Parliament or, if not, ofthe Senate, is necessary to look into the whole matter and to clear the air.
LOGUE
National President
Australian Government
Lawyers Association
Canberra 31 May 1977
AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT LAWYERS ASSOCIATION
PRESS RELEASE
The Australian Government Lawyers Association strongly opposes the Commonwealth Government’s plan to rush the Commonwealth Legal Aid Commission Bill through both Houses of Parliament before Parliament rises at the end of this week. The Commonwealth Legal Aid Commission Bill which was introduced into the House of Representatives only last Friday, is an extremely important piece of legislation as it will shape the future of legal aid services throughout the whole of Australia and thus demands careful consideration.
The Bill has two main aims. The first is to establish a Commonwealth Legal Aid Commission which will be the cornerstone ofthe Commonwealth Government ‘s determination to dismantle the Australian Legal Aid Office as part of its new Federalism policy. A number of community welfare organisations, including ACOSS and its State affiliates, have consistently criticised the Commonwealth’s decision to dismantle the ALAO. These organisations have repeatedly pointed out that the ALAO has established itself as the legal aid body in Australia : it is highly efficient and well organised : and draws strength from the fact that it operates on an Australia wide basis. The career structure which this provides ensures that the best lawyers are attracted and retained. The hiving off of ALAO staff to State commissions, in some cases comprising less than a dozen lawyers, can only result in a drastic reduction in the high standard of legal aid services currently provided to the community.
AGLA takes the view that the proposed Commonwealth Commission could best be utilised as a statutory basis for existing ALAO operations.
The second main aim ofthe legislation relates to the rights of ALAO legal and administrative staff whom it is proposed should be transferred to State and Territorial commissions. To quote from the Second Reading Speech ofthe Commonwealth Attorney-General. Mr R. J. Ellicott. ‘the Bill seeks to preserve (these) rights’ but as Mr Ellicott admits on page 7 of his speech, this object cannot be achieved as the Bill does not deal with the career prospects of ALAO staff which, as previously pointed out. is an important factor contributing towards the current success of that Office. Mr Ellicott said.
To meet the concern of A.L.A.O. staffabout their career prospects in legal aid. 1 am asking State AttorneysGeneral to include a provision in State legislation enabling Legal Aid Commissions to make reciprocal arrangements with each other for transfer of staff. Similar provision would be made in the A.C.T. and the N.T.’
This represents a last minute change of heart by the Commonwealth Government as there is no provision for this in the W.A. or S.A. Acts, or in the draft A.C.T. Ordinance. In any event, there must be serious doubt whether all the States and the Commonwealth could arrive at a suitable arrangement in the near future, if at all. Yet ALAO staff in Western Australia will shortly be asked to forego their present legal entitlements to a viable career structure, guaranteed to them as Commonwealth public servants under the Commonwealth Public Service Act, in favour of this pious hope.
The specific provisions ofthe Bill which ‘seek’ to preserve the rights of ALAO staff are extremely detailed and complex and the numerous cross references to provisions ofthe Public Service Act require that both pieces of legislation be read in conjunction to ascertain what is intended. This complexity is emphasised by the fact that out of the 2 1 pages of the Bill, which according to its title is designed to set up a Commonwealth Commission, 13 pages or almost 2/3 of the Bill are devoted to these arrangements. The Bill proposes to apply the Officers’ Rights Declaration scheme to transferred ALAO staff notwithstanding that this approach was specifically rejected by CAGEO at its Bi-Ennial Conference earlier this month.
Neither these complex provisions nor arrangements for transferability of staff between States would be necessary if the Commonwealth Government were to adopt the AGLA and CAGEO proposal that ALAO staff retain their Commonwealth Public Service status and be made available as required to the State commissions. South Australia, which is one of the only two States to have legislated for its own legal aid commission, has agreed to the proposal. Yet notwithstanding the obvious advantages and simplicity of this proposal the Commonwealth has steadfastly refused to embrace it. This refusal reveals the Bill for what it really is, an exercise in reducing the Commonwealth Public Service ceiling. However, no cost saving will accrue to the Commonwealth as the financial arrangements with the States will include subsidies to meet the salaries etc. of ALAO staff transferred to State commissions.
A matter of immediate concern is the undue haste with which the Commonwealth Government proposes to enact this legislation. Mr Ellicott foreshadowed the Commonwealth Commission nearly 7 months ago and now the Government proposes to push the Bill through the Parliament in only 7 days. Such precipitous action would deprive the public, Members of Parliament and ALAO staff of adequate opportunity to study the Bill. It also appears likely that some staff would not receive a copy ofthe Bill before it was enacted contrary to assurances given to the staff by Mr Ellicott. This action is also inconsistent with Mr Ellicott ‘s statement at page 6 of the Second Reading Speech that ALAO staff will not be asked to elect concerning transfer to a State or Territorial Commission until . . . staff are fully informed about the terms and conditions that will apply to them’.
The early enactment of this legislation cannot be justified on the basis that either the W.A. or S.A. Commissions, or both, propose to commence operation on 1 July. Present information indicates that the need to finalise administrative arrangements will effectively preclude the Commission’s opening their doors before August. In any event temporary arrangements could be made to deal with this matter.
This statement has the support of ACOA, APSA, whose members are also employed in the Australian Legal Aid Office, and of the peak council, CAGEO. Arrangements are in hand for senior officials of AGLA and the other unions to meet with Mr Ellicott on Monday, 30 May to formally request deferral of the Bill to the Budget Session of Parliament.
HUGH LOGUE
National President.
Australian Government
Lawyers Association.
Canberra 29 May 1977.
PRESS RELEASE
COMMONWEALTH LEGAL AID COMMISSION BILL
Professor Ronald Sackville, formerly Commissioner for Law and Poverty on the Australian Government Commission of Inquiry into Poverty, and Ms Susan Armstrong, formerly Research Director of the Law and Poverty section of the Commission, today expressed serious concern about the Commonwealth Legal Aid Commission Bill which has been introduced into Parliament by the Attorney-General, Mr Ellicott. They called for a reconsideration of the terms of the proposed legislation and for more time to allow discussion ofthe Bill’s implications.
The Bill sets out to dismantle the Australian Legal Aid Office, to hand over its functions to State Commissions, and to establish a Commonwealth Legal Aid Commission which would perform advisory functions in relation to legal aid. The first two objectives have long been part of the Fraser Government’s new federalism policy. The Government has chosen to reject proposals for joint Commonwealth-State Commissions which would allow the Commonwealth to continue to play a direct role in the provision of legal aid.
It is most regrettable that a national legal aid service should be sacrificed on the altar of the new federalism ideology, but it is probably too late in the day to persuade the Commonwealth to change its mind on this issue. Nevertheless, even accepting the policy of returning legal aid to the States, there are serious problems with the Bill which deserve further thought and warrant the Bill being subjected to more public debate than the Government’s timetable now allows.
Introduction of Commonwealth legislation at this stage is premature. Only Western Australia and South Australia have so far introduced legislation to establish State Commissions, and neither of these States has yet implemented the legislation or indicated that they have reached financial agreement with the Commonwealth. It is not yet clear that the remaining States will be willing to adopt the new federalism policy, nor is it clear what terms would be acceptable to them.
The Act does nothing of itself to solve the funding problems of the States, which are being asked to take over the Commonwealth’s responsibilities in legal aid without the Commonwealth stating publicly its plans for providing continued or adequate sources of finance for legal aid.
The legislation will contribute to the continuing politicisation of legal aid. The Attorney-General in his second reading speech referred to the Government’s policy of establishing a comprehensive legal aid scheme in Australia and of giving the Legal Aid Commission an advisory, co-ordinating and monitoring role. In fact the proposed role of the Commission is far too narrow, and the Commission lacks any significant measure of independence.
The Commission’s role is limited to making recommendations to the Attorney-General, who retains final authority in relation to the funding of State legal aid commissions and the co-ordination of their activities. The Commission has no power to grant funds directly to legal aid bodies; any recommendation will have to be approved and carried out by the Attorney-General of the day, who is of course subject to the usual political pressures. The Commission will therefore not act as a buffer between government and legal aid bodies, and its lack of independent authority will contribute to the continuing politicisation of legal aid in Australia.
The Commission cannot perform any worthwhile coordinating role since it has no direct powers, and indeed there is nothing in the Bill to clarify how the Commonwealth intends to achieve its professed goal of co-ordinating of legal aid services. Another layer of government is hardly likely to contribute to the elimination of waste. There is no assurance in the Bill that a uniform standard of legal aid will be provided throughout Australia.
The Commission will be excessively dominated by legal practitioners. It is now widely accepted that a broad range of interests and experience be represented on any legal aid commission. This is especially true ofan advisory committee, where a detailed knowledge of legal practice is less important than an understanding of social welfare services, research techniques, and the needs ofthe consumers of legal aid. Yet there is no specific provision for the appointment of a non-lawyer to the Commission. The Chairman, the Deputy Chairman, and the Law Council nominee must all be lawyers. It is likely that the nominees ofthe Commonwealth and State Attorneys-General will be lawyers and that most will be practitioners. If that occurs the only representative able to put forward the consumer and social welfare perspective will be the single nominee of the Australian Council of Social Service.
The Bill reflects a limited and unimaginative view of the role of legal aid. Far more thought should be given to the Commission’s advisory functions. The drafting of the Bill shows a singular lack of imagination.
The Commission is directed to keep under review the extent ofthe need for legal assistance but legal assistance is defined in a limited way that does not expressly recognise the need for test cases or the importance of actions on behalf of disadvantaged groups. It has been repeatedly pointed out that legal aid, if it is to be effective, must conduct test cases and class actions where appropriate.
The Commission is empowered, as requested by the Attorney-General, to report to him as to the provision of financial assistance to State legal aid commissions. Even apart from the limitation that the Attorney-General is not even bound to refer the question of financial assistance to the Commission notwithstanding the dependence of the States on federal support, the Commission is not directly required to consider the granting of assistance to voluntary legal services, such as the Fitzroy Legal Service, which have been performing extraordinarily valuable work. The Commission has power to advise on such other matters as it considers appropriate, but this is different from a duty to consider financial assistance to the voluntary services. The Bill does refer (in clause 6 (e)) to the possibility ofnonGovernment legal aid schemes receiving financial assistance from the Commonwealth, but the role of the Commission in this is not made clear.
No attempt has been made to give the Commission a law reform function- that is. developing proposals for reform arising out ofthe experience of legal aid bodies in the States. This can and shouldbe done in conjunction with the federal Law Reform Commission, but the law reform function has been overlooked altogether. Furthermore the Commission itself is given no role in promoting community legal education, its role being limited to advising the Attorney-General.
The legislation to establish a Commonwealth Commission to advise and co-ordinate State legal aid schemes is of crucial importance and will largely determine the nature of future legal aid development in Australia.
The Bill now before Parliament is deficient in many fundamental aspects and adequate time should be allowed for a full consideration of its terms. The proposed A.C.T. Legal Aid Ordinance was permitted to lie on the table for a lengthy period to facilitate full public discussion. The same procedure should be adopted with this legislation, which has far greater implications at a national level. It should not be rushed through Parliament without adequate scrutiny, and amendment where necessary. ‘
RONALD SACKVILLE
SUSAN ARMSTRONG
Enquiries:
Professor R. Sackville. Faculty of Law. University of New South Wales. (Telephone: 662 3266)
Ms Susan Armstrong. Faculty of Law. University of New South Wales. (Telephone: 662 2585)
SUMMARY OF CAGEO’S SUBMISSION ON THE RETENTION OF A NATIONAL CAREER SERVICE IN LEGAL AID
CAGEO’s submission is that the Australia-wide career service to which officers of the Australian Legal Aid Office presently belong should be retained after the establishment of legal aid commissions in the States and Territories. The Council’s proposal envisages the retention ofan on-going Commonwealth career service in legal aid in which ALAO officers would remain in employment under the Commonwealth Public Service Act: for example, by employment within the proposed Commonwealth Commission. Officers in the service would work under the direction and control of the legal aid commissions established in the States and Territories.
This proposal rests on four principal bases.
Firstly it rests on the views expressed by the AttorneyGeneral, Mr Ellicott. in his initial public statement concerning legal aid made on 15 January 1976. The AttorneyGeneral said then, in effect, that the public interest involves meeting the citizens’ need for legal aid. and doing so efficiently and economically, partly through the work of salaried lawyers.
CAGEO submits that salaried lawyers arc able to provide the most efficient and economical legal aid services in many situations but particularly in areas where there arc few or no readily accessible private practitioners. For their services to be efficient, however, career prospects of salaried lawyers and other general terms and conditions of their employment must be sufficiently attractive to encourage able professional and administrative personnel to apply to work in the legal aid field, and to continue to work there after they have gained experience in the work.
This goal cannot, however, be achieved inhere is to he no Australia-wide career structure as there is at present in the ALAO whose officers are members ofthe Australian Public Service. If salaried officers are ‘locked’ into a small employment body such as the proposed commissions in Western Australia and South Australia arc likely to be. numbering between approximately thirty and forty officers each, those with ability and ambition are most unlikely to remain with it for more than a relatively shorttime, and the difficulty of attracting competent people to replace them is sure to be very considerable.
In Tasmania, there are at present eight qualified lawyers working in the Australian Legal Aid Office. A majority of these lawyers were recruited from outside the State. This has been possible only because intending applicants for positions in the Office have known that after working for a time in the ALAO in Tasmania they could seek a transfer to a position in that Office elsewhere in Australia. If a national career service in legal aid is not maintained the salaried service in Tasmania will certainly run down rapidly and the present high standard of legal aid services which the ALAO is providing to the public is likely to disintegrate.
The second basis for the proposal is the AttorneyGeneral’s frequent assurances to officers of the Australian Legal Aid Office that after the takeover of the ALAO by the States the officers would have terms and conditions of service at least as favourable as their present terms and conditions of service (as Australian public servants). One of the clearest examples of such assurances was the Attorney-General’s statement in the House of Representatives on 19 October 1 976 in which he said:
If any legal aid officers are listening tonight I want them to know that in the negotiations I am undertaking I am seeking to preserve the position of all salaried legal aid officers. So in the takeover by the States the situation clearly will be that those officers will be protected and will have at least the same conditions as they enjoy at the moment ‘.
The terms and conditions of employment of officers ofthe legal aid commissions provided for in the State legislation which has been passed in two States ( Western Australia and South Australia) are left at large, being in the discretion of each commission though subject, in the case of South Australia, to the approval of the State Government, and Western Australia, to consultation with the State Public Service Board. This is clearly a very much inferior position to that under which ALAO officers are presently employed as Commonwealth public servants under the Commonwealth Public Service Act.
This unsatisfactory situation would not be rectified by the proposed application of a revised Officers’ Rights Declaration Act to ALAO officers who join the State commissions. The principal reasons for this being so are set out in CAGEO ‘s submission to the Attorney-General in relation to the proposed Legal Aid Ordinance for the A.C.T. and the Northern Territory. In essence these are-
1 ) the application ofthe proposed form ofthe new ORD Act would, it is understood, depend upon the ALAO officers concerned being compulsorily transferred to State and Territory commissions. At present the ALAO officers are not subject to such compulsory transfer. They are entitled to a meaningful option as to whether or not they wish to transfer, particularly as they have been repeatedly assured that this option would bc given to them.
to resign from the Australian Public Service and transfer to a State or Territory commission would involve a substantial loss of career opportunity and even if the application of the revised ORD Act through compulsory transfer were accepted. Officers to whom the Act applied would lose their present right of access to ALAO offices in other States and Territories- a right which is of considerable importance, as most ALAO officers would prefer to make their career in the nation-wide legal aid service rather than to seek employment in a Deputy Crown Solicitor’s Office.
the opportunities for former ALAO officers to return to the Australian Public Service would be severely limited by virtue of the abolition of all the positions from which they had resigned and the generally tight employment situation in the Australian Public Service. Lawyers, particularly would almost certainly find career opportunities in the Australian Public Service minimal or non-existent.
by transferring to a State or Territory Commission, ALAO officers would be leaving the Australian
Government as their employer and accepting in substitution a small Commission a number of whose members (perhaps almost half or even a majority) may well have an unfavourable or at least restrictive view of the role of a salaried service in the legal aid area. In any event, the Commission would be likely to be less reliable than the Australian Government in relation to future terms and conditions of service and as the Ordinance presently stands, the staff of the Commission would have no direct say in the Commission’s formulation of policy in this area.
discussions with the Public Service Board have indicated that a number of particular present rights of individuals might not be able to be carried over to the new Commission e.g. seniority, maternity leave.
taken as a whole, the proposals, which envisage the breakup ofthe present nation-wide legal aid service, and the retention of certain rights by existing officers cannot make up for the demise of that ongoing, broadly based service which involves permanency of employment.
The third basis ofthe submission is that the proposed compulsory transfer of Australian public servants to State commissions which will not be staffed by State public servants is without precedent in the history of the Commonwealth Public Service. On all previous occasions when transfers of Commonwealth public servants to the States has taken place, the transferred officers have been offered State public service rights. This is clearly not the situation in regard to ALAO officers. CAGEO submits that there is no justification for breaking this long standing and well founded practice.
Fourthly, it is CAGEO s policy, as indicated in discussion with the Board, that current Commonwealth proposals should not operate so as to discriminate between ALAO officers (in relation to future terms and conditions of service ) simply because of their location in a State or Territory. For example, it is understood that staff taken over by the proposed A.C.T. Commission will continue to receive identical terms and conditions to those which they presently enjoy. Presumably this will also be the case in the Northern Territory. On the other hand, it is abundantly clear that the terms and conditions that will be accorded to staff of the West Australian and South Australian commissions will bc somewhat less than those which they presently enjoy. Indeed, there is likely to be a disparity between the terms and conditions accorded in each of those States and this trend is likely to be repeated in each of the other States assuming they adopt the Commonwealth proposal. In CAGEO’s view the only equitable means of avoiding this blatant discrimination is for the Commonwealth to adopt the proposal contained in the first paragraph of this submission.
-I yield to the exigencies of my colleagues’ desires to have the proceedings abbreviated. Only because of recent events I rise to express my warm approval of this Bill as a constructive first step in a responsible way to begin the examination of the extent and the ambit of legal aid services, with legal aid to be distinguished significantly from medical aid. A reflection upon the confused situation of medical schemes ought to encourage us to introduce legal aid in a cautious and responsible manner. This Bill establishes a responsible commission to ascertain and keep under review the extent of the need for legal assistance in Australia, in particular legal assistance in respect of Commonwealth matters, and to make recommendations to the AttorneyGeneral to ensure the most effective, economical and desirable means of satisfying that need. The Bill in particular provides for the commission to establish rules of law not individual ideas of particular officers, some of whom in the Australian Legal Aid Office have shown themselves to be not only expert legal practitioners but also expert propagandists. This Bill is most important for requiring a consideration of the criteria to be applied in determining whether legal aid is to be granted to any particular person. I hope it will be on rules of law, not individual discretion. I support the Bill warmly.
– I am sorry that the Opposition wants to delay the establishment of the Commonwealth Legal Aid Commission because, as is clear from the speeches that have been made in this debate about this commission, this will be a major step in putting the delivery of legal aid in Australia on a rational and firm basis. It is an operation which can be properly carried out only by co-operation with the Commonwealth and State governments. The suggestions that this Bill is in some way designed by the Commonwealth Government to disband legal aid programs are quite false. The commitment by this Government to legal aid and the support which it has given to it have been emphasised by the figures that have been quoted in this debate. In answer to a point that Senator Coleman raised, in the last financial year there were 45 700 matters committed to legal aid. In the present financial year it is anticipated that there will be between 48 000 and 49 000 matters committed. So it is not a matter of payments this year being past payments or anything of that sort. These commitments are growing commitments by this Government. I am sorry also that most of the opposition to this Bill, indeed it has been reflected in speeches made in this chamber by the Opposition, seems to be devoted more to a concern for the rights and careers of some of those who are taking part in the delivery of legal aid under the present system than to the concern and interests of the people who need legal aid and the clients of the system. 1 hope that this Bill will have a speedy passage.
Amendment negatived.
Original question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time.
In Committee
The Bill.
-I refer to clause 5, and in doing so state that I do not regard myself as being in the generic description of ‘colleague’ used by Senator Wright when he said that he was speaking briefly in order to facilitate his colleagues. I was not included in that description, I hope. In clause 5 the constitution of the Commission is set out. It provides for a chairman, deputy chairman, 2 commissioners nominated by the Attorney-General and 2 commissioners nominated by the Attorneys-General ofthe States in which legal aid commissions have been established. I will come to sub-clause (d ) in a moment. Clause 5 provides for a commissioner nominated by the Law Council of Australia and a commissioner nominated by the Australian Council of Social Service which, presumably, is intended to be the consumer representative. It appears to us, and wc would be grateful for some assurance from the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Senator Durack) or some indication of the Government’s view, that it is likely that all the commissioners other than the commissioner representing the Australian Council of Social Service will be lawyers, none of whom necessarily has had any experience, involvement or dedication in the field of legal aid. A lot of hopes have been expressed by senators such as Senator Missen that this sort of thing will not happen, but there is nothing in the legislation to prevent it.
I would be very grateful for an indication of the Government’s hopes or intentions, whatever the case may be, regarding the point I have raised. Certainly one imagines that the commissioner nominated by the Law Council will not necessarily fall into that category. I also ask the Minister to elaborate on sub-clause (d) which refers to the commissioners nominated by the States in which legal aid commissions have been established. That carries an important implication regarding this legislation. There may bc States in which legal aid commissions have not been established. This goes to the very point wc were trying to make in the second reading debate; that is, that it is undesirable that Australians be accorded unequal rights in relation to access to legal aid. That may be an area in which people such as Senator Missen and I have hopes, but that is a weakness which we see in the legislation. I would be grateful for the Ministers comments on clause 5.
– I .simply point out that the Deputy Chairman of the Commission will be a full time member of the Commission and presumably will be an officer of the Attorney-General ‘s Department who has had a good deal of experience in the delivery of legal aid. I also point out that the clause provides for 2 commissioners to be nominated by the AttorneyGeneral. I have noted the point made by Senator Button about the desirability of one member of the Commission being a person who has had some commitment to and direct experience in the delivery of legal aid. I am unable to make any commitment on behalf of the Attorney-General as to who the commissioners will be. I shall draw the Attorney-General’s attention to the point that Senator Button has made in regard to this matter. I am sure that the Attorney-General will give it due consideration.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.
Bill (on motion by Senator Durack) read a third time.
page 2042
In Committee
Consideration resumed from 2 June.
Clause 25.
– I wonder whether the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Senator Durack) has answers to questions raised by Senator Cavanagh before the debate was adjourned in relation to the provisions of proposed section 45D.
– It will be remembered that I addressed the Committee’s mind to proposed new section 45D. I was saying that proposed new sub-sections (5) and (6) spawn out verbiage with regard to the remedies that are to be available where a union, or an organisation as it is called in the new subsection, is involved and then substitutes the union for individual liability. As Senator Cavanagh said in his close analysis of subparagraph (v) of proposed new sub-section (6), the draftsman even deems it necessary in a Bill of this character to explain what property is available in execution. I should have thought that that was a matter of ordinary legal procedure, and that if liability is imposed under this Bill it will be left to other Acts to say what the ambit of the leviable property is. In view of the time I pass over an analysis of those 2 proposed new subsections, neither of which is capable of any clear understanding. I think that they both have been drafted in a nightmare.
I turn now to the main reason for which 1 stand. The substantial purpose for which this clause was introduced has been defeated completely by drafting. The purpose of the clause as originally drafted was to prevent secondary boycotts. That meant that if a combination of persons were exerting economic pressure in the course of a dispute amongst themselves- it may be competition between tradesmen or unions in demarcation or a dispute between employees and their unions- they are entitled unfortunately in too coercive a way not only to withdraw their labour but also to boycott the job of their employer. Nobody would be entitled or would be permitted to go there without creating a general concerted strike. Primary boycott was never in issue, but when employees having a dispute with their union, as Senator Harradine instanced the other night, pull five or six levers from three or four allies against a neutral person and concert a boycott against the employer by reason of activating interference in a third person’s business- stopping the supply of his goods- they are travelling quite outside the legitimate ambit of strike action. Therefore, secondary boycott was to be condemned by this section. In America secondary boycott was condemned by the Supreme Court in 1909. It was resurrected and legalised in 1 93 1 .
-We are here for the rest ofthe night now.
-No we are not. It was outlawed by 1 948. It is still the law that secondary boycott is not permissible in America as an aid to primary strike action. Primary boycott is permissible but not secondary boycot and our legislation was directed to achieve that purpose. By the introduction of sub-section (3) we have granted to unions in the course of their dispute the right to invoke a secondary boycott. After saying in sub-section ( 1 ) that a person shall not engage in conduct that prevents supply of goods to a corporation- that is to the neutral third personwhich is for the purpose of and likely to have the effect of damaging his business, subsection (3) states:
A person shall not be taken to contravene . . . subsection ( I ) . . . where-
the dominant purpose Tor which the conduct is engaged in is substantially related to-
the remuneration, conditions of employment, hours of work or working conditions of that person or of another person . . .: or
an employer of that person having terminated, or taken action to terminate, the employment of that person or of another person . . .
Sub-section (2) provides that if the dispute is a legitimate dispute over industrial conditions then the prohibition against secondary boycott ceases; that is, instead of imposing a restriction on secondary boycott the effect of this sub-section, in the case of union disputes, is to legalise secondary boycotts.
The second point I make is this: I stand here to affirm that under this law, if it is passed, the purpose of the Government will be defeated. The common law would have provided a much more effective remedy. This provision cuts down the remedy that is already available at common law. The bedevilling effect of that law is that one has to examine the purpose of a dispute in which 100 people in 3 sections are involved and then consider the dominant purpose of the dispute. The case would be in the law courts for months and nobody knows what the decision would be. It is a fact that the common law procedures bedevil one from ever getting justice. That is why common law action in this field is thought to be ineffective. In the spawned excretions of subsection (1) and put out in sub-section (3) is all this reference to purpose and dominant purpose. I recall 2 cases in the House of Lords. The first is Sorrell v. Smith in 1925 Appeal Cases, where it is stated:
A combination of two or more persons for the purpose of injuring a man in his trade is unlawful and, if it results in damage to him, is actionable.
It does not have to be substantial damage. If a person engages in a combination of common law and it is for the purpose of injuring a third person, damages flow. The report continues:
If the real purpose of the combination is not to injure another, but to forward or defend the trade of those who enter into it, then no wrong is committed and no action will lie, although damage to another ensues, provided that the purpose is not effected by illegal means.
The other better known case to which I wish to refer is Crofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed Company, Limited, which is situated on the islands in the North Sea, 1942 Appeal Cases, at page 435. In that case, the Crofter Company and the Dockers Union joined together to prevent the exit and outflow of” competing yarn. Their purpose was to support their own interests and not to injure the competitor. The predominant purpose was to support their own interest. There was no action. Those are the principles involved. We have bedevilled the whole of this clause by reducing the efficacy of the common law remedy and, instead of providing a prohibition on secondary boycott, we are providing an extension for it.
- Senator Wright has done the Senate a great service with his contribution because it has raised for the consideration of the Committee further areas which it did not have previously. Obviously, if Senator Wright is correct, we on this side of the chamber should not have the same concern that we have. But we see now that Senator Wright seems to be the only honourable senator on the Government side who has applied his mind to the possible effects of proposed section 45D, notwithstanding the fact that Senator Button, Senator Cavanagh and myself have, both in our speeches during the second reading debate and in our contributions at the Committee stage, raised a number of points in relation to which we have not received replies from the Minister.
– If Senator Wright is correct, there are a lot of other dangers.
– Indeed. I said we would not have the same concern. We would be concerned all right but not so concerned. Before I vote on this very important and controversial piece of legislation, the consideration of which was put off from last night until the dying hours of this session I would like to know the answers to those matters that were raised. I would like to hear the Minister give a reply, for example, concerning the matter which I raised during the second reading debate, namely, whether the circumstances about which I spoke at that time would be covered by proposed section 45D and whether action mentioned under those circumstances would contravene the provisions of proposed section 45D. That is a most important matter and it is a matter in relation to which I seek an answer now.
Progress reported.
Declaration of Urgency
Motion (by Senator Withers) agreed to:
That the Trade Practices Amendment Bill 1977 bc considered an urgent Bill.
Allotment of Time
– I move:
That the time allotted for consideration of the remaining stages of the Bill be until five past 6 p.m. this day. and:
That the question be put forthwith.
– The question is: ‘That the question be now put’.
-Mr President, I rise-
– Order! There can be no debate on this question.
Question resolved in the affimative.
-The question now is: That the time allotted for the consideration of the Bill be agreed to’.
-Earlier this afternoon Senator Coleman said that the Government was prostituting the Parliament because of the number of Bills that were being dealt with by this Parliament in the last week of the sessional period. Now, by this guillotine -
- Mr President, I raise a point of order. This matter is not open to debate because I have moved that the question on the time for the remaining stages of the Bill be put forthwith.
- Senator Douglas McClelland is not in order in speaking to the motion.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
-The time allotted for the consideration of the Bill having expired, I put the question:
That the remaining stages of the Bill be agreed to.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a third time.
page 2044
– For the information of honourable senators I table a statement by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the Honourable Ian Viner, relating to the recommendations of the Senate Select Committee on Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders.
-by leave- I move:
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
page 2044
– I table as part of the record a letter received from the Honourable Ian Viner for Estimates Committee D.
page 2044
– I move:
That the Senate do now adjourn. and:
That the question be now put.
-The question is: ‘That the question be now put’.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
-The question now is: That the Senate do now adjourn ‘.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
-The Senate stands adjourned until 16 August at 2.30 p.m., unless sooner called together.
Senate adjourned at 6.9 p.m.
page 2045
The following answers to questions were circulated:
asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 27 May 1977:
– The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
Constitutional Reform: Trade and Commerce
asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, without notice, on 25 February 1977:
Has the Minister considered the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Constitutional Review which reported in 19S9 unanimously in favour of legislation to give the Commonwealth power over corporations, untrammelled by the limitations in the present Commonwealth power, which would enable a uniform companies Act and Federal legislation effectively controlling the securities industry? What is the attitude of the Government to that proposal for constitutional reform?
After I referred to the effect of the High Court decision in Strickland v. Rocla Concrete Pipes in 1971, Senator Wright asked the following supplementary question:
Does not the Minister representing the Attorney-General recall that the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Constitutional Review for the alteration of this power expressly recommended legislation that did not authorise this Parliament to regulate the trade and commerce of corporations, which is the effect of the recent interpretation of the High Court? Is this not an instance in which constitutional review is more properly done by referendum than by High Court interpretation?
– The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
The Joint Committee on Constitutional Review reported in 1 959 in the following terms:
1 ) The Commonwealth Parliament should have power to make laws with respect to corporations.
The power to make laws with respect to corporations should not authorise the Parliament to make laws with respect to the trade, commerce or industry of corporations, or which apply to corporations of a State, including municipal corporations formed for governmental purposes ‘.
Since then the High Court decision in Strickland v. Rocla Concrete Pipes Limited in 197 1 has indicated that the existing power extends at least to the regulation of the trading activities of trading corporations. However, the full scope of the power remains to be finally determined by the High Court.
In 1973 the first meeting of the Australian Constitutional Convention referred the question of amendment of the corporations power to its Standing Committee ‘A’ for consideration and report. The Committee is yet to report upon that reference. When the Committee’s report is available, the Government will consider the Committee’s views. In doing so, the Government will take into account the recommendations made by the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Constitutional Review in 1959.
The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs announced in July last year the Government’s attitude to the general approach the Commonwealth should take in the area of companies and securities industry regulation.
The Commonwealth decided then that the responsible course of action was to seek the agreement of the States to an effective co-operative scheme rather than to legislate unilaterally. Such a solution would achieve both uniformity and the necessary degree of national regulation whilst, at the same time, preserving existing administrative structures at State level. An important element of the Commonwealth’s approach is that it does not involve a formal reference of power by the States to the Commonwealth.
As Mr Howard informed the House on 17 March 1977, a provisional agreement has now been reached for adoption of a general framework for a co-operative CommonwealthState scheme for the regulation of the entire field of companies and the securities industry. Ministers discussed the matter further in Perth on 6 May last when considerable progress was made. Ministers are due to consider the matter again on 3 June next.
State Income Taxes: Possible Constitutional Difficulties
asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, without notice, on 9 March 1977:
Has the Government received a report indicating that there will be serious legal and constitutional difficulties in implementing State income taxes and associated matters which are proposed under stage 2 of the Government’s federalism policy? Can the Minister assure the Senate that the Government is satisfied that such difficulties will be overcome and that all States have indicated their preparedness to meet the Government’s requirements for introducing stage 2?
– The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
The legal and constitutional aspects of implementing stage 2 of the proposed income tax sharing scheme have been examined, but no advice has been received by the Government that there are any serious constitutional or other legal difficulties that would prevent introduction of appropriate enabling legislation by the Commonwealth. I can assure the honourable senator that the Government is satisfied that stage 2 can be implemented to enable the collection of taxes or allowances of rebates imposed or allowed by any State that decides to impose a surcharge or grant a rebate of the kind for which the scheme provides.
Lie Detection Machines
asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General the following question, without notice, on 20 April 1 977:
I ask the Minister representing the Attorney-General a question. 1 refer to a recent Press report that a Sydney entrepreneur plans to import lie detection devices for sale to credit agencies, finance companies and other such bodies for use in assessing the quality of replies to questions addressed to applicants, seeking information as to their credit worthiness? Does the Minister agree that such activities should be closely surveilled to ensure that individual rights are not infringed? Accordingly, will he alert his colleague, the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, who is responsible for customs, to the possibility of the import of such machines with a view to liaising with the Attorney-General in this matter?
– The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
Thank you for drawing my attention to the recent Press article on the importation and use of lie detection devices. I have drawn the article to the attention of my colleague, the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, and also to the Law Reform Commission having regard to its current inquiry relating to privacy.
Attorney-General’s Department: Transfer of Officer
asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, without notice, on 24 May 1977:
I refer to the announcement by Mr Harders, Secretary of the Attorney-General’s Department, concerning the transfer of an officer who gave advice in his own free time to a member of Parliament. Did the Attorney-General authorise Mr Harders to make this statement? On what grounds is it considered that the officer placed himself in conflict with his departmental duties? Does the Minister consider that Mr Harders’ action infringes on the International Labour Organisation Convention No. 111? Will the Minister clarify the ambit of duty of departmental officers as it relates to their own time and will he indicate the guidelines which exist for public servants? Does Mr Harders decision mean that public servants cannot engage in political activities outside their normal working hours?
– The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
The statement issued by the Secretary to my Department concerning this matter was issued with my knowledge but on Mr Harders’ own initiative. Under the Public Service Act management matters of this kind are the responsibility ofthe Permanent Head of the Department. Mr Harders’ statement indicated the matters that in his opinion gave rise to a conflict of interest with his duty to the Department. 1 do not consider that any infringement of International Labour Organisation Convention No. Ill was involved. Other matters raised by the honourable senator are matters of a general nature going beyond the facts of this particular case.
asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:
What action has the Attorney-General taken to investigate claims by Colonel John Moloney that Government security agents have been ‘tapping’ telephones at the ‘Aboriginal Embassy’ in Mugga Way, Canberra.
– The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s questions:
It has been the long-standing practice of successive Australian Governments not to answer questions of this nature either affirmatively or negatively. I propose to adhere to that practice.
Aboriginal Housing in Queensland (Question No. 82)
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:
With respect to the Minister’s reply to question No. 1646 concerning rental of Aboriginal housing in Queensland, can the Minister advise if the Queensland Government provides the Australian Government with audited or non-audited details of funds accrued from rental of Aboriginal housing. If so, what amount of the rental was (a) retained, (b) expended on repairs, (c) expended on maintenance, and (d) expended on the provision of additional housing for each year since 1969-70.
– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:
Audited statements are provided by the Queensland Government showing net funds received from rental of Aboriginal housing in Queensland. The following details of amounts that have been received, retained for the provision of additional housing and expended on repairs and maintenance since 1969-70 was provided by the Queensland Minister for Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement and Fisheries:
The Queensland Government has advised that expenditure for repairs and maintenance is not recorded separately and that the total amount received in rent is expended either in repairs and maintenance or in the provision of additional housing. Accordingly, the amount retained by the
Queensland Government towards its administrative costs is nil.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 9 March:
– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:
In June 1976 I advised the President ofthe NACC, Mr Stanley, to submit a detailed proposal with supporting arguments to justify the proclamation of a public holiday. I have not received any further communication from the NACC.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 15 March 1977:
– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:
The Victorian Health Department spent a total of $52,030 on the dental fee-for-service scheme in 1975-76. In 1976-77 to date the Department has spent $39,327. Although no accurate figures are available, I am informed that the service catered for approximately 500 Aboriginal people in 1975-76.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 15 March 1977:
– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:
The Queensland Minister for Police has advised me that:
Statistics of the kind sought are not available nor are they kept by the Queensland Police Department. To keep specific records of particular groups of people such as Aborigines or persons of foreign descent could lend itself to claims of racial discrimination. Whilst records of this kind have not been kept in the past for the reasons stated above, I can see no justification for a departure from that policy. ‘
Discrimination Against Aborigines: Townsville (Question No. 2SS)
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 15 March 1977:
What action does the Minister intend taking, if any, either through his own Department or in conjunction with the Queensland Government, or other Federal Departments, as a result of the study conducted by a team led by Dr Knud Larsen, Visiting Professor of Psychology at the University of Queensland, which apparently found significant rates of discrimination against Aboriginals in Townsville in the fields of employment and housing.
-The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:
All programs sponsored by the Commonwealth Government in respect of Aboriginal affairs are designed to help Aboriginals overcome special disadvantages arising from their Aboriginality, including acts of racial discrimination. The Department of Aboriginal Affairs works closely on such matters with the Office of the Commissioner for Community Relations, other Commonwealth and State Departments, and with influential community groups and will continue to do so in order to inform all members ofthe Australian community of their rights and obligations, whether they be informal or as set down in the Racial Discrimination Act, in respect of dealings with members of another race.
In the case of the Larsen Report, I have written to the Queensland Minister for Aboriginal and Islander Advancement (the Hon. C. A. Wharton) seeking his comments on Professor Larsen ‘s findings and on the general incidence of racial discrimination in Queensland so far as Aboriginals and Islanders are concerned. Officers of my Department’s Townsville office also maintain close relations with the Townsville Consultative Committee established to encourage the development of inter-racial harmony in the area.
asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on the 15 March 1977:
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
House, Sydney and from the State office of the Commonwealth Department of Education. This information material, articles in the local and national press and the English courses broadcast over radio and television channels help publicise English classes and the Migrant Education Program. There is no separate budget provision for advertising.
There has also been new production in supplementary areas including, in August 1976, the first issue of a series of contrastive analysis material as a guide for teachers of English for people from the Asian countries.
The Adult Migrant Education Program emphasises oral English although some attention is given to reading and writing in English. In addition, teachers of the normal English Language classes focus their attention on students with particular problems such as problems with reading and writing English. The New South Wales Adult Migrant Education Service is developing in conjunction with the New South Wales Ministry of Education’s adult literacy program, a special literacy program for migrants. This development is being funded from within existing resources.
Note: (a) Statistics are kept on a financial not calendar year basis and this is reflected in the answer.
asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 8 March 1977:
– The Attorney-General has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 10 March 1977:
With reference to the Proforma for preparation of submissions for the Public Inquiry into the concept of SelfRegulation by Australian Broadcasters which has been distributed by the Broadcasting Tribunal, does that Proforma misinterpret the Terms of Reference set down by the Minister in that sections 1 to 4 of the Proforma refer to need for program standards, but do not refer to the possibility that broadcasters may be allowed to set and maintain those minimum standards. If so, will the Minister take steps to rectify this situation.
– The Minister for Post and Telecommunications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
I do not agree that the Proforma issued by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal in connection with its Public Inquiry into the concept of Self-Regulation by Australian Broadcasters misinterprets the Terms of Reference. The Terms of Reference were attached to the Proforma.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 23 March 1977:
– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:
The balance of the grant, $6,650, is for purchase of land, fencing, valuation costs etc.
Peterson Brothers, Rockhampton
Northgate Engineering Co., Brisbane
Barclay Homes, Toowoomba
Hanlon Homes, Brisbane
Merrin and Cranston ( Architects ), Brisbane to draw up plans for homes.
In the intervening period the Society maintained contact with these firms ana was kept informed of latest designs and costs. This survey and cost analysis eventually resulted in their preference for demountable Hanlon Homes- in particular, since the Society saw a need to specify an early completion date. The plans for the homes purchased were vetted and approved by the Department of Construction.
Floral Arrangements in Parliament House (Question No. 388)
asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 23 March 1977:
– The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
Because of the significance of the visit to Australia by The Queen in this Jubilee Year, it was decided to engage a florist who on a previous occasion had demonstrated his ability to decorate Parliament House in a manner befitting such an occasion.
asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 20 April 1977:
With respect to the Minister’s reply to Senate question No. 80 concerning future funding arrangements for the Australian Assistance Plan (Senate Hansard, 17 March 1977, page 325), can the Minister provide details of the decision reached by each State Government concerning the future operations ofthe Australian Assistance Plan.
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
The Victorian Minister for Social Welfare wrote to me on 27 April 1977 enclosing a copy of his statement announcing the planned introduction of a Victorian Family and Community Services Program through which assistance will be made available for community service projects which are developed in conjunction with local government, self-help groups and voluntary agencies.
The South Australian Minister for Community Welfare wrote to me on 18 May 1977, referring to his Premier’s press statement of 4 May that the State Government will provide financial and other support for the Australian Assistance Plan (AAP) in 1977-78. During that time a Committee of Enquiry will examine community development and assistance in South Australia.
I have not been advised of their intentions by any of the other 4 State Governments, but am aware that the Tasmanian Minister for Social Welfare announced on 18 May 1977 that the sum of $48,000 would be made available to allow 3 Regional Councils for Social Development in that State to continue operating. The Minister also announced the establishment of a government sub-committee to examine how the AAP should operate in Tasmania.
I am also aware that the Western Australian Premier in a Press statement of 7 April 1977, said that the State Government would not provide funds for the continuation of the AAP.
The Queensland State Minister for Community and Welfare Services issued a press statement on 23 May 1977 indicating the Queensland Government would not fund a continuation of the AAP.
I am not aware of any decision that might have been made by the New South Wales Government.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 20 April 1 977:
With respect to the Minister’s reply to Senate question No. 46 concerning Mr Reg Worthy, (a) was Mr Worthy in ill health during much of his posting as Regional Director of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs in Queensland, (b) what (i) sick leave and (ti) other leave did Mr Worthy take whilst he was Regional Director in Queensland, (c) when was Mr Worthy appointed to the Queensland position, (d) when was Mr Worthy appointed Regional Director, South Eastern Region, and (e) was Mr Worthy’s removal from the position of Regional Director in Queensland largely due to health reasons. If so, how is Mr Worthy able to undertake similar duties as Regional Director, South Eastern Region.
– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 20 April 1977:
– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 20 April 1977:
– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 20 April 1977:
– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 2 1 April 1977:
– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:
Officers of Aboriginal Hostels Limited also investigated noise levels, residential behaviour and the general care of property and tidiness at the Hostel.
Other action taken includes: provision of a recreation area at the rear of the Hostel as an incentive to minimise play outside Hostel grounds, discussions with residents of the neighbouring Warratah Lodge and a subsequent meeting between these residents and representatives of Aboriginal Hostels Ltd, families with three or more children to be found alternative accommodation, accommodation at Elan Hostel to be restricted to small families with pre-school aged children, rather than those having children of school age, parents being encouraged to exercise greater control of their children.
Company representatives will meet again shortly with neighbours of Elan Hostel to further discuss problems and the situation at that time. In the meantime, the Company has asked that any further complaints be directed to it so that immediate remedial action can be initiated.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 2 1 April 1977:
With respect to the Black Community Housing Service, the Brisbane Tribal Council, and the Aborigines and Islanders Community Health Service, all based in Brisbane, can the Minister advise:
1 ) what funding each organisation has received in the past from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs;
what is the function and structure of each organisation;
is each organisation wholly dependent on Commonwealth funding. If not, what are the details;
how much ofthe Department’s grant for 1976-77 has been expended by each organisation to the present time;
is the Department wholly satisfied with the financial management of each organisation. If not, why not;
have any complaints concerning the management or operation of any of the 3 organisations been directed to the Department in the past 6 months. If so, what are the details, and what action is being taken to investigate the complaints;
have the organisations presented submissions seeking funding assistance for 1977-78. If so, what are the details, and what decisions have been taken by the Department with respect to the submissions concerned; and
is the Department wholly satisfied with the operations of each organisation. If not, why not.
– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:
Black Community Housing Service-( 1 ) 1 972-73, $ 1 ,000; 1973-74, $41,935; 1974-75, $372,062; 1975-76, $481,765; 1976-77, $279,165 (total approved for year).
Established to cater for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families living in Brisbane who cannot obtain or afford houses for rent on the open market.
The Service is a limited liability company with a membership of 680 and is controlled by a 10 member board of directors.
The Service receives rental from the houses it has purchased. Rents recieved in 1975-76 totalled $ 12,238.
Approximately $267,000.
The Department has not to date been wholly satisfied with the Service’s financial management but problem areas have improved and current problems are of a minor nature only. Full co-operation has been received from the Service in rectifying these minor accounting problems.
A complaint from the State Member for Brisbane concerning the conduct of certain residents at Normanby Terrace was brought to the Department’s attention. A meeting was held with the Member and a request made to the executive of the Housing Service to investigate the complaints of excessive noise, abuse and threats. No further complaints have been received.
No.
The Black Community Housing Service has operated reasonably effectively and is improving as experience is gained.
Brisbane Tribal Council-(l) 1975-76, $109,300; 1976-77,835,168.
The Council was formed to provide shelter for homeless and itinerant Aboriginal people in Brisbane. A certain amount of welfare work is, of necessity, also carried out.
The Council’s solicitors have submitted documents to the Registrar of Co-operatives and other Societies seeking registration of the Council but approval, to date, has not been received.
The Council also receives income from boarders who use Council houses. This income totals approximately $ 1 ,500 per quarter.
$35,168.
The Department is not wholly satisfied with the Council’s financial management. Failure by the Council to keep proper records of income and expenditure has caused audit problems in the past. The Department has constantly urged the Council to seek their accountants’ assistance in maintaining adequate records and improvements are being achieved.
Letters have been received from Mr D. M. Cameron (Federal Member for Griffith) and Mr Colin Lamont (State Member for South Brisbane) regarding a complaint from a neighbour in Trinity Lane regarding the level of noise, drunkenness and abusive language emanating from Tribal Council houses.
A Departmental officer investigated the complaints but did not witness any distrubances during a limited number of visits to the houses. Enquiries made by the officer substantiated the complaints referred to by Messrs Cameron and Lamont. Since the Department’s enquiries were undertaken no further complaints have been received.
No.
With the exception of the matters referred to in (5) and (6) above the Department is satisfied that the Council is fulfilling the role for which it was established.
Aborigines and Islanders Community Health Service-( 1 ) 1972-73, $55,000; 1973-74, $36,400; 1974-75, $103,813; 1975-76, $306,812; 1976-77, $387,883 (total approved for year).
A medical service established to cater for Aboriginal and Island people from Brisbane and southern Queensland country centres.
The Service is a limited liability company.
The Service is wholly dependent on Commonwealth funding.
$254,000.
The Department is not wholly satisfied with the financial management of the Service. Financial statements are overdue for the quarters ended 30 September 1 976 and 3 1 December 1976. The problem has rested for the most part with the Service ‘s previous auditors who were slow in reporting. New auditors have been appointed and training of Health Service staff in book-keeping practice is being maintained.
No.
The Service has submitted a broad preliminary program only.
Yes.
Commonwealth Assistance for Projects in each Federal Electorate (Question No. 526)
asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 21 April 1977:
– The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
The attention of the honourable senator is drawn to the reply furnished by the Prime Minister to question No. 5 1 3 as published in Hansard on Tuesday, 26 May 1 977.
Commonwealth Assistance for Projects in each Federal Electorate (Question No. 534)
asked the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 2 1 April 1 977:
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
I refer the honourable senator to the Prime Minister’s answer to question on notice No. 513 (Hansard, 26 May 1977, page 1519).
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 2 1 April 1977:
– The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
(a) A migration officer has been located in Portugal to deal with migrant applications received from residents of Portugal including Timorese evacuees.
The Indonesian authorities have given their agreement in principle to a visit by Australian officials to East Timor to interview migrant applicants sponsored in accordance with (3) above. It is not considered necessary to seek the involvement of any international agency or body in this family reunion operation. The main problems are concerned with locating, assembling, medically examining and processing persons nominated and transporting them to Australia. These could not be resolved by such an agency or body.
I would add that the East Timorese in East Timor (or in Portugal) do not come within the mandate of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 2 1 April 1977:
How much of the Department’s budget allocation for 1 976-77 has been expended to date.
– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:
Expenditure from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs budget allocation for 1976-77 was $89,050,837 at 30 April 1977.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 2 1 April 1977:
With respect to part (6) ofthe Minister’s reply to question No. 595 concerning the Bamyili Housing Association (Senate Hansard, 17 August 1976) has the investigation into the affairs of the Bamyili Housing Association been completed. If so (a) when was the investigation completed, and (b) what action has the Minister taken as a result of the investigation.
– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:
Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs: Recommendations (Question No. 561)
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 2 1 April 1 977:
– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:
Recommendations 1 and 4 are currently under consideration by the Government and I will shortly be making an announcement to the House on the measures to be taken.
Recommendations 2 and hence 3(b) have not been implemented, as it has been decided to retain the administration of Special Work Projects under the control of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs.
Recommendation 3(a) concerns matters which are the responsibility of my colleague, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, and I suggest the honourable senator addresses his question to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations.
Address to Nation and Statement in Reply: Television Broadcast (Question No. 629)
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 2 1 April 1977:
Which commercial television stations transmitted (a) the Address to the Nation by the Prime Minister on 6 April 1 977: (b) the Statement in Reply by the Leader of the Opposition on 1 3 April; and at what times did they do so.
– The Minister for Post and Telecommunications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 27 April 1977:
In relation to the proposed purchase by the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission of the property known as ‘ Baroona ‘ near the City of Echuca:
1 ) Was an independent valuation obtained by the Commission before purchase. If so, was such valuation based on the sub-divisional potential of the property, or on its current usage as a beef-producing property.
Were alternative properties inspected with a view to purchase. If so, what was the area and what were the prices, and other relevant details in respect of such properties and the reasons why the Commission preferred to purchase Baroona ‘ rather than other properties.
Did the Commission make any investigation into the suitability of the property known as ‘Rice’s. If so, what was the Commission ‘s opinion.
What activities other than farming are to be carried on at’Baroona’.
Does the manager who is to reside on the property already occupy a house owned by the Commission in the City of Echuca. If so what is to happen to the property in Echuca at present occupied by him.
What number of staff are proposed to be employed at Baroona ‘ and in what capacity.
– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 27 April 1977:
What is the current position on Mornington Island in the Gulf of Carpentaria with regard to rehousing and reconstruction of community facilities.
– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:
I have been advised by the Queensland Branch of my Department that essential community services have been restored and that buildings capable of being repaired have been.
Completion of the rehousing and reconstruction program awaits the finalising of negotiations between the Queensland State Government and the Commonwealth on natural disaster relief.
Aurukun: Damage by Cyclone Otto (Question No. 663)
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 27 April 1977:
– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 26 April 1977:
– The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
In 1975-76 the system of allocating grants to the States under the Hospitals Development Program was changed. Commonwealth funds under the Program are now in the form of block grants to the States to supplement each State ‘s total program of projects as a whole rather than to individual projects.
During 1975-76 the Commonwealth block grant to Victoria under the Hospitals Development Program was $27.28m. In 1976-77 the grant allocated to Victoria is $2 7.00m. Projects in these shires which have been included in Victoria’s total program of projects for which Hospitals
Development Program block grants were provided in 1975-76 and 1976-77 are as follows:
Operating- Under the Hospital Cost-Sharing Agreements between the Commonwealth and each State Government, net operating costs of recognised (i.e. public) hospitals are shared equally. Details in respect of staff costs for the hospitals in the areas indicated are not known and will not be available in respect of the first financial period of the agreements, viz., 1 October 1976 to 30 June 1977, until late in 1977.
asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 28 April 1977:
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 28 April 1 977:
What are the conditions of the contracts let for the demolition of houses on Cribb Island, Queensland.
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
Contract conditions provide for the payment of the tender price to the Commonwealth for the removal of the buildings and the satisfactory clearance of the site at the risk of the tenderer.
asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 28 April 1 977:
Why do occupants of departmental houses on Cribb Island, Queensland, have to pay maintenance and insurance costs for homes that they do not own.
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
The land and buildings at Cribb Island, Queensland, were acquired for future extensions to Brisbane Airport. Pending commencement of the airport extensions the buildings are available for tenancy on conditions that prescribe that the tenant, in return for an appropriate reduction in rental, maintains the premises and insures them against loss.
asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 28 April 1 977:
Is the Government planning to acquire more land than has already been negotiated for the proposed airport extensions, near Cribb Island, Queensland.
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
The former Government approved the acquisition of certain land for extensions to Brisbane Airport. Portions of this land have already been acquired. The question of whether or not to proceed with further acquisitions is presently under consideration.
asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 28 April 1 977:
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 28 April 1 977:
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 28 April 1 977:
Where houses on Cribb Island, Queensland, are in a poor or dilapidated state of repairs, what responsibility does the Department of Administrative Services have, as landlord, to maintain them in a proper state of repair.
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
Generally, houses in a poor or dilapidated state of repair are listed for demolition. Because of requests by prospective tenants seeking this type of accommodation, tenancies at very low rentals have been arranged on conditions as outlined in my answer to Senate Question No. 725.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 27 April 1977:
– The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
Aboriginal Organisations: Land Purchases in Queensland (Question No. 748)
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 3 May 1977:
– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question: (1), (2), (3) and (4) I am not aware of any Aboriginal organisations and/or Land Trusts having been refused the right to purchase land for Aboriginal communities in Queensland. I do not believe there are any Aboriginal Land Trusts in Queensland. For details of problems in relation to purchases by the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission for Aboriginal communities in Queensland see reply to Senate Question No. 255. Aboriginal co-operatives, housing associations and other bodies have, in recent years, purchased a substantial number of blocks. It is not practicable to obtain details of all these purchases.
Aborigines: Availability of Lease Land in Queensland (Question No. 749)
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 3 May 1977:
– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:
I am not aware of any refusal by the Queensland Government ‘to allow lease land in that State to be sold to Aboriginal Land Councils and individual members or groups of Aborigines’. For details of problems in relation to purchases by the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission see answer to Senate Question No. 255.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 4 May 1977:
– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 3 May 1977:
– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 4 May 1977:
Has the Federal Government given any financial assistance to the Carandotta Industrial Committee Limited, to help in the construction of the proposed $5m meatworks at Carandotta. If so, how much and when were these grants made available.
– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:
My Department has not provided funding for this project.
Carandotta North-west Queensland: Proposed Meatworks (Question No. 753)
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 4 May 1 977:
– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:
I am not aware of the present position with regards to the meatworks and am unable to provide the honourable senator with any relevant information.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 4 May 1977:
Will the Minister, as a matter of urgency, investigate the need for an Aboriginal hostel in Rockhampton, as advocated by Mr N. P. Warner in the Rockhampton Morning Bulletin on 29 April 1977 and supported by the Mayor of Rockhampton (Alderman Rex Pilbeam) on Australian Broadcasting Commission television news ofthe same day.
– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:
Aboriginal Hostels Limited is responsible for the provision of hostel accommodation for Aboriginal people. The Company has advised my Department that as a result of research undertaken at Rockhampton in May 1976, which included consultation with the Rockhampton District Aboriginal and Islander Co-operative Society Ltd, provision has been made in the Company’s acquisition program for the 1 977-78 financial year for the provision of a hostel for transient Aboriginals. It is intended that the hostel will cater for adults and families transient between areas such as Woorabinda, Duaringa and Rockhampton. Funds for the Company’s program will depend upon Budget decisions.
The Company has been requested to keep the abovementioned Society informed of the progress it makes towards fulfilling its objective of providing a hostel at Rockhampton.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 5 May 1977:
– The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
and (2) Domenico Barbaro, born Plati, 5 May 1937; Domenico Barbaro, born Plati, 4 November 1 929; Rosario Barbaro, born Plati, 30 September 1940.
Australia on 5 April 1974 on a visit visa and departed on 17 April 1974. Domenico Barbaro, born 4 November 1929, was refused migrant entry to Australia in 1968. He arrived in Australia on a visit visa on 29 January 1974 and departed on 20 May 1974. Rosario Barbaro was refused migrant entry to Australia in 1965. He arrived in Australia on a visit visa on 29 January 1 974 and departed on 20 May 1 974.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 24 May 1 977:
– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:
Aircraft Customs Inspections at Alice Springs (Question No. 866)
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 24 May 1977:
Springs and does such examination include personnel and freight.
– The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications upon notice, on 25 May 1977:
With respect to the Minister’s reply to Senate Question No. 66 concerning statements criticising the This Day Tonight program on Cedar Bay:
why did the Minister undertake investigations into this matter if he feels it inappropriate to assume an editorial position,
under what circumstances would the Minister assume an ‘editorial position ‘ on a matter such as this,
why did the Minister assume an editorial position when originally replying to the question without notice from the Member for Brisbane on 9 September 1976 (House of Representatives Hansard, page 859 ) and
if the Minister believes he should not assume an editorial position on matters of this nature why did he either:
invite the Member for Brisbane to ask the original question on 9 September 1 976, or
agree to the Member for Brisbane asking the question prior to his actually asking it.
– The Minister for Post and Telecommunications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 25 May 1977:
Has the Minister either (a) written to, (b) presented a submission to, or (c) had discussions with the Public Service Board at any time since 1 January 1 977, on the subject of salary and entitlements of electorate assistants to Members of the Australian Parliament. If so, what are the details.
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
No.
asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 25 May 1977:
Did Mr Justice Kirby, Chairman of the Law Reform Commission, at the Commission ‘s recent hearings in Brisbane on Complaints Against Police, express disappointment that the Commonwealth Police Force had not presented a formal submission to the Commission. If so, (a) what are the details and (b) what is the Minister doing, if anything, to rectify the situation.
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
It was reported by the media that at the Brisbane hearing of the Law Reform Commission on 4 May 1977, His Honour Mr Justice Kirby expressed disappointment that the Commonwealth Police Force had not presented a formal submission to the Commission on Complaints Against Police.
The Commissioner of Police did present a formal submission to the Commission at the Canberra hearing on 5 May 1977 and also gave oral evidence. The Secretary to the Commission had been advised earlier that the Commissioner would follow this course.
This was the second occasion upon which the Commissioner had given oral evidence and the third written submission to the Commission since the Reference was first made in 1975.
asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 25 May 1977:
With respect to the Minister’s reply to a Question asked without notice by Senator Colston on Queensland Electoral Redistribution (Senate Hansard, 5 May 1977, page 1180), what further information can the Minister provide following his promised investigation.
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
I can now confirm for the honourable senator that Mr Archibald Archer’s name was not on the panel of names submitted to me by the Chief Australian Electoral Officer and that he was not considered for appointment as a Distribution Commissioner for the State of Queensland.
asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 25 May 1977:
What are the formal qualifications and background work experiences of each of the Distribution Commissioners appointed in each State to effect the 1977 electoral redistribution.
-The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
I draw the honourable senator’s attention to the statement relating to the appointment of Distribution Commissioners for all States made on my behalf by the Minister for Education on 20 April 1977 (Senate Hansard, 20 April 1977, pp. 806-807). This statement indicated the present position held by those persons appointed as Distribution Commissioners. In the case of those Distribution Commissioners who are retired persons, the relevant previous position was indicated.
The honourable senator will see from the statement that each Commissioner holds or has held a significant administrative position in the State of his appointment.
asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 25 May 1977:
Which Ministers have been allotted press secretaries since the beginning of this Government ‘s term of office.
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
In my press release of 23 December 1975 1 announced that the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, Treasurer, Leader ofthe House, and the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate would have an entitlement to a press secretary. Accordingly, the following Ministers have been provided with positions of Press Secretary on their personal staff establishments
The Prime Minister
The Minister for National Resources and Minister for Overseas Trade
The Treasurer
The Minister for Primary Industry
The Minister for Administrative Services
The Minister for Industry and Commerce (from 8 July 1976)
The Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development (to 8 July 1976).
Other Ministers are requested to designate a member of their staff as a point of contact on press matters.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Envoronment, Housing and Community Development upon notice on 24 May 1977:
– The Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development has provided the following answer to the Honourable Senator’s question:
asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:
Will the Attorney-General list the international conventions, treaties, agreements or other such arrangements which have been implemented in whole or in part in Australian law through Federal legislation since 1970.
-The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
I am informed that the following table sets out in the first column particulars of Acts enacted by the Commonwealth Parliament during the years 1970 to 1976 (inclusive) for the purpose of giving effect to, or of enabling effect to be given to, the international conventions, treaties and agreements set out in the second column.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 8 March 1977:
– The Minister for Post and Telecommunications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Construction, upon notice, on 3 1 March 1977:
-The Minister for Construction has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 20 April 1977:
When does the Minister expect the review of Medibank bulk-billing arrangements to be completed.
– The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
I requested a review of the direct or bulk-billing arrangements to be completed around the end of May, if possible, and expect the report to be with me within a few days. The review is being undertaken by the Department of Health and the Health Insurance Commission. On receipt of the report the Government will consider what action, if any, should be taken.
The honourable senator will be aware that the Government has accepted the Pathology Services Working Party recommendation that bulk-billing for pathology services be available only to eligible pensioners and their dependants. There are, of course, special considerations that apply to pathology services which generally do not apply to other medical services. The main difference is that in most clinical settings, the patient is aware of what transpired between himself and his doctor so that he can verify the services involved in the direct-billing form, but pathology tests in the vast majority of circumstances are undertaken on specimens, not on patients, so verification by the patient is not possible.
Projects funded by the Commonwealth: Erection of Brass Plaques (Question No. 518)
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 21 April 1977:
– The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
Projects funded by the Commonwealth: Erection of Brass Plaques (Question No. 530)
asked the Minister represent ing the Minister for the Northern Territory, upon notice, on 20 April 1 977:
– the Minister for the Northern Territory has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
Projects funded by the Commonwealth: Erection of Brass Plaques (Question No. 537)
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Productivity, upon notice, on 20 April 1977:
– The Minister for Productivity has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
See the Prime Minister’s answer to Question No. 313 (House of Representatives Hansard, 26 May 1977, page 1519).
CSIRO: Rural Research Programs (Question No. 548)
asked the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 3 May 1977:
– The answer to Senator Button’s question is as follows:
(D-
The broad categories of research to which these funds are applied are listed in CSIRO Estimates of Expenditure 1976- 77- Explanatory Notes Relating to Appropriation Bills No. 1, No. 2. This document was forwarded to Members ofthe Senate in September, 1976. It should be noted that some of these categories, for example, land resources and wildlife, include research which is conservation or otherwise oriented and as such does not benefit solely the rural industries.
The ‘rural’ divisions whose titles indicate the thrust of their research are as follows:
Wheat Research Unit. ( 3 ) There is no single mechanism for co-ordination of rural research programs being conducted by the Organisation, the Department of Primary Industry, universities and relevant State Departments.
The Standing Committees and the technical subcommittees of Councils of Commonwealth/State Ministers (Agriculture, Forestry, Water Resources, Nature Conservation, Fisheries, and the Environment) advise on research needs and co-ordination both in a general manner and in respect of particular problems. CSIRO, the Depanment of Primary Industry and the State Departments take these deliberations into account when formulating their research strategies.
Rural Industry Research Funds are established for the following primary industries: wool, beef, sheep meat, chicken meat, pig, wheat, dairy, tobacco, honey, egg and dried vine fruits. The research funds are formed by a levy on production of the commodity in question supported usually by an equal contribution from the Commonwealth Government. The committees which administer the funds comprise representatives of primary producers, Commonwealth and State Governments and universities, and are usually set up under Commonwealth legislation. They provide an important means for joint consideration of the research needed to support their particular rural industry and influence the direction of research by providing or withholding research monies.
The Commonwealth Extension Services Grant (CESG) administered by the Depanment of Primary Industry, and the Rural Credits Development Fund ( RCDF) administered by the Reserve Bank, are two other important sources of funds for agricultural research. Monies from the CESG go solely to State Government Departments and monies from the RCDF go mainly, but not exclusively, to universities. The administering authorities influence the direction of research in a manner similar to the Rural Industry Research Fund Committees.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 20 April 1977:
– The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
As the actual pack sizes which the report claims were used as a basis for the survey were not, in fact, marketed in Australia at the time ofthe survey for 9 ofthe 12 items under review, I consider it is not legitimate to extrapolate from the report in order to draw conclusions regarding drug prices in Australia compared to those in other countries.
Although currency changes have made prices in such reasonably comparable countries as New Zealand and the United Kingdom less relevant than previously, they are still considered to be useful factors to consider against Australian prices for pharmaceutical benefit items.
When required by my Department, information regarding selling prices for pharmaceuticals in other countries is obtained from the specific manufacturer or appropriate Government agency in the country concerned.
International Sugar Agreement (Question No. 60S)
asked the Acting Minister for Overseas Trade, upon notice, on 26 April 1977:
– The Minister for Overseas Trade has provided the following answers to the honourable senator’s questions:
asked the Acting Minister for Overseas Trade, upon notice, on 26 April 1 977:
– The Minister for Overseas Trade has provided the following answers to the honourable senator’s questions:
asked the Acting Minister for Overseas Trade, upon notice, on 26 April 1977:
– The Minister for Overseas Trade has provided the following answers to the honourable senator’s questions:
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 4 May 1977:
– The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Productivity, upon notice, on 24 May 1977:
Are there any statutory authorities responsible to the Minister. If so (a) what are they, (b) who are the bankers for each authority and (c) which, if any, of the authorities may be termed ‘statutory authorities of a business nature’.
– The Minister for Productivity has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
(i) The Industrial Research and Development Incentives Board.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Productivity, upon notice, on 24 May 1977:
How many (a) permanent employees, (b) temporary employees, (c) other employees, were in the Minister’s Depanment for each month since and including November 1 975.
– The Minister for Productivity has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
I refer the honourable senator to the answer to Question 949.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Northern Territory, upon notice, on 3 1 May 1 977:
– The Minister for the Northern Territory has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
Possible variations to the alignment of the proposed levee are being covered in this study. Until this study is completed it is not possible to provide a cost estimate for the project.
Postal Charges for Parcels
- Senator Walters asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications the following question, without notice, on 26 April 1977:
Can the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications explain to the chamber the reasons that residents of Hobart and Perth pay more for parcel post between capital cities than do residents of other capital cities? I point out that parcels of one kilogram sent between Melbourne and Sydney, Sydney and Brisbane, Melbourne and Adelaide, Sydney and Adelaide, Adelaide and Canberra and Melbourne and Canberra cost $1.70 to send while the same parcel sent between Hobart and Melbourne costs $2.00 to send?
The Minister for Post and Telecommunications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
Australia Post is currently examining the overall structure of its charges for parcels and the review will include consideration of the charges for parcels sent to and from Perth and Hobart.
At present, Australia Post’s schedule of postage charges for parcels reflects the costs of handling and transporting them. The charges for parcels sent between Perth and the eastern States are influenced by the distances involved. For
Tasmania, parcels are now airlifted to and from the mainland, thus providing a better service but also increasing transportation costs which must then be covered by the charges.
asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:
What was the total Commonwealth funding provided to local government authorities in each State, and for Australia as a whole, for each financial year since 1 970-7 1 .
– The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
Table1 shows the payments, excluding those in respect of unemployment relief, made to or for local government authorities since 1 970-7 1 . The figures for payments of an unemployment relief nature are shown separately in Table 2.
Care should be exercised in the interpretation of the figures. The variations between the States in the amounts paid reflect, among other things, differences in the extent to which the activities concerned are carried out by local government authorities rather than private organisations or by State Government departments or agencies.
Also the degree of influence exerted by the Commonwealth over particular amounts paid to local authorities through the States varies considerably among different programs as does the availability of information relating to those amounts.
Further details of payments to or for local government can be found in Chapter5 of ‘Payments to or for the States and Local Government Authorities 1976-77’, Budget Paper No. 7.
asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 8 March 1977:
Did the Governor-General visit Lizard Island in north Queensland at any time in 1 976. If so, what are the details.
– The Acting Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
Yes. See the answer to Question No. 1224 (House of Representatives Hansard, 9 December 1976, page 3676) and Question No. 401 (House of Representatives Hansard, 24 May 1977, page 1778).
Department of the Treasury: Budget Allocation (Question No. 56)
asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 9 March 1 977:
What is the Budget allocation for the Department of the Treasury.
– The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
The question has been interpreted as relating to the central organisation of the Department of the Treasury and not to other associated organisations, such as the Taxation Office and the Australian Bureau of Statistics, for which the Treasurer is the responsible Minister. Expenditure in respect of the Office of the Australian Government Actuary and Life Insurance Commissioner and the Office of the Insurance Commissioner is, however, met from the same Heads of Expenditure in the Appropriation Acts as the central organisation of the Department of the Treasury, and for that reason the following figures include allocations in respect of those Offices. It might also be noted that the following figures relate only to Appropriation Acts Nos 1 and 2 1976-77 and do not include proposed additional appropriations contained in Appropriation Bills Nos 3 and 4 that are now before the Senate.
Amounts of $18,593,300, $4,636,600, and $613,900 were appropriated by Appropriation Acts Nos I and 2 1976-77 (see Divisions 670/1,670/2, 670/2, and 963/1/03) for the Department of the Treasury for salaries; administrative expenses (excluding other services) and plant and equipment respectively. Following the abolition of the former Department of the Treasury on 7 December 1 976 and the allocation of former Treasury functions between the newly-created Department of the Treasury and the Department of Finance, amounts of $5,857,600, $1,767,700, and $488,600 were withdrawn by administrative action from the appropriations for salaries, administrative expenses (excluding other services), and plant and equipment respectively. The 1976-77 appropriations available for salaries, administrative expenses (excluding other services) and plant and equipment are therefore $12,735,700, $2,868,900, and $125,300 respectively.
Department of the Treasury: Staffing Establishment (Question No. 57)
asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:
Sentor Cotton-The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
The question has been interpreted as relating to the central organisation of the Department of the Treasury and not to organisations such as the Office of the Australian Government Actuary and Life Insurance Commissioner, the Office of the Insurance Commissioner, the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the Taxation Office and the Federal Valuation Boards and Taxation Boards of Review, for which the Treasurer is the responsible Minister.
1 ) As at 3 1 March 1 977 there were 320 staff employed in the central organisation of the Department ofthe Treasury.
The central organisation of the Treasury comprises 5 Divisions. The title and function of each Division are as follows:-
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION
This Division’s responsibilities involve the formulation of policy advice, preparation of policy proposals and administration of legislation in areas of banking, non-bank financial corporations, the general and life insurance industries, company finances, and securities markets. The Division has similar responsibilities in relation to exchange control and other policy areas in respect of international financial transactions of both a trade and capital nature, including controls on overseas borrowings, investment overseas by Australian residents and export finance and credit insurance.
FOREIGN INVESTMENT DIVISION
This Division is responsible for providing advice on matters relating to foreign ownership and control of Australia’s resources and industries including foreign investment proposals and foreign takeovers of Australian businesses.
GENERAL FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC POLICY DIVISION
This Division is responsible for providing advice on the broader aspects of domestic economic and financial policy. Its main responsibility lies in the field of general economic management, where the Division is involved in a continuous assessment of current economic trends and prospects and the provision of advice relating to the framing of policies appropriate to these conditions. Important areas of responsibility include budgetary policy, monetary policy, general taxation policy and research into Australia’s long-term potentialities for economic growth.
OVERSEAS ECONOMIC RELATIONS DIVISION
This Division is responsible for providing advice on matters relating to external financial and economic matters including developments in the international economy, the international monetary system, movements in exchange rates and Australia’s balance of payments position, exchange rate policy, policy on capital flows to and from Australia and the disposition of Australia’s international reserves; relations with the International Monetary Fund, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and its affiliates and the Asian Development Bank; the economic and development policy aspects of Australia’s membership of various other international organizations including the UN and OECD and economic and commercial relations with other countries; economic policy aspects of overseas aid and development matters; and Treasury interest and responsibilities in regard to Australia’s external territories and Papua New Guinea.
REVENUE LOANS AND INVESTMENT DIVISION
This Division is responsible for providing advice on general policy matters relating to the provision of financial assistance to the States and local authorities including the income tax sharing arrangements and the sources of State taxation and other revenue. In addition, the Division is responsible for advising on matters relating to the raising, redemption or conversion of Australian Government loans in Australia and overseas and the general administration of the Financial Agreement and the Gentlemen’s Agreement and the operations of the National Debt Commission.
The central organisation of the Depanment of the Treasury includes one first Division officer (Permanent Head) and 2 Second Division officers (Deputy Secretaries) who are not pan of any Division named in ( 2 ). A breakdown of the remaining staff employed at 31 March 1977 is as follows:
Note I
The bulk of management services facilities is currently provided by the Management Services Branch of the Depanment of Finance.
asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:
– The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
In addition there is a number of statutory offices created under legislation administered by the Treasurer; information relating to these offices is included in (2) below.
asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:
– The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
The question has been interpreted as relating to the central organisation of the Department of Finance and not to organisations such as the Australian Government Retirement Benefits Office, the Office of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust and the Royal Australian Mint for which the Treasurer is the responsible Minister.
1) As at 31 March 1977 there were 1017 staff employed in the central organisation of the Department of Finance.
The central organisation of the Department of Finance comprises 5 Divisions and a Management Services Branch. The title and functions of each Division are as follows:
ACCOUNTING AND SUPPLY DIVISION
This Division is responsible for-
Provision of advice in relation to the administration ofthe Public Account (Consolidated Revenue Fund. Trust Fund, Loan Fund):
Administration of Finance and departmental accounting within the ambit of the Audit Act and other related legislation;
Operation of accounting systems and provision of accounting services to departments:
Collection and collation of departmental expenditure estimates;
Preparation of Appropriation and Supply Bills and other reports and documents for Parliament:
Preparation of monthly financial statements of the Commonwealth ‘s transactions for publication: and
Administration ofthe Advances to the Treasurer.
DEFENCE AND WORKS DIVISION
This Division is responsible for the provision of advice on financial and budgetary aspects of-
Policy matters relating to defence, including the cost and policy implications of defence proposals, the Five Year Defence Program, Services pay and conditions matters and defence works, property acquisitions and related programs;
Civil Works, overseas works, property acquisitions and related programs: and
Proposals concerning the Northern Territory, Australian Capital Territory and Norfolk Island.
GENERAL EXPENDITURE DIVISION
This Division is responsible for provision of advice on-
Co-ordination of the preparation, monitoring, review and control of aggregate Commonwealth expenditure in both the short and medium terms:
Financial and budgetary aspects of:
Policy matters relating to the Commonwealth expenditure on education:
Assistance to the States for special projects of a development character, including urban and regional development, irrigation and transport: and
National disaster assistance.
SOCIAL SECURITY DIVISION
This Division is responsible for the provision of advice on financial and budgetary aspects of policy matters in the fields of-
Social services and verterans’ affairs:
Health:
Employment training schemes:
Immigration:
Foreign aid:
Scientific research:
Recreation, arts and culture:
Aboriginal affairs:
Conditions of Commonwealth Government employment: and
Machinery of government and related matters.
The Division is also responsible for the formulation of policy proposals regarding superannuation schemes for civilian employees of the Commonwealth and the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances scheme.
TRANSPORT AND INDUSTRY DIVISION
This Division is responsible for the provision of advice on the financial and budgetary aspects of policy matters relating to-
Provision development and operation of air, rail and sea transport;
Internal and international communications (including broadcasting and television services);
Primary, secondary and tertiary industries, with particular reference to proposals for financial assistance to such industries; and
Legislation for the operation of statutory authorities of the Commonwealth Government.
MANAGEMENT SERVICES
The Management Services Branch provides general administrative services for the Department of Finance and the Treasury.
The central organisation of the Department of Finance includes one First Division officer (Permanent Head) and one Second Division officer (Deputy Secretary) who are not part of any Division named in (2). A breakdown ofthe remaining staff employed at 31 March 1977 is as follows:
asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:
What would be an appropriate Budget deficit at the present stage of the recession in the Australian economy.
– The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
An appropriate Budget deficit is not just a single number that remains appropriate however it comes about. As I explained in my Budget Speech the deficit in 1976-77, which is arrived at after forgoing revenue of not less than SI, 2 50m on account of personal tax indexation and the investment allowance, is very different in character and economic effects from the deficits in 1974-75 and 1975-76. The appropriateness of a deficit also depends on the methods used to finance it; an otherwise appropriate deficit financed largely through the printing presses would have serious implications for the money supply, inflation and the whole economic situation.
The 1976-77 deficit has proved to be about what was needed in the conditions in which the Budget was framed. The economy is registering recovery at the rate we envisaged and at the same time considerable progress has been made in reducing inflation.
The Government has already indicated that outlays will be contained to within zero real growth in the 1977-78 Budget and that, after allowing for the further large taxation reductions already announced, the deficit will be further reduced. A Budget within that broad framework is appropriate to current and prospective economic conditions.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice:
– The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answers to the honourable senator’s question:
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 15 March 1977:
– The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
The number of bridges on railways operated by the Australian National Railways (ANR) of a design similar to the Bold Street Bridge, in that the deck is supported by one or more intermediate piers of an open type, arc as follows:
The question of loan repayments for railways made by the States to parties other than the Commonwealth is a matter for the State Governments.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources, upon notice, on 1 1 March 1977: total railway expenditure in 1975-76 was approximately 0.6 per cent as shown in the following table:
The question of loan repayments for railways made by the States to parties other than the Commonwealth is a matter for the State Governments.
Is the Minister aware of the Queensland Government’s intention to institute the granting of a development lease for mining ventures in Queensland, the development lease to be an intermediate step between an authority to prospect and a full mining lease. If so, (a) has the Federal Government been consulted on this proposal, (b) is there at present any Commonwealth restriction on a State government granting a development lease’ in the form proposed, and (c) would the initiation of a system of ‘development leases’ have any bearing on the Commonwealth’s granting of export licences for minerals.
– The Minister for National Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
No. However, 1 have seen a statement by the Queensland Chamber of Mines that it had put to the Premier of Queensland proposals designed to strengthen the security of tenure for mining operations in Queensland. The statement indicated that the creation of a developmental lease was central to the proposals. I understand that the Queensland Government has not yet reached a decision on the proposals.
asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 16 March 1977:
What, if any, consideration has the Government given to the proposal for the establishment of a natural disaster research unit, made by the Member for Hawker, on 6 May 1 976 (vide House of Representatives Hansard, page 2005 ).
– The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
Consideration has been given to issues raised by the proposal made by the Honourable Member for Hawker in the context of the question of a natural disaster insurance scheme.
The Government recognises that the success of such a scheme- to which the government is committed in principlewill depend, in part, upon the formulation and pursuit of appropriate policies to mitigate the incidence of losses to property arising from natural hazards. This is one of the considerations which led to the proposal (outlined in the discussion paper on a proposed natural disaster insurance scheme released on 8 December 1976 by the Minister for Post and Telecommunications and Minister Assisting the Treasurer) that a Mitigation Committee be established to advise on appropriate policies directed at improving natural hazard risks.
While the preliminary work to establish the Committee is not yet completed, it is envisaged that the Committee will be drawing upon expertise from a variety of sources within Government and elsewhere that undertake research into matters such as land use planning and building codes. These are matters which touch upon significant responsibilities of the States and it will be important to see that the activities of the Committee are conducted in close liaison with relevant State authorities.
It is envisaged that, as the question of a natural disaster insurance scheme is further considered by the Government examination will be given to the question whether, and if so what, action to facilitate improved co-ordination of research in this area on a continuing basis would be appropriate.
asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 22 March 1977:
– The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
The trading banks, as principals, handle all foreign exchange transactions with their customers. The buying rates and selling rates for foreign currencies quoted daily by Australian trading banks may differ between banks. The following are the rates against the Australian dollar for the currencies specified by the honourable senator that were quoted by the Commonwealth Trading Bank of Australia during the period 29 November 1 976 to 22 March 1977:
asked the Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in the Arts, upon notice, on 23 March 1977:
– The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in the Arts has provided the following information for answer to the honourable senator’s question:
The tables below have been provided by the Australian Film Commission to show loans, investments and grants made to organisations and individuals in financial years 1975-76 and 1976-77 (to date).
Funds provided as Equity Investment by the Commission generally entitle it to a share of proceeds from the production in proportion to the Commission’s percentage investment in the total production budget on a pari passu basis until production costs are recouped.
The average budget of an Australian feature film in 1975 was $496,000; in 1 976: $523,000 and this year is $582,000.
The Commission’s investment in production varies, the maximum being 50 percent of the budget.
In December 1976 the Commission revised its investment policy in order to stimulate greater private sector participation.
Under the new scheme, feature film investments negotiated by the Commission provide for the private sector investor to recoup all of his original investment ahead of the Commission.
At the profit stage the Commission generally shares in profits in proportion to its original investment but with all investors proportionate profit entitlement reduced to allow an agreed percentage of profits to go to the producer or production company as an incentive.
Prospects for Equity Investment will vary markedly from one production to another. Generally, however, the Commission does not invest in television production where set prices are paid, unless the prospects are reasonably assured.
From 22 February 1977, the Commission reduced the interest rate on loans for film production from 9.5 percent to 8.5 percent.
In the case of films for cinema release where a majority of income is generated on a royalty basis the prospects for profit in any individual production are relatively low, although the
level of profit for successful films is high. Thus, it is estimated by the Commission that approximately one in five feature films in which it has invested may go into profit, although sales results on the international market can affect this considerably.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 24 March 1977:
– The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
In 1951 the United Nations adopted a Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. This included a definition of a refugee as ‘any person who, owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political group, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it ‘.
The persons who came to Australia from East Timor ii 1975, 1 am informed, had entitlements to Portuguese citizen ship. Accordingly, they did not come within the above de finition of refugee as set down in the United Nations Convention. The term ‘evacuee’ was used because it seemed th most appropriate description of the people from East Timo who came to Australia in 1 975.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 29 March 1977:
– The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
Lump sum payments are made annually by the Department of Defence to the University of Melbourne for expenditure in the Physics and Aeronautical Science Departments of the RAAF Academy at Point Cook. In the current financial year the amounts concerned are $50,000 and SI 2,000 respectively. They fund a number of on-going research activities by University of Melbourne staff and civilian and RAAF officers of the Academy. Physics research mostly concerns the upper atmosphere; aeronautical science research involves wind-tunnel and communications experiments.
Some dozens of research projects or activities are also carried on in the Faculty of Military Studies at the Royal Military College.
Examples demonstrating the variety of the work in hand include a project entitled ‘Italy in the Fiction of Henry James’: research into the use of a low-temperature cryostat, operating at 0.005°K above absolute zero with applied fields up to 8 Tesla to study the anisotropy of radiations from oriented radioactive nuclei: and sedimentation and water quality studies in the Tuggeranong district of the A.C.T. and the impact of urban growth on these characteristics. lt would be impractical to cost each project as a separate component of the on-going educational programme of the Faculty.
The Department of Defence also contributes financially to research activities in Universities or other post-secondary institutions not directly associated with the Defence Force.
There are currently five such projects to which the total allocation of Defence funds over several years is $147,329. They involve research into the magnetic properties of the iron-chromium-cobalt alloy system, underwater target detection using sonar, analytical techniques for underwater detection signal processing, the prevention of deleterious changes in muscle during dehydration, and the causes and prevention of accidents.
It would require Public Service effort and manpower at a cost disproportionate to the small total cost of all of the activities referred to above to identify, analyse and individually cost each in the great particularity explicit in the honourable senator’s question. I am not prepared to authorize this, but if she will more narrowly define the matter or matters which interest her 1 will endeavour to provide her with relevant details.
No activities or projects of the kind described have been arranged by or come to the attention of the Australian Government Departments most likely to be concerned, viz. Defence, Education, Science and Foreign Affairs. It needs to be kept in mind that there are about 800 post-secondary institutions in Australia; I understand that neither the Department of Education nor the State Education Authorities routinely collect detailed information on research projects undertaken in all fields and disciplines and their sources of funds. I do not believe that the matter warrants my requesting the Minister for Education to authorise the effort and expense that would be required to conduct a survey of each of the 800 institutions.
asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 20 April 1 977:
– The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources, upon notice, on 3 1 March 1977:
– The Minister for National Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources, upon notice, on 3 1 March 1 977:
-The Minister for National Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
State Government of Baden- -Wurttem berg has announced that it will challenge the decision in the Mannheim Administrative Court.
asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 2 1 April 1977:
With respect to the Treasurer’s reply to Senate Question No. 930, has the Queensland Government formally requested the Australian Government to provide additional funds for capital works to relieve unemployment in Queensland, as was foreshadowed by the Queensland Treasurer in the Courier-Mail dated 20 August 1976. If so, (a) when was the request received, (b) what assistance has been requested, and (c) when will a decision be taken by the Federal Government on the Queensland submission.
– The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
It is in accordance with usual practice that the contents of correspondence which may have passed between governments should be treated as confidential.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources, upon notice, on 2 1 April 1977:
Has the Government received a formal submission from D. M. Minerals, a partnership of Dillingham Constructions Pty Ltd and Murphyores Incorporated Pty Ltd, seeking compensation for the closure of the Company’s sand mining operations on Fraser Island. If so, (a) what are the details ofthe submission, (b) who signed the submission, (c) when was the submission received, (d) how is the submission being assessed, (e) has the Queensland Government supported the submission, and (f) when is it expected that a decision will be made by the Government.
– The Minister for National Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
Yes.
and (b) The submission was signed, on behalf of D. M. Minerals, by Mr W. Murphy, Chairman and Managing Director of Murphyores Holdings Pty Ltd and Mr D. B. Hill, Managing Director of Dillingham Constructions Pty Ltd. The submission is a matter between the Commonwealth Government and D. M. Minerals and I do not consider it appropriate for the Commonwealth to divulge its details.
31 March 1977.
) and ( f) It is being examined in the appropriate departments and a decision will be made following completion of this examination.
No advice was expected from the Queensland Government on this matter, nor has any been received.
Department of the Treasury: Funding of Projects (Question No. 517)
asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 2 1 April 1 977:
– The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
I refer the honourable senator to the Minister Representing the Prime Minister’s answer to Question No 5 1 3 (Senate Hansard of 26 May 1977, page 1519).
asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 20 April:
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
I refer the honourable senator to the answer to Senate Question No. 5 13 (Hansard, 26 May 1977,page 1519).
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 21 April 1977:
– The Acting Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
See answer to question 513 (Hansard, 26 May 1977, page 1519).
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 26 May 1977:
– The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
Department of the Capital Territory: Funding of Projects (Question No. 535)
asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice, on 20 April 1977:
– The Minister for the Capital Territory has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
I refer the honourable senator to the Prime Minister’s reply to Question on Notice No. 513 which appeared in Senate Hansard on 26 May 1 977, page 1519.
asked the Minister for Veterans ‘ Affairs, upon notice, on 20 April 1977:
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
I refer the honourable senator to the Prime Minister’s answer to Senate Question No. 5 1 3 (Hansard, 26 May 1977, page 1519).
asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 2 1 April 1 977:
How many companies carrying on business in (a) Australia; (b) Victoria: (c) the City of Ringwood, Victoria; (d) the City of Nunawading, Victoria; (e) the City of Doncaster-Templestowe, Victoria; (f) the City of Box Hill. Victoria: (g) the Diamond Valley Electorate; (h) the Casey Electorate: (i) the Deakin Electorate; and (j) the Holt Electorate were (i) ordered by a civil State or Federal Court to pay moneys due by them as income tax to the Commonwealth Government; (ii) prosecuted for an offence under, or breach of, the Income Tax Assessment Act or any other and what Commonwealth taxation legislation; and (iii) convicted of an offence under, or breach of, the Income Tax
Assessment Act or any other and what Commonwealth taxation legislation during the period 1 March 1976 to 1 March 1977.
– The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
The usual form of Court proceeding against companies for recovery of unpaid tax is a petition for winding up the company, following failure to comply with a demand under section 222 of the Companies Act. This procedure does not involve any order on the company to pay.
The information sought in relation to companies carrying on business in individual cities and within individual electorates is not available.
asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 2 1 April 1 977:
How many persons residing and/or carrying on business in (a) Australia; (b) Victoria; (c) the City of Ringwood, Victoria; (d) the City of Nunawading, Victoria; (e) the City of Doncaster-Templestowe, Victoria; (f) the City of Box Hill, Victoria; (g) the Diamond Valley Electorate; (h) the Casey Electorate, and (i) the Deakin Electorate were:
ordered by a civil State or Federal Court to pay moneys due by them as income tax to the Commonwealth Government; (ti) prosecuted for an offence under or breach of the Income Tax Assessment Act or any other and what Commonwealth taxation legislation;
convicted of an offence under or breach of the Income Tax Assessment Act or any other and what
Commonwealth taxation legislation during the period 1 March 1976 to I March 1977.
– The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
The information sought in relation to persons residing and/or carrying on business in individual cities and within individual electorates is not available.
asked the Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters, upon notice, on 20 April 1977:
– The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 20 April 1977:
– The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
I ) Australian Government financial assistance towards passage costs may be considered where applicants make specific application and are:
asked the Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters, upon notice, on 26 April 1977:
– The Minister assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
Discussions have taken place between officers of the Public Service Board, the Commission and staff organisations on this matter. No difficulties are expected in placing those public servants who will be exercising their rights under the Officers Rights Declaration Act. Redeployment possibilities for non-public servants are being explored positively with, in particular, the Departments of the Northern Territory and Construction, and also the Northern Territory Public Service. Work on a comprehensive set of conditions to apply to the redundant staff is now well advanced.
asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 27 April 1977:
In the most recent year for which figures are available, by what amount would personal taxation revenue have increased if the marginal tax rate on individual incomes above $20,000 had been 100 percent.
– The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
It has been estimated that income tax revenue would have been increased by some $ 1 92m if a marginal rate of 100 per cent had applied to taxable incomes over $20,000 in assessments of individual taxpayers that were included in the income tax statistics for the 1974-75 income year. It may be doubted, however, whether many taxpayers would have continued to derive taxable income in excess of $20,000 in that year if the marginal rate of 100 per cent had been applicable in the 1 974-75 income year.
asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 27 April 1977:
-The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
It is not the practice of the Government to disclose information as to the existence or nature of particular proposals.
I understand that Darra Exploration Pty Ltd, the company to which the honourable senator refers, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of an Australian-owned public company.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 26 April 1977:
– The Acting Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
The Minister for Transport is therefore not in a position to provide details of amounts allocated to individual Local Government Authorities for roads during these three years.
The table below sets out in respect of 1975-76 and 1976-77 the allocations made to Local Government Authorities for rural local roads, together with the estimated cost of rural arterial road projects approved by the Minister.
asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 28 April 1 977:
Within the past 12 months has the Western Australian Government applied for Federal funds for railway purposes. If so, what amount was sought and for what purpose was it designated.
– The Treasurer has provided
the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
I have been advised by the Minister for Transport that, during the 12 months prior to the date of this question, the Western Australian Government sought financial assistance from the Commonwealth Government for railway purposes as follows:
Under the Urban Public Transport Improvement Program, the present Agreement in respect of which expires at the end of 1 977-78, the State sought assistance, for the years 1977-78 to 1981-82, amounting to two-thirds of the cost of the following projects-
asked the Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters, upon notice, on 3 May 1977:
Have there been any recent changes in the conditions pertaining to the granting of Maternity and/or Paternity leave for members ofthe Australian Public Service. If so, what are the details and what are the current conditions under which such leave is granted.
– The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
There have been no changes to the maternity and paternity leave provisions of the Maternity Leave (Australian Government Employees) Act 1973. However, the honourable senator’s attention is drawn to my press statement of 27 May 1977 concerning the Government’s intention to legislate to vary the present provisions of the Act.
asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 5 May 1 977:
If it is possible to establish the nature of the principal enterprise of each depositor, how many depositors were engaged principally in:
-The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 24 May 1977:
Has the Queensland Government made formal submission to the Federal Government concerning the restoration of inland and northern air services. If so, (a) what are the details, (b) what response has the Federal Government made to the submission and (c) what funds, if any. have so far been provided for the project.
– The Acting Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
I am not aware that the Queensland Government has made any such formal submission to the Federal Government.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 24 April 1977:
Has the Queensland Government made formal submission to the Federal Government concerning an international airport for Townsville.
If so (a) what are the details (b) what response has the Federal Government made to the submission, and (c) what funds, if any, have so far been provided for the project.
– The Acting Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
No formal submission has been received from the Queensland Government requesting the development of an international airport at Townsville. However, the Queensland Government indicated that should any such development take place it should not be at the expense of upgrading Brisbane Airport.
The previous Government had proposed the development of Townsville Airport to international standard and the Bureau of Transport Economics was requested to make an economic evaluation ofthe proposal. Its report was tabled in the Parliament on September 23, 1976.
The Bureau of Transport Economics concluded that an international airport could be justified by 1985 provided a technical and operationally acceptable landing guidance system could be developed. The Bureau of Transport Economics also concluded that no decision was necessary before 1980.
The Townsville situation will be monitored by the Department of Transport from time to time and fully reviewed at a time closer to 1 980.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources, upon notice, on 25 May 1977:
Has the Queensland Government made formal submission to the Federal Government concerning the Mary River Barrage. If so, (a) what are the details, (b) what response has the Federal Government made to the submission and, (c) what funds, if any, have so far been provided for the project.
– The Minister for National Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 25 May 1 977:
Has the Government considered implementating a reduction in the 50 percent prescribed requirement for savings banks, a step suggested by the Director of the Australian
Bankers’ Association, Mr Ron Cameron, quoted in the Financial Review, dated 5 May 1977. If so, why has such a step not been implemented.
– The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
As announced on 26 May 1977, the Banking (Savings Banks) Regulations have been amended to reduce from 50 percent to 45 per cent the proportion of depositors’ balances required to be held by savings banks subject to the Banking Act in certain prescribed assets, mainly liquid assets and public securities.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 24 May 1977:
Did the Queensland Premier seek an additional $20m for road works at the last Premier’s Conference. If so, with what result.
– The Acting Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
The level of Commonwealth financial assistance to the States for road works in 1977-78 was discussed at the last Premier’s Conference. The Commonwealth has informed the States that it is unable to increase its contribution to road programs in 1977-78 beyond the $475m previously announced by the Minister for Transport at the meeting of the Australian Transport Advisory Council on 25 February 1977.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 24 May 1977:
– The Acting Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 24 May 1977:
Has the Commonwealth Government advised the States that there will be increased funds available for State road programs ‘once the economy has stabilised’, as was claimed by the Queensland Minister for Main Roads, Mr Hinze, quoted in the Courier-Mail dated 19 May 1977. If so, (a) when were the States given this advice; (b) by whom were the States given the advice: (c) is it likely that substantial increases in funds for roads will be available in the next six months. If so, what are the details: and (d ) what is the Minister’s definition of a ‘stabilised economy’.
– The Acting Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
The Commonwealth Government has informed the States that it intends to provide $475m for road programs in 1977-78. The States have further been informed that the Commonwealth will provide grants in 1978-79 and 1979-80 at a level that will allow the 1977-78 allocation to be maintained in real terms. 1982 Commonwealth Games, Brisbane (Question No. 944)
asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 24 May 1977:
Has the Federal Government received detailed cost estimates for the proposed 1982 Commonwealth Games in Brisbane. If not, what further information is required before a final decision can be made by the Federal Government.
– The Acting Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
See the Prime Minister’s answer to Question No. 492 (Hansard, 25 May 1977, page 1405) 1976 Census (Question No. 979)
asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 25 May:
– The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 24 May 1977:
– The Acting Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration (Question No. 992)
asked the Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters, upon notice, on 24 May 1 977:
Has the Public Service Board forwarded to the Prime Minister comments on the seventy-eight recommendations of the Royal Commission into Australian Government Administration. If so, what does the Government intend doing in respect of these comments in relation to the recommendations ofthe Coombs Commission.
– The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
The Public Service Board provided a progress report of its views on seventy-eight recommendations of the Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration on 30 November 1976. A summary of the Board’s comments was released to the media on 13 December and I have arranged for a copy of the press release to be sent to the honourable senator. In its press release the Board pointed out that in its ongoing consideration of the Commission’s recommendations the Board will be having consultations with the peak councils of staff organisations and other bodies as appropriate. The Board also said that its examination of the recommendations indicated that implementation of many of the Commission ‘s recommendations would involve a substantial effort and progress on some recommendations would take time. Work is continuing on these recommendations and consultations with staff organisations are proceeding.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 25 May 1977:
– The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 25 May 1977:
– The Acting Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
This is a matter for which the Treasurer has responsibility. 1 note that the honourable senator has addressed an identical question (No. 1004) to the Minister representing the Treasurer.
asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 26 May 1977:
– The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
It is presently estimated that eligible expenditure to be met by the Commonwealth and Queensland Governments under the arrangements will total around $6.6 million, of which $750,000 is expected to be expended in 1 976-77. The rate of expenditure in respect of relief measures arising out of this disaster has been influenced by difficulties of access to the area and shortages of certain types of labour and materials.
Because of the nature of the natural disaster expenditure cost sharing arrangements it is impracticable to specify what proportion of total expenditures arising out of a particular disaster are met from State resources and what proportion from Commonwealth resources. However, in the case of Queensland it is presently estimated that the Commonwealth will reimburse in 1976-77 some SI 8.4 million out of total eligible disaster relief and restoration expenditures in that year of $20.4 million.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 25 May 1977:
– The Acting Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 26 May 1977:
– The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s questions:
Manufacturing Industry
– On 25 February (Hansard page 452) Senator Wriedt asked me, as Minister representing the Prime Minister, a question without notice concerning Senator McLaren’s question on the Government’s policy in relation to manufacturing industry. The Acting Prime Minister has supplied the following information in answer to the honourable senator’s question:
In the absence of any transcript of the exchange which took place during questions following the Prime Minister’s address to the Melbourne State College on 21 February 1977, I am unable to provide the honourable senator with the text of the Prime Minister’s remarks. The honourable senator asked that a clear indication ofthe Government’s policy on this matter be provided. The Government has provided such a statement in the White Paper on Manufacturing Industry which was tabled recently in Parliament (Hansard, 24 May 1977, page 1256).
Overseas Trip by Governor-General
-On 27 April (Hansard, page 983) Senator James McClelland asked me a question, without notice, concerning the Governor-General’s overseas visit. I undertook to seek information for the honourable senator. The Acting Prime Minister has supplied the following information for answer to the honourable senator’s question:
The Governor-General and Lady Kerr left Australia on 25 April 1977 and are due to return on 15 June 1977. They will participate in the celebrations being held in London to mark Her Majesty’s Silver Jubilee. In addition, the GovernorGeneral will take a period of mid-term leave abroad as is the normal practice. The visit is at official expense, also as is normal practice.
Queensland Phosphate Rock: Testing
asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources the following question, without notice, on 28 April 1977:
Will the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources ascertain what testing of the areas of Queensland phosphate rock has been carried out since September 1976 as to both the extent ofthe deposits and the phosphate content thereof?
– The Minister for National Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
The Queensland Department of Mines has provided the following information concerning testing since September 1 976 by the 3 companies holding Authorities to Prospect:
Queensland Phosphate Limited (BH South subsidiary). Authorities to Prospect (903M, 979M) are held for the Duchess, Lady Annie, Riversleigh, Dajarra and Lawn Hill areas. No drilling was carried out.
IMC Development Corporation. Authorities to Prospect (1373M, 1374M, 1375M, 1376M) are held for the Duchess, Lady Annie, Riversleigh, Dajarra and Lawn Hill areas. No drilling was carried out.
IMC Development Corporation. Authorities to Prospect (1373M, 1374M, 1375M, 1376M) are held for the Yelvertoft area. No report yet received for 1 976.
ICI Australia Limited, and Australian Fertilisers Ltd. These companies hold Authorities to Prospect (1666M, 1505M, 1506M, 1535M, 1735M) for the Ardmore-Buckingham Downs area, southwest and south of Dajarra. Drilling was carried out in the period of September-November 1976. Full particulars have not yet been received. Heavy seasonal rains caused the suspension of exploration from December 1 976 to April 1 977. No results relating to the extent of the phosphate deposits or the grade have been announced.
Solar Energy
asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources the following question, without notice, on 5 May 1977:
I ask whether the Minister is aware that the solar energy report of the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources states:
There is no Australian energy policy and in the absence of any central direction to co-ordinate a search for alternatives, the complacency that currently exists will continue’.
Is the Minister aware also that the Chairman of the Committee, Senator Thomas, endorsed at least the first part of that statement this morning on the radio program AMI Does the Minister agree with that proposition? IT not, is he able to indicate what is the energy policy of the Government?
– The Minister for National Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
I do not accept the simplistic proposition that there is no Australian energy policy. Quite simply expressed, the Government’s policy is, as the statement of matters dealt with by my Department set out in the Administrative Arrangements Order of 22 December 1975 might indicate, to bring about the balanced development of Australia’s resources having regard to future requirements. A more detailed statement would be an elaboration of this. I would be the first to agree, however, that there is an urgent need to define in detail an integrated long term approach to the realisation of this basic policy objective.
The development of such an integrated approach is being actively pursued by the Government at the present time. Energy policy is, however, a complex subject requiring detailed and expert analysis, and is a task which the Government cannot, and will not, undertake in isolation.
It is for this reason that I announced, on 10 February 1977, the establishment of a National Energy Advisory Committee, as foreshadowed in the coalition parties statement on Minerals and Energy Policy issued prior to the last elections.
I will be looking to the Committee for advice on Australia’s energy reserves and on factors likely to influence the pattern of energy supply and demand, and future costs, in Australia; the assessment of and development of our energy resources, and the economy of use of energy.
The Committee also will offer advice on the balance of resources for research relating to the development of energy sources in Australia, and on developments both here and overseas in respect of methods and technology associated with the production and distribution of energy. The Terms of Reference ofthe Committee are as follows:
The function of the National Energy Advisory Committee is to advise the Minister for National Resources on matters relating to energy including-
Australia’s energy reserves;
factors likely to influence
the pattern of energy supply and demand in Australia
the future costs of energy in Australia
the assessment and development of Australia’s energy resources
) the economy of use of energy in Australia;
the balance of resources for research relating to the development of energy sources in Australia;
developments in Australia and overseas in respect of methods and technology associated with the production and distribution of energy.
Membership ofthe Committee is:
In view of their responsibility and control over much of the production and consumption of Australian energy materials, it is important that the Federal Government maintain close liaison with the State Governments on energy matters. The Australian Minerals and Energy Council will serve as a forum for consultations between the Federal Minister for National Resources and the State Ministers for Mines and Energy on the nation ‘s energy needs, policies and resources.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 8 March 1 977:
What information can the Minister provide concerning the usage of a system of ‘coded insults’ referred to in ‘The Overflow Column’ of the National Times dated 17-22 January 1977.
-The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
Situations can arise in Offices of the Commonwealth Employment Service when it is necessary to communicate to another officer information of an adverse nature about a client at a time when the applicant concerned or other clients are present. It indicates to the receiving officer that something factual of an unfavourable nature is known about the applicant and that further inquiries need to be made.
It was concern for the feelings of the client that prompted the introduction ofthe code many years ago. Its use in the circumstances I have mentioned has avoided embarrassment to clients. The term ‘coded insults’ is therefore quite out of keeping with the purpose of the code and the motivation behind its introduction and use.
asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 9 March 1 977:
– The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
Other things remaining equal, the volume of money rises following a deficit on domestic budgetary transactions. Sale of government securities to the non-bank private sector reduces domestic bank deposits and the volume of money.
Relevant figures for calendar 1 976 are as follows:
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 15 March 1977:
Has the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission purchased Freehold Portion 15, Parish of Meunga and two Special Leases over parts of State Forest Reserve No. 756, Parish of Meunga, in Queensland. If so, (a) when was the purchase transacted, (b) by whom was the purchase transacted, (c) what was the cost of the purchase, (d) what plans does the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission have for the land in question, (e) what are the terms of the Special Leases involved, (f) what professional advice did the Commission seek before proceeding with the purchase, (g) are the purchases in direct conflict with the Queensland Government’s policies on (i) the purchase of land or (ii) Aboriginal Affairs, (h) has the freehold portion been registered in the name of the Commission; if so, when was the registration undertaken and by whom, (i) have the transfers of the Special Leases been lodged with the Queensland Department of Lands for registration; if so, (i) when, and by whom, were they lodged and (ii) has the registration been completed; if not, why (j) how long does registration of transfers of Special Leases by the Queensland Department of Lands usually take, ( k ) what action has the Minister taken to resolve any conflict between the Queensland Government and the Commonwealth Government over this matter, and ( 1 ) are there any similar conflict over land purchases by the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission in Queensland at the present time; if so, what are the details.
– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:
The Aboriginal Land Fund Commission has purchased the freehold of portion 115, County of Cardwell, Parish of Meunga, and two special leases over part of State Forest Reserve No. 756, Parish of Meunga.
Contracts for sale were exchanged on 26 November 1975 and settlement was effected on 23 March 1976.
b ) The purchase was transacted by the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission.
$210,000.
The Aboriginal Land Fund Commission intends to transfer its interest in the land to the local Aboriginal community which, it is understood, has plans to grow bananas and graze cattle, and perhaps to lease agistment rights, in order to provide income and employment opportunities for the group. The purchase has special significance to the members of the community as it is part of their traditional country.
Apart from the absolute rights of access, ingress, egress, etc., reserved to the Crown, the special lease terms include the following provisions:
the right to remove timber and forest products, water rights and the right of resumption on six months’ notice are reserved to the Crown;
no timber is to be interfered with in any way or any forest products, including soil, gravel, stone, etc., removed without the written permission of the Conservator of Forests first being obtained;
the land may be used for grazing purposes only;
no clearing or cultivation may take place without written permission;
no fixed improvements may be erected;
no agistment may be undertaken without written permission;
vii ) no sheep or goats may be run on the leases;
leases are to be maintained free from noxious plants; and
one lease (number 39107) has a public right of way to a picnic area at Murray Falls.
The Commission had investigations made by its own staff and obtained advice from the Queensland Regional Office of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, and the Commonwealth Development Bank of Australia. The Commission also obtained a report and valuation from Messrs Teves Wake, valuers of Townsville.
The Premier of Queensland wrote to the Prime Minister on 19 January 1977 expressing concern that the recent land puchases by the Commission were in conflict with State policies.
Yes. On 5 October 1976 the freehold portion was registered by the Queensland Deputy Registrar of Titles in the name of the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission.
Yes. (i) on 8 September 1976 by the Commission’s solicitors, (ii) No. No reason has been given by the Queensland Depanment of Lands.
) I understand that from 2 to 3 months is the normal time if all papers are in order.
The matter is the subject of correspondence between the Prime Minister and the Premier of Queensland.
The Commission was unable to obtain the approval of the Queensland Minister for Lands for the transfer of the Archer River Pastoral Holding (Pastoral Lease No. 4785), which it had arranged to purchase last year. This matter was the subject of a Ministerial Statement by Mr Tomkins, recorded in the Hansard of the Queensland Legislative Assembly of 8 December 1976 on page 2208.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 10 March 1977:
What persons, or organisations, have been granted approval to publish matter transmitted in broadcasts by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board and the Broadcasting Tribunal, under the provisions of section 120 of the Broadcasting and Television Act.
– The Minister for Post and Telecommunications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
The Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal has furnished advice that the Tribunal has not granted approval to any person or organisation to publish matter under the provisions of section 120 of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942.
The Chairman of the Tribunal has also advised that inspection ofthe files ofthe former Australian Broadcasting Control Board indicates that the Board had given approval under section 120 to the following persons or organisations for the purposes indicated. 2.9.52-Philco Recording Company, Recording of commercial broadcasting race descriptions for sale. 20.10.52-Consolidated Press Pty Ltd, Publication of news from overseas broadcasting stations. 24.1 1.52- Regent Theatre Southport Queensland, Presentation of ABC News services to public. 29.4.54- Consolidated Press Pty Ltd, Publication of overseas sporting coverage from Radio Thailand. 29.6.55- -Nilsens Broadcasting Service Pty Ltd, Recording of commercial broadcasting racing descriptions for sale.
1 1.58-Strand Theatre Manly Queensland, Presentation of ABC News services to public. 24.12.59- Australian Associated Press Pty Ltd, Publication of sporting coverage from All India Radio. 1.9.60- Australian Associated Press Pty Ltd, Publication of news from overseas broadcasting stations. 7.6.72-Australian Post Office, Publication of ABC sports information in APO Sports Results Telephone Service.
asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 15 March 1977:
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 16 March 1 977:
With respect to the Minister’s reply to Question No. 198 on the broadcasting of election speeches and political advertisements (vide House of Representatives’ Hansard, 2 June 1976, page 2882), can the Minister provide similar details for the past two State elections in Queensland.
– The Minister for Post and Telecommunications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
Details of political advertising and expenditure incurred by political parties in respect to the State election in Queensland on 27 May 1972 arc not available because they were not supplied in the form used for answer to Question No. 198 until 1974. Information in respect to the State election in Queensland on 7 December 1974 is being compiled and will be available shortly.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 16 March 1977:
With respect to the Minister’s reply to Question No. 451 on political broadcasting (vide Senate Hansard, 18 August 1 976, page 1 62 ), can the Minister provide similar details for the past two State elections in Queensland.
– The Minister for Post and Telecommunications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
Details of political advertising and expenditure incurred by political parties in respect to the State election in Queensland on 27 May 1972 are not available because they were not supplied in the form used for answer to Question No. 451 until 1974.
Information in respect to the State election in Queensland on 7 December 1 974 is being compiled and will be available shortly.
Dieback: Incidence in Victorian Forests (Question No. 336)
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 17 March 1977:
– The Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
I am not aware of any concrete evidence to support a view that the incidence of dieback associated with disease is increasing in Victorian forests. An increased awareness of the diseased condition in recent years and improved detection have resulted in increasing number of reports on dieback occurrence. However some occurrences may not be recent developments but rather ones of long-standing duration. Consequently we are faced with a difficult problem of separating detection of existing dieback from spread of disease.
The Victorian Forests Commission is paying close attention to the incidence of dieback and may be in a position to supply the honourable senator with some more specific information on the incidence of dieback in Victoria.
asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 24 March 1 977:
1 ) For the financial years 1973-74, 1975-76 and the half year ending 3 1 December 1976, what has been the total cost of:
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
b ) estimated expenditure.
asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 30 March 1977:
– The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
(a) Statistics relating to lending by finance com panies to pastoralists in the Northern Territory are not collated by any government body or agency, nor are any details known to be published by any other body.
) Total current debt of Northern Territory pastoralists to the Government, including the Primary Producers Board, is $2,338,757. For the financial years 1972-73, 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76 the corresponding figures were $ 1 64,955, $263,423, $34 1 ,552 and $ 1 ,227,727 respectively.
asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 29 March 1977:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
I expect that from 1 979 to 1 980 the enrolment at Nightcliff High School will decrease from 980 to 750. at Casuarina High School from 1070 to 980 and at Darwin High School from 1090 to 1050.
asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 20 April 1 977:
– The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
New South Wales Rural Bank of New South Wales; Department of Lands.
Victoria
Rural Finance and Settlement Commission; State Savings Bank of Victoria; Department of Crown Lands.
Queensland
Agricultural Bank of Queensland; Department of Lands; Department of Irrigation and Water Supply.
South Australia State Bank of South Australia; Savings Bank of South Australia; Department of Lands.
Western Australia Rural and Industries Bank of Western Australia; Department of Lands and Surveys; Department of Public Works: Rural Reconstruction Authority.
Tasmania Agricultural Bank of Tasmania.
Action to call up a loan is taken by the Commonwealth Development Bank only as a last resort and after all other reasonable avenues of obtaining repayment has been fully explored. The number of cases where recovery action is currently in train represents 0.16 percent of the total number of rural loans on the Bank’s books.
asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 2 1 April 1 977:
With respect to the Minister’s reply to Senate Question No. 65 concerning the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, can the Minister advise the following details for each State and Territory for the five quarters up to and including the quarter ended 3 1 December 1976 for each category of appeal listed in Question No. 65, (a) how many appeals were received directly by the Department of Social Security, (b) how many of those appeals were directed to the Social Security Appeals
Tribunal for investigation, (c) how many appeals of those listed in (a) were upheld after investigation within the Department itself, (d) how many of those appeals listed in (b) were disallowed by Tribunals, and (e) how many of those appeals listed in ( b ) were upheld by Tribunals.
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
The required statistics are provided in the following table. In respect of (a) it should be noted that all appeals, irrespective of whether they are lodged with the Department of Social Security or with the Appeals Tribunal, are first investigated by the Department.
asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 2 1 April 1977:
With respect to the Minister’s reply to a question without notice asked by Senator Colston concerning Social Security Appeals Tribunals (Senate Hansard, 5 October 1976, page 974), what action has been taken as a result of the Minister’s investigation of the functions of the Social Security Appeals Tribunals.
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
In my reply of 5 October 1 976 1 indicated 1 would be meeting with members of the Social Security Appeals Tribunals. The meeting was held in Melbourne in November 1976.
The major problem of delay was discussed with the object of formulating procedures and providing facilities so that the shortest possible time elapses between the making and the finalising of an appeal. Since the meeting, additional Tribunal members have been appointed. In short, every possible effort is being made to eliminate delays.
The question of an independent review of decisions of the Department of Social Security has been under consideration for some time. As early as 2 1 September 1 976 I indicated in the Senate, in reply to a question from the Estimates Committee, that clients of the Department of Social Security should have the same access to an appeal mechanism as people dealing with other Acts of Parliament. I was referring to the implementation of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and expressed the desire to ensure that a person would have the right to seek a review of a decision made under the Social Services Act by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal where that decision was not in accordance with a recommendation of a Social Security Appeals Tribunal.
I expressed these views again at the meeting of Social Security Appeals Tribunal members and shortly afterwards I asked the Attorney-General to draft suitable regulations. As indicated in my press statement of 27 May 1977, officers of my Department and the Attorney-General ‘s Department are in the process of preparing the regulations.
The rights of clients ofthe Department of Social Security have been of continuing concern to me and it will be seen that, as a result ofthe initiatives taken during 1976, people who have dealings with my Department will have access, when the proposed regulations become law, to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal whenever the Director-General does not uphold the recommendation of a Social Security Appeals Tribunal.
Commonwealth Assistance for Projects in Federal Electorates (Question No. 519)
asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 20 April 1977:
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
I refer the honourable senator to the answer as provided by the Prime Minister to Question No. 513 (Hansard, 26 May, page 1519).
Commonwealth Assistance for Projects in Federal Electorates (Question No. 523)
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 April:
– The Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
I refer the honourable senator the answer provided by the Prime Minister to Question No. 5 1 3 which appeared on page 1519 of Hansard on 26 May 1977.
Commonwealth Assistance for Projects in Federal Electorates (Question No. 525)
asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 2 1 April 1977:
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
Commonwealth Assistance for Projects in Federal Electorates (Question No.533)
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 20 April 1977.
– The Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
I refer the honourable senator to the Prime Minister’s reply to question No. 513 on Commonwealth Assistance for Projects in each Federal Electorate (Hansard, 26 May 1977, page 1519).
asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 2 1 April 1 977:
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
The postcode districts selected are those which are either wholly, or whose major part is in the specified Local Government Areas.
Statistics of sickness benefits, handicapped children’s allowances and double orphans pensions by postcode districts are not available.
Statistics showing a cross classification of unemployment beneficiaries in postcode districts by the Commonwealth Employment Office at which they registered for employment, are not collected by my Department.
Statistics of prosecutions are recorded quarterly for each State. No separate statistics are kept of prosecutions on a city or electorate basis.
asked the Minister represent ing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 20 April 1977:
– The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
1 ) (a) (i) and (ii) The Australian Statistician has advised that the Australian Bureau of Statistics has no information concerning the employment status of persons who left school between October 1976 and March 1977.
As the estimates from the labour force survey are based on information obtained from occupants of a sample of dwellings, they are subject to sampling variability, that is, they may differ from the figures that would have been produced if the information had been obtained from occupants of all dwellings.
Box Hill- 555; Ringwood-810; Dandenong-747.
During the period end-September 1976 to end-February 1977, the numbers of additional registrations of persons under the age of 2 1 made at these offices were:
Box Hill- 2753; Ringwood-2600; Dandenong-2343.
Out of these total registrations the numbers of placements confirmed by each of the offices between end-September 1 976 and end-February 1977 were:
Box Hill- 704: Ringwood-765; Dandenong-550.
Box Hill- 98; Ringwood- 128; Dandenong-68.
Between end-September 1976 and end-February 1977 the numbers of additional school-leavers registered at these offices were:
Box Hill- 1385; Ringwood-1 1 19; Dandenong-801.
Out of these total registrations the numbers of placements confirmed by each of the offices between end-September 1 976 and end-February 1 977 were:
Box Hill- 3 10; Ringwood-252; Dandenong-167*.
(a) (i) and (ii) As at end-February 1977, 62 job vacancies for persons under the age of 2 1 remained unfilled at the Box Hill office of the CES; and 48 remained unfilled at the Ringwood office. At end-March 1977 (the nearest date for which data are available) the figures were 48 for Box Hill and 30 for Ringwood.
The Australian Statistician has advised that information on industrial disputes is not available for the cities and electorates referred to in the question. Particulars for Victoria of working days lost through disputes are as follows:
asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 2 1 April 1 977:
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
The Act further provides that the income of a husband or wife shall be deemed to be half the total income of both.
The effect of these two provisions is that a married couple, both pensioners, each receive the same amount of pension.
asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 26 April 1 977:
– The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 26 April 1977:
2 ) Of the total of the new lending and increased lending by the trading banks, what proportion went to
– The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
Figures for overdraft limits classified by industry arc also supplied by banks on a half-yearly basis and the latest figures are published in the Reserve Bank’s March 1977 Statistical Bulletin, page 308.
asked the Minister for Edu cation, upon notice, on 2 1 April 1977:
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
The scheme is not intended to provide large scale remedial programs in school hours, as this is considered the responsibility of relevant school authorities. It was therefore decided that in accordance with normal scheme policy, the program would not continue in school time in 1977. However, the services ofthe tutors were notterminated. The tutors were advised that the tutorials could continue out of school hours. (2)I have reviewed the situation and have decided that to avoid further disruption to the in-school program, thisyear the program may continue in school time during 1977 until such time as the schools concerned are able to meet their own responsibilities for the provision of appropriate tuition.
asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 2 1 April 1 977:
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 26 April 1977:
How much finance would be required to maintain the present standard of services in the Northern Territory for each of the next ten years, allowing for projected population increases in the Territory.
– The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
I have nothing to add to the answer provided by the Minister for the Northern Territory to Question No. 623.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Northern Territory, upon notice, on 2 1 April 1 977.
How much finance would be required to maintain the present standard of services in the Northern Territory for each ofthe next ten years, allowing for projected population increases in the Territory.
– The Minister for the Northern Territory has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
Having regard to the very many complexities involved, particularly those arising from major changes in administrative arrangements associated with the transition of the Northern Territory to statehood, it is not practicable to provide accurate estimates of the kind sought. With regard to 1977-78 the question of the Commonwealth finances required for the Northern Territory is being considered within the context of the preparation ofthe 1977-78 Budget and full details will be provided on the presentation of the Budget.
asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 26 April 1 977:
– The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: 1 have nothing to add to the answer provided by Senator Cotton on behalf of the Minister for Primary Industry, and appearing in the Senate Hansard of 24 May 1977, in response to an identical question asked by the honourable senator.
asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 27 April 1977:
– The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 2 7 April 1977:
Does the Minister recall recent statements by the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Anthony, regarding the current plight of the beef industry. If so, how does the Minister reconcile the statements by his colleague in the light of statements by the now Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister some three years earlier urging beef producers to increase their stocks as much as possible.
– The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
The recent statements made by the Deputy Prime Minister, to which the honourable senator refers, reflect the Government’s very deep concern over the depression which the beef industry has experienced over the last three years. Initially, trade in beef has been prejudiced by political decisions of governments in most countries which are major importers of Australian beef. These decisions were neither predictable nor to be expected when generally optimistic forecasts of future beef demand were made some years ago.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 27 April 1977:
– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:
If problems regarding the payment of unemployment benefits on Aboriginal reserves are brought to my notice I will seek the co-operation of my colleagues the Ministers for Social Security and Employment and Industrial Relations in dealing with them.
I am informed that officers of the relevant departments regularly visit Aboriginal communities as a matter of course.
asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 27 April 1977:
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 27 April 1977:
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 28 April 1977:
Has the Queensland Premier stated that his Government will not co-operate with the proposed Human Rights Commission. If so (a) what reasons has Mr Bjelke-Petersen given for his decision, (b) when is the Commission likely to commence operations, (c) what will be the role and structure of the Commission, (d) have any other State Governments adopted a similar attitude to the Commission as that taken by the Queensland Government; if so, what are the details, and (e) will the Commission be able to commence operations without the support of one or more State governments.
– The Attorney-General has provided the following answers to the honourable senator’s questions:
In my second reading speech on the introduction of the Human Rights Commission Bill I explained that there had been discussions with the States on the subject of the Bill. Most States have indicated that at this stage they do no propose to join a scheme that involved functions relating to State legislation and State practices being vested in a Commonwealth Commission but further discussions are to continue between the Attorneys-General. The introduction of the Bill and my second reading speech provide the answers to the remaining parts of this question.
asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 28 April 1 977:
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
Includes N.T.
asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 3 May 1 977:
Hus the Government made any decision to delay the processing of data from the 1976 Census. If so. what is the estimated effect the delay will have on planning for the needs of Commonwealth. State and Local governments.
– The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
Includes N.T.
Includes N.T.
The Government decided on 4 February 1976 to delay the start of the detailed processing ofthe 1976 Census of Population and Housing for one year, due to budgetary restrictions on all Government departmens and authorities, including the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
In taking this decision, the Government gave careful consideration to the importance of Census results to the many organisations and individuals who require up to date Census information. Provision was made, therefore, for the processing of preliminary data to proceed without delay.
By allowing the preliminary processing to continue, the Government nas ensured that the effect of the decision to defer the detailed processing will be minimal.
Preliminary population and dwelling figures for every local government area in Australia were released late last
year, and information of sex, age, marital status and birthplace (Australia, Great Britain and Ireland, other overseas countries) is currently available from the ABS on request.
Detailed processing, however, will not begin until 4 July 1977.
asked the Minister for Edu cation, upon notice, on 4 May 1977:
What was the total recurrent and capital expenditure by the Commonwealth Government on ( a ) universities; ( b ) colleges of advanced education; (c) technical and further education; and (d) schools, for the calendar years 1972 to 1976 inclusive.
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
I refer the honourable senator to my answer to Question No. 1354 which apppeared in the Senate Hansard of 10 December 1 976 on page 3135.
I should add that over the years 1972 to 1974 Commonwealth funds for technical education were provided under the States Grants (Technical Training) Act 1971-1973 which operated on a financial year basis, and under the States Grants (Technical Training Fees Reimbursement) Act 1974, which operated for the first half of 1974. Consequently expenditure details for calendar years are not available prior to 1975. Details of actual payments made under these Acts during the relevant financial years are shown in Budget Paper No. 7: ‘Payments to or for the States and Local Government Authorities’.
Australian Citizen: Detention in Paraguay (Question No. 841)
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 5 May 1977:
– The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answers to the honourable senator’s questions:
Treaty on Migratory Birds (Question No. 843)
Senator Mulvihill has asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 24 May 1 977:
– The Acting Foreign Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
Commission of Inquiry into Poverty (Question No. 847)
asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 24 May 1977:
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 24 May 1 977:
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 25 May 1977:
– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question: (1)1 have received a request submitted on behalf of Aboriginal people of Bathurst and Melville Islands for the setting up of a new Land Council for that area under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act.
asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 25 May 1977:
Is it a fact that the Federal Government’s new scheme of family allowances, which was introduced in 1976 to replace child endowment, ‘effectively means higher taxation for most family men’, as was claimed on page 100 of Taxpayer, the national journal of the Taxpayers Association, dated 23 April 1 977. If so, what are the details.
– The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
When announcing the measures to replace tax rebates for children and students with increased family allowances in his comprehensive economic statement on 20 May 1976, the Treasurer said that one effect of the new system would be to bring about some redistribution of income within families. He pointed out that the family allowances would continue to be paid to the mother. He said this would mean that the takehome pay of many fathers would be reduced as a result of the withdrawal of the tax rebates, but that there would be no great effect on the overall position of families who had been able to take full advantage of the rebates. The measures would, on the other hand, greatly improve the position in respect of some 800 000 children in about 300 000 low income families paying little or no income tax.
These include the children of widow and invalid pensioners, of workers close to the minimum wage or in intermittent employment, of self-employed people unable to earn an adequate income, and of many Aborigines, recently-arrived migrants and other disadvantaged groups. I commend the Treasurer’s statement to Senator Colston as a source of detail on the matter.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources, upon notice, on 25 May 1 977:
Has the Queensland Government made formal submission to the Federal Government concerning the Bundaberg Irrigation Project. If so, (a) what are the details, (b) what response has the Federal Government made to the submission and, (c) what funds, if any, have so far been provided for the project.
– The Minister for National Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 25 May 1977:
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
1 ) The exact number of single fathers in Australia is not known. However, some information is available from two recent surveys conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics:
Those classified in the survey as ‘not married’ included the widowed, divorced and permanently separated. Those counted as ‘dependent children’ comprised all family members under 15 years of age and family members aged 15-20 who were full-time students.
A breakdown of the total by States is not available.
The following table shows the breakdown of these statistics by State.
Government Departments who report direct to Ministers. Any changes to the existing income security system resulting from proposals by the Review Group will be announced by the Government in the usual way and at the appropriate time.
asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 25 May 1977:
With respect to the reply provided by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations to Senate Question No. 320 concerning persons registered as unemployed with the Commonwealth Employment Service, can the Minister advise why the information requested in part 3 (i), (ii) and (iv) and part 4 is not available.
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
Statistical collections which would enable the information requested by the honourable senator in Question No. 320, part 3 (i), (ti) and (iv) and part 4 to be provided are not maintained by my Department.
Apart from maintaining a weekly record of the number of claims for benefit lodged in each State and the Commonwealth, the only other unemployment benefit statistics regularly maintained relate to people granted benefit.
Armenian Question (Question No. 97S)
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:
– The Acting Foreign Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 25 May 1977:
Have Northern and Central Land Councils in the Northern Territory been asked to nominate members of the Land Trusts to hold title to Aboriginal traditional land. If so, is it the intention of the Government to accept other nominations from traditional owners that may be forwarded other than through the Land Councils.
– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:
Yes. The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act requires that the members of a land trust shall be appointed by the Minister on a nomination received in response to a request which may be made either to the land council for the area in which the trust is to hold land or. where the trust is to hold land in the area of an Aboriginal council, from that Aboriginal council. Because no councils have yet been established under the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act 1976. I have only requested nominations from the Land Councils.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 25 May 1977:
– The Foreign Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
The reductions in Australia-based staff showing the posts which have been affected are tabulated in Attachment A. Similar information in relation to locally engaged staff is provided in Attachment B. The figures represent present estimates of total reductions in the period from 1 July 1976 to 30 June 1977, and relate solely to staff employed by the Department of Foreign Affairs.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 24 May 1977:
– The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
Waterside Workers Award
Waterside Workers (Container Terminals) Award
There are also a number of crane drivers in Sydney employed by the Maritime Services Board and covered by a State award- Maritime Services Board (Cargo Handling Operations, etc) Award.
It should be pointed out that the two Federal awards provide for a 35 hour week whereas the New South Wales award provides for a 40 hour week.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 26 May 1977:
– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 25 May 1 977:
Has the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations declared any ‘non-work areas’ in Australia for the purpose of determining eligibility for unemployment benefit, in which an unemployed person must be a resident of that area for a specific period of time prior to becoming eligible for unemployment benefit. If so, (a) what are the details, (b) what is the specific time limit involved, (c) which areas in Australia currently are so designated, (d) on what basis were the areas so designated and (e) on whose authority were the areas determined.
– The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
No. My Department does not determine eligibility for unemployment benefit; that is a matter for the Department of Social Security. My Department, through the Commonwealth Employment Service, reports to the Depanment of Social Security as to claimants’ satisfaction or otherwise or the ‘work test’, which comprises the process of registering claimants for employment, seeking suitable employment for them, and determining whether they are prepared to accept offers of such work.
Part of the guidelines under which CES applies the work test covers the possibility that persons may deliberately place themselves in situations where they will remain, or are likely to remain, unemployed in order to qualify for benefit. However, the application of this provision has not led my Department to any declaration of areas or prescription of qualifying periods of residence.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 27 May 1977:
Can the Minister list the treaties, conventions, agreements, and other bilateral arrangements, which have been formally established between Australia and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics with the dates on which each came into force.
– The Acting Foreign Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
Australia is a party to the following bilateral treaties with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics:
There is an arrangement pursuant to the above Cultural Agreement, namely an arrangement for a program of cultural co-operation for the years 1976-1978, which was signed in Canberra on 22 April 1976 with effect from that date.
There may be similar arrangements entered into by authority of other Ministers on matters within their responsibility pursuant to other of the above agreements.
asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 27 May 1977:
Is it a fact, as reported in the Brisbane Sunday Sun on 22 May 1977, that the Queensland Government has decided not to finance projects currently being conducted under the auspices of the Australian Assistance Plan after 30 June 1 977. If so, (a) what projects are currently funded under the Australian Assistance Plan in Queensland and (b) what alternative plans for funding of each of the programs listed in (a) have been made.
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Veterans ‘ Affairs, upon notice, on 30 May 1977:
With reference to the Minister’s answer to a question asked without notice by Senator Melzer on 8 December 1976 (Hansard, page 2776) concerning the Report of the Independent Inquiry into the Repatriation System that I would expect a number of announcements of decisions and perhaps legislation to be introduced in the autumn session, have any such decisions been made or legislation passed, particularly in the three areas mentioned by Senator Melzer. If so, what are the decisions or legislation.
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
Since the Government received the Toose Report it has made a number of decisions flowing from its conclusions and recommendations. Included among them are the following five major decisions of fundamental importance to the repatriation system.
. The Prime Minister announced that a separate repatriation system would be maintained, and that responsibility for defence service homes, for war graves, and responsibility for the repatriation system would now be vested in a new Department of Veterans ‘Affairs.
One of the alternative recommendations by Mr Justice Toose in relation to the structure, and operation of Repatriation Boards was one of the matters dealt with in the Repatriation Acts Amendment Bill which recently passed all stages in both Houses.
The provisions of the vital section 47 of the Repatriation Act have been reviewed and a new section enacted.
I have already announced the Government decision that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal will take over the functions of the present War Pensions Entitlement Appeal Tribunals and Assessment Appeal Tribunals. The necessary legislation will be introduced into Parliament in the spring sittings.
A decision was taken to permit legal representation at Tribunal hearings on repatriation matters where the hearing is chaired by a presidential member of the Tribunal and then only with his consent, but not at other hearings.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 30 May 1977:
– The Acting Foreign Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
Carrascalao, ‘Adviser to the Provincial Administration of East Timor’, was quoted as saying that Mr Jim Dunn ‘had been expelled from Dili after a car crash in which an East Timorese died ‘.
asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 1 June 1977:
In view of the many pensioners living in isolated areas of Australia where zone allowances apply, will the Government consider also giving pensioners the benefit of zone allowances to compensate for their living in areas where the cost of living is generally much higher.
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
This is a matter of government policy which has been considered by successive governments from time to time. I am unable to comment further.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 1 June 1977:
Does the Australian Government endorse the principles of the Declaration of Tokyo published after the World Medical Association meeting in that city in 1975 concerning torture and setting out guidelines against the involvement of doctors in torture.
– The Acting Foreign Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
The United Nations General Assembly in 1975 (Resolution 30/3452) adopted the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from being subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Australia fully endorses this Declaration and the Government has on a number of occasions made clear its abhorrence of the practice.
The Declaration of Tokyo was adopted at a nongovernmental level by the World Medical Assembly. It is concerned with the ethical position of medical practitioners in situations in which the use of torture is threatened or employed on detained or imprisoned persons. The Government welcomes the intention of the World Medical Assembly to outlaw any participation by a physician in the practice of torture.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 1 June 1977:
Has the Government during the past 1 8 months prevented the Australian Wool Corporation from borrowing overseas to finance its stockholding of wool.
– The Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
The Corporation has received a number of approaches over the past 18 months regarding the lending of funds from overseas sources. Following discussions between the Corporation and the Government, none of those opportunities to borrow overseas has been taken up by the Corporation.
Any such arrangements would of course need to be consistent with Government policies for overseas borrowing.
asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 2 June 1977:
Has the Minister any record of the number of applicants, apart from school leavers, for unemployment benefit who have been refused benefit in the months of December and January after they had (a) registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service, (b) registered with two private agencies, and (c) applied for jobs through advertisements in the newspapers.
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
The required information is not available.
asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 3 June 1 977:
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
I repeat that officers of my Department and the AttorneyGeneral’s Department are in the process of preparing regulations which will, when the proposed regulations become law, enable people who have dealings with my Department to have access to the Administrative Appeals Tri.bunal whenever the Director-General does not uphold the recommendation of a Social Security Appeals Tribunal.
The other aspects of the committee’s report, which was forwarded in the first instance to my colleague, the AttorneyGeneral, and which are of direct relevance to the Department of Social Security, will be considered.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 3 June 1977, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1977/19770603_senate_30_s73/>.