Senate
16 August 1978

31st Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 31st Parliament
  3. 1978

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Condor Laucke) took the chair at 2. IS p.m., and read prayers.

page 47

PETITIONS

Education Funding

Senator RYAN:
ACT

– I present the following petition from 769 citizens of Australia:

The Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition or the Federation of Parents and Citizens Associations of New South Wales respectfully showeth:

That the citizens of New South Wales and parents of State school children, we are most concerned that the quality of education available in our schools be of the highest possible standard.

We believe that this can only be achieved if adequate Federal funds are provided. The recently announced policy of direct cuts to Government schools for 1979 must have an adverse effect on them.

Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should arrange for:

Withdrawal of the Guidelines to the Schools Commission for 1979 and acceptance of its recommendations for Government schools.

An increase of a minimum of S per cent in real terms on base level programs for 1979.

Restoration of the $8 million cut from Capital Grants for Government Schools.

Increased recurrent and capital funding to Government schools.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Pensions: Lone Parents

Senator KNIGHT:
ACT

-On behalf of Senator Young I present the following petition from 25 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully say that we are concerned about the discrimination which exists against the children of those parents who are in receipt of the Supporting Parents Benefit in comparison with children of Single Parents who receive the Widows Pension. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Parliament take immediate steps to ensure that this year’s budget allow for Lone Parents to be given the right to receive a pension with the same benefits as are given with the Widows Pension, and we also request that the Parliament take immediate steps to instigate one ( 1 ) category of Lone Parent Pensions to eliminate the discrimination currently experienced.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Australia and Yugoslavia Airlines Agreement

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-I present the following petition from 323 citizens of Australia:

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

That the majority of Australian Citizens formerly of Yugoslavia are greatly disturbed by the much talked about proposal of terminating landing rights in Australia for the Yugoslav Airline J.A.T. which would, if eventuated, greatly disturb present convenient and easy travel between Australia and Yugoslavia. This would at the same time present a hardship for many of out Citizens described above, as thousands of them, through no fault of their own. cannot speak English and therefore find flying by Yugoslav Airlines an ideal way to travel. Furthermore we would find such a restriction placed upon J.A.T. as inconsistent with Free Enterprise policy and damaging to the good relations between our new and old countries.

Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled should ensure:

That the Australian Government consults with the Government of the Social Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and arranges an agreement between Qantas and J.A.T. which will, as at present, not be to the detriment of the Australian Airline and will further assist Australian Citizens of Yugoslav Origin in retaining a direct air link between Australia and Country of their Origin.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

The Clerk:

– A petition has been lodged for presentation as follows:

Pensioners

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

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

The continuance of the means test on pensions causes undue hardship to them.

We call on the Government to immediately abolish the means test on all Aged Pensions. To ensure a pension for all on retirement, and a guarantee that all Australian citizens will retire with dignity.

Acknowledge that a pension isa: ‘Right and not a charity’.

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

Petition received.

page 47

FAMILY LAW ACT

Notice of Motion

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move:

That-

I ) A Joint Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and report upon-

the provisions, and the operation, of the Family Law Act 1 975, with particular regard to:

the ground of divorce and whether there should be other grounds:

maintenance, property and custody proceedings including:

the bases on which orders may be made in such proceedings; and

the enforcement of orders in such proceedings;

the organisation of the Family Court of Australia and its conduct of proceedings;

the conduct of proceedings by State and Territory courts exercising jurisdiction under the Act;

whether the Family Court should be more open to the public when hearing proceedings, and whether publication of the details of proceedings under the Act should be permitted:

vi ) the services provided by:

the counsellors attached to the Family Courts; and

approved voluntary marriage counselling organisations;

the cost of proceedings under the Act: and

any other matters under the Act referred by the Attorney-General.

The Committee consist of five members of the House of Representatives nominated by the Prime Minister, three members of the House of Representatives nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives, three Senators nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate and two Senators nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate.

Every nomination of a member of the Committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

The Committee elect as Chairman one of the members nominated by the Prime Minister or by the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

The Committee elect a Deputy Chairman who shall perform the duties of the Chairman of the Committee at any time when the Chairman is not present at a meeting of the Committee, and at any time when the Chairman and Deputy Chairman are not present at a meeting of the Committee, the members present shall elect another member to perform the duties of the Chairman at that meeting.

The Committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to any such sub-committee any of the matters which the Committee is empowered to examine.

The Committee or any sub-committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to move from place to place and to sit during any adjournment of the Parliament.

Seven members of the Committee constitute a quorum of the Committee, and a majority of the members of a subcommittee constitute a quorum of that sub-committee.

In matters of procedure the Chairman or Deputy Chairman when acting as Chairman have a deliberative vote and, in the event of an equality of voting, have a casting vote, and, in other matters, the Chairman or Deputy Chairman have a deliberative vote only.

10) The Committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources.

The Committee or a sub-committee have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it.

The Committee report by 31 December 1979 and any member of the Committee have power to add a protest or dissent to any report.

The foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.

page 48

ELECTORAL LEGISLATION

Notice of Motion

Senator SIBRAA:
New South Wales

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

  1. 1 ) That a Joint Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and report upon:

    1. All aspects of existing electoral laws affecting the Australian Parliament;
    2. B ) Changes that should be made to existing legislation;
    3. The provision of proportionate subsidies by the Australian Government to political panics and candidates in federal election campaigns and the disclosure of the amount and nature of assistance by corporations and individuals to these parties and candidates; and
    4. The possibility of establishing fixed election dates subject to a government retaining the confidence of the House of Representatives.

  2. That provisions relating to membership, powers and proceedings of the committee be contained in a subsequent resolution.

page 48

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 48

QUESTION

INCOME TAX: GRANTS TO STATES

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Under the existing federalism arrangements, the State governments are entitled to 39.87 per cent of the preceding year’s net personal income tax collections. Will the States receive in this financial year that percentage of the additional revenue raised as a result of the increase in personal income tax announced last night?

Senator CARRICK:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The answer is no. The understanding with the Premiers at the Premiers Conference is that surcharges such as this will not be taken into account.

Senator WRIEDT:

– I ask a supplementary question. I take it that the Minister is indicating that this increase is in fact being defined as a surcharge. Is it not a fact that the Government does not anticipate the position of the States improving in this financial year and that, therefore, they will be compelled again to fall back on the guarantee arrangements?

Senator CARRICK:

– One cannot forecast the general pattern of revenue so far ahead, but it is likely that some of the States will require to invoke the minimum guarantees in a year’s time.

page 48

QUESTION

HOME CARE SERVICES

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Social Security. I refer to the decision announced by the Commonwealth Government at the last Premiers Conference to reduce its funding of home care services and the salaries of welfare officers under the States Grants (Home Care) Act from a $2 for $1 subsidy to a $ 1 for $ 1 subsidy. Is the Minister aware of the public criticism levelled at this decision by groups such as the Brotherhood of St Laurence and the Do Care welfare organisation which claim that it will severely harm the interests of the frail and aged members of the Australian community?

Does the Minister agree with the prediction that this cut-back in funding is likely to force many thousands of elderly people out of their homes and into publicly financed institutions? In the light of these criticisms, and given that the people concerned are already severely disadvantaged, will the Minister indicate to the Senate whether she is willing to reconsider the decision?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– It is a fact that at the time of the Premiers Conference the Prime Minister announced changes in the arrrangements with the States under the States Grants (Home Care) Act. This is an Act which provides assistance for senior citizens centres and other support schemes which have been run in conjunction with State governments and local governments. The funding for senior citizen centres is to continue at the subsidy level of $2 for $ 1 . The funding for the other support schemes has been changed to a level of $ 1 to match each dollar that is raised from other sources.

I have seen come criticism from organisations, local governments and others with regard to this decision. I have seen predictions by Professor Henderson and others that many people will be forced into institutions. I feel that some of the critics have misunderstood the provision of funds in this Budget under the States Grants (Home Care) Act. In fact, there is an increase of some $2m or $3m in the funds that have been provided under this Act for those support schemes. I believe that if State governments and local governments assert their own priorities under federalism proposals and under the funding arrangements announced at the last Premiers Conference, there is little likelihood that there will be any diminished services under the States Grants (Homes Care) Act. The Federal Government asserts its own belief that this is a most worthwhile Act, which was introduced by a former Liberal-Country Party government, and one which will have continued support from us. As I said, this year additional funds are available for these services.

page 49

QUESTION

SENATE MINISTERS: PRECEDENCE

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to Senator Carrick in his capacity as Leader of the Government in the Senate and relates to the statement that he made yesterday in relation to ministerial arrangements. Is Senator Durack a member of the Cabinet and, if not, what is the order of precedence of Ministers in the Senate? For example, is a Minister who is not a member of the Cabinet, senior to one who is?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The ministerial arrangements are not only as I announced them yesterday but also as the Prime Minister has approved them. Precedence in the Ministry is a matter that, from time to time, the Prime Minister will announce and will issue in lists. At this moment no change in the lists has been made in that regard. If and when the Prime Minister so desires he will make such a change.

page 49

QUESTION

ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION: LEGAL STATUS OF CHILDREN

Senator PETER BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Attorney-General whether he is aware of concern in regard to the confused legal status of children born following the process of artificial insemination by donor? Have representations on this subject been made to the Government by the Federal Council of the Australian Medical Association? Will the Government encourage investigations into this matter if it does not already have a policy position on the legal status of these children? Finally, does the Government believe that this matter might usefully be referred to the Law Reform Commission?

Senator DURACK:
Attorney-General · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– The question raised by Senator Peter Baume, relating to the legal status of children born by artificial insemination is of course one which raises considerable legal problems. In answer to the specific points in his question: Yes, I am aware of the concern in regard to this matter. I am not aware of specific representations that have been made to the Government by the Federal Council of the Australian Medical Association. I have had the matter checked with my Department and no such representations can be located; so, perhaps it is a matter which could be clarified further by either the honourable senator or the AMA. As I have said, it is not a matter to which we need have our attention drawn. But it is a matter about which there is a good deal of concern.

The question of artificial insemination was discussed by the Standing Committee of Commonwealth and State Attorneys-General at a meeting in February of this year. Also, the possibility of its being referred to the Law Reform Commission is being considered and I expect at an early date to give consideration to it with officers of my Department. In regard to the third part of his question, my answer is yes. As to the fourth point, I have indicated that we are considering a reference on this subject to the Law Reform Commission.

page 50

QUESTION

ELECTORAL REDISTRIBUTION INQUIRY

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

-My question to the Attorney-General refers to the investigation which he, as Attorney-General, and the SolicitorGeneral carried out concerning that redistribution in Queensland. Can he inform the Senate whether any relevant information was withheld from him during that investigation, and by whom?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– First, it is most important to get exactly clear what the Solicitor-General and I were asked to do. The honourable senator’s question does not state accurately what we were asked to do.

Opposition senators interjecting-

Senator DURACK:

– I am not blaming Senator Georges because, as far as I know, the matter was not the subject of a Press statement, or a statement of any sort, at the time. The position was that Mr Cameron had made allegations of various kinds and that Mr Byers and I were simply asked to look at them, to discuss them with Mr Cameron and to ascertain whether he had any material or had produced any material, which in our opinion would justify any type of formal investigation, whether that be by the police, by royal commission or whatever. The whole object of the exercise was simply for us to see, really, (a) what Mr Cameron was alleging specifically and (b) whether he had anything to produce. It was not part of our duty in that investigation- in fact quite the contrary- to engage in any type of investigation of our own by calling up people before us, or by pursuing matters with any potential witnesses other than Mr Cameron. That is all the object of that exercise was- to find out whether there was anything–

Senator Button:

– The first one.

Senator DURACK:

– We are talking about the one in the first place, are we not?

Senator Button:

– The one when you were invited by the Prime Minister to see any honourable members who had something to tell you.

Senator DURACK:

- Senator Georges, I have taken the question to refer to the first request we made.

Senator Georges:

– No, make it both; make it refer to investigations, if you wish.

Senator DURACK:

– The answer is based on my assumption that the question referred to the first inquiry. If it incorporates the second inquiry I shall proceed to answer it with respect to that one. Is that what the honourable senator wishes?

Senator Georges:

– Yes, of course.

The PRESIDENT:

– Yes, if you so desire.

Senator DURACK:

– On the second occasion, we were asked to investigate the matter arising out of Mr Cameron’s production of statutory declarations and the speech he made in the House of Representatives on 7 April; that was what gave rise to the investigation. Further statements were made in the House subsequently. The second inquiry was simply so that we could look at the matter again in the light of the material which Mr Cameron had produced. We were authorised then to find out whether there were other people with other things to say. I think it was made clear at that stage that if people wanted to send any statements in to us they ought to do so. Certainly that is what we were seeking from Mr Cameron. It was in the course of that inquiry that the material about Senator Withers’ call came to our knowledge. It came through Mr Pearson speaking to Mr Byers, as was made clear in the Prime Minister’s statement. When I approached Senator Withers in relation to that matter he readily and immediately verbally gave me the information which he then incorporated in his letter on 2 1 April.

page 50

QUESTION

HEALTH INSURANCE

Senator MESSNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Can the Minister representing the Minister for Health give an indication of the amount of the very considerable savings to families resulting from the changes to the health insurance arrangements announced in the Budget last night which will greatly offset cost increases?

Opposition senators interjecting-

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I am not able to give any statement of figures with respect to the question which was raised by Senator Messner. I am sure that honourable senators opposite who sounded horrified are aware of the changes to the health insurance system which were announced. They are aware that the new Commonwealth medical benefit will cover 40 per cent of the schedule medical fees or the schedule medical benefit less $20, whichever is the greater. They are aware that the present compulsion on every Australian to pay for one type of health insurance or another will be removed by way of the benefit of 40 per cent which now will be paid by the Commonwealth Government. These are considerable benefits but, in answer to Senator Messner, I am unable to state at this stage any specific figures that would show benefits.

page 51

QUESTION

FAMILY ALLOWANCES

Senator GRIMES:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security and seeks clarification of the changes to the family allowance scheme whereby children’s incomes are indexed. Do these changes mean that if the son of a widow earns $10 to $15 a week selling newspapers to supplement his mother’s income her family allowance will be reduced? Do these changes mean that if the daughter of a lowincome family works in the local McDonald’s hamburger shop and earns $20 a week, again the family allowance will be reduced? Will children such as those who now do not have to put in tax returns have to put in income statements or similar statements so that family allowances can be adjusted in their cases?

Senator GUILFOYLE A change to the family allowance system was announced in the Budget Speech last night. An income test is to be applied to a child to determine the eligibility of parents to a payment of a family allowance. The provisions that were announced last night state that if a child is in receipt of income above a certain level there will be a withdrawal of the family allowance. The figures given in the instances referred to by Senator Grimes show that the family allowance would be withdrawn. Any suggestion that the changes were made so that the Government could look at the lower income level families is incorrect.

When introduced, the family allowance scheme took into account the tax rebates which were given for dependent children in addition to the then child endowment payments. At the time, the child rebate which was given to the taxpayer diminished in accordance with the separate net income of the child concerned. The change that was announced by the Treasurer last night takes into account the separate net income of the child concerned. It should be recognised by honourable senators that the separate net income can arise from splitting a family income, from trust accounts, from partnership arrangements and from various other sources. Such income is different from the personal exertion income that may be gained by a child. My Department will be announcing the way in which the test will be applied to a child ‘s income for the previous year. I will see that early advice of the arrangements is given to all concerned.

page 51

QUESTION

AIR SAFETY

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

– I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. No doubt the Minister is aware of recently reported incidents of aircraft approaching close together while in the air- something that I am sure all of us would have preferred to see reserved for when aircraft were on the ground. Is the Minister able to tell the Senate whether any of these incidents were due to the failure of ground navigation equipment such as very high frequency omni-directional ranges, known as VORs, or non-directional beacons- equipment which is essential to accurate air navigation? Will the Minister confirm that on Mondays pilots are beginning to call VORs ‘very often wrongs’ because so many of these important aids on important routes are unserviceable on Mondays? Is this unserviceability due to the Department of Transport not being prepared to pay overtime? Is it true that any VOR, or for that matter any navigation equipment that becomes unserviceable after knock-off on Friday, remains unserviceable during the weekend and during Monday until it can be repaired? Will the Minister assure, the Senate that this procedure is in line with what should be done to keep Australia’s air safety record as high as we all would desire? If it is not, will the Minister ask the Minister for Transport to rectify the situation?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The question of air safety is important. I think it is known that Senator Townley occasionally engages in flying as a private pilot of light aircraft. Therefore he should disclose his interest. The Government intends that the record of air safety in Australia shall remain as high as it has been in the past or reach even greater heights. As Senator Townley will know, our record worldwide remains good. The rate of air accidents is falling. There are fewer accidents per 100,000 hours flying time now than there were 10 years ago. All accidents are subject to comprehensive investigation. That applies to incidents similar to the one that Senator Townley mentioned. Senator Townley has asked me a series of questions. I have been briefed on some of them. Because I think I need absolute, specific briefing I will treat the matter as one of importance and get specific information. My understanding, in general terms, is that the Government will assert that the ground aids and the various navigational aids are basically of sufficient quality at all times to ensure navigation safety. I do not know whether there has been an isolated incident that calls for modification. I will find out and get specific information.

page 52

QUESTION

ELECTORAL REDISTRIBUTION INQUIRY

Senator WRIEDT:

– My question is directed to the Attorney-General and follows the answer he just gave to Senator Georges. His joint opinion with the Solicitor-General to the Prime Minister on 23 April this year referred to material which appeared in Hansard, further material sent by the Minister for Finance and a letter from the honourable member for Fadden. The opinion also referred to the existence of further evidence which bears upon the previous report. What was that further evidence? Was it correspondence from the Chief Electoral Officer and the former Minister for Administrative Services? What was in the evidence which caused the AttorneyGeneral to change his mind on the need for a judicial inquiry?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– A question about the reference in the letter of 23 April to further evidence was asked of me at the end of the previous session. If I recollect correctly I confirmed that the further evidence we mentioned was the reference to the matter raised by Senator Withers’ phone call and discussion with Mr Pearson and by Mr Pearson ‘s discussion with the Distribution Commissioners. Yes, that was certainly a matter which we had in mind and to which we referred. The Leader of the Opposition has asked whether that evidence was in the form of correspondence. It came verbally from Mr Pearson to Mr Byers, and Mr Byers mentioned it to me. It was then the subject of discussion between Senator Withers and me. This was confirmed by the correspondence that went before the Royal Commission.

I think the third part of the question was what caused us to change our advice. When we first considered this matter we did not consider that any material produced by Mr Cameron caused us to believe there was any basis for an investigation, but when we had the material that was provided to us by Mr Cameron- there were other statements provided to us- it was quite apparent that there was conflicting evidence. I think this is explained in a letter. It was no part of Mr Byers’ function and my function- it would have been quite inappropriate for us in our positions- to be making any decisions on conflicting evidence. This had to be tested by some form of inquiry, by experts in this field. It was quiet clear from the nature of the material that was being provided to us that there were major conflicts and that the most appropriate way of resolving them was by holding a judicial proceeding.

page 52

QUESTION

INSURANCE COMPANIES

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the Treasurer. The Corporation of Insurance Brokers of Australia has confirmed the existence of a list of up to 50 doubtful insurance companies which it says could collapse. If the existence even of the list is the case, it suggests that the Government’s requirement on insurance companies is no longer adequate. Would the Minister have the Treasurer investigate this most disturbing allegation with a view to ensuring that companies in the insurance business in Australia shall be above suspicion and completely safe to the insuring public? If the Treasurer is satisfied as to the security of the insurance companies will he announce this to the public which at present is a little nervous?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I am not personally aware of any such list. I am aware that the Government and the Treasurer are very concerned that there should be stability and good conduct of all insurance and assurance companies in existence in Australia and that special mechanisms exist within the Treasury to undertake investigations in that regard. The honourable senator has asked a number of questions which only the Treasurer can answer. I will refer those questions to the Treasurer and seek an answer.

page 52

QUESTION

FAMILY ALLOWANCE

Senator HARRADINE:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security whose answer to the Opposition spokesman on social security matters, Senator Grimes, did not explain in any way the statement at page 86 of the Budget Papers that the new family allowance income test would save $90m. Will the Minister agree that the saving of $90m will mean that the effect of this new policy will be widespread? Does this proposed new scheme mean that every child who earns over $6 a week will thereby prevent his or her mother from receiving the full amount of the family allowance to which she is entitled? Is it correct that this new scheme will come into effect on 1 January 1979? Is not 1979 the International Year of the Child? How does this proposed new scheme benefit Australian children? Finally, does the Government have some kind of hostility against children who are attempting to supplement their pocket money by delivering newspapers, et cetera?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I am sorry that Senator Harradine thought my answer to Senator Grimes was inadequate. I thought I responded to the question that was directed to me with the two instances that he gave. I indicated that income of such a nature earned by a child would reduce or eliminate the amount of the family allowance that would be paid to the families involved. The announcement last night by the Treasurer was clear, I believe, to all who read it, and stated that in future family allowances will be income tested on the basis of a child’s income. From 1 January 1979 allowances will be paid as at present in respect of each child having an income of $312 or less in 1977-78 but will be reduced at the rate of 25c in the dollar on account of any income in excess of $3 12 received by the child. Parents of children with a separate net income above $312 a year will therefore receive a reduced benefit in respect of such children. That was the -

Senator Grimes:

– How will you find out?

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I mentioned to Senator Grimes in response to his question that later this year a form will be sent out from the Department to every recipient of the family allowance.

Senator Grimes:

– You didn’t say that, actually.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I answered the question briefly. Perhaps if I describe the procedure, that may answer the question more fully. I said that I would ensure that ample time was given to explain the system to those who need to know about it. Later this year the Department will send a form to every recipient of the family allowance explaining the effect of the change and requesting details of the income earned by each child during the 12 months ended 30 June 1978. Continuing entitlement to the family allowance will be assessed when the forms are returned to the Department. If the entitlement is varied as a result of this assessment the endowees will be notified accordingly.

Senator Harradine referred to the fact that the family allowance that is paid to the parents of children who are earning pocket money would be reduced. This is a reaction to the change that was announced last night. As far as the Government is concerned, the family allowance scheme did relate to the child rebate scheme- that is, the tax rebate at the time it was introduced- and the previous child endowment scheme. This year almost $ 1,000m will be spent on the family allowance scheme. It is believed that there are many children who have income from trusts and income from other sources who could not be classed as dependent children. They would not have been included in the tax rebate which was part of the previous taxation scheme.

I am well aware that next year is the International Year of the Child. I am the Minister in the Commonwealth Government who, in conjunction with other Federal and State colleagues, is responsible for the observance of that Year. I can say only that I am sure that the effect of the Budget in its entirety and the effect of the almost $ 1,000m that will be paid in family allowances next year will show that this Government has been very responsive to the needs of Australian children and the strengthening of the Australian family.

Senator HARRADINE:

- Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. The first part of my question remains unanswered. It referred to the fact that in the Budget Papers the Government estimates that expenditure on family allowance will be reduced by $90m as a result of this proposed scheme. Will the Minister agree that that means that this proposed scheme will have a widespread effect on recipients of family allowances?

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– This proposed change to the family allowance scheme will have the effect that children who are in receipt of a separate net income of over $312 will have a reduced family allowance paid on their behalf. An estimate has been made of the amount of that reduction and these figures have been shown in the Budget Papers. I can give no explanation other than that at present over $ 1,000m is paid in family allowances and in the forthcoming year under $ 1,000m will be paid. Senator Harradine may believe that I can be more explicit but I am afraid that I am unable to be so.

page 53

QUESTION

URANIUM ROYALTIES

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources. Following the series of talks that have taken place recently between the Northern Land Council and the Government concerning uranium royalties, is the Minister in a position to indicate to the Senate the present situation in relation to the financial arrangements?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I am unable to give Senator Kilgariff any great detail. I understand that the negotiations between the Government and the Northern Land Council are still in progress and I am therefore unable to give any specific information. The Government has said repeatedly that it hopes construction work will begin at Ranger during the current dry season, which ends around November. I believe honourable senators will be aware that the Government has been moving to ensure that all necessary procedures are completed to enable construction work to begin in this dry season. A package of uranium legislation was passed during the autumn sittings of the Parliament. Negotiations with the Land Council continued last week in Canberra and my understanding is that they are likely to resume in the fairly near future. I am unable to be any more specific than that at this stage.

page 54

QUESTION

ELECTORAL REDISTRIBUTION IN QUEENSLAND

Senator WRIEDT:

– My question, which is addressed to the Attorney-General, follows from the answer he gave to my previous question. The Minister indicated in reply to that question that he was aware of Senator Withers ‘ involvement in the matter at the time of the appointment of the Royal Commission. I remind the Minister that on the last day of sitting of this Parliament in June he accepted responsibility for the terms of the Royal Commission. In view of that, why were the terms of reference drafted in such a manner as to preclude from consideration Senator Withers’ involvement in the affair?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– First and foremost, the terms of reference were not drawn in such a way as to preclude reference to Senator Withers’ involvement in the affair. That is just not the case. I answered questions on that subject. Senator Wriedt might look at some of the answers I gave and he might look also at the report of the debate we had in this place on the last sitting day of the last period. The terms of reference were drawn in such a way as to ensure that this question of Senator Withers’ involvement in the change of name was brought out and saw the light of day as soon as possible. They were drawn up in that manner and they in fact had that effect. The terms of reference specifically referred to the change of name from Gold Coast to McPherson. Indeed, the explanatory memorandum for the issuing of the letters patent, which has gone in evidence, further makes that perfectly clear. I refer those senators who are interested to that evidence. The original terms of reference did not enable the Royal Commissioner to make a finding in relation to Senator Withers in the way that he did in the end-

Senator Wriedt:

– That is the point.

Senator DURACK:

– There has never been any doubt. Indeed, when the terms of reference were expanded, I explained in the statement that I made in relation to it that they were being widened on 30 May to enable the Commissioner to make findings not specifically in relation to Senator Withers but in relation to any other people who may have been involved in matters relating to the old McPherson area. They are the facts of the matter.

I suppose that really is the answer to Senator Wriedt ‘s question, that is, that the original terms of reference did not preclude reference to Senator Withers. The statement that Senator Withers gave me dated 2 1 April, the statement Mr Pearson gave on 24 April and the statements that’ had been received from the Distribution Commissioners formed part of all the material which was forwarded immediately by my Department to the Royal Commission. So all the facts in relation to this matter were made available at the beginning and all the evidence was brought out. Indeed, I think Mr Pearson was the first witness to appear before the Royal Commission. Senator Withers himself was an early witness before the Royal Commission. So all of the facts, as far as we knew them and as far as I knew them, were brought out at the Royal Commission.

page 54

QUESTION

SALES TAX ON MOTOR VEHICLES

Senator LEWIS:
VICTORIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer, is about the cut in sales tax on motor cars and station wagons from 27$ per cent to 1 5 per cent, estimated by the Treasurer to cost $155m in revenue this year and $196m in a full year. I ask: What is the purpose of this cut in sales tax? What will be its result? Will not the result simply be to reduce the total current market value of the stocks of used vehicles in Australia? Would it not have been better to use the lost revenue in some other way, for example, by imposing less tax or creating some export incentive?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

- Senator Lewis asks for the reasons why the Government has made a cut in the sales tax on motor vehicles, including station wagons. It is a very dramatic cut from 27V& per cent to 15 per cent- a cut which I think the Treasurer announced last night would amount to $530 on a vehicle costing approximately $7,000. That is a very substantial saving indeed. It is the advice which the Government has received, and it is the belief of the Government, that such a cut can be stimulating to the automotive industry, particularly the automotive industry in Australia. That industry and its ancillary industries are very important in the provision of job opportunities for Australians. Therefore, overall both in the reduction of cost to the taxpayer and in stimulating jobs this is a good thing. The sales tax on automotive vehicles also plays a significant part- not an insignificant part- in the consumer price index, and anything that can reduce the consumer price index is good news for Australia. If one rejoices when taxes are reduced- be they direct or indirect taxes- one should rejoice in this case. Happily, virtually all Australian families are automotive vehicle owners, and from time to time buy new cars. So if one buys a car, say, once every five years, the effect of the reduced sales tax is a saving on average of $ 100 a year or some $2 a week. Perhaps honourable senators will keep that in mind when they look at savings.

page 55

QUESTION

SOUTH AUSTRALIAN RAILWAYS

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. I think he would be aware of the controversy which has broken out in South Australia about the report which originated from the Australian National Railways Commission headquarters in South Australia recommending to the Minister for Transport that there be heavy reductions in South Australian country rail services and some complete cancellation of services. Of course the Minister would know that there is a legislative requirement that the Australian Government confer with the State Government. Is the Minister aware whether the Minister for Transport, Mr Nixon, has sought or received a report which recommends curtailment of services, in South Australia only, as a means of recovering losses in the Commonwealth Railways? If that report has been received, does he intend to make it known to the South Australian Government and/or the trade unions which are concerned about it? The Minister may have received- I know that South Australian senators have received- representations from all the railway unions asking us to do what we can in respect of these matters. I would be pleased to know what action is proposed.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I am aware of the very real concern of all South Australians- certainly I am aware that Senator Bishop has expressed keen concern, as have other honourable senators from South Australia- about the operation of the railways, their costs, and the provision of their services. Indeed, I have answered many a question here on that matter. I am not aware personally of the report mentioned. I have no advice on that and therefore I cannot respond to the second part of the question as to whether the Minister for Transport has seen the report and whether he has responded. I shall seek the information and let the honourable senator know.

page 55

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYMENT

Senator KNIGHT:

– I ask a question of the Leader of the Government in the Senate in relation to a statement in the Budget Speech last night. The statement is as follows:

The Commonwealth will, as a major employer, act like any other employer.

If wages rise Taster than we have budgeted Tor, we will respond by effecting offsetting economies through a further critical examination of Budget expenditures. This critical examination will include the number of staff employed.

Can the Minister confirm that if Public Service or other Commonwealth Government staff levels are to be further affected by such decisions, any cuts will be achieved by the process of what is usually referred to as natural wastage, such as retirement and resignation, and not by retrenchments in the public sector?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I appreciate Senator Knight’s keen interest in the welfare of the public servants, a large number of whom reside within the Australian Capital Territory. It has been and remains the Government’s basic policy that where there are to be adjustments to staff ceilings those adjustments should be made by normal or natural attrition or wastage. That is the fundamental answer. But the Treasurer stated in his Budget Speech that the Government will not allow excessive increases in money wages to undermine its own Budget and will as a major employer act like any other employer. I think it is important to quote what the Treasurer said, and I use his words:

If wages rise faster than we have budgeted for, we will respond by effecting offsetting economies through a further critical examination of Budget expenditures. This critical examination will include the number of staff employed.

In so doing, we will be seeking to bring the conduct of our own affairs more into line with conditions prevailing in the private sector.

I am advised that should it become necessary to examine Budget expenditures along these lines and a reduction in staff numbers is decided upon in the light of circumstances then existing, it would be the Government’s continued approach to seek to achieve the reduction, wherever possible, by natural staff wastage.

page 55

QUESTION

BUDGET LEAKS

Senator WHEELDON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. It relates to the accurate reports of substantial portions of the Budget which appeared in the Australian Press before the Budget was presented to the Parliament by the Treasurer. Were these reports of the Budget’s contents made available to the Press by the Government or any of its Ministers? If this is the case, does this indicate that the Government is adopting a new policy of revealing the contents of the Budget before it is presented to the Parliament? If the information was not provided to the Press by the Government or any of its Ministers and without their authority, what investigations are being made by the Government into who was responsible for this nefarious action?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-As Senator Wheeldon would know, having been a member of the Whitlam Government, during the time of that Government various reports appeared in the Press, some of which proved to be accurate. It is unfortunate that this should happen from time to time.

Senator Georges:

– Get to the future.

Senator CARRICK:

-I will be happy to do so. Senator Georges is always tender about the past. The Government deplores the possibility of any Budget leaks which might advantage individuals. My understanding is that the Prime Minister has asked the permanent heads of his Department and the Treasury to investigate the matter of Budget information which appeared in the Press. So, specifically, an investigation is being made.

page 56

QUESTION

TOURIST INDUSTRY

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce. It relates to the Australian tourist industry. Will the Minister give the numbers of staff employed by the Australian Tourist Commission within Australia and overseas? Will he indicate where these staff are located?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I have gained representation of a few additional portfolios recently. I did not realise that I was still representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I will refer the question to the Minister and endeavour to get an early answer from him.

page 56

QUESTION

ELECTORAL REDISTRIBUTION INQUIRY

Senator WRIEDT:

-Does the AttorneyGeneral recall that the former Minister for Administrative Services said on oath at the Royal Commission hearings that there were almost weekly meetings of Ministers to discuss what he described as ‘this vexed question’ during the Queensland redistribution? Was the AttorneyGeneral present at those meetings? Was Senator Withers correct in saying that the meetings took place almost weekly? Who were the other Ministers present at those meetings? Was the Prime

Minister present? Was Senator Withers’ involvement in the name change discussed at any of those meetings and, if so, at which meetings?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I take it that the question about the evidence of Senator Withers, who referred to almost weekly meetings, relates to the period to 23 April this year. The position is that I can only speak in relation to these matters as far as I have knowledge of them. Originally, in January the matter was referred to Mr Byers and me- and we reported to the Prime Minister; that was what we were requested to do- in February. Apart from some discussions that I had with the Prime Minister, and I think with Senator Withers, in relation to the fact that that report had been made, there were no meetings as far as I know- and also I understand as far as the Government knows, but perhaps others should answer this rather than I- until Mr Donald Cameron raised the matter again on 7 April. From 7 April through to 23 April there certainly was a series of meetings, and the Prime Minister has detailed those meetings in the statement that he made yesterday. I think that I was certainly present at most, if not all, of those meetings.

As far as the rest of the question is concerned- I think it was largely as to whether Senator Withers or the Prime Minister was present- most of the meetings, certainly the meetings I was at, were ones with the Prime Minister, and I think Senator Withers was at most of them; but I cannot speak of what other meetings were held, but I do refer the Senate to the statement which the Prime Minister gave and which Senator Carrick has put down. The Prime Minister has indicated in that statement what meetings were held in relation to this subject.

Senator WRIEDT:

– As a supplementary question, I ask whether the Minister has read the transcript of the evidence, relating to this particular matter, given by Senator Withers? If he has, can he indicate whether he interprets the meetings referred to by Senator Withers as being the meetings which he, Senator Durack, attended?

Senator DURACK:

– I have read the evidence. I did not read it yesterday. It was some weeks ago when I read it. The evidence was in very general terms and, except in relation to the period that I have mentioned, I could not identify my involvement in any such meetings- except over the periods to which I have referred.

page 56

QUESTION

FUEL INDUSTRY: INQUIRY

Senator THOMAS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I preface my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs by reminding him that the Government established an inquiry into the fuel industry under the chairmanship of the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs in furtherance of a promise made by the Prime Minister during the last election campaign. When can we expect a government decision on that matter?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-I will refer the honourable senator’s question to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs and endeavour to obtain an early answer from him.

page 57

QUESTION

ARMY APPRENTICES

Senator McINTOSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Defence whether it is a fact that some 400 Army apprentices in all States of Australia are being apprenticed to private builders for their final two years of practical training? How long has this scheme been in operation? What checks are kept on the building firms involved to ensure that apprentices are not simply being used as a form of cheap labour, and does this scheme result in apprenticeships that could have been taken up by young people, who are presently unemployed, being handed over to the defence forces?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I will refer the question to the Minister for Defence and endeavour to obtain an early answer for the honourable senator.

page 57

QUESTION

TASMANIAN RAIL PASSENGER SERVICE: INQUIRY

Senator WATSON:
TASMANIA

-I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Transport whether he can advise the state of the inquiry currently being conducted by Sir Henry Bland, into the cessation of the Tasmanian rail passenger service? Can the Senate be assured that no substantial redundancy will result from the takeover by the Australian National Railways Commission of the Tasmanian Railways?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– In responding, may I welcome the first question from Senator Watson- as I do, and I hope all honourable senators do- ungrudgingly for all new senators. Naturally Senator Watson will be concerned, as will all honourable senators, about the continued supply of transport from Tasmania to the mainland. I cannot answer first hand as to what the state of the report by Sir Henry Bland might be. I shall seek the information and let the honourable senator know.

page 57

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP

Senator MULVIHILL:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, or to the AttorneyGeneral. It refers to figures given in the other place yesterday indicating that last year 1,600 people were denied Australian citizenship. I have in mind the Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security, the Hope inquiry, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Commonwealth Ombudsman. To which body could a person have recourse to have his citizenship denial reviewed?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I am not sure that this question falls within the responsibility of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, whom I represent, but I shall see that information is obtained and that Senator Mulvihill is advised.

page 57

QUESTION

PROSERPINE AIRPORT

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Transport aware that since October 1977, Ansett Airlines of Australia has been operating DC9 and Boeing aircraft into Proserpine airport on an average of four flights a week? Is he aware also that the frequency of services will soon increase and that Proserpine airport has- no rescue service or fire fighting services? Is the Minister aware that the regulations of the Department of Transport stipulate that following an emergency the evacuation methods used by the airline concerned must enable evacuation of all passengers, using only 50 per cent of the exits, in 90 seconds? In view of the absence of rescue services will the Minister say how, if one of these fully laden jets caught fire at Proserpine, the passengers would be saved?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– In response to Senator Keeffe ‘s first two questions, I believe that the facts as he stated them are correct, namely, that there is a frequency of DC9 services into that airport and that the frequency is likely to increase. I am aware that some honourable senators- I think honourable senators on both sides of the Senate- have raised the matter of improved ground services at Proserpine airport to ensure the provision of the fullest possible services there. I am not aware at first hand of the limitations on the Proserpine services. I shall direct the remainder of the honourable senator’s question to the Minister concerned and seek an answer.

page 57

QUESTION

MEDICAL BENEFITS

Senator RYAN:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and refers to two statements made last night by the Treasurer: firstly, that all Australians are to be entitled to a basic medical benefit of 40 per cent of the schedule fee totally funded by the Commonwealth from general revenue; and, secondly, that the benefit will be paid by private health insurance funds on behalf of the Commonwealth. Can the Minister explain which agency will be responsible for paying the 40 per cent benefit to persons who choose not to take out health insurance and what the mechanism for such payments will be?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– That is a question requiring specific and precise information. I shall see that the Minister for Health is informed of the question and that the Senate is advised of the mechanism which will be utilised and the further information required by Senator Ryan.

page 58

QUESTION

MEDICAL BENEFITS

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

– The Minister representing the Minister for Health would be familiar with that portion of the Budget Speech that deals with health and refers to people identified by their doctors as being socially disadvantaged. Can the Minister advise the criteria to be used by doctors in identifying such people? Can the Minister spell out the steps to be taken to preserve people ‘s privacy in such matters?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I am aware that last night on behalf of the Minister for Health I incorporated a lengthy statement in Hansard. I am not sure of the detail provided in that statement. If I am able through that statement or separately to provide the information which is now required I shall see that Senator Melzer is advised accordingly. If there are any general statements on these matters which the Minister for Health wishes me to make I shall see that they are given in a general way to the Senate.

page 58

AURUKUN AND MORNINGTON ISLAND ABORIGINAL COMMUNITIES

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

The PRESIDENT:

– I have “received a letter from Senator Gietzelt proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely:

The immediate need for the Commonwealth Government to implement the provisions of Section 51 sub-section 26 as amended by the 1967 Referendum and sub-section 3 1 of the Australian Constitution to meet the wishes of the Aurukun and Mornington Island Aboriginal communities.’

I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of senators required by

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– Once again the Senate is being asked to consider the problems that have been with us during 1978 concerning the rights of the people of Aurukun and Mornington Island. When discussing this matter on the second day of the sessional period after the recess, I think one is entitled to say that we are dealing with a problem that arises out of a legacy of government indecision. Whilst government legislation has been passed by both Houses of Parliament and whilst considerable negotiations have taken place between the Australian Government and the Queensland Government, I think we have to admit that at present the problem is with us to a major extent. The dimensions of the problem have increased. The people of Mornington Island and Aurukun feel let down by the Australian Parliament and, indeed, by the Australian people.

We can describe the period under review- the last six months- as one of indecision; one of procrastination; certainly one of negotiation; and one of shilly-shallying. It was expected and hoped that the Queensland Government would fall into line with the wishes of the national Parliament; but that has not happened. In fact we are in a worse position now than when we first debated the matter earlier this year. I do not know whether the Government has taken the view that the matter is one for the too-hard basket; that the Federal Government ought not to be put in a confrontation position with the Queensland Government; or that it hopes the problem will go away. Whatever the reason, the fact is that the problem will not go away. We in the Senate should see ourselves as being in a position of giving advice to the Australian Government to take the problem out of the too-hard basket and to take the necessary legislative action to put into effect the expressed view of the Australian people in the referendum of 1 967 and the view of this place, which has been clearly expressed on the occasions when this matter has been debated.

I think it has to be conceded- I certainly will concede it- that on the occasions when we have debated this matter in the Senate the overwhelming majority of Government senators have seen eye to eye with us on this side of the fence. I feel confident that if debate were to encompass the new members of the Senate from the Australian Democrats and if in fact Senator Harradine were enjoined to vote on such an issue we could count upon an overwhelming viewpoint from this national Parliament. It would be a bipartisan approach, an approach that surely would prod the Australian Government to take the necessary steps to resolve the impasse and the tremendous confusion that exists in the Aboriginal communities- in Queensland generally and Aurukun and Mornington in particular.

We cannot be surely satisfied that we have advanced from the last time when we debated this matter. I think one is entitled to say that we are no closer to resolving the matter despite the temporary victory that has been won today. I understand that today an injunction has been granted restraining the administrator appointed by Bjelke-Petersen and the Queensland Government from proceeding with the takeover of the councils at Mornington and Aurukun. That would surely flow from some deficiency or some technicality in the Queensland law. It in no way absolves this Parliament, in no way absolves this Government and in no way absolves the Australian community from their responsibilities in respect of the requests, the demands and the pleadings of the people of Aurukun and Mornington Island for action and resolution of the problems as it affects them in their communities. The resultant confusion must surely concern everybody in this Senate. It must surely concern many people who hitherto have not taken any particular interest in the problems that have existed in those two communities for the last six or seven months. Surely in that confusion we must recognise the tremendous heartaches, disappointments and fears of the ordinary people of those two communities.

What have we done in the past? We have offered our unqualified support to this Government- such support is not often given, but in this case it has been given freely- in an attempt to persuade the Government that the undertakings given by Mr Viner and Mr Fraser should be met in the form of the Australian Government instituting legislation or using what other powers it may have for the acquisition of Crown lands in those two areas. All that persuasion, all those offers of assistance and all those attempts to take the heat out of party politics have not got us nearer to a solution to this problem. One finds, therefore, a common attitude on the part of what must be regarded as an overwhelming majority in this Senate. Having failed to persuade the Government to act, one is entitled, therefore, to say that Mr Fraser should be asked some questions about the undertakings that he has given from time to time. If one studies the records one sees that those undertakings clearly show him to be in the same contradictory position in respect of the communities of

Aurukun and Mornington Island as he is in respect of Medibank, wage indexation, income tax, unemployment and all the other questions on which we share opposite points of view.

We do not want to be put in a position of point scoring at the expense of the black people of Queensland, in particular the black people of these two communities. I put Government senators, with one or two exceptions, in the category of all honourable senators who have spoken on this issue. We are all concerned. I think that is the way we must see this issue. We are all concerned about the plight of the people in those communities, who, when they exercise their democratic right to employ a legal representative, which after all is a fairly fundamental and elementary right for any of us when we are in trouble, when they seek the assistance of the officers of the North Queensland Land Council and when they have the assistance of representatives of Commonwealth departments, see people being escorted from the reserves by police at the behest of Mr Bjelke-Petersen. I think one is entitled to say that the people of those communities who have made so many pleas and requests to the Australian public and to the Australian Government are entitled again to hear the voice of this Senate and to reject as this Senate undoubtedly would if the matter were looked at impartially and properly, the extravagant language that the Queensland Premier still expresses in respect of the problems that exist in north Queensland.

Of course, the Premier is on record as saying- I have spoken about it many times- and has said in this last couple of weeks that there is a reign of terror in these communities. In fact, quite the contrary situation exists. He says that the whole problem is caused by the presence of journalists, politicians and southern radicals. When he was asked whether he included the Federal Government in that categorisation he said: ‘Yes’. He regards even the Federal Government as part of a group of people so loosely and easily categorised as being southern radicals, whereas we know, of course, that that is not the position at all. The one who is out of line, the one who is out on a limb, the one who is ignoring public opinion and the one who is ignoring the will of this Senate is in fact the Premier himself.

The only solution to the continuing dispute involving the Aboriginal communities at Aurukun and Mornington Island is for the Federal Government to implement the provisions of the Constitution and to take into account the view of the people as expressed in the 1967 referendum, as we have said so many times previously. What else has to happen before the Australian Government will move? Does there have to be bloodshed? Does there have to be civil riots? Does there have to be turmoil or legal challenge to resolve a matter which clearly is an area of responsibility for the Australian Government?

I am sure that it will be conceded by this Senate that acquistion of the land by the Federal Government is the only way to meet the wishes of the Aurukun and Mornington Island Aboriginal communities. It is the only way out for the Fraser Government to ensure the implementation of its own policies on Aboriginal affairs particularly in the State of Queensland. I do not need to remind Government senators on the other side of the chamber that that policy calls for self-management and self-development. Having adopted that policy and having found that that policy finds a ready echo in the minds and hearts of the people in those communities, is it unreasonable for us again in this place to bring forward for discussion this matter which proposes to advise the Australian Government on the need to implement its own policies. Surely the events of the past few months support our proposal. The position now is worse than it was when we last debated this matter in April when I pleaded with Government senators to accept an amendment which would have resolved the matter there and then. As honourable senators know, we finished that debate at a late hour on a Friday only to find that our action was subverted by an executive decision of the Queensland Government only an hour or so later.

What is happening in these communities is that in the appointment of Aboriginal councils and in the way in which they are operating there is a denial of human rights. I would go so far as to say there exists in these communities and in some other Aboriginal communities in Queensland an atmosphere which can only be described as being akin to partial slavery. According to those who have been appointed by the Queensland Government to administer the affairs of these communities the Aboriginals have no rights. We have- and correctly so- in our parties and as citizens exercised our right to express a concern for human rights all over the world. Many of us have taken a strong view that human rights should be denied to no one whether by a government of the Left or a government of the Right. Certainly we ought to be asserting that fundamental principle when it comes to our own indigenous people who without any question have been denied those rights since white civilisation came to this continent almost 200 years ago. Today the civil rights of

Aborigines at Mornington Island and Aurukun are affected. Some might say that they have disappeared. Certainly no one could disagree with the premise that those civil rights are threatened very much by the arbitrary and contemptuous action that has been taken by the Queensland Government. One is therefore entitled to ask what is behind this obvious conflict that exists. Does the Queensland Government really believe that it is acting in the interests of the Aboriginal communities.

Does it really believe that it has support, when all the authorities without exception- Mr Viner ‘s officers, the Uniting Church in Australia, the Moderators, the Synod, legal representatives and members of the Parliament who have been there themselves have came to the same conclusion, that the people in those communities want action from the Commonwealth Government? They want freehold land to be ceded to them. They want the right to determine their own affairs. As has been expressed so forcibly, they do not want the Queensland Government to be involved in any way in their lifestyle.

If that conflict exists one is entitled to ask what is the motivation behind the Queensland Government. I venture to say that Mr BjelkePetersen wants to get his grubby little hands on the bauxite reserves that exist within those communities. He sees royalties for his Government, he sees more power for the mining companies that want to exploit those reserves and he wants to place the people of those communities in exactly the same atmosphere- a frontier town atmosphere- which helped to destroy many of the indigenous people in other parts of” this continent, in Africa and in America- the Indian people- who were forced to live side by side with the advance of so-called civilization.

We in this Parliament, who have a better perception of this situation, want to protect our indigenous people from that sort of influence and atmosphere which we know from our experience in our own country and internationally is contrary to their best interests. Surely, we do not want to reach the position, which excites me somewhat, of having to introduce a private member’s Bill in this House to try to force the hand of the Australian Government. I think it would be much better if the Australian Government were to heed the words of the Senate, to listen to the views that have been expressed on so many occasions. It should listen to its own supporters if it does not want to listen to those of us on this side of the fence.

As honourable senators probably remember, in mid-March the Queensland Government announced its decision to take over from the Uniting Church control of Aboriginal reserves at Aurukun and Mornington Island. That sparked off an inevitable reaction, and since that time there has been a universal outcry from Aboriginal communities right across Australia. I know of no editorial writers, no political party, no other Aboriginal community or no other State government that has expressed support for the action that has been taken by the Queensland Government. On numerous occasions in public utterances Mr Viner and Mr Fraser have agreed with the views of those of us who have spoken on this matter in the past. According to some of Mr Bjelke-Petersen ‘s statements, he seems to believe that communism will come to these communities if some form of co-operative freehold title is granted to the lands that these people regard as their home.

As I have said in previous debates and as other senators have said, the Aboriginal people regard land as their home. They do not regard land as we do, as a piece of property on which we erect our home. They regard the land as their home. This is part of their culture. For some reason the Queensland Government- we can all have considerable reason to doubt the integrity of the Queensland Government on this matter- is unable to see that that important principle is what motivates the views of the Opposition and those members of Government parties who have spoken on this matter in the past.

We have to see in this Parliament a determination that we are not prepared^ to sit down and allow the people of Aurukun and Mornington to be by-passed by history, ignored by the Australian Government and taken over by the Queensland Government. We believe that it is in the interests of all that sufficient persuasion, pressure, influence- I do not care what it is called- is brought to bear upon the Australian Government in such a way that it will take the necessary steps given to it by the Australian people, expressed in the views of the Senate and, I am sure, by the majority representation in the House of Representatives. If that is done the Australian Government can hold its head up high and say that it has acceded to the request of the people of Mornington and Aurukun for selfdetermination, self-management and selfdevelopment. I urge support for the principles ennunciated in the terms of the matter of public importance which is being debated in the Senate.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

- Mr Deputy President, I congratulate you on your elevation to the high office of Deputy President of the Senate. I feel sure that during your term of service you will conduct yourself with dignity and will give great credit to the Senate.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Scott)- Thank you.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

- Senator Gietzelt has brought forward today a matter of public importance which concerns us all. The Government recognises the concern which he has expressed on behalf of his colleagues and it recognises the sincerity with which he has brought forward this matter. It is fair to say, as he has claimed, that this has been a matter of considerable discussion in the Senate. He mentioned that it has been a matter in relation to which there has been procrastination. He also acknowledged that it has certainly also been a matter of negotiation. I believe that those remarks of his reflect the discussion that has taken place and the concern that we all feel with regard to the Aborigines of the Aurukun and Mornington Island communities.

Senator Gietzelt gave some background with regard to the problem which he has put before the Senate today. I too would like to traverse briefly the background of the matter in order to bring us to the point at which matters stand at this stage. It is not new to recall in this place that the Commonwealth made an agreement with Queensland on 1 1 April. It was an agreement which resulted in a joint statement being made by the Prime Minister of Australia (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the Premier of Queensland. The agreement was made with the State of Queensland and it is an agreement which the Commonwealth Government would not repudiate without good cause. I say that because, whilst Senator Gietzelt has expressed frustration and a sense of repudiation of that agreement, I feel that it must be stated that the agreement was made and that more recent events show that there were strong possibilities that that agreement would result in the outcome which we had hoped to achieve. I mention just briefly that the agreement said that there would be a local government authority for each of the two communities, that there would be a local government council, and that in order to support the communities there would be co-ordinating and advisory committees to the council comprising people representative of the authorities delivering services, including one representative of the Commonwealth Department of Aboriginal Affairs. That gives us the background to the position which we are discussing.

By way of summary I point out that Queensland legislated to implement the agreement to which I referred and to establish two shire councils and a co-ordinating and advisory committee. The shire councils and the committee had been formed as a result of the legislation. It is probably true to say that the Queensland Government’s administration of the Act had flaws in it. Consequently, the Act has not yet achieved the result that it was hoped at that time it would achieve. The decision of 7 August to provide funds for local government and to the councils through the Department of Local Government indicated that the arrangements could work. We had very high hopes that the arrangements could work and would work, but the two councils, which were frustrated and impatient after the earlier interference and the lack of action, declared last week that they did not want to work under the State or to receive State money. This, of course, provided the occasion for the Queensland Government to dissolve the councils and to put in an administrator.

Some correspondence has been exchanged quite recently and I seek to have that correspondence placed on the record. The first piece of correspondence is a letter dated 9 August from the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) to Councillor Larry Lanley, the Chairman of the Mornington Shire Council on Mornington Island. In that letter reference is made to messages to the Prime Minister and to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. The letter states: 1 refer to the messages to the Prime Minister and myself from the joint meeting of the Mornington and Aurukun Shire Councils at Aurukun last weekend and to your telegram today.

Certain thoughts are expressed in this letter, and I seek leave to have it incorporated in the Hansard record in its entirety so that it is not misunderstood. I seek further to have incorporated two telegrams. One is signed by Larry Lanley, the Chairman of the Mornington Shire Council. That telegram is dated 1 1 August and is addressed to Mr Viner. It states that he appreciates the efforts of Mr Viner and his officers in trying to make the local government legislation work. The telegram continues:

My Council and my Community have also worked hard to keep things going in spite of the continual interference from DAIA. We are tired of talking and listening to Ministers of the Queensland Government. The Queensland Government has consistently lied to us. We see no point in three Ministers coming here to tell us that they are going straight. Let them make an announcement in Brisbane and put the Shires money into our account at Normanton so that the Council can get on with the job of managing the community.

Mr Lanley concluded that telegram by saying that he looked forward to seeing Mr Viner at

Mornington or in Canberra soon. The other telegram was signed by the Mornington Island Chairman and councillors, and it also is dated 1 1 August. It reads:

The entire Mornington Island Council and Community refused to meet with and talk to the Queensland Premier and his ministerial colleagues during the visit to Mornington today. There is a deep feeling of resentment within the community at the continuing interference of the State Government in local affairs. There is bitterness resulting from the State Government’s continuing refusal to abide by their agreements. We stand firm with Aurukun in rejecting any further co-operation with the Queensland State Government.

Mr Deputy President, I seek leave of the Senate to have incorporated in Hansard all of those items of correspondence.

Leave granted.

The documents read as follows- 9 August 1978

Cr Larry Lanley Chairman

Mornington Shire Council Mornington Island Via Mt Isa, Qld

I refer to the messages to the Prime Minister and myself from the joint meeting of the Mornington and Aurukun Shire. Councils at Aurukun last weekend and to your telegram today.

I understand your concern about the lack of progress in establishing the new arrangements for local government and sympathise with your wish that the Council should be able to manage the community without interference from officers of the Queensland Department of Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement. I am disappointed also that leases have not yet been issued to the two Shire Councils.

I and my officers have been working long and hard with Mr Hinze and his officers to try to resolve these problems and I now understand from Mr Hinze that the Queensland Government has made decisions this week which should resolve the difficulties about funding the Councils. Money for your Council to carry out local government responsibilities will come as grants from the Department of Local Government. I understand your worries about having grants from both Local Government and Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement and for this reason I was concerned to ensure that Council money was provided by Department of Local Government.

This question of funding has. I know, been your main concern from the start, as it has been my own. The resolution of this concern opens the way to real self-management.

In the same way. following discussions and review by the Queensland Government, it has been decided that the hospitals and health services will be the responsibility of the Health Department and the Education Department will be responsible for schools. Both Departments will work in consultation with the Councils and the communities.

The Police Department will be responsible for police services which you have requested. Provision of accommodation for police and others will be discussed with your Council.

Department of Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement will. I believe, continue its responsibility for welfare projects.

I understand from Mr Hinze also that action is being taken to establish exactly which areas will be needed for Government purposes and when this has been done it will be possible to issue the lease.

The next step is Tor Councils to work out budgets and choose permanent Shire Clerks so that you can get down to day to day work with the help or the Co-ordinating and Advisory Committees. We have been seeking to ensure that both Councils are in a position to manage community affairs by having control of Council money and being able to employ staff. We will continue to work closely with Mr Hinze and his officers to ensure that the arrangements work properly.

I understand that the Premier hopes to visit communities on Friday with Mr Hinze and Mr Porter to talk to you about these matters. This will give you a chance to hear at first hand what his Government proposes to do and to put your views directly to the Premier. It is important that nothing be done to close off this chance of a direct exchange. 1 suggest that you await the outcome of your discussions with the Premier and his Ministers before deciding about coming to Canberra. The Prime Minister and I are not able to visit at this time but I hope to be able to visit within the next few weeks.

  1. I. Viner

Minister for Aboriginal Affairs

Parliament House.

Canberra.

TELEG RAM ( 1 1 August 1 978 )

Dear Mr Viner,

I appreciate the efforts of you and your officers in trying to make the Local Government legislation work. My Council and my Community have also worked hard to keep things going in spite of the continual interference from DAIA. We are tired of talking and listening to Ministers of the Queensland Government. The Queensland Government has consistently lied to us. We see no point in the three Ministers coming here to tell us that they are going straight. Let them make an announcement in Brisbane and put the Shires money into our account at Normanton so that the Council can get on with the job of managing the community. I look forward to seeing you here or in Canberra soon.

Best wishes, (Snd.) Larry Lanley, Chairman

TELEGRAM ( 1 1 August 1978)

The entire Mornington Island Council and Community refused to meet with and talk to the Queensland Premier and his Ministerial colleagues during the visit to Mornington today. There is a deep feeling of resentment within the community at the continued interference of the State Government in local affairs. There is bitterness resulting from the State Government’s continuing refusal to abide by their aggreements. We stand firm with Aurukun in rejecting any further co-operation with the Queensland State Government.

Signed: Mornington Island Chairman and Councillors.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I thank the Senate. The present Commonwealth position is as has been stated in a Press statement made by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and released yesterday. In that Press release the Minister dissociated the Commonwealth Government from the decision of the Queensland Government that the Aurukun and Mornington Island shire councils be dissolved and an administrator appointed.

Section 16 of the Queensland Government (Aboriginal Lands) Act requires that the Commonwealth Minister for Aboriginal Affairs be consulted before a recommendation is made to the Governor-in-Council to dissolve either of the councils or appoint an administrator. The agreement of 1 1 April between the two governments was that local government councils in each community would ‘consist of the existing councils until the next State local government elections’. It was further agreed that these councils would be the managing authorities. Mr Viner said that he had been told of the Queensland Cabinet’s decision in a telephone call from Mr Hinze, the Queensland Minister for Local Government.

Mr Viner further said that there had been no consultation as was required by the Act. The Minister said that he had asked Mr Hinze for a written statement of the reasons why the Queensland Government had decided to take this action. Mr Viner said that he wanted to know the details behind the decision and what the Queensland Government proposed. He said that in particular the Commonwealth would want specific information about the arrangements for any fresh elections. Mr Viner’s Press statement further states that the record of the past two months has been one of frustration of the efforts of himself and Mr Hinze, along with the two community councils themselves and the Uniting Church, to have the local government legislation put into effect. The Commonwealth Government had been satisfied that the legislation could provide for Aboriginal self-management if it were given a chance to work properly. The Minister, Mr Viner, said that he would be discussing the situation with his colleagues once he had received details from the Queesland Government on the action it is taking. As I understand it, Mr Viner is still awaiting information regarding what has occurred, and at this stage he finds great difficulties in the present situation. I understand that an interim injunction has been taken out today. The Opposition may be aware or may not be aware of this.

Senator Georges:

– But by whom?

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– The information which I have is that an interim injunction has been granted from midnight Friday, 1 8 August. The case will be argued in full on Friday. The result is that the Government is prevented from putting into effect the dissolution of the councils and the appointment of an administrator. The administrator is prevented from any action whatsoever. This action was taken on behalf of both the Aurukun and Mornington Island shire councils and the chairmen of these councils. The information I have on this is somewhat brief, but I am advised that the judge who granted the injunction noted that Mr Hinze had said that there was consultation but he also noted that the Press release by Mr Viner yesterday stated that there had been no consultation as required under the legislation. I understand that the judge accepted solicitor McMillan’s word that the Minister had told him that the consultation had been inadequate. Evidently the judge has accepted that there was a lack of consultation on the basis of there being only a telephone conversation after the event. However, as I have said, an interim injunction has been granted and the case will be argued in full on Friday.

Senator Missen:

– That is presumably up to Friday midnight.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– Yes. As I read this information, I believe it does not clearly state the position. The wording that I have here is that an interim injunction has been granted from midnight Friday, 18 August, and that the case will be argued in full on Friday. I believe that what Senator Missen said puts a better construction on the information that I am using. Mr Viner is seeking the consultation required under the legislation. We now have the interim injunction which I have discussed. From our point of view, if we look at the statement made by Mr Viner yesterday in which he dissociated the Commonwealth Government from this action we can see that some further developments are urgently required to resolve this situation. I am sure that it is understood that the view of the Commonwealth has been that it is the responsibility of the Queensland Government to pay the normal expenditure of running the municipal-type services at Aurukun and Mornington Island.

The Queensland Department of Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement has taken the view that it would pay for only the cost of the municipal and other services such as health services and that it would do so by making payments directly to the persons concerned and not through the councils. It would not pay any mission expenses. It would pay the salaries of white staff if they accepted work with the DAIA and not the mission. Since the DAIA intended to use this method of financing to remove the employees of the Uniting Church in Australia whom the communities might have wished to remain and since this action was incompatible with self-management, the Commonwealth Government was obliged to make advances to the Church to enable salary and other payments to continue. An amount of $240,000 was paid as an advance to the Church in the latter part of the 1977-78 financial year on the basis that the Church should seek reimbursement directly from the Queensland Government and then repay the advances. Queensland has not acknowledged this responsibility at this stage, although it has appropriated the necessary funds in its 1977-78 Budget.

The matters which have been raised by Senator Gietzelt and which need to be discussed - I would not wish to inhibit discussion- place me as Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in a position in which at this stage I am unable to be conclusive. About where further discussions may lead us in trying to resolve this matter, I said at the outset that we have an agreement that was acknowledged by the Prime Minister on behalf of this Government on 1 1 April. We would not wish to repudiate that agreement without good cause or without full recognition that any further attempt to implement the agreement would have no effect.

Senator Georges:

– It has already been repudiated by Queensland. How much further can you go?

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I think Senator Georges should take note of what was said by Senator Gietzelt on behalf of the Opposition. He said that this is not a point-scoring exercise; it is one in which we are seeking to use our influence to find the resolution that will be in the interests of the Aboriginal people. I see myself as a representative of the Government in that position. We are seeking to use our influence. At this stage we have the agreement of 1 1 April. We now have the new developments which take us to a stage where we must urgently discuss and resolve the present situation. There is also the court action of which I have advised honourable senators. With matters as they are at this stage, I am unable to be conclusive; but the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs is anxious to find an early resolution to a matter that is of grave concern to him and to this Government.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

-Mr Deputy President, I join with the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) in congratulating you on achieving your position as Chairman of Committees. I am sure that in the forthcoming year- or three years if the Parliament lasts that long- we on this side will be able to work amicably with you in the chair. The matter of public importance proposed in the Senate by my colleague, Senator Gietzelt, today asks the

Senate to tell the Government that it should implement immediately the provisions of placitum (xxvi) of section 51 of the Constitution as amended in the 1966-67 referendum and placitum (xxxi) to meet the wishes of the Aurukun and Mornington Island Aboriginal settlements. This is not the first time that this sort of motion has been debated in the Senate.

Senator Missen:

– It is not a motion.

Senator GRIMES:

– I am sorry. It is not the first time that such a matter of importance has been debated in the Senate. Indeed, at one stage, because of the situation that applied in the Aurukun and Mornington Island areas, the Government introduced and passed enabling legislation concerning the same subject. As the Minister for Social Security said, at the moment we have a real problem. We have an agreement between the Federal Government and the Queensland Government concerning the management of the Aurukun and Mornington Island areas. These are local government areas which were set up as a result of the last confrontation which arose over those areas.

Any changes to the arrangements there are supposed to be made after negotiations between the State and Federal governments. But for agreements of this type to work we must have good faith and trust on both sides. We must have negotiations on an equal basis. We must have negotiations in which each side at the table is willing to discuss and to come to conclusions by consensus. Negotiations that involve court injunctions to make one side come to the negotiating table, which has happened in this case, I suggest point out that the agreement is not working. The history of the situation at Aurukun and Mornington Island suggests that the agreement will not work in the future.

In many ways it is pathetic and very sad that a significant section of the Australian Parliament should feel compelled to bring a matter of this type before the Parliament to debate with the aim of protecting a group of citizens- the Aurukun and Mornington Island peoples- from their own State Government. When this sort of thing is brought before the Parliament- I am sure that this will happen today- a majority from both sides of this Parliament will agree that the situation is far from satisfactory and that these people need protection from their own State Government because of its breach of faith in looking after their welfare.

The last time this matter was debated the Federal Government not only felt it necessary to bring a Bill before the Parliament to get the

Queensland Government to come to some agreement but also declared the Bill urgent. How much longer must the national Government of this country wait to use the powers which it undoubtedly has under the Constitution to ensure that the citizens of Queensland in these areas are treated with some justice and dignity? It is not only the Opposition which is calling for this sort of thing to happen but also the Uniting Church, which in its previous capacity as the Presbyterian Church in Australia had pastoral care over these people for many years, has called for this sort of thing to happen. Only this week Senator Bonner, who is to follow me in this debate, I notice, called on the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) to honour the pledge he gave to take over these settlements if the Queensland Government would not play the game and protect its own citizens.

The problems at Aurukun and Mornington Island are a running sore on the already diseased body of black and white relationships in this country. They have been for a long time. Since 1968 the Queensland Government has been very interested in the Aurukun area, on the admission of the Premier himself. It is interested because of the rich bauxite deposits and the profits which will ensue if anyone mines in that area. The Senate will remember that in December 1 975 the Queensland Government bulldozed through the Parliament- as is frequently its wont- the Aurukun Associates Agreement Bill. This was to enable the Aurukun Associates to mine and to exploit the area so that the Queensland Government would get the mining royalties. That Bill was rushed through without consultation either with the inhabitants of the area or with the Presbyterian Church which was caring for them at the time and which was assisting them to develop the area.

It is well known that people involved in tourist developments have a great interest in the Mornington Island area and have influenced the Government in its actions in regard to this area. The Queensland Government’s plans to allow unfettered development of Aurukun and Mornington Island and to enable the takeover of these areas have been inhibited, I suggest, by two things. The first is obviously the reluctance of the populations, particularly the population of Aurukun, to allow this to happen. These people have seen what has happened to their brothers and sisters at Weipa. They do not want the same thing to happen at Aurukun. They want to have a say in whether mining should occur and what developments should take place in the area so that the mistakes that were made at Weipa will not be made at Aurukun. Anyone who has spoken to representatives of the Aurukun people at Weipa will know their very real fears. They do not want what happened at Weipa to happen at Aurukun.

That is the first problem for the Queensland Government. It is compounded by the fact that the people of Aurukun are taking part in outstation movements which are common amongst Aboriginals. They return to their clan territories or tribal territories which are so important to them so that they can sit and think and sort out their future away from the influences of the alien civilisation which has affected them so much. The second thing which is inhibiting the Queensland Government is the presence of the Uniting Church. As I said, in its previous capacity as the Presbyterian Church it has cared for these people for a long time. It has had a policy of allowing them to develop at their own pace. It has the trust of the people. The Uniting Church has not been stood over by the Queensland Government in its efforts to take over this area.

These two inhibiting factors have annoyed the Queensland Government. On two previous occasions it has tried to overcome these problems. In June 1977 Mr Bjelke-Petersen threatened to take over the settlement at Aurukun. He said that law and order had broken down and that the people needed the control of the Queensland Government. He forgot, as was pointed out by Senator Bonner at the time, that law and order was a State Government responsibility. If law and order had broken down at Aurukun it had done so because of the State Government’s failure to maintain it. Secondly, he forgot that since 1971 the people of both Aurukun and Mornington Island repeatedly requested the Queensland Government that a policeman be stationed on those settlements to help them maintain law and order. Because of the State Government’s own failure, Mr BjelkePetersen was going to take over the settlements from the Church. He was going to use the breakdown of law and order as an excuse to get a direct hand in the future development of the area.

The second time the Queensland Government threatened to take over this area it did so for a different reason. It claimed that the health standards had dropped, that educational facilities were insufficient and that children were not getting a proper education. Health and education are again State Government areas of responsibility. If standards had broken down it was the responsibility of the Queensland Government to repair the damage. It could and should have done so without having to take over this area.

That argument was quickly squashed by honourable senators on both sides of the chamber who had some knowledge of the health problems in the area and by former Senator Wood who admitted that he had received advice from Mr Porter, the Minister for Aboriginal and Island Affairs, that the real reason he wanted to take over the area was that he did not agree with the movement of Aboriginals away from the central settlement because it made life difficult for the Queensland Government.

This is a sad story. A great and real difficulty has arisen in the area. The Federal Government came to an agreement with the Queensland Government. The Opposition admits that the Federal Government has tried very hard to help the Aboriginal people. It has co-operated with the Uniting Church and the local council in the area. The Queensland Government has ignored the Federal Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner). It has had no negotiations with the Federal Minister or the Federal Department of Aboriginal Affairs. It has merely marched in and said: ‘ Your council is out. Our administrator is in. We are taking over’. It has then notified the Minister of this action. It has not negotiated with him as to what should happen. It has told him what happened and to keep out of the area. Negotiations in future will be impossible. We can have no faith in the sincerity of the Queensland Government in entering into any agreement about the area. We can have no real expectation that the Aboriginal people will trust the Queensland Government. Obviously they do not trust it. They have advised everyone who has gone near them that they do not trust the Queensland Government and do not want to have anything to do with it.

Surely the only answer to the problem is that the Parliament should use the powers available to it under the Constitution, given to it by an overwhelming majority of the people of this country, to take over these areas, to look after the welfare of these people, to allow them to develop in their own way without the paternalistic nonsense which we know goes on in Queensland and to allow them to have a proper say in the future development of the mineral and other resources in their area. Unless we do this we are breaching faith with the people of the area. Unless we guarantee the people of Aurukun and Mornington Island the same rights, privileges and protection as any other group of citizens no other group of citizens, black or white, can feel safe. If we have to protect them from their own government we must do so, otherwise not only will they have no faith in the Queensland Government but also they will have no faith in the Federal Government and Federal-State relations will end up in chaos.

Senator BONNER:
Queensland

-Mr Deputy President, before entering this debate may I offer my sincere congratulations upon your elevation to the office of Deputy President and Chairman of Committees and say that I look forward to working with you, and to your guidance on the occasions when you occupy the chair.

I am delighted to enter this debate, on the matter of public importance, which has been initiated by the Opposition. The terms of the matter are worth repeating. They are:

The immediate need for the Commonwealth Government to implement the provisions of Section SI sub-section 26 as amended by the 1967 Referendum and sub-section 31 of the Australian Constitution to meet the wishes of the Aurukun and Mornington Island Aboriginal communities.

I suppose I could say that I am rather consistent in supporting that proposition because consistently, since this controversy broke out, I have called for that action to be taken. It is interesting to look back upon the occasion when the Federal and State Governments allegedly got together down here. It is worth reading a joint statement by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the Premier of Queensland- signed, I might add, by Malcolm Fraser, Joh Bjelke-Petersen, Charles Porter, Peter Nixon, Ian Viner, Doug Anthony and Russ Hinze. Part of the statement, if I may take the liberty of reading from it, is:

  1. a local government authority for each to be created on the boundaries of the existing reserves;
  2. the local government council will consist of the existing councils until the next State Local Government council elections which will take place next April. These councils will be the managing authority;

I emphasise what that agreement says:

These councils will be the managing authority;

The statement continues:

  1. in order to support the communities, there will for each one be a co-ordinating and advisory committee to the Council consisting of people representative of authorities delivering services including one representative of the Commonwealth Department of Aboriginal Affairs.

So much for that agreement, which was signed by the top authorities in government in this country today. They still are, as I understand it, because I do not think that any of them have since been sacked. But what has happened? This advisory committee had, I am told, some consultation with the Aboriginal people, but when the Premier of the State of Queensland and his Government, through their Cabinet, decided that they would sack the councils, there was no consultation with that advisory committee and the Aboriginal people or the Aboriginal councils- none at all.

Again, the Government of Queensland, and its Premier, have exercised their power over the lives of people and have said, ‘You cannot be a council any more; we are going to sack you’. They do not say for how long. They appoint an administrator. According to the Press, and to some of the statements that have been made, the councils have been sacked and the administrator will be there; but the Premier, on the occasions when he has visited the communities has not seen the 750 people that are supposed to be there; he has seen only 300 or 400. Because of that he is now to have I suppose what we, as station people, as stockmen, would have called a bang-tail muster, to count heads. It will take until April next year before his bang-tail muster is a success. Then a decision will be made whether they will have another council election.

In the meantime, as I said in the beginning, when this legislation was introduced in Queensland and that clause was insertedproviding that the Minister for Local Government would have the power to dissolve the councils and appoint an administrator- there is nothing to say for how long that administrator will be there. There is nothing to say when the next election will be held. So the Queensland Government will have the power over the lives of the people of Aurukun and Mornington Island, despite the fact that those people have done everything in their power to get support from the Federal Government, from the Prime Minister, from the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) and from anyone else- as my colleague on the other side of the chamber has said, from anyone prepared to listen, saying: ‘Please help us; we do not want the State Government to have control of our lives’.

So Mr Viner said, in a statement made some time ago, on 22 March 1 978: . . the Government’s decision was based on its commitment to the principle of Aboriginal self-management, their right to be as free as other Australians to make their own decisions and determine their own futures, and their right to be free of paternalistic management of their affairs by Government.

If that is what the Federal Minister for Aboriginal Affairs believes, if that is what this Government believes, if it is what this Parliament believes, what is happening at present at Aurukun and Mornington Island? Mr Viner went on to say:

It is no longer good enough for officials and Governments to decide what is in the best interests of Aboriginals. Aboriginals must be free of paternalistic, bureaucratic control. All Commonwealth policy and action is designed to that end.

We believe they are ready for self-management, they believe it and they are going to get it.

Let us cast our minds over recent events and some of the statements by the Premier of Queensland to see whether the Aborigines have self-management and self-determination.

On 14 August 1978 the following report appeared in the Australian:

The Premier, Mr Bjelke-Petersen said yesterday: ‘The situation will be considered by State Cabinet on Tuesday and it will be cleaned up then’.

He would not give details but promised that action would be positive.

It surely was positive action- the sacking of the councils. The article quotes Mr Bjelke-Petersen further as follows:

My visit to the communities confirmed what I’ve been hearing all along,’ he said. ‘Things are completely out of hand’.

Completely out of hand indeed. The quotation continues:

The councils are not meeting their responsibilities. They have defied the State Government and have refused to cooperate with our officials or accept our money’.

Surely, they have refused to have anything to do with the State Government and have been absolutely consistent in this: But to say that they have not accepted the State Government’s money is a lot of nonsense because, since this controversy broke out in March of this year, the State Government has not put one solitary cent into that community. The Uniting Church has been footing the bill and has been reimbursed by the Federal Government through the Department of Aboriginal Affairs here in Canberra. So what money from the State Government have they rejected? Rejected indeed: They have not rejected money! All they have rejected is the continual interference, continual intervention, by the State Government and its Ministers, particularly the Minister for Aboriginal and Islander Advancement in Queensland, the Honourable Charles Porter.

I wish to read in part a statement that was made by the Federal Minister for Aboriginal Affairs on 30 April 1978:

I was able to report first-hand the determined objections of the Aurukun and Mornington Island people to the Queensland Government’s plans to take over management of their communities from the Uniting Church and the strength of feelings against Queensland State Government interference in their lives.

Under the new legislation, the two community councils will determine the management of their own affairs. In their case they made it clear they want the Uniting Church to remain and continue to carry out the role it has filled in the communities since early in this century.

That has all gone by the board. As a matter of fact, one of the Uniting Church authorities was asked to leave, was to be ejected from the community, because the Queensland Minister for Aboriginal and Islander Advancement said that he wanted the house that person was living in. Also, other people were ejected from the community. It certainly goes against the grain with all decent thinking people when action such as this is taken against a group of people who unfortunately at the moment are unable to help themselves. All they are saying to us in this Federal Parliament, in this Senate chamber, is Please help’. I have telegrams and letters from them saying: ‘Please help. Talk to your friends in Parliament and help us with the problems we face at the moment’. I quote in part from a second reading speech made by the Federal Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. He stated:

When I visited Aurukun on 30 March and Mornington Island on 1 April to explain the position of the Commonwealth and to listen to their views, the Councils and the people of the two communities made it absolutely clear to me that they did not wish to have the Queensland Department manage their communities and believed that any joint management arrangement was undesirable and unworkable and they were opposed to it.

That is the voice of the people. I ask the question now of Mr Bjelke-Petersen and his Ministers: During the consultations the Federal Minister had with the Aboriginal people, where were the activists, where were the radicals? Can Mr Viner verify that there were radicals, stirrers, commos and pinkos at the meetings with the Aboriginal people which he attended, or do these people somehow turn up only when Mr Bjelke-Petersen and his Ministers go there? Why did these people not turn up when Mr Viner was there or when I was there with some of my colleagues who are present today, such as John Knight and Kathy Martin?

Senator Chaney:

– Maybe you were some of the pinkos.

Senator BONNER:

– Maybe we are some of the pinkos about whom Mr Bjelke-Petersen was talking.

Senator Missen- Mr Bjelke-Petersen has a vivid imagination.

Senator BONNER:

– He has a very vivid imagination. As a matter of fact, he has a red imagination. Quoting again from the second reading speech of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the Minister stated:

The Queensland Premier is reported to have said recently that: The people of the missions in Queensland live their own lives. They make all the decisions. We, the Government, don’t.

If this were so, there would be no need for the State Department to take over the official management of the two communities, nor would there be any need to introduce this Bill.

That quote is taken from the second reading speech of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs when he introduced the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (Queensland Reserves and Communities Self-Management) Bill. My goodness, what self-management? What was the use of introducing that Bill when none of its provisions has been carried out? The people are still being dictated to and are being overridden by the Queensland Government in everything they try to do. I would like to quote a statement made by the Prime Minister of Australia, the Right Honourable Malcolm Fraser, when he was speaking to the National Aboriginal Conference early this year. He said:

It was never good enough for politicians or bureaucrats whether at the State or Federal level to impose on the Aboriginal people their conception of what was good for the Aboriginal people. Aboriginals have the same right as other Australian citizens to determine what is best for them.

In another part of the Prime Minister’s speech he said:

These communities have turned to us. We will not fail them.

That was the leader of the Federal Government speaking and saying ‘We will not fail them’. I pray to God that somehow those words will finally come true. I think it is appropriate now, before my time runs out, that I quote the words of one of the great Australians, the late Albert Namatjira, who served three months confinement on an Aboriginal reserve. As he left the Supreme Court he made this famous heart rending plea:

Shoot me. Shoot me. Kill me. Put an end to all this. Better kill us like dogs if you can’t let us live like men.

I, Neville Bonner, repeat those words here today. Kill us. Shoot us. Kill us like dogs instead of what is being done at the moment. Shoot us and kill us like dogs if we cannot be allowed to live like men.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-If the Opposition had no other justification for bringing forward this matter of public importance, the speech by Senator Bonner would have been justification enough because it has given him today an opportunity to make what I consider to be one of the best speeches he has made in this place. His speech went very much to the heart of the matter; that is, that after all this time, after debate and counter debate and after legislation has passed through this Parliament, the Aurukun people and the Mornington Island people find themselves worse off than they were before. It is with some comfort that we find that there is general unanimity and agreement in this place, as was indicated by the first speech on this matter and, of course, by the speech made by the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle).

It is very difficult to take a view contrary to that of the Government on this matter. If one were to play politics one could attack the Government and perhaps the Department of Aboriginal Affairs for failing to understand that there is no way in which it is possible to come to agreement with the Queensland Government because the Queensland Government comprises people who do not understand what it is to give their word and to keep it. What has happened to date shows fairly clearly that in the first place the Federal Government should have done what it intended to do and should not have placed so much trust in those people who are and who have proven themselves to be so untrustworthy. I wish to read into the record again a telegram which was sent to the Minister at the time of the passage through the Queensland Parliament of the legislation with which we are concerned. It read:

We are still extremely unhappy with legislation. We arc disappointed and sad that you could not get what you promised. Legislation has taken away self management. We are worse off than before. We are prepared to work under legislation subject to review in six months by you.

The tragedy of it is that the people of Mornington Island and Aurukun were not even allowed the six months which they were prepared to suffer in co-operation with the Queensland Government because of the arbitrary reaction of the Queensland Premier who has not so much a wild imagination as a dangerous imagination. He confuses his imaginings with reality and many of his decisions are based on those imaginings to the detriment not only of the Aurukun and Mornington Island people but also to the detriment of us all.

I take merely a few minutes to speak in this debate to allow subsequent speakers to speak for the IS minutes which is allocated to them. It is a great pity that in debating these matters of public importance we have limited ourselves to a debate of two hours. Perhaps at some future date we should look at this because it is excluding many honourable senators from entering into this debate and voicing an opinion similar to those which have been reinforced already. Honourable senators might ask: Why is it necessary for further honourable senators to speak? It is necessary for the Queensland Government and the Australian people to appreciate that there is widespread concern about the actions of the

Queensland Government and the plight of the Aurukun and Mornington Island people. Each voice that is raised in this place is one more voice that will convince people that the present situation cannot continue.

What is it that the Aurukun people seek? What is it that the Mornington Island people seek? They seek self-management of their affairs. We warned that this local government formula could not possibly work. We warned that it would be interfered with and that we were thrusting upon a simple people, intelligent in their simplicity- I do not use the word ‘simple’ in a derogatory sense- a means of management which they did not understand, which they did not want and which, in the circumstances, was completely unnecessary. What they want is at the heart of everything that they seek- and not without justice. They seek to have self-management. They seek to re-establish their very close bond with the land. They seek land rights. Where better can we give them land rights with full sympathy and understanding than in areas such as Aurukun and Mornington? Where better can we give them those rights so they can frustrate those who seek to exploit Aboriginal land to the disadvantage of the Aborigines and to destroy the environment in which they live.

I could say much more. I know others could say much more. I am glad that I intervened in this debate for a short moment to express my view. I could say some very harsh things about the Queensland Premier. I have said them before. I have tested your patience, Mr President. Our Standing Orders are much more enlightened than the Standing Orders of the Queensland Parliament, which allow members of this Parliament to be abused without any limitation. When we endeavour to respond- perhaps we should not respond in kind- we find ourselves limited by our Standing Orders.

Senator Missen:

– We would not wish ourselves to be at the same level.

Senator GEORGES:

– I know. The honourable senator warned me of that during the adjournment debate some time ago. Nevertheless, our patience often is tried. To be insulted, abused and vilified by members of the Queensland Parliament and then to find that we must restrain ourselves is, I think, a restraint that weighs very heavily upon people such as myself who react often in a boisterous way. Let me not confuse the issue. We need support for the Mornington people and the Aurukun people. Under our Constitution this Parliament has certain powers. If the people are not to receive the rights they seek- perhaps under the law they might receive the rights- this Parliament must act quickly without any further delay.

Senator MAUNSELL:
Queensland

– This is the first time I have spoken in a debate concerning the Aboriginal question in general or Aurukun and Mornington Island in particular. I have always believed that the Aboriginal question has been used as a political football in Australia. It has been used for political gain by all sorts of people seeking publicity. The only people who have suffered as a result have been the Aboriginal people themselves. I have lived in the area of Aurukun for a long time. I was reared on a cattle property not far from Aurukun. In fact 800 Aboriginals lived on the property. It was looked after by my father, who was the manager, and by my mother, who acted as nurse, educator and what have you. So I have a little knowledge of the Aboriginal people.

The first trouble of recent times occurred when the Whitlam Government came to power and started its program of hand-outs to Aborigines. In north Queensland right up to the Torres Strait, the Whitlam Government seemed to have the attitude that if it could outdo the Queensland Government by giving more here and giving more there it would get more support. The competition between both governments- I say ‘ both governments’; I blame each one- was deplorable. Consequently the activists, the stirrers and those in the Aboriginal community who want to create problems have taken advantage of this opportunity.

It has always been my desire and wish to bring together the Commonwealth, the State and the Aboriginals in joint management and not to have either the State Department of Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement or the Federal Department of Aboriginal Affairs in sole control. When the problems in Aurukun broke out some six months ago I was more instrumental than anyone else in the early stages in trying to get the Federal and State authorities together. They were on a confrontation course and about to have a head-on collision. I believed that this sort of confrontation was no solution to the problem. I was able to get the parties together. Eventually, after hours of meetings between the Premier and certain other people and some Federal Ministers, an agreement was reached. We hoped that the agreement would operate on a sensible basis from then on.

Of course there will be problems. The setting up of shire councils is something new in the operation of Aboriginal affairs. Of course problems existed in these areas beforehand. A sort of cargo cult had been indoctrinated into the people there. It is quite obvious that when people receive taxpayers’ money from the Commonwealth or the State governments they do not expect strings to be attached to it. Everyone knows that grants made to shire councils by the Commonwealth or the States for certain purposes such as roads, hospitals, schools or sewerage systems must be spent for those purposes. If responsible governments are to hand out money in a responsible fashion there has to be control over the taxpayers’ money. I would have hoped that everyone would give the agreement between the Commonwealth and Queensland an opportunity to operate. It has been in existence for only a few months.

Senator Georges:

– Including the Queensland Government.

Senator MAUNSELL:

– I am not arguing one way or the other. I said ‘everyone’. I am not supporting the Queensland Government to the hilt. Although Senator Georges did not have much to say about the Queensland Premier, it is interesting that debates on matters such as Aurukun provide an opportunity for honourable senators opposite to do a bit of Joh-bashing. To my knowledge, this has been going on ever since Mr Bjelke-Petersen became Premier ten years ago. Members of the Opposition in this place have been attacking him since then. The people of Queensland have given their answer. I do not think I need to defend the Premier.

Senator Gietzelt:

– He received only thirty per cent of the vote.

Senator MAUNSELL:

– And the rest who support him in government.

Senator Keeffe:

– Thirty per cent of the vote.

Senator MAUNSELL:

-The vote for the Labor Party in Queensland was reduced to 30 per cent; that is the only opposition the Premier has.

Senator Missen:

– The Liberals will be back some day.

Senator MAUNSELL:

-The Liberals in Queensland make up a coalition. Most of them support the Premier. We should endeavour to let the scheme work. I know difficulties will occur with the local people. Often ordinary shire councils can be upset by strings being attached to money they are given by governments. It is quite understandable that the people of Aurukun and Mornington Island, who do not have much knowledge of running shire affairs, will not accept any strings that may be attached. It will take them a fair while to understand fully their responsibilities. As far as I am concerned, Aboriginals in this country are Australians. If they live in Queensland they are Queenslanders and are part of Australia. They are not a separate race. They have the rights and privileges of every other Australian. They also have the responsibilities. Rights and responsibilities go hand in hand.

I always reject Aborigines being considered different from other people. This is what the Labor Party has been projecting in debates here and outside. Let us treat Aborigines as Australians. The situation at Mornington Island and Aurukun is difficult. I believe that Mr Hinze has been doing a tremendous job in trying to help these people and in trying to make the arrangement work. There is no question in my mind that others have endeavoured to frustrate him. That applies to the Queensland Department of Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement, which for some reason or other- probably the fact that it lost control of the people at Mornington Island and Aurukun- wants the control.

As I said before, I gave my good offices in the first place to try to bring about what I believe is a solution to the Aboriginal problem. The Federal and State authorities which look after Aboriginal affairs, plus the Aborigines themselves, should work this problem out without the assistance of all the stirrers and without debate that is going on in the public forum today. After all, nearly half of the Aboriginals in Australia live in Queensland. It is all very well for people in other States to tell us how to run our affairs. It is also a fact that for 40 years Queensland had a Labor Government which did a reasonable job with the Aboriginals under the circumstances that prevailed in those days. The same is being done today. One cannot say that over the last 50 years the same sort of control has been exercised by people in other States.

Of course there are problems, but what we must do in the long run is to see that the matter gets out of the political area. These people have a different way of life to us, and that has to be appreciated. Let those who can get on with the job, who are prepared to get on with the job and who have the responsibility of getting on with the job of looking after these people and bringing them to a state of citizenship in our community or whatever they want, do it without all the public attacks that are made from year to year, day after day. I think we are all entirely sick of it. There are problems associated with what is happening there at the moment. I hope that the federal authorities will go there, that they will see the situation for themselves, that there will be negotiations and that they will give Mr Hinze the opportunity to operate these communities and try to make this system work. If that happens of course there will not be any need for all this publicity and for all the forums. Maybe many people in this community do not want that. Maybe they want to keep the matter a political football. I can assure you, Mr President, that I am not one of those people. I hope that the solution to these problems of the welfare and the progress of the Aboriginal people will be found by responsible officers and not by publicity seekers in the Press.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

-I support the case that has been made in the following terms:

The immediate need for the Commonwealth Government to implement the provisions of section SI sub-section 26 as amended by the 1967 referendum and sub-section 31 of the Australian Constitution to meet the wishes of the Aurukun and Mornington Island Aboriginal communities.

I was surprised that Senator Maunsell, the last speaker in the debate, a member of the National Country Party, who accused people of making a political football of this issue, then proceeded to do precisely that. Obviously he is one of that very small percentage which opposed the 1967 referendum, and he is now making his public explanations about it. The whole debate has been kept fairly low key, and I hope that the resultant publicity will prove of great benefit to the very depressed people of Aurukun and Mornington Island. Let us examine the Australian Constitution in a little more detail. Section SI of the Constitution states:

The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:

The people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws:

The acquisition of property on just terms from any State or person for any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws:

Obviously the situation is quite clear. The Australian Government does have the power to make special laws in these cases and to implement them. As my colleagues on this side of the House said in their contribution to the debate, it is now a matter of very great urgency if we propose to help these people in their fight against the Queensland Government. On 6 April 1978 the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle), in her second reading speech on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (Queensland Reserves and Communities SelfManagement) Bill 1 978, had this to say: . . when I use the personal pronoun ‘ I’ in this second reading speech, I mean the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner). This Bill will guarantee the right of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island communities on Aboriginal and Island reserves in Queensland to manage their own affairs. Its provisions arc all directed to ensuring that if the communities have chosen not to be administered by officials of the Queensland Department of Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement they will not have official management foisted upon them.

That is precisely what has happened in the last 24 hours. The Minister continued:

If communities now managed and controlled by government officials consider that they are ready for selfmanagement and are prepared to take responsibility for community affairs as reserve communities elsewhere in Australia have done, they may apply to have the legislation cover their reserves.

This legislation responds directly and positively to the expressed wishes of the Aboriginal people at Aurukun and Mornington Island that the Commonwealth Government prevent the takeover by the Queensland Government from the Uniting Church of management of the two communities. It is carefully designed to achieve that result with a constitutional power of the Commonwealth, given by the 1 967 referendum, to make special laws for the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary.

The Minister must be a very disappointed lady today, to have to participate again in a debate of this nature. I suggest that if the Government had at that time, 6 April this year, taken notice of at least some of the amendments that were moved by the Opposition this set of circumstances might not have arisen. In the last few hours I have received the following telegram from Mick Miller, Chairman of the North Queensland Land Council:

Please oppose Fraser’s agreement with Bjelke-Petersen to put administrators into the two communities. The councils are determined to resist all attempts by the State Government to enforce the legislation, shire clerk and administrator on them. I will bring to Canberra transcripts of council and public meetings with Premier at Aurukun on 1 1 August. The communities only hope lies in federal acquisition of the land and true self-management. The only terror at Aurukun is what the people feel towards Bjelke ‘s tactics of depriving them of their land, preventing outstation movements, preventing free enterprise and excising a thousand acres of land for special purposes, giving the go ahead for mining by Aurukun Associates, sending in the white police and threatening to sack the council.

That was received by me before the council was actually sacked. The Premier of Queensland has pointed the bone, as Senator Bonner said in this debate a few minutes ago. The Premier said that many people were creating a reign of terror. I submit with great respect that the reign of terror and intimidation has been established by the Premier of Queensland and those Ministers who are too frightened to oppose him. The communities of Aurukun and Mornington Island are two prime examples of precisely what has happened in this area. We saw in recent weeks the burning of a home at Ingham occupied by an Aboriginal supporting mother and several of her children. When a State Government official came in to burn the home she was not even given the time to take her belongings out of the home.

There was the case in the last few days of the white policeman and the Department of Aboriginal and Islanders and Advancement manager meeting a hearse carrying the body of a deceased resident of Woorabinda from Rockhampton to Woorabinda. It was held up some 15 miles from the reserve by these two individuals who forced everybody out of the hearse and told them to burn everything they possessed. The lady concerned was even told to take off her clothes and burn them, because these people had allegedly been travelling with the body of a person who at some stage in life had suffered from Hansen’s disease. They then left the three people involved standing beside the roadway and refused to take them back in the policeman’s vehicle to Woorabinda. So when the lady concerned arrived at the community- incidentally, the body in the hearse was that of her brother- she was too late for the funeral. The shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Dr Everingham, has asked for the suspension of both the policeman and the manager at Woorabinda, but obviously nothing will happen.

At 8.50 a.m. last Friday, 1 1 August, the Premier had a secret meeting behind closed doors at the Aurukun community: Incidentally, he left a window open, somebody walked up to the window with a tape recorder, and a policeman who was with the party closed the window. The Premier allowed into the room only the members of the Aurukun council. He would not allow them to have any advisers or any consultants but he took with him all the advisers whom he needed including Mr Lyle Harman, who was the first appointed local government clerk. Minister Charles Porter, the Minister for Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement in Queensland, Minister Russell Hinze, who is the Minister for Local Government, and of course he took with him a burly white policeman as a bodyguard. He told the members of the council at that secret meeting that they had no possible chance of obtaining title to their land because, he said, the American soldiers and the Australian soldiers had fought a hard battle in World War II to protect that very land for Australia. Mr Bjelke-Petersen must have been speaking with tongue in cheek. He was not one of those who was involved in World War II. In fact, he sought exemption so that he did not have to participate in World War II.

Senator Gietzelt:

– Was he growing peanuts?

Senator KEEFFE:

– Yes, at the time he was. His father of course was of the eligible age to take pan in World War I but he did not. The Premier’s son, who has gained distinction for showing no inclination ever to serve with the civilian organisation Volunteers Abroad, is the third generation of the family to have carefully avoided becoming involved in war. But they have all been very vocal in starting conflict.

The Senate will recall that the Premier was one of the greatest exponents and champions of the Vietnam War. He also communicated with the Indonesian Government and told it to kill as many as possible of the Fretilin people on East Timor. Yet we have this sort of statement being made by the Premier. He did tell the Aborigines at that secret meeting that they had the right to freehold land if they bought it like anybody else in the community. He must have temporarily forgotten that he personally, after claiming that the Japanese were such terrible people because of what they had tried to do to Australia, sold 21,000 acres of choice freehold land to Mr Iwasaki and his Japanese company. The Premier also must have temporarily forgotten that a few days ago his son sold portions of two of the Bjelke-Petersen properties to another prominent Japanese industrialist.

When he made the statement to the Aborigines he also must have had a temporary lapse of memory because an application for the transfer of title of land at Ayr which a local Aboriginal community group wanted to purchase to establish a caravan park was refused. The establishment of such a small business would have kept at least three or four Aborigines in constant employment, but permission to take over the land by way of transfer of title was refused. He also must have forgotten that an application for land at Cape York that was to be used for cattle production also was refused. When it came to the final crunch the transfer of the title was refused by Mr Bjelke-Petersen and he has tried to justify publicly this action in several statements. He also must have forgotten about leasehold land at Cardwell which another group of Aborigines wanted to purchase for farming. A request to transfer the title on this land also was refused at the instigation of the Premier of Queensland. He must have forgotten that on Thursday Island six or seven privately owned building allotments which a local co-operative wanted to purchase in the last few weeks for the construction of several homes were also unavailable because the transfer of the title was not allowed. It is pretty hypocritical to say to the Aborigines that the only way they can get title to their land is to purchase the freehold title and in the four instances I have mentioned to refuse to allow the transfer of titles.

The other point that I make at this stage is that at this secret meeting the Premier went on to pass very vicious remarks about the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner). When the Premier was saying these things he probably did not know his words were being taped. I will be getting a copy of that tape and I am prepared to invite both the Prime Minister and Mr Viner to a private hearing if they so desire so that they can find out what the Premier of Queensland thinks about them too. In fact, the Premier said much worse things about them than he ever said about Mr Whitlam.

The Mornington Island people declared a public holiday for the day of the visit by the Premier to their community. They were unavailable to have discussions with him but the Aurukun people did try to have a discussion. However, it was a very one-sided affair. Today the Mornington Island people sent another telegram appealing to every Aboriginal organisation in Australia to support them in their great battle against the tyranny of the Queensland Premier and his Government. They have also included in that telegram a call to all Australians to unite in their fight against the Queensland Government. I publicly make that appeal on behalf of the Mornington Islanders in the hope that this is exactly what will happen. If this Government does not take action in accordance with the provisions of its own legislation and in accordance with the provisions of the Australian Constitution there will be very great problems. The fight has not ceased. Messrs Bjelke-Petersen, Porter and Hinze and their adviser Mr Killoran are prepared to take the issue much further. I think it has been clearly indicated today in this debate that they are prepared to declare war on every Aborigine and Islander in Queensland, and this is their way of doing it. If they do not win this battle on their terms, they will send in armed police to make sure that the laws of the Queensland Government are obeyed. I join with all speakers who have spoken in this debate and made the point that we need help now. I ask this Government please to come forward and to do something in a positive way by taking over this land for these two communities.

Senator CHANEY:
Western Australia

– This matter has been before the Senate on a number of occasions, as most speakers have reminded us. I think it would be fair to say that the Opposition members have brought it before us again today out of a sense of impatience about the apparent slow rate of progress towards achieving self-management for the Aborigines of Mornington Island and Aurukun. It also would be quite obvious, I think, that the impatience which is felt by the Opposition in this matter is shared by the people in those communities. I think that there is quite clear evidence that the people in those communities would support the direct action that is being sought by the Opposition in proposing for discussion this matter of public importance. What the Opposition is suggesting is that under the Constitutional powers which were obtained in 1967 there should be legislation by the Commonwealth to take over the land constituting the local government areas which formerly were reserves. The Opposition chides the Government for trying to work with the State Government of Queensland through the instrument of local government which is controlled by the State rather than taking that direct action. I think the point of view that the Opposition has advanced is quite understandable. My criticism would simply be that I believe that point of view underrates both the Constitutional complexities and the community problems that we face in this issue.

Although the idea of a simple and quick solution is attractive I do not believe that such a solution exists. 1 certainly believe that, if the Commonwealth were to move into a total confrontation with the Queensland Government without first having bent its every effort to achieve a co-operative solution, there could be a very adverse effect within the Queensland community. Therefore I support the Government in making every effort to reach that compromise of working with the Queensland State Government. It is not really a compromise; I think it is an appropriate course of action. I think it is quite clear, however, that the Commonwealth accepts that, if it cannot achieve that sort of co-operative action in the ultimate it may have to take unilateral action. I am sure that the Government quite properly would wish to do that only if it is forced to take that action.

What I point out to the Senate is the progress that has in fact been made over the months during which this issue has come before us. Before doing so, however, I would like to pick up one point out of a telegram quoted by Senator Keeffe because it contained at least one substantial inaccuracy. The telegram from Mr Miller suggested I think, an agreement between Mr Joh BjelkePetersen and Mr Fraser that administrators should be put into the local government area.

Senator Keeffe:

– You read it in Hansard. It does not say that at all.

Senator CHANEY:

– I am very glad it does not say that because there is of course no Commonwealth agreement on that course of action. In fact, there is clear disagreement on that course of action.

Senator Keeffe:

– I will get you a copy of it when it comes back from Hansard and you can read it yourself.

Senator CHANEY:

– I will be very pleased to receive it. The matter first came before us when the people were seeking self-management and the Commonwealth undertook to try to achieve it. All honourable senators will recall that as a matter of urgency we passed legislation in this chamber to give the people the right of selfmanagement. All honourable senators will recall that, in line with the warnings that were then uttered by the Opposition, the Queensland Government promptly brought the reserves to an end. It took executive action which meant that the reserves no longer existed, and that meant, of course, that the action which the Commonwealth had taken had no effect at all. Following that action by the Queensland Government discussions were held in Canberra which gave rise to the April agreement which has already been referred to extensively in this debate.

I remind the Senate that in the negotiations which took place in Canberra the Queensland Government moved a considerable distance towards the position that we were seeking. In particular, the agreement provided for the preservation of the existing reserve areas and their existing boundaries. That was a great advance on the previous situation whereby the reserves could simply be abolished by executive action. It provided that a local government council would be set up on each of the reserves- or what had been the reserves- to enable the councils to manage the area on behalf of the people. It was provided that there should be a co-ordinating and advisory committee to the council. If one remembers the statements which were being made by Mr Bjelke-Petersen and other Queensland State Ministers prior to those negotiations, it becomes apparent that the negotiations did bring the parties together and that the Queensland Government did move a long way towards the view that was being advanced by the Commonwealth Government.

Having made that agreement, the Government of Queensland proceeded to pass an Act which put into legislative form the agreement that had been made. I want to refer to a couple of sections of that Queensland Act- Act No. 6 of 1978- which underline the very great advance which was made on behalf of the people of Aurukun and Mornington Island. For a start, in section 6 of the Act it is quite clear that the State Government accepts the obligation or has the legal obligation to grant a lease of the whole of the reserve areas to the councils. Let us contrast that with the situation pertaining to Aboriginal reserves in Queensland which, as I have already said, can be destroyed by executive act without reference to Parliament or to anybody else. So, for the first time in the history of Queensland, as I understand it, you have a situation where there is a legal obligation on government to preserve areas for Aboriginals. I refer to section 16 of the Act which limits the usual power of the Queensland Government simply to dissolve local government authorities and which requires consultation with the Commonwealth. Whilst we have a situation where now -

Senator Georges:

– How much was that worth?

Senator CHANEY:

– No, the point is actually proven by the facts that have been discussed in this chamber today. The fact that that is a limitation on State power, we have been told, has been demonstrated today in the Supreme Court of Queensland where an interim injunction has been granted against the State Government. That is a very good demonstration of the fact that there is some meaningful protection contained in the Act which was passed by the Queensland Parliament. We have the local government areas. We have the legal obligation to create leases. So we have a situation where, provided local government can be established and the Aboriginals are able to control and manage that local government, we have achieved the general objective of our Government, which is to ensure that the Aboriginal people manage their own affairs.

Let me refer to what the Commonwealth is doing in the present circumstances. I draw to the attention of the Senate a telex which was sent yesterday by Mr Viner to Mr Hinze, the Queensland Minister for Local Government and Main Roads. That telex was sent before the Queensland Government took action. I do not intend to read the telex because the time available to me is short, but it makes quite clear firstly that the Commonwealth was against the action, which was then proposed, to dissolve the councils, and sought the continuance of the councils and other action to enable the local government councils to proceed with their self-management. I have shown the telex to the spokesman for the Opposition and I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The telex read as follows-

Outward Telex

To: The Hon. R. J. Hinze, MLA

Minister Tor Local Government and Main Roads

Queensland

From: The Hon. R. I. Viner, MP Minister for Aboriginal Affairs Canberra

I refer to our recent telephone conversations about the situation at Aurukun and Mornington Island following your visit there with the Premier and Mr Porter last Friday.

As I have indicated, I believe that it is absolutely vital that our two governments should make a further effort to ensure that the local government arrangements are given a chance to work at both communities. I believe that action to dissolve the councils and appoint an administrator would be precipitate and that it should still be possible to persuade the councils that self-management is possible under the local government arrangements if early action is taken to implement the decisions your government took last Monday about payments to the councils.

Dissolving the councils now would undermine all our efforts to implement the legislation, and create major political problems for both governments. I believe it would further compound the difficulties of resolving the situation at the two communities satisfactorily.

Might I remind you of the provision of section 16 of the Local Government (Aboriginal Lands) Act requiring consultation with me before the councils can be dissolved? I do not regard your intimation by telephone as fulfilling the statutory requirement for consultation, but would expect a formal communication in writing.

The councils have asked that initial grants should be paid without further delay and I think that if this is done and if the co-ordinating and advisory committee visits the communities to help frame budgets and establish arrangements for employing staff, a sound basis for persuading the councils to rescind their decisions not to co-operate would have been established.

The Commonwealth Government reviewed the situation yesterday, as I told you, and has suggested that it would be useful to involve officers of the Premier’s Department and the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, as well as members of the co-ordinating and advisory committees in working out arrangements with the two councils and communities. It would also be useful to post the acting shire clerk to the communities for the time being. I agree that Police should be posted to the communities as soon as possible in consultation with the councils, which asked you to arrange this.

I would be glad to have your comments on these proposals. 11.00 a.m., 15.8.78.

Senator CHANEY:

-That telex demonstrates the attitude which has been adopted by the Commonwealth in the present situation. Quite clearly, the situation now is that the State Government has taken action. Of course we cannot discuss the likelihood of the legal proceedings which have been taken in the Supreme Court succeeding in the long term or not. The important thing is that the Commonwealth has proceeded to define its position with the State

Government and to make it clear that it still wishes the State Government to act in accordance with the agreement and to enable the people of Aurukun and Mornington Island to manage their own affairs.

My understanding of the position of the Commonwealth Government is that it is seeking guarantees from the Queensland Government that if the shire councils have been dissolved there will be a commitment to a definite and early date for new shire council elections; that steps will be taken to grant the leases and to finalise those leases, that the provision of funds by Queensland, which is an essential part of the operation, will be made; that there will be an avoidance of evictions or dismissals of individual persons, which has been a matter of dispute; and that there will be an early reconvening of the coordinating and advisory committee to check on action taken under the legislation to date and to suggest lines along which further progress could be made. It is essential that the Commonwealth receive guarantees of this nature if we are to be confident in our own minds that there is to be proper self-management at these two communities.

I appreciate the fact that the whole debate has been conducted by both Government and Opposition members in a way which I think makes it clear to the people of Queensland and to the Government of Queensland that this is a matter on which there is a very high degree of unanimity within the Federal Parliament. There are differences between us, in the sense that direct action in the way of resumption is wanted by the Opposition, but there is a unanimity on the theme that we want the people of Aurukun and Mornington Island to have a genuine opportunity to manage their own affairs. The Government is approaching this matter in a way which tries to preserve the proper functions of State government in this area so that the whole thing can be done in a way which ensures co-operation rather than confrontation.

Knowing by reputation and by limited experience the quite strong feeling amongst the electors of Queensland that they do not want undue interference from the people down south who are so anxious to reform them, I think it is very important that we should also have made it clear in this debate that we are proceeding in a way which takes into account the particular approaches of the Queensland Government and its desire to achieve self-management through the mechanism of local government and not through the mechanisms which we have adopted in the Northern Territory or in other States.

There has been a genuine attempt on the pan of the Commonwealth to deal with this matter in a way which takes into account the wishes of the people of Queensland. Unless that is understood it will be very difficult for us, whether we adopt the course of the Government or the course which is advocated at the moment by the Opposition, to ensure that we do things which will not be harmful to the communal relations between Aboriginals and non-Aboriginals in Queensland.

I ask Opposition senators when they are giving this matter further consideration to take into account the important question of ensuring that there is a general acceptance by the people of Queensland- the people with whom the Aboriginal people of Queensland have to live, mix and work- of the fact that we have some common purpose and that we are not just trying to start some sort of bitter argument and dispute. I am grateful to the Opposition for having brought this matter forward and for having given us an opportunity again to put some views publicly which one hopes will be taken into account by the Queensland Government as well as by the Commonwealth Government.

Senator CHIPP:
Leader of the Australian Democrats · Victoria

- Mr President, this is the fourth time in the past two days that you have been gracious enough to call me, and I thank you for that. As this is the fourth time on which I have been on my feet I ask the Senate to abandon its traditional courtesies in assuming that I am yet to make my maiden speech. In fact I feel incredibly nervous when I know that interjections are out of order, and I ask the Senate to abandon that traditional practice.

I say without being patronising that I have appreciated enormously the debate that has taken place this afternoon and the lack of acrimony in it. There has been no point scoring. If I may say so, it has been a debate which has been much more reasoned and much more reasonable than debates in the other place of which I was a member for 16 years. The speech just made by Senator Chaney summed it all up. This has been a magnificent debate. Everyone who has contributed to it has informed me and has given me a better understanding of the problem.

I rise very briefly because I understand I have about six minutes before the time for the debate runs out. I say at this stage with some reluctance, having heard what Senator Chaney and Government senators have had to say, that I very strongly support what the Labor Party has put in this debate, namely, that action is now required. I commend the Federal Government for its patience. I commend the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) for his strength and yet for his patience. I commend the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) for his continued restraint in handling this incredibly difficult problem. I sympathise with the Labor Party in the inherent features of its matter of public importance- I know that the Labor Party realises that- and the incredibly important precedent that would be created in terms of compensation if we compulsorily resumed these lands. I know that my friends in the Labor Party recognise that.

However, notwithstanding that, I believe that at this stage patience and restraint have been used to such an extent that they are now being misinterpreted as weakness by that strange man who governs Queensland. There are some people in the world who are like that. One shows them tolerance, compassion and restraint and it is totally misrepresented as being weakness. Such people then trample over one and everything in one’s wake. Sometimes I think that I am a student of human nature, but for the life of me I cannot understand that man who governs Queensland. If in this instance he was fighting the communists, if the communists were at Aurukun and Mornington Island, I could understand it. If he was fighting, as Senator Bonner said, pinkies or drug addicts or agnostics or somebody else I could understand his intractable attitude. But he is not doing that; he is fighting the Uniting Church in Australia which is a Christian institution of which he says he is a member. I wonder why he is. Nobody has been unkind enough to say today that he is conducting this fight, this intrusion, because of the massive royalties which will come from the lands involved. I wonder what it is. If it is a case of royalties versus human rights, I think that the members of this chamber in this Parliament in Canberra should be the first to rise up and say: ‘As far as we are concerned the human rights of those individuals on those settlements are absolutely paramount’.

I have seen the decimation of a people. In 1 963 1 was fortunate enough to be appointed to a joint select committee which was established to investigate the grievances of Aborigines on the Gove Peninsula. Hundreds of millions of dollars worth of bauxite had been discovered there. These beautiful, primitive people- there were only about 500 of them- had seen and had been exposed to only something like 50 white people in their whole lifetime. They lived absolutely in harmony with nature. Alcohol and the white person ‘s vices were not known to that community which was living in almost total happiness. We as members of the Labor Party, the Country

Party and the Liberal Party presented to the Government what I thought was a wonderful report. Then there was an election and that report has been gathering dust ever since. Its recommendations were never implemented. When I go to Gove today I do not see a happy people living in harmony with nature. I see lots of alcohol. I see many of the white people’s scourges which have virtually decimated that beautiful race of people. If that is what we are concerned about–

Senator Chaney:

– Since 1974 the Commonwealth has protected those communities with the export power, as far as any mining development is concerned.

Senator CHIPP:

– I thank Senator Chaney for the interjection. I acknowledge that but, with respect, it does not invalidate the point that because we did not look after them, because we allowed them to become exposed in their naked unprepared state to these ravages, that happened. There are people in a similar condition here. All of us in this place make flowery speeches and proper speeches about the decimation by a madman, of human beings in Uganda, but we do not need overt acts or acts of commission to decimate a people; people can be decimated by acts of omission. In regard to Aurukun and Mornington, that is why I have reluctantly come to the view that we have shown this man enough patience. The people at Aurukun and Mornington are looking to us to intervene. That is why the Australian Democrats have taken a vote on this question. We support the point of view put by the Labor Party.

In conclusion I say to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs that he has been patient. I believe he has done his best to try to find a solution to what looks like an intractable problem. I am very proud to say that a person of the Aboriginal race who is an Australian Democrat is in Canberra at this moment acting on behalf of the Aurukun Shire Council. He has been trying for two days to arrange an appointment with the Minister for the Aurukun Shire Council to come to Canberra and to discuss their grievances with him. He has not been successful. The last thing I am doing now is making a point against the Minister. Goodness knows he has had enough on his mind this week and in previous weeks. 1 plead with the Minister from this seat in the Senate to find time to see these people, to talk about their problems and to learn first hand of the massive problems that they have. If no further action is contemplated by this Federal Parliament, the decimation of a race of people is not impossible.

page 78

NINTH CONFERENCE OF PRESIDING OFFICERS AND CLERKS

The PRESIDENT:

– For the information of honourable senators I lay on the table the report of the Ninth Conference of Presiding Officers and Clerks of the Parliaments of Australia, Cook Islands, Fiji, Nauru, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tuvulu and Western Samoa, held at Parliament House, Adelaide, from 13 June to 15 June 1978.

Ordered that the paper be printed.

page 78

AUSTRALIAN POSTAL AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSIONS

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present two papers, one prepared by the Australian Postal Commission and the other by the Australian Telecommunications Commission, both entitled: ‘Service and Business Outlook for 1978-79’.

page 78

ENVIRONMENT: FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– Pursuant to section 6 of the Environment (Financial Assistance) Act 1 977 I present four agreements made under the provisions of that Act relating to New South Wales, Queensland, Tasmania and Victoria.

page 78

NATURE CONSERVATION

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– Pursuant to section 1 1 of the States Grants (Nature Conservation) Act 1 974 I present a supplementary agreement in relation to the provision of financial assistance to Western Australia for land acquisition for nature conservation purposes 1976-77.

page 78

URBAN AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– Pursuant to section 8 of the Urban and Regional Development (Financial Assistance) Act 1974 I present six agreements made under the provisions of that Act relating to New South Wales, Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria and Western Australia.

page 78

REMUNERATION TRIBUNAL

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– Pursuant to section 8 of the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 I present the Remuneration Tribunal Review 1 978.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

-by leave- I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 79

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

Reports on Items

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the reports of the Industries Assistance Commission on: Ball and roller bearings; wheat stabilisation; brassieres- rate or rates of duty outside quota; domestic refrigerating appliances, et cetera; copper ores and concentrates; light commercial and four-wheel drive vehicles and heavier commercial vehicles and components; and an interim report on hoists, pulley tackle and winches.

page 79

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the Australian national paper for the United Nations Conference on Science and Technology for Development 1 979-

Senator PETER BAUME:
New South Wales

– by leave- I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 79

ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE OF AUSTRALIA

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– Pursuant to section 147 of the Defence Act 1903 I present the report on the Royal Military College of Australia for the period 1 February 1977 to 31 January 1978.

page 79

TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE AUTHORITY

Reports on Items

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– Pursuant to section 30 of the Industries Assistance Commission Act 1973 I present two reports of the Temporary Assistance Authority on insulators and on hoop, strip, sheets and plates of iron or steel.

page 79

POULTRY RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE

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

– For the information of honourable senators I present the report of the Poultry Research Advisory Committee for the period 1 July 1975 to 30 June 1977.

page 79

NORFOLK ISLAND

Senator WEBSTER:
Minister Tor Science · Victoria · NCP/NP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the Norfolk Island annual report for the year ended 30 June 1 977.

page 79

BRISBANE-DARWIN NATIONAL HIGHWAY

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

– For the information of honourable senators I present a report on the national highway linking Brisbane and Darwin: Barkly Tableland region.

Senator ROBERTSON:
Northern Territory

– by leave- I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 79

CYCLONE TRACY RELIEF TRUST FUND

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

– For the information of honourable senators I present two monthly reports of the Darwin Cyclone Tracy Relief Trust Fund for May and June 1978.

Senator ROBERTSON:
Northern Territory

– by leave- I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 79

WATER RESOURCES

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– Pursuant to section 6 of the National Water Resources (Financial Assistance) Act 1978 I present two agreements made under the provisions of that Act. One is in relation to the provision of financial assistance to New South Wales for the mitigation of flooding on coastal rivers in 1977-78. The other is in relation to the provision of financial assistance to Queensland for the construction of the Gin Gin Channel and associated works in the Bundaberg irrigation scheme.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-by leave- I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 80

SITTINGS OF THE SENATE

Motion (by Senator Carrick) agreed to:

1 ) Days and Hours of Meeting: That, unless otherwise ordered, the days and hours of meeting of the Senate be Tuesdays at half-past two p.m., Wednesdays at fifteen minutes past two p.m., and Thursdays at half-past ten a.m.

) Suspension of Sittings: That, unless otherwise ordered, the sittings of the Senate, or of a Committee of the Whole Senate, be suspended from one p.m. until fifteen minutes past two p.m., and from six p.m. until eight p.m.

Adjournment of Senate: That, unless otherwise ordered, at half-past ten p.m. on Tuesdays and Thursdays and eleven p.m. on Wednesdays the President shall put the Question- That the Senate do now adjourn- which Question shall be open to debate; if the Senate be in Committee at that hour, the Chairman shall in like manner put the QuestionThat he do leave the Chair and report to the Senate; and upon such report being made the President shall forthwith put the Question- That the Senate do now adjourn- which Question shall be open to debate: Provided that if the Senate or the Committee be in Division at the time named, the President or the Chairman shall not put the Question referred to until the result of such Division has been declared; and if the business under discussion shall not have been disposed of at such adjournment it shall appear on the Notice Paper for the next sitting day.

Government and General Business- Precedence: That on all sitting days of the Senate, unless otherwise ordered, Government Business shall take precedence of General Business, except that General Business shall take precedence of Government Business on Thursdays, after eight p.m.; and that, unless otherwise ordered, General Orders of the Day take precedence of General Notices of Motion on alternate Thursdays.

page 80

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE

The PRESIDENT:

– I inform the Senate that I have received a letter from Senator the Honourable Reginald Withers requesting his discharge from further attendance on the Standing Orders Committee.

Motion (by Senator Carrick) agreed to :

That Senator Withers be discharged from further attendance on the Standing Orders Committee.

page 80

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

The PRESIDENT:

– I inform the Senate that I have received a letter from the Honourable Senator Reginald Withers resigning as a member of the Commonwealth Parliament delegation to the Constitutional Convention in accordance with the resolution of the Senate of 3 1 May 1978.

page 80

INTERNATIONAL MONETARY AGREEMENTS (AMENDMENT) BILL 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 1 June, on motion by Senator Carrick:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– The Bill before the Senate is one in which the Opposition takes great interest. We do not oppose the purpose of the Bill. However we would, of course, like to consider it in depth. It is quite possible that the amendment which my leader will propose will improve the Bill. For that reason, I concede to the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Wriedt).

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– May I congratulate Senator Georges on a most perceptive contribution to this debate. The Bill before the Senate is the International Monetary Agreements Amendment Bill. It should be said that it is a most important piece of legislation. Its title would give the impression that the subject is as dry as gold dust but, in fact, it is a most important Bill. In the current climate of international economic uncertainty and fundamental commercial changes being forced upon the world by the impact of the rapid rise in oil prices earlier this decade and the consequences which flowed from it, the changes ratified in this Bill are little short of historic. The Bill contains several significant proposals. Australia could see the effects of the amendments in the very near future and they will be tested severely if the United States dollar continues to weaken in the world currency markets. The Bill also implies significant shifts in policy for the Australian Government in two directions. Firstly, they challenge the unswerving, religious commitment of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) to fight inflation, regardless of the economic and human costs and, secondly, force his Government to verify its alleged commitment to assisting the Third World. It is a great pity that the basic elements of this Bill will not receive more publicity because historians and economists will be discussing the contents of this legislation in many years time as they are now discussing the Bretton Woods Agreement of 1946 and the Smithsonian Accord of December 1971.

The consequences of the legislation and the measures which they implement have obviously not dawned on the Fraser Government, and it is pertinent to note that at the recent International Monetary Fund meeting in Mexico earlier this year the Australian Government was among a decreasing number of nations which supported the West German approach of fighting inflation without regard to the deflationary consequences. It should be made clear that, unlike West Germany, Australia does not enjoy a balance of payments surplus. The legislation has a number of complex, detailed features. The Bill amends the International Monetary Agreements Act to accord with recent amendments to the International Monetary Fund’s Articles of Agreement. These amendments involve in turn three items. The first and possibly the most significant in historical terms is the run down of gold as a reserve asset in the international monetary system and consequently a greater reliance on the International Monetary Fund drawing rights. It recognises the abandonment of the Bretton Woods par value system. That system was one under which the currencies of the countries which have adhered to the International Monetary Fund have fixed parities in terms of both gold and dollars subject to certain exceptions. The dollar in turn had not only a fixed parity in terms of gold but was also freely convertible into gold for official holders of dollars- governments, central banks and certain international institutions- at a fixed official selling price of $US35 an ounce. The currencies of the member countries other than the United States were kept stable in terms of dollars and therefore in terms of each other with the aid of official buying and selling of dollars by the central banks concerned in order to prevent an appreciation or depreciation of the respective currencies.

However, the Bretton Woods theories are now well into the grave, and this Bill is testimony to that fact. Contrary to numerous predictions until 1971, the dollar standard is now history, but there are many facets of the international monetary system which are the same as they were before 1 97 1 . They are so because of the rigidity of international monetary institutions and the vast volume of commercial funds circulating outside official agencies.

In spite of the recent decline of the dollar against the deutschmark and the yen, the dollar is still by far the most important international reserve, official intervention and private transaction currency. Although the attempts to establish more firmly the special drawing rights as a reserve currency, it will be difficult to convince the traditional Western trading nations that the dollar should not remain as the major commercial and reserve currency.

What has in fact happened is that the old gold dollar standard has been replaced by a pure dollar standard. Countries with balance of payments surpluses buy dollars, adding to their reserves, to prevent currencies from rising against the upper intervention points, and those countries in deficit sell dollars from their reserves to keep their currencies falling below the intervention point. The United States continues to follow the policy, which does not seem to have varied regardless of the President in power, of benign neglect with regard to its balance of payments after a very aggressive policy it had adopted in August of 1971 of attempting to realign exchange rates by devaluation of the United States dollar. While that happened seven years ago, the controversy the devaluation of the dollar caused had ramifications right around the world.

There are two schools of thought about the continuing position of the United States dollar as a major currency. One is that assuming the United States is able to keep inflation at relatively low rates, the pure dollar standard could work reasonably well without imposing hardships on other countries. The other is that the assumption is wrong and inflation will continue at unacceptably high rates and therefore it is better to rely upon the special drawing rights as the basis for international reserves. The second school has won the argument for the moment. This legislation embodies the theory of the second school of thought.

It is more important to recognise that one of the potential destabilising factors in any international currency arrangements is the possible actions of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting countries. They hold immense international reserves following the creation of large balance of payments surpluses from the oil price rise of the early seventies. Most of those reserves are in dollar currencies or assets which would be sold for dollar currencies. The greater part of the sales of oil are made in United States dollars. If the OPEC countries decided to move quickly into another currency as their major unit of reserve, the dollar would continue to slide further and the stage might well be reached where 150 yen equals one United States dollar- a psychological barrier which would not have been contemplated two or three years ago. Any action of this kind would seriously affect Australia, and many of the assumptions about the external balances contained in last night’s Budget might have to be thrown overboard. If the United States dollar continues to slide there will be every incentive for the OPEC countries to change. It will also mean that further increases in imported crude oil prices are possible as the present relationship of the Australian dollar to the United States dollar would drag down the dollar and make our imports dearer. It could mean, for example, that the 3.5c a litre announced last night will be the floor rather than the ceiling for fuel price increase.

The third part of the changes in this legislation or replacing fixed exchange rates with a loose system of floating exchange rates means that member countries will not now be bound to exchange arrangements but rather exchange rate policy. There are substantial advantages in such a scheme especially for the more advanced developed countries, but for developing nations and certainly the less developed countries, the advantages are questionable. It may mean that Australia has to examine very closely whether it retains the present system of managed float and move more quickly towards a less controlled exchange rate.

The example has been provided already of the difficulties of internationally controlling exchange rate policies. The European Economic Community experience of trying to keep all the member countries’ currencies within a defined snake, as it is called, has proved impossible and adjustments have been made within the Community almost without regard to the rest of the world. It is understandable, therefore, that the less-developed countries should be sceptical about the ability of the IMF to implement the policies which are contained in these amendments.

There is also the problem of maintaining balance in the policies which are adopted by the IMF. It has been criticised by under-developed countries for the term and conditions on which assistance is provided and, even in the case of the United Kingdom and Italy, it was a widely held view that the conditions imposed for the granting of short-term financial accommodation unduly restricted the freedom of both governments to introduce measures to cope with internal problems.

It is also important to note that although the Fund has been the promoter of tough economic policy lines, it has recently called for the abandonment of deflationary policies. At the IMF meeting in Mexico earlier this year, the managing director of the Fund warned of the consequences of an accelerating spiral of deflation. He mentioned the policies of economically weaker countries, amongst which Australia would have to be included, which attempted to solve balance of payments problems by maintaining low rates of growth, the creation of industrial and employment slack and the imposition of more protective measures. Quite correctly, the Fund sees this is having international consequences and as each country starts to close its doors the demand for goods and services will contract.

It is strange that in the Budget delivered last night we saw many of the measures which the Fund has argued against. It is even stranger that internationally our Prime Minister is lecturing everybody about the increase in barriers to international trade, and particularly those barriers which hurt Australian exports, but at the same time we are increasing our own barriers.

There is no doubt that Japan and the ASEAN nations will see the 12.5 per cent increase in the tariffs on passenger motor vehicles and textiles and footwear as a slap at them and the application of dual standards by a Prime Minister whose methods we find very difficult to understand.

One of the important factors in making the amendments proposed in this Bill work is the expansion of international trade and the removal of the sort of ad hockery which the Australian Government resorts to in international trade policy. This very aspect is implicit in the Minister’s second reading speech when he says:

The fundamental policy commitment which members make through the membership of the Fund is to overcome their balance of payments difficulties without resort to restrictions on current international transactions, and thus avoid damaging an open and prosperous world economic system’.

There is no guarantee that the shift towards the Special Drawing Rights and away from the pure dollar as a reserve currency will work. Commercial institutions, especially those in the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries, are going to be suspicious of any move of this kind. It will require a great deal of political goodwill on the part of major developed countries and a similar approach from important trading countries such as our own. If it fails it will seriously handicap the developing and lessdeveloped nations, many of whom, of course, are in our region. We have a responsibility to ensure that it works.

We do not oppose the Bill but have indicated our views and reservations about certain aspects of it. We feel that an amendment is necessary. On behalf of the Opposition, I move:

In closing I indicate that the Opposition will not oppose the legislation generally.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesLeader of the Government in the Senate · LP

– I thank the Opposition for its comments. The Government rejects the proposed amendment. I would simply give briefly a general outline of the Bill. Its main purposes are:

  1. to amend the International Monetary Agreements Act 1947-1973 to enable

Australia to conform with its obligations and rights as a member of the International Monetary Fund under the Second Amendment to the Fund ‘s Articles of Agreement;

  1. to authorize Australia’s consent to an increase in its quota in the IMF; and
  2. to authorize the purchase by Australia of additional shares of the capital stock of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD).

The Second Amendment to the Fund’s Articles of Agreement represents a comprehensive revision of the Articles that modernizes them and provides for the operation of the Fund in current conditions and also for the possibility of adjustment to future conditions as they develop. Among its more important features, the Second Amendment introduces new and flexible provisions dealing with international exchange arrangements, a gradual reduction in the role of gold in the international monetary system, changes in the characteristics and expansion of the uses of the special drawing right that are intended to enhance its status as an international reserve asset, and the simplification and expansion of the Fund’s financial operations and transactions. The Fund’s Articles of Agreement were amended for the first time in 1969, when the special drawing rights scheme was established.

The main provisions of Part II of the BillAmendments of the Principal Act- relate to the financial relations between the Fund, the Treasurer as Governor of the Fund for Australia, the Commonwealth as the Fiscal Agency for Australia, and the Reserve Bank, which is the depository in Australia of the IMF and the IBRD. The Principal Act requires revision and updating in the light of the amended Articles, particularly in respect of payments to and receipts by the Fund and other transactions between the Fund and Australia in special drawing rights and other currencies. There is also provision, in Section 14, for the Treasurer to delegate his powers and functions under the proposed Act to an officer of the Department of the Treasury.

Part III of the Bill- Increase of Quota in the Fund and Additional Shares of Capital Stock of the Bank- provides for the giving of consent by Australia to the increase in its quota under the IMF’s Sixth General Review of Quotas from SDR 665m to SDR 790m and approval for Australia to take up a special increase of $US94m in its subscription to the capital stock of the IBRD, of which 10 per cent will be paid in and the balance will remain on call.

I would simply reiterate the nature of the Bill in the face of the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Wriedt). I point out that the proposed amendment refers to the Australian involvement in the interim committee meeting in Mexico City in April of this year when the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Anthony, was in attendance. The substance of Australia’s statement on the state of the world economy was that the continuing high rate of inflation was the prime concern for all countries; that any attempt prematurely to reflate would result in rekindling inflation of the kind experienced in the 1970s, with the inevitable consequences of another recession; that no recovery would take place unless all major countries maintained a tight grip over their domestic inflation rates. In this context, the declining value of the United States dollar is a direct consequence of the view of foreign exchange markets that in the United States the rate of inflation is once again increasing and that the balance of payments deficit is too large.

The whole emphasis of this Government has been that if, domestically, we are to restore the stability of this country and enhance not only our living standards by also our ability to help others, we must get our inflation under control and urge all other countries to do the same. In fact, in order to develop humane attitudes, to develop our ability to help others, we must first get properly in hand our own stability, our own productivity, our own ability to create more wealth. I reject the amendment and commend the Bill to the Senate.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

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

Sitting suspended from 5.58 to 8 p.m.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE- THIRD REPORT FOR 59th SESSION

In Committee

Motion (by Senator Durack) proposed:

That the report be noted and that the following amendments to Standing Orders 36AA and 36AB be agreed to:

Leave out, wherever occurring, ‘Independent Senators’, insert ‘any minority group or groups or Independent Senator or Independent Senators’.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– On behalf of the Opposition I indicate that we do not oppose the motion. This matter arose out of the election to the Parliament of groups or representatives outside the two major political parties. Those of us who have been here for some years will be aware of the quite protracted debates that have taken place on this matter over the years. It has always been difficult to get equitable representation for members of the major parties, for independents and for members of any minority groups. It is relevant to recall that in force in years gone by there was provision for the representation of minority groups on the legislative and general purpose standing committees and the Estimates committees.

We are confronted now with the advent to the Senate of two Australian Democrats. The Opposition agrees that this minority group, as it is defined in the amendment, has been elected to this Parliament with what must be conceded to be a significant minority support from the Australian community. I only wish that their support had gone to the Labor Party. I hope next time it does. I do not wish any ill will to the two senators concerned. The fact is they are here with quite a significant support- nine per cent or 10 per cent- from the Australian electorate. The Senate should recognise that. There has always been a tendency for those of us who belong to the major parties to want to dominate and to exercise what may be described as a controlling influence. But we must realise that the senators who are here representing a minority of Australians are entitled to take their places in the order of things and in the committees of this chamber. The same applies in respect of any independent senators.

I do not really feel the need for any long deliberation on the motion. Obviously other honourable senators wish to contribute. We realise that debates on Standing Orders in this place are normally free ranging and that everyone can make his own contribution and normally vote as he wishes. In this case the Labor Party feels that it would be wrong if it were to prevent in any way the inclusion of the Australian Democrats in the committee system. With those few words I indicate that the Opposition will not be opposing the motion.

Senator PETER BAUME:
New South Wales

– I take this, the first opportunity that has been available to me, to congratulate you, Mr Chairman, on your election as Chairman of Committees. I draw to the attention of the Committee that when dealing with Standing Orders Committee reports we on the Government side of the chamber do not have a Whip; we have a free vote on any matter that arises. I recall on the last occasion when we debated a

Standing Orders Committee report the interesting sight of myself and Senator Georges, the two Whips, being on one side of the chamber during the vote and our two leaders voting against us on the other side.

Senator Georges:

– Very rare.

Senator PETER BAUME:

-We carried the day, of course. I am interested in the matter that is being discussed here. I acknowledge the remarks which Senator Wriedt has made. When a minority group comes into the Senate it has an entitlement, perhaps in relation to its numbers, to representation on appropriate committees. As a member of the Standing Orders Committee, I agree that the Standing Order as it now exists is defective in that if a senator is not an independent, not a member of the Government and not a member of the Opposition no mechanism exists for him to gain a place on committees. The proposed new Standing Order will remedy that situation, but it will not in any way guarantee any rights of minority senators to sit on committees. The Standing Order, even with the addition of the words proposed by the amendment, still requires that appropriate negotiations should take place; that some agreement should be reached; and that in the event of disagreement the matter should come back to the floor of the Senate for determination. That has always been the case and would continue to be the case. The amendment would merely allow members of a minority group, as it were, to enter the arena; it would in no way guarantee any particular result for them.

Senator CHANEY:
Western Australia

– I welcome what I regard as the quite generous attitude which is being adopted by the Opposition to this proposal. I think it is an extremely proper attitude. It seems to me an appropriate time to urge the Opposition and members of the minority groups to try to reach agreement. I think it is invidious to thrust upon the Government majority the role of determining what should be the membership of minority groups on Senate committees. My own view on the matter is fairly clear. There ought to be appropriate numerical representation. I would think, for example, that if the Australian Democrats were grouped with the sole independent senator probably, on a proportional basis, they would be entitled to one place on the legislative and general purpose standing committees.

Senator Peter Baume:

– Perhaps two.

Senator CHANEY:

– At the most two. Quite obviously it will be difficult to determine what is a fair representation and what is the appropriate committee. I think it would be to the advantage of the Senate if the Opposition, the independent and the minority group members could reach an amicable decision on appropriate representation. I think that in the absence of any such agreement, if this amendment is adopted, as it appears it will be, it will be difficult for the Government to impose its view on the Opposition and on the minority group senators. I simply urge it to approach the matter on a basis which takes into account the number of positions available on the different classes of committees and ensures that an appropriate proportional allowance is made.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-In spite of this proposed change, the position has always been that the Senate could be called upon to make a final decision. I believe that on one occasion that occurred. Nevertheless, one must appreciate that there is a responsibility on the Opposition to use its good sense- this was well expressed tonight by our leader, Senator Wriedt- to make some provision for the minority and independent groups. Honourable senators must realise of course that it should not be done in such a way that the role of the Opposition is affected. After all, we do not have a coalition on this side. The Liberal Party has a comfortable arrangement whereby it is in coalition with the National Country Party.

Senator Wriedt:

– It is not too comfortable at the moment.

Senator GEORGES:

– It is not comfortable, but on matters of arrangement their problems are less difficult than ours. One must realise that if provision is made for the minority groups and the Independents and it is formalised it will give an extraordinary right to the minority group to determine in which committee it shall participate, and that may mean the exclusion of members of the Opposition who have served on those committees for quite some time. We must realise that members of the Opposition, as individual senators, have a right. However, I am perfectly certain that if the spirit of the Standing Order is accepted as is intended there will not be any difficulties. As far as the Estimates committees are concerned, any honourable senator can attend those committees and participate to the fullest extent. There is that right for senators to attend Estimates committees. There is a little more difficulty with the Senate standing committees because they travel around. Although every senator has a right to participate in those standing committees and to ask questions, he or she has a problem -

Senator Harradine:

– There is a problem with the Remuneration Tribunal.

Senator GEORGES:

-That is right. They have a problem in that they do not have access to the support they need to cover some costly arrangements in order to travel from here to, say, Western Australia and stay for a week. The fares, of course, can be met from another source. Nevertheless daily expenses are a cost against the senator. One will find, however, that the senators in the Independent group have the same limitations of time that we have, and for that reason I do not doubt that their requests will be modest and able to be easily met. So the Opposition has taken the view which was so well expressed by our leader. However, I put it to the Committee that at no time should the rights of the Opposition be in any way limited. It has a role to play in the parliamentary system which is firmly embedded in the traditions and conventions.

The minority groups have a difficulty in that they are not a part of the official Opposition as such. In the speaking lists on debates they are, by arrangement, generally slotted in according to the position they are taking in the debate. That means that they may by arrangement be on the Government list on one occasion and on the next occasion they may be on the Opposition list. They have that latitude and the freedom, which other senators do not have, to change their views from day to day according to their view of the matter before the Senate. Again I say to new senators that the sort of debate in which we are participating tonight, there being a free vote, is one of the rare debates which one can enter and vote on at will. Fortunately we do not get down to any severe disagreements. As the Government Whip said, there are times when one finds oneself voting very closely with a person whom one would normally oppose.

Senator HARRADINE:
Tasmania

– I do not think the time of the Committee need be taken up unduly by a debate on this matter. We are debating the third report of the Standing Orders Committee for the fifty-ninth session and the proposition that has been put forward by Senator Durack, that Standing Orders 36AA and 36AB be amended to include a minority group or groups and to re-include an independent senator or senators. Of course I support that proposition. There are two questions involved in this matter. The first is the right of membership of committees, and the second is the right of participation. There are two aspects to the question of the right of membership, the first being the right to nominate, which is provided for in this amendment. The second aspect is the question of being able to become a member of particular committees. That naturally is in the hands of the

Senate, and that is where it should be. I do not quibble with that at all. Once one puts one’s hat in the ring one has to take the chance of being elected or otherwise.

I think that the Government and particularly the Opposition will recognise that so far as I am concerned, since the previous amendment of Standing Orders 36AA and 36AB, I have not sought to nominate as a member of the legislative and general purposes committees or of the Estimates committees. I have not done so because there is a provision in Standing Order 36AA as follows:

A senator, though not a member of a standing committee, may participate in its public sessions and question witnesses, unless the committee orders otherwise, but shall not vote.

The same applies to Estimates committees. Whilst I have recognised the role of the Opposition and the need for the Opposition to be well represented on the committees, that provision has been convenient for me. I have a wide range of interests including defence, foreign affairs, social welfare, industrial relations and transport. This arrangement has enabled me to go to the various Estimates committees and to participate in the questioning of the Minister and the departmental officers concerned. It has worked out very well. So I have no quibble about that provision. I note that paragraph 5 of the Standing Orders Committee report states:

The Standing Orders Committee will continue its study of the general question of participation of Independents and minority groups on committees, and related matters.

Senator Georges raised a very important point concerning the legislative and general purpose standing committees. He referred to the practicability of honourable senators taking advantage of Standing Order 36AA (9), the Standing Order relating to participation, when of course we have to foot our own bills. That is a matter at which perhaps the Standing Orders Committee should look to see whether it is appropriate for some sort of recommendation to be made to the Remuneration Tribunal to make effective the provisions of Standing Order 3 6 AA (9).

The other aspect at which I would submit the Standing Orders Committee might look is the provision for joint committees. I recognise that because of the nature of joint committees a similar provision for the rights of Independents and minority senators, or indeed for any named group of senators to nominate, is not appropriate in those circumstances. I feel also that members of parliament perhaps should have some rights of participation in the joint committees, without having the right to vote. Perhaps that is another matter which could be worthy of consideration by the Standing Orders Committee as promised in Item 5 of the report which says that the Committee will continue its study of the general question of participation.

Senator MASON:
New South Wales

– I thank honourable senators for the tolerance and the broadminded attitude they have taken on this matter together with their practical approach which in this case I think is necessary. I am anxious to carry out with whatever diligence and thoroughness I can muster any function that the Senate may require. I do not necessarily see this as any sort of oneupmanship. One should not view positions on standing committees merely as a medal one has but rather as a duty that one should carry out as part of one’s work. I certainly hope that if I am ever fortunate enough to serve on a Senate committee that that is the attitude I will continue to take.

I refer briefly to the remarks of Senator Chaney and Senator Georges that the Australian Democrats should have some modesty of aspiration in this regard. That is certainly the case. 1 could not see any sense of value in any claim by the Australian Democrats to be represented on many committees. There are only two of us in the Senate and Senator Chipp- I have his leave to speak on his behalf- has the work and responsibility of leadership which are considerable in a party with only two members in the Federal Parliament. I feel that the Democrats’ participation in committee work should be restricted to work which can be done with some efficiency and preferably in an area of some interest and knowledge to the senator concerned. I think this is probably a point in all committee work. It is perhaps difficult for a person to operate efficiently in an area firstly in which he knows very little and secondly in which he is not interested.

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA · LP

– I suggest that what Senator Mason has said is very sensible. It should not merely be a matter of members filling in positions on committees. In view of the record that has been achieved by standing committees over the years, obviously anyone who is to go on to a committee should go on to it because he or she wants to carry out a certain piece of work in some area. Therefore one would hope that the arrangements between the Opposition and the members of the other group would be amiable in the sense that those people who have a particular skill in an area and who want to go on to a committee should have the opportunity to participate.

I do not think it can be said that it is terribly easy for the committees that exist to be always 100 per cent staffed by people who are entirely enthusiastic. Quite often someone goes on to a committee to fill a position but is not able for very good reasons to carry out the task as well as he or she might like. I therefore think we should bear in mind the success of the committee system and its future success if it is to take on the role in the legislative sense of having to look at Bills in a much more regular way. Obviously this is a task in which committees will be deeply engaged in the future. I know that that is a proposal in the other report. Nonetheless we should bear that in mind. Obviously a good deal of work has to be done and the people who want to get on to the committees will have a pretty serious task ahead of them.

I hope that the proposal, which seems to me to be a sensible one, works well. I hope that all members on both sides of the chamber will find the work of the standing committees of the Parliament useful to them and that that work will add to the prestige of the Senate by reason of the fact that committees are able to get people who are able to work and not just filling in on a committee. I, therefore, think that this is a useful proposal but obviously it is not the only point that arises in regard to this question. I think it is a useful proposal to put before the chamber.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

page 87

QUESTION

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE-SECOND REPORT FOR 59TH SESSION

In Committee

Motion (by Senator Durack) agreed to:

That the items of the report be considered separately.

Item 1- Estimates Committees- Staffing Arrangements

Motion (by Senator Durack) proposed:

That Item 1 be noted.

Senator LAUCKE:
South Australia

- Mr Chairman, before the Committee considers staffing arrangements for Estimates committees, may I set out the events that have transpired since the tabling of the second report of the Standing Orders Committee. Honourable senators will recall that on the last day of sitting of the autumn session a report was tabled by Senator Rae on behalf of the chairmen of Estimates Committees.

Senator Rae:

– Chairpersons, I think.

Senator LAUCKE:

– In that report, the chairmen- or chairpersons- expressed their satisfaction with the trial that had been conducted with staff assistance during the examination of the supplementary estimates and suggested that a full-time research officer be appointed to each committee. Immediately following that report. I followed the customary practice of seeking the advice of the Public Service Board on the creation of new positions in the Department of the Senate. The present situation is that I have recently received a recommendation from the Board and I have taken action now to create five new positions within the committee secretariat as recommended. As the question of departmental ceilings is involved I have also written to the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) on this matter. I am anxious to ensure that the greatest possible assistance can be provided for the Estimates committees for their approaching examination of departmental estimates. I have made interim arrangements similar to those that did apply earlier this year. There will be one class 7 research officer attached to each Estimates committee from within the existing staff in the committee secretariat. I thought that, if I were to announce that which has been done to this point, it would be of assistance to the Committee in the consideration of this item of the Standing Orders Committee report.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I am just wondering in what form we might be able to liven up the debate. I am afraid that we will all fall asleep and our audience will be lost entirely unless we get on to some more substantive items.

Senator Rae:

– I think this is a substantive matter.

Senator WRIEDT:

-I feel that there is a certain reluctance on the part of honourable senators to debate the items with any great vim. I know of Senator Rae’s involvement and interest in these matters over the years, but I hope that we can put a little more meaning into the items in the report. The President has just put down an interesting document which outlines the history of the matter of staffing. Of course, we on the Opposition side will not oppose the motion to take note of this item. It is quite obvious that until now the system has been working with reasonable success. It is obvious also that the committees need this additional research assistance. So I do not feel a need to indicate any further attitude on the part of the Opposition other than to say that I am sure that we can further refine the research activity of the committees and I am sure especially that, with the help and advice of Senator Chaney, it will be a success.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

-Mr Chairman, may I take the opportunity that other honourable senators have taken to say how delighted I am that you have been elected to the position of Chairman of Committees. May I also take the opportunity briefly to pay a tribute to your predecessor. I have the utmost faith that you will live up to the standards that were set, and I wish you well.

I think it is important when we are considering these matters to have regard for some of the niceties of Senate procedure and practices. I am delighted that a matter which some of us have been pursuing for years, and which is of great importance to the Senate, is coming to fruition. I refer to making the Estimates committees more effective. I can understand that Senator Wriedt may find it dull -

Senator Wriedt:

– Boring.

Senator RAE:

– ‘Boring’, he interjects to say. But some others of us say that if the Parliament- in particular this chamber of the Parliament- is to be effective, it is necessary that there be reform in its procedures and in its practices. A conservative Labor Party in trying to adopt an attitude of being bored by these practices will not help the improvement which can take place if we give consideration to these important matters. I am delighted that the President has taken steps to seek the appointment of five full-time research assistants to enable the preparation for the Estimates committees’ operation to proceed, not on a haphazard, rushed basis but on a basis which will enable research and development work to be done during the year and which will ensure that there is a continuing expertise available to assist the committee members. It is important that that should happen.

I am delighted that the Standing Orders Committee has made this recommendation and that the President has taken steps to ensure that it happens. I believe that our role in this chamber involves us not only in inter-party disputes and questions of policy that arise from time to time, but also in ensuring that democracy does work. One of the things that has been happening in this country and a number of other similar countries over the years is that government has been getting bigger and more complicated, that it has been becoming all-pervasive and that it has been controlling the lives of people to a greater and greater extent. One of the checks and balances that can operate in our type of community is to have an effective upper House which ensures that the expenditure of government and of the bureaucracy is checked, which ensures that people not only can answer but do answer questions and exchange and discuss information, and which ensures that the general public can have available through Hansard explanations of what has been going on. Anything which is not too expensive- the appointment of five officers is certainly not too expensive- and which will ensure that the sort of role which the Senate has developed in relation to Estimates committees can be made more effective, should be welcomed.

I well recall that after the first year of the Estimates committees the head of one of the major government departments, which still exists, said to me that the questioning by the Committee of which I was a member had created concern in that department which had led to a revision of its procedures and in those days- this was in 1970 - created a saving of $100,000 on one item alone, on one procedure alone, in one department alone. These relatively small amounts that we are considering seem very worth while when I think of the totality of government and of the effect on the whole operation of government of an effective Estimates committee system. I hope that we will ensure the Estimates committees receive full support to enable them to have not only an on-going role and a spasmodic role at the time when the appropriations or supplementary appropriations are before the Parliament but also an investigative role throughout the year. I think it is important for the honesty, integrity, efficiency and efficacy of government to feel that it is under check and scrutiny at all times. It is important that the Senate should be able to carry out that role of checking at all times. I feel that with the acceptance of the staffing arrangements proposed by the Standing Orders Committee we will be better able to do that.

I support wholeheartedly not only the recommendation but also the statement by the President of the steps that he has taken. One of the things that the Government could bear in mind in relation to its staff ceilings is that five extra staff for Estimates committees could make a great contribution towards achieving staff ceilings throughout the rest of the Public Service. So much of what goes on in the Public Service can be checked, questioned and brought out into the light of day by the Estimates committees working efficiently. Without the assistance that is recommended in this section of the report it is very hard for the average senator to find the time that is necessary to gain the background information. I support the recommendation of the Standing Orders Committee.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I want to make a very brief contribution to this debate. I believe that if we have research assistants they should be employed in a situation of independence similar to that in which the officers of the Parliamentary Library are employed. In other words, they should be able to assist members of the Opposition as well as Government members.

Senator Rae:

– No doubt about that.

Senator KEEFFE:

- Senator Rae has just made his little contribution; I am entitled to make mine. My opposition to the Estimates committees, along with that of my absent colleague Senator Cavanagh, has been well known over the years. When the committees meet in a back room, often members of the Press cannot find the room. Frequently three or four committees sit at the same time. Consequently very little publicity is given to any expositions that may occur from time to time as a result of fairly intense questioning of government Ministers and officers. I am not saying that this situation is confined to this Government. It has applied to other governments- and there will be other governments in a few months time. What I am trying to suggest is that extra people should be available to help Opposition members as well as Government members in trying to get to the bottom of a situation. Frequently the Chairman of an Estimates committee is very anxious to get rid of the work of the particular section with which he is dealing. Consequently he conducts the proceedings in a very hurried manner. As a former Chairman of an Estimates committee I know how that is done.

Senator Peter Baume:

– Sometimes we sit all night.

Senator KEEFFE:

-If Senator Baume is chairman of the committee handling the estimates of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs this year he will be kept for three or four days if I am one of the questioners. He does precisely what I used to do when I was in a similar situation. Let us be quite frank about it. Under the rules of this Parliament senators do not necessarily have to be members of an Estimates committee to participate in questioning, but if those senators in this place who do participate in the questioning have access to a research officer who can find quickly the information that is required that will be quite a forward move. That has not happened in the past because a Minister has had his or her advisers who have been able to supply all the information and knock down the Opposition. That is not quite democratic.

The thinking of my colleague Senator Cavanagh and my own thinking is that Estimates committees are a waste of time unless the Committee of the Whole meets in this chamber under public scrutiny with the Press present so that it is able to report particular incidents which might be exposed as a result of very intense questioning. If we can reach the situation of additional research officers being made available to honourable senators on both sides of the chamber, particularly to Opposition senators- Senator Baume probably will not be very happy about that- then it should be put on the record that the Opposition has no great objections to those positions being created. In fact, we will probably even collaborate on it.

Senator PETER BAUME:
New South Wales

– There is no need to canvass again the arguments advanced by Senator Rae. However, some aspects of this arrangement could give rise to concern. The President has advised us that he has tried to make arrangements for research staff to be provided. Those negotiations, as I understand it, are not yet completed. Until they are completed we cannot be quite certain what the end result will be. We can hope that the Public Service Board will agree to the staff ceilings we want and to the levels of staffing we want.

However, I draw to the attention of the Committee some problems which I think could face us. Senator Keeffe knows that every Estimates committee meets in public and that the Press is able to be present and able to report its findings. Of course, if there are research officers they will be research officers to the committee. These committees are bipartisan committees. They are not committees of any party; they are committees of the Parliament. They are not the only committees of the Parliament which have staffing and whose staffing is important.

I see my colleague Senator Grimes opposite. We serve on a legislative and general purpose standing committee which, I think, has a very important function of its own. Mr President is working towards a situation in which staff will be made available to the Estimates committees. Under that arrangement staff will not be required to be withdrawn from the legislative and general purpose standing committees. Let us acknowledge that that is what we are aiming towards. The situation would be one in which we would have a staffing stream for the Estimates committees. Perhaps the numbers would be different for different committees and particular levels would be required within the Public Service structure. Particular skills would be sought because I submit that the skills required of research officers for the Estimates committees may not be the same skills we are seeking or require for the legislative and general purpose standing committees.

Senator Keeffe:

– You mean you are not opposing me?

Senator PETER BAUME:

– I listened to Senator Keeffe. I welcome his interjection, and even though he is not in his proper place that is all right. I come back to the question of the legislative and general purpose standing committees. The one on which Senator Grimes and I serve has a very heavy program of work on references given to it by the Senate. Those references, some of which have been given quite recently, require a considerable expenditure of effort, time and planning and a considerable amount of programming. The research officers who are servicing that committee are heavily involved in the work we are doing. The work of those legislative and general purpose standing committees could be seriously interfered with if in the provision of staff for Estimates committees it ever became necessary as a regular occurrence for that staff to be withdrawn. The program we have for the next few months will be carried out during the period when the Estimates are being examined. We have a heavy program of report writing and research which is actively being conducted.

The transitional arrangements which may be necessary may require that some of the research officers of the secretariat, as a once only proposal, have to move over to help the Estimates committees. That might be acceptable, provided we know we can work towards the development of a particular professional stream and that we can anticipate what will happen from within the Public Service, which may or may not have a particular view of Estimates committees and which may or may not have a view that it wishes to promote their development. I would like to be certain that it will not in any way seek to inhibit the provision of the kind of staff that we want, because it would be highly unsatisfactory if on our legislative and general purpose standing committees there was, as any kind of regular occurrence, a movement of staff backwards and forwards to Estimates committees.

Mr President has indicated, and I think everyone agrees, that that is not the intention. However, I wish to place on record my concern lest our program or our plans be thwarted in any way. I do not believe it would be in the best interests of standing committees, which are bipartisan committees of the Parliament and which are doing a job which is enhancing the reputation of the Senate, if that were made any more difficult or if it were diminished because we could not get the staff allocation we wanted at appropriate levels.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

– I risk the ire of my Leader and my Deputy Leader, but I want to join in this debate very briefly in view of Senator Baume ‘s remarks. He raised for the first time the possibility of staff members of legislative and general purpose standing committees being transferred to the Estimates committees to boost their function in the manner which Senator Rae mentioned. I would join with Senator Baume also in the demarcation dispute to express concern about this aspect. While I am on my feet I merely put on the record the view that to hear someone like Senator Rae suggest that the acquisition of five members of staff for Estimates committees in this country will somehow save democracy, will somehow overcome the very real difficulties of democracy which have been created by the past behaviour of certain members of this House, is a joke. I do not wish to go on at length with the argument for fear of provoking him to his feet again. I just put on the record my view that I think that is a lot of exaggerated nonsense.

Senator DAVIDSON:
South Australia

– As a former chairman of a Senate Estimates committee I listened with considerable interest to what the President, Senator Laucke, said to us earlier in relation to his endeavours for the provision of research assistants. I am grateful for the progress that he has made and certainly hope his hand is strengthened as he makes further representations. I also share the concern that Senator Baume mentioned of the possibility that research people from the Senate secretariat could be seconded even for a brief period of time to the Estimates committees, particularly at a time when a number of committees, including my own, are engaged in the business of report writing and generally going through the evidence with a view to putting down in the Senate a report on the stewardship and on the work of the committee for the previous 12 or 18 months. We are trying to do that as soon as we can because the Government has certain views now in relation to the examination of reports. Therefore, like all Senate committees, we are anxious to produce our report as soon as possible.

Valuable though the Senate Estimates committees are, I hope that the ongoing and continuing work of the legislative and general purpose standing committees will not be interrupted and, indeed, will not be unduly hindered. It is important that we press for this kind of research assistance in the work of the Senate Estimates committees, because since Estimates committees have become an established part of the Senate they have not only engaged in a whole area of examination of financial situations and engaged in questioning of Ministers and officers of departments but also have drawn to the attention of the Executive of the Government, of whatever political persuasion the government in office may have been, that after all the Parliament is the authority and that it is responsible to the Parliament. We have a particular opportunity as senators not only to remind Ministers and officers of that but also to engage in our questioning.

Our questioning and scrutineering enables senators not only to conduct their inquiries but also to make contributions and indeed to act on behalf of their States and their interests. We are not involved in this situation in a negative way. Within the estimates of the various departments are a number of statutory authorities that make a great contribution to the total life of the country. It is not always a matter of questioning where their funds are going. We might feel that a greater amount of money or greater opportunities or services should be provided to a statutory authority to enable it to make its contribution to the total life style of the nation.

The question of research assistants mentioned in the debate tonight and in the report from the President of the Senate is of great importance. If the proposed assistance is provided we will be able from our own interests and activities to make inquiries which we desire and also to turn instantly for material which will be valuable to us in making inquiries and which would help us to promote the work of the various statutory authorities attached to departments that come before the Senate committees. I hope that the secretariat of the Senate standing and legislative committees will not suffer interference. I hope that Mr President will be able to report to us in due course that the five assistants will be available.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

-I make a second brief contribution to the debate because I am disturbed by what Senator Baume said. He felt that we ought to be taking people from one area to another area.

Senator Peter Baume:

– I do not believe that is what I said. I said we should not be taking them from one area to another.

Senator KEEFFE:

- Senator Baume did not explain it that way. Perhaps I can put the record straight. Obviously we should not provide research people in one area by bleeding another area. This is one of the problems with this Government which has set rigid staff ceilings. A whole lot of areas suffer as a result of this. If we adopt this policy with this Parliament we might as well close down the Parliament and appoint Malcolm Fraser as dictator of Australia. He would not need any advisers. His advisers would come from the police force, the Army or somewhere else. I suggest that we ought to get that point straight for the record; that we do not necessarily bleed other areas to provide people to advise Estimates committees. If the Estimates committees are going to work- 1 have grave doubts about them; they have never been quite satisfactory in the past- we need that sort of professional help for both sides of the Parliamentthe Government and the Opposition. Members of the Opposition are particularly handicapped because they do not have access to information available to Ministers and Government senators. I suggest that we also look at this question closely.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– I would like to correct one false impression that seems to have come into the discussion. It was as a result of a recommendation of an Estimates committee, followed by a further recommendation of other Estimates committees, followed by further discussion in this chamber, that the step was taken to second from the staff of the legislative and general purpose committees a research officer to the Estimates committees for the purposes of the supplementary appropriations at the beginning of this year for a trial period to see how it worked. In a report which was tabled on the last day of sitting of the last session the chairmen of the Estimates committees expressed the view, which I think was the view of all the Estimates committees, that that secondment had worked well, was worth while and gave rise to the suggestion that this matter should be pursued further. That process of gradualism- of let us try it out, let us see whether it works, and if it works let us adopt it- having been adopted, and there having been a trial period to see whether it worked, we are now talking about adopting it.

Nobody is suggesting that there should be a permanent secondment of officers from the legislative and general purpose committees to the Estimates committees. A trial was undertaken in a reasonable and responsible way. It having succeeded, we have now moved to the next phase, which is to make the arrangement part of the permanent operation of the Estimates committees because not only was it found to be useful and helpful to the way in which the Senate Estimates committees operate but also it was regarded as being likely to be helpful and in the best interests of the operation of the Government. I just want to correct any misunderstanding that may have arisen in relation to that. I had felt previously that there was a fairly clear consensus in this chamber that that was a trial- and a successful trial. Now we are taking it to the next stage of adopting, as we have in the past, the gradualistic trial approach to the development of our committee system.

Senator HARRADINE:
Tasmania

– Some concern has been expressed that the research officers who are to be appointed to the Estimates committees be available for members of the Opposition, and presumably other senators. I think that that is a matter for concern and perhaps a matter for clarification from the Attorney-General (Senator Durack). I refer to the report of the Standing Orders Committee. On page 1, paragraph 3, it states:

It is considered that the nature of the research work to be carried out by the research officers should be under the direction of the respective Committees and their Chairmen.

As we all know, the purpose of the Estimates committees is rigorously to scrutinise the estimates for the various Government departments. It is a question of accountability of public funds. The Estimates committees examine 600 or 700 items involving billions of dollars. Much of their work, of course, entails attempting to ensure that the money that is provided is spent as expeditiously and wisely as possible. But some of the questions that arise are in politically sensitive areas. It is in those areas where members of the Opposition and indeed all senators ought to have the independent right to go to a research officer to put a series of questions to him perhaps without the chairman or Government members being aware of what those questions are so that senators can go to the Estimates committees and truly examine the Ministers and the heads of government departments on the Estimates. I think the easy and most effective way of ensuring this is for the President to give an assurance that, subject to workloads of course, research officers for that purpose will be available to all senators.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

- Mr Chairman, I would like firstly to take the opportunity of congratulating you on being elected to your office of Chairman of Committees. I express the wish that you carry out your duties in the same good spirit as your predecessor, Tom Drake-Brockman. I think Tom Drake-Brockman left this chamber with the goodwill of every person in it. I recall travelling back to Canberra alongside Tom DrakeBrockman during the last week of sitting in the last parliamentary session. He proudly boasted to me that he had never had to remove anybody from the chamber and he appealed to me not to do anything that would cause him to break that proud record. Mr Chairman, I hope that when you leave the Senate you go out with the same sort of record as did Tom Drake-Brockman.

I was pleased to hear the President say that he has made moves to have permanent research officers attached to the five Senate Estimates committees. 1 hope that you achieve that aim, Mr President. I also hope that if you do not achieve that aim the Senate will take action to see that we are provided with the research officers. During the autumn session when we were considering the supplementary Estimates we found that the people who were seconded from the legislative and general purpose committees for a trial period proved their worth. They did a magnificent job. I think that every member of every committee congratulated them on it in the Committee of the Whole. I hope that we will be provided with permanent officers.

We have had one breakthrough today so far as Estimates committees are concerned. We have all been provided with the explanatory notes. This is the first occasion in the seven years I have been a member of this place on which the explanatory notes have been made available the day after the Budget has been presented. This is very good. I suppose I should congratulate the former Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Withers, because he made a solemn promise that that would happen. He has been able to carry out that promise. If we are not provided with permanent research officers, those explanatory notes will be wasted. With the work load that senators have, we will not be able to make the best use of them.

I also make the remark for the people who may be listening to this debate and for the people who read Hansard that senators who serve on legislative and general purpose committees and Estimates committees do a lot of work outside the ordinary hours of the sittings of the Parliament. Many people outside think that members of Parliament work only when the Parliament is in session, that is when we sit in this chamber. The Senate committees sit on non-sitting days.

Legislative and general purpose committees sit even on Saturdays and Sundays. I have been a member of general purpose committees which have had to take public evidence on Saturday and Sunday. I take the opportunity to put the record straight, not only for myself but also for other members who diligently serve on these Senate committees.

I hope, Mr President, that you are successful in your efforts to obtain full time staff for us. I think that as time goes on it will be proved that they are necessary. I also hope that because of the Government’s policy on staff ceilings we do not have to resort to using the staff from the general purpose and legislative standing committees as we did on a trial basis. Those staff are engaged full time, as Senator Baume pointed out, on various references. They have to make extensive inquiries and get things ready for the public hearings of the committees. Those people should not be seconded to help the Estimates committees. We need separate staff. Mr President, I repeat that if your requests are not agreed to the Senate should take action as quickly as it can to see that we get the staff we need.

Senator WALTERS:
Tasmania

-Mr Chairman, I join my colleagues in congratulating you on your elevation to the office of chairman of Committees. I look forward to serving under you. I should like to bring up one point to which Senator Harradine referred. He spoke of secrecy between individual members and the research officers. I do not believe that this is in the spirit of the original experiment. It is not my understanding that individual members will be able to approach the research officers and ask them to investigate secret pieces of information. After all, our own research officers can indulge in this sort of research. I believe that is just. I am certainly not saying that it is not. The research officer attached to an Estimates committee serves the committee as a whole and not individual members of the committee in such a way.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Item 2- Government Consideration of Senate Committee Reports

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– This item of the Standing Orders Committee report recommends that the Senate adopt a resolution. It suggests that within three months of the tabling of a report the Government should inform the Senate of its observations and intentions with respect to the recommendations made in the report and that the President should report to the Senate those cases where there has been no response by the Government pursuant to the resolution. The Government has given a good deal of consideration to the question of response to committee reports, not only reports in the Senate but also in the House of Representatives. On 26 May 1978, Senator Withers, as Leader of the Government in the Senate, made a statement on behalf of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in regard to the broad question of government response to parliamentary committee reports. I do not intend to read that statement again. I refer to the major section of it. It stated:

As honourable senators will know. Department of Finance minutes are provided to the Public Accounts Committee in respect of each of its reports. Similarly, the Government has been careful to see that its decisions in relation to each of the Expenditure Committee’s reports have been announced to the Parliament. The Government has now decided to apply this principle to all parliamentary committee reports. Henceforth, within six months of the tabling of a committee report, the responsible Minister will make a statement in the Parliament outlining the action the Government proposes to take in relation to the report. If the six-month period expires during a parliamentary recess, the ministerial statement will be made at the earliest opportunity in the next parliamentary sittings.

It is clear that the difference between the Government’s policy in this matter and the recommendation of the Standing Orders Committee is the period of time in which the response should be made. The Government has undertaken to make a response within six months. The Standing Orders Committee has suggested that it ought to be made within three months. The Government believes that at this stage a latitude of six months is reasonable. As we know, many committee reports are major exercises. One famous committee took some years to carry out its research and make its report.

Senator Georges:

– We are still waiting for the result.

Senator DURACK:

– We have not waited for as long as the Committee took to make its recommendations. There has been a major result. We have been over this matter before, and perhaps we are wasting time. In fact, the Government has given great consideration to it and has reported consistently on what is happening. Achievements are already being made in principle. Some reports will undoubtedly take much longer to process and respond to than others. The Government feels at this stage that a sixmonth period is a reasonable period to adopt. Therefore, we cannot accept the recommendation of the Committee.

Senator CHANEY:
Western Australia

– I move:

The report of the Standing Orders Committee makes it clear that the resolution of March 1973 which requested the Government to respond within three months has been almost totally honoured in the breach. In other words, although in 1973 the Senate recorded its view that the Government should respond to reports, we are advised by the Standing Orders Committee report that there has, in fact, been only one government response in accordance with that recommendation. In light of that, it seems most significant that, while the Standing Orders Committee was considering this matter further and adopting a recommendation which was meant, I am sure, to put a little pressure on the Government to respond to parliamentary committee reports, the Government itself was considering this matter and made on 26 May significant statement to which Senator Durack has referred. The fact is that if we are to get a suitable response to parliamentary committee reports it will be necessary for the Government to make a decision that that is to happen. Only in that way does it become programmed into Public Service procedure and when a committee report is presented to the Parliament wheels will begin to turn and we will get a response. As one who is an enthusiastic supporter of parliamentary committee activity, I must say that I regard the decision of the Government, as announced on 26 May 1978, as a most significant step forward.

The Standing Orders Committee prepared its recommendation without knowledge of what the Government was doing, and the Government’s decision was put down subsequently to the presentation of this report. It would be useful, in light of the decision taken by the Government, if the Committee were to have another look at the matter. Senator Durack has put before the Senate quite cogent reasons why, on occasions, more than three months will be required. The example that was bandied about between Senators Durack and Georges was no doubt the securities and exchange report, but another example is provided by the family law report, which took years to complete and required follow-up.

In any event, the Government’s decision is significant and should be considered by the Committee. It may well be that the Committee would wish to pursue the three month limit. It may also be that the Committee would recommend to the Senate that a six months period should be accepted. I urge honourable senators, in light of the fact that we have had a more significant breakthrough in this area, than must of us, in the early months of this year, would ever have expected, to take the trouble to have another look at the matter and see whether our recommendation should be altered.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– My personal view is that we should support Senator Chaney ‘s motion. The question is resolving itself into one whether reports ought to be expected back within a three or a six month period. Tonight is not the time to debate that. Senator Durack has pointed out that there are occasions when it would be very difficult for a government to bring back a report within six months. On the other hand, there are occasions when it would be most necessary to bring a report back in a much shorter time. There could be political reasons why a government would delay, extending over a period of some months, stating its reaction to a report. We have to be careful that that does not occur. Certainly it is very hard to think of a way out of it: If we make it three months that becomes mandatory on the Government; if we make it six months it gives the Government that period in which to sidestep a report by a committee and, for perhaps reasons quite apart from the subject matter of the report, decide to withhold giving an indication of its intentions in respect of it. I do not think that we can resolve that tonight. It is a matter that should go back to the Committee for further deliberation. I support Senator Chaney ‘s motion.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– I too would support the recommendation made by Senator Chaney. It seems to me that when one has a situation in which a recommendation made by the Senate in 1973 did not bring forth any conclusion for about five years, in which on only one occasion did any Government act in accordance with that recommendation, but in which governments are turning over a new leaf and are offering to react within six months, we should take that as at least representing some improvement of the situation and try it out.

Like Senator Wriedt, I agree that there are difficulties, and great differences between reports, in that some call for early action. I have in mind a Bill such as the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act, which went to a committee. We recommended action within 21 days but it was something like six or nine months before the Bill came back. That would seem to be a rather excessive period to deal with an urgent matter. On the other hand, there are reports that are very complex and require the attention of a number of ministries, that a lot of things be done. In those circumstances six months would be a reasonable period. For this reason, it seems to me that we ought to send the matter back. At the same time, I hope that the expression made by Senator Chaney in this motion, which he read briefly to us, will be sufficient to indicate that we do, in principle, want to see it done, that it is just a matter of the difference between a three month and a six month period.

Since this may well be going back to the Standing Orders Committee, I mention one other matter. It seems to be unsatisfactory that, if a report comes from a Senate committee and is tabled in the Senate, members of the House of Representatives get a copy of it but it is not, I understand, tabled or debated in that House. The converse applies on the perhaps less frequent occasions when a committee of the House of Representatives presents a report: It is not generally, I think, tabled in this chamber. We may recieve copies of it but do not debate it. I do not think that we need be so exclusive that we do not have the opportunity both of debating reports made by committees in the other place, and having the Senate’s reports debated there. When one bears in mind that, under this recommendation, the Government will make a decision within six months and that most of the Ministers of the Government are in the House of Representatives but do not have the benefit of debating a Senate Committee report there, one must regard that as unfortunate. I hope that, if at all possible, consideration will be given to the idea that committee reports of the House of Representatives might be tabled in this chamber also, so that we may have the opportunity of taking the adjournment on them and debating them here.

Senator McAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– We do not even see the valuable reports from the House of Representatives Expenditure Committee.

Senator MISSEN:

– That is an interesting observation, and I am sure that the same principle applies: We ought to see the reports here and have the opportunity to debate them and the same should apply to consideration of our reports in the House of Representatives. I hope that, if at all feasible, that aspect will be considered by the Standing Orders Committee when the matter is before it again.

Senator DAVIDSON:
South Australia

– I feel some support for the matter to which Senator Chaney has referred and believe that it would be a very good idea if it were referred back for attention and re-presentation in due course. I am grateful that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has made a statement in relation to the examination of Senate committee reports. The Minister at the table, the AttorneyGeneral and Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Durack) has given details of that. Speaking as one who has had some experience as Chairman of a Senate committee, and who is still so privileged, I would comment that, as do all committee chairmen, I work towards receiving responses from the Government. While we are looking for such a response there remains a responsibility with the committee itself and indeed with its Chairman. I draw attention to the value of persistence and of constantly reminding both the Senate and the representatives of the Government in the Senate of the recommendations or resolutions in any given report. I speak from some little experience, having pressed and persisted with recommendations and resolutions over a number of years, from several committee reports. There has been some response and some success with regard to those recommendations. Governments are not the only people who put reports in pigeon holes. I sometimes think that Senate committees tend to do the same. Having said that I would comment that a re-examination of this matter with a view to alerting not only the Government but also the Parliament to the value of a committee report, and a response from the Government, is worthy of support.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I was interested to hear Senator Durack repeat a statement that was made by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) some four or five months ago, when he said that he would adopt the procedure of Ministers or the Government making a statement on a report within six months of a report being tabled. Senator Chaney has now moved that the recommendation of the Standing Orders Committee, that the report should be tabled within three months, should be returned to the Committee for further consideration. I am a little worried in view of the events of recent times when both the Prime Minister (Mr Malcom Fraser) and the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) have had very severe attacks of amnesia; that is, they have lost their memories on certain statements they are reported to have made and statements which have been reported to have been said by a certain person under oath. If the Prime Minister is going to have a loss of memory in this respect and forget that he made that promise, I am worried that perhaps we will never see these reports tabled.

For that reason- it is only my personal view because the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Wriedt) has expressed an opposite view and has said that he agrees with Senator Chaney- I would like to see the recommendations of the Standing Orders Committee carried, so that it will be mandatory for the Government to make a statement in respect of the reports within three months. As I said, I am very much afraid that, as both of these people I mentioned earlier have stated that they have suffered a very severe loss of memory, we might see the same thing happening in respect of this report.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I think that Senator Chaney ‘s suggestion is a good one. Of course, I am not speaking on behalf of the Government in any way in this matter. I have indicated that the Government is not able to meet a three months deadline, as recommended by the Senate Standing Committee on Standing Orders. I point out to Senator McLaren that this recommendation, even if carried by this chamber, will not be mandatory upon the Government. It is not an Act of Parliament. Naturally, the Government would take very great notice of any opinion expressed by this chamber. But the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) himself has made a very clear statement which I have reiterated tonight. That statement is recorded in Hansard. If the Government was not meeting the undertaking given in that statement I have no doubt that Senator McLaren and many other honourable senators would be strongly reminding the Government and its Ministers of that undertaking.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Item 3- Standing Order 66A- Precedence of Motions for the Disallowance of Certain Instruments

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I move:

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– This motion arises from what I suppose is quite a remarkable situation, looking back over the years. Firstly, it concerns the placing of notices and business on the Senate Notice Paper. As we know, Business of the Senate takes precedence of all other business. Standing Order 66A lays down those matters which should appear on the Notice Paper as Business of the Senate. On 22 February this year Senator Cavanagh raised this matter and sought the advice of the President concerning a Bill which was before the Senate at that time. The President undertook to refer the matter to the Senate Standing Committee on Standing Orders. Senator Cavanagh was inquiring as to why that particular Bill did not appear as an item of Business of the Senate. As the Committee’s report points out, it now appears that the intention of an amendment that was moved to Standing Order 66A, away back in 1934 no less, was to allow for certain items not to come within the ambit of the Standing Order. The following is pointed out on page 6 of the report:

Whatever the validity of this presumption, there would seem to be no reason for giving precedence to motions for disallowance or disapproval of some instruments under the Standing Order, while denying precedence to motions for disallowance or disapproval of other instruments.

The purpose of the recommendation is to ensure that all instruments, as defined in the recommendation, will in fact now be embraced by the Standing Order. I would think that the motion is one which obviously we could not fail to support. I indicate that I speak personally. I certainly support the motion and I feel sure that every honourable senator should do so also.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Item 4- Standing Committee- Consideration of Bills

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I move:

I believe that that has been a very successful procedure. Maybe at the time it has not always been accepted by one side or the other of the chamber as an appropriate way of dealing with legislation, but I think that has largely been due to political considerations of the day in relation to particular measures. I think that the principle of the procedure is one which will be adopted by honourable senators on both sides of the chamber. It is interesting to note that colleagues in another place, no doubt as a result of the work that has been done in Senate committees in considering the clauses of Bills, have recently decided that this procedure is a sound one and they are adopting it also. I warmly commend this recommendation to the Committee.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader ofthe Opposition · Tasmania

– As the Attorney-General, (Senator Durack) has indicated, this is quite a significant amendment to the Standing Orders. Of course, the proposed procedure is not entirely new to us in this chamber. It will be new to the House of Representatives when it is operating there. We have had the system now for almost 8 years. Although it has not been used very often actually to refer legislation to one of the committees specified in the proposed Sessional Order, this has occurred on a few occasions. I think, in fairness, that on each occasion it has been a worthwhile exercise. Of course this proposal will greatly widen and encourage that procedure.

Although the Opposition will not oppose the proposal- it is only a temporary measure which will apply on a trial basis during the rest of this year- I have reservations about it. I think we will get bogged down with quite a number of Bills. As is pointed out in the report of the Committee, it is intended that we will need to exercise discretion and to involve ourselves in the procedure fairly gradually. It is quite obvious that if a large number of Bills were rapidly referred to the committees the committees would get bogged down and important legislation could well be held up, when the deliberations of the committee might have no eventual benefit at all.

I would have been more attracted to the concept of legislation being dealt with before it reaches the Parliament, as is the case under the Swedish system. In Sweden members of all the parties consider legislation before it gets into the chamber. That, of course, has been one of the key successes of the parliamentary system in Sweden. Under our system the legislation will still come into the Parliament and then, if the Senate so decides, it will be referred to a committee. Only by trial and error will we find out whether this system will be something which we can handle. As I have indicated, it has been shown that a committee examination can improve the quality of some Bills, but whether that will be the case under this system remains to be seen. Nevertheless, the proposal ought to be given a trial.

I indicate to the Government that I and many of my colleagues will be watching the system very closely to see how well it functions and if, after a trial period, we find that the procedures are operating to the detriment of the Senate we will naturally reconsider our attitude. I presume the Government will do the same. In every session of the Parliament, particularly towards the end, we have the great problem of getting legislation through. If we find ourselves getting bogged down at the end of this year in a system that has become more complex without our receiving any real benefits from it, obviously the matter will have to be reconsidered. For the moment, the Opposition will not oppose the motion that has been moved by the Attorney-General.

Senator CHANEY:
Western Australia

– I welcome the indication from the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Wriedt) that the Opposition is not opposing the motion. I agree with the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) that this is a most significant proposal. I am a little more optimistic about it than is the Leader of the Opposition. I am very interested in the matter which he raised, namely, the far more radical proposal that we should follow the example of the Swedish Parliament. I have not learned a great deal since I came here, but I have learned that changing the way the Parliament does anything is extremely difficult. One of the things I enjoyed finding in the Crossman dairies was that when Mr Crossman, a Minister in a Labour Government, tried to improve some of the procedures of the House of Commons he ran into enormous difficulties. I think it is very difficult to make any substantial changes to the way this place operates. It is good that this proposal has a fairly firm basis in the eight years experience the Senate has had with legislative and general purpose standing committees. The proposal will not shock anybody or lead to a great rustling in the dovecotes or a reaction against it.

I think that I can understand the Opposition having some reservations. I am a little surprised at the concern expressed by Senator Wriedt that legislation might get bogged down. I must commend the Opposition for its public spirited approach to this matter and its concern about the passage of the Government’s legislation. I thought that Opposition senators would have been less concerned about that than Government senators. The reservation has been expressed to me by a number of Opposition senators that they are not here to do the Government’s job. They have asked why they should be particularly interested in improving Government legislation. Again, bearing in mind our own record as an Opposition -

Senator Wriedt:

– It is a Parliament; that is the point.

Senator CHANEY:

– Yes, I can understand that. I put to the Senate that a great deal can be gained by all of us if some of the more sensible work which is done in this place is done in the public arena rather than in our private committee rooms. I believe that the spectacle of members of Parliament working on legislation and achieving change will improve the standing of the Parliament.

The Attorney-General, who is the Minister in charge of the chamber at the moment, has the distinction of being the only Minister who has allowed a Bill to go from this chamber to one of the legislative and general purpose standing committees for consideration when the Government had a majority here. The experience of the last eight years has been that oppositions have tended to force governments to refer legislation to committees. It is good that both sides of the chamber concede that that has generally been beneficial. Honourable senators will recall that the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Bill, to which Senator Missen referred, gave rise to a very substantial debate in the Committee of the Whole. There was a great deal of cross-fire because a number of Opposition members were supporting the Bill in the teeth of opposition be Senator Wright and a number of other Government senators. Senator James

McClelland made a contribution in defence of the proposal. In any event I think it was Senator Durack who, as the Minister in charge of the Bill, agreed to send it off to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. I think that that is an interesting example of what we might hope to achieve. That debate was quite strenuous. We were really getting nowhere in the Committee of the Whole. The Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee was able to consider the Bill in the quieter circumstances of a committee meeting. Honourable senators will recall that the Committee reported back with a unanimous recommendation for amendments. Although there was some delay- Senator Missen referred to this a little while ago- eventually the Government reintroduced the Bill. My recollection is that the recommendations of the Committee were accepted by the Government, lt is my view that in the committee atmosphere, when the difficulties of formal debate which occur in the chamber are removed and when the opportunity is afforded to analyse the contents of a Bill quietly, it often appears that the dogma about which we were arguing is quite irrelevant and the facts speak for themselves.

I am a firm believer- I am very optimistic at the prospects- that we will achieve a sensible consideration of legislation which will in many cases result in the improvement of Government legislation. I think that the Opposition has nothing to lose by that. I think the Opposition gains by being associated with sensible parliamentary behaviour. The Government, for its part, gains if in its view and in the view of its own members the legislation is improved. I am an enthusiastic supporter of the recommendation that we adopt this sessional order. It will impose some additional workload on senators, but I hope that as compensation we will be able to drop some of the less sensible work that we do and perhaps even cut down on some of the time that we spend having relatively meaningless debates in this chamber. I hope that the Senate will support this experiment.

It is worth noting that this is probably the first time in the history of the Federal Parliament that the House of Representatives is ahead of us in an area of parliamentary reform. The House of Representatives adopted a sessional order or its equivalent concerning legislative committees in May. In that sense the House of Representatives beat us to the punch. The Government has, I think, been considering Bills which will be sent to legislative committees in the House of Representatives. I believe that in the next period of sittings there is every possibility that the House of

Representatives will be functioning with some experimental legislative committees. I do not resent that. I think it is desirable that the House of Representatives should participate in the sorts of changes that have been taking place in the Senate for the last eight years or so. I think this puts the Senate on its mettle to ensure that, having led for so many years, it is not now left behind.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-I support with less enthusiasm than Senator Chaney the proposition that has been put forward. I believe that the spirit of co-operation which is evident in the Committee at present will not be so evident at some future time when political reality is a little more pressing. There is a possibility that the Government will resist the transfer or referral of legislation to a standing committee. The legislation, treated in the way that it is treated at present, is the property of the Government. We will reach a stage where the Government will need its legislation, will seek to expedite it and will resist referring it to a standing committee. The proposition put by Senator Wriedt, that legislation should be considered by committees before it reaches the second reading stage, is a good one. It allows for the Bill to be properly scrutinised and for outside considerations, such as witnesses to appear and submissions to be made, which may in the long term serve us well.

Another thing I fear is that the proposition, if implemented, may destroy the goodwill that exists in the standing committees, the goodwill that is established when a committee has before it an investigation on which it is united in achieving a result- for instance, a reference on drug trafficking and drug abuse. There is a common purpose in that committee to investigate to the fullest and come to a reasonable decision. Of course there may be an occasion when the Opposition takes the view that legislation should be resisted at all costs and will endeavour to delay it. That would be a reasonable political tactic in which it could engage. I suspect that it was a tactic in which the present Government engaged on one or two occasions when in Opposition.

Senator Rae:

– Never!

Senator GEORGES:

– The honourable senator interjects: ‘Never’. I happened to be the chairman of one of those committees and from time to time 1 had a sense that there were some inordinate delays. If that is to be the procedure I would prefer that the standing committees take on a special role of dealing with legislation, perhaps to the exclusion of certain references. We should go back to the appointment of special or select committees for certain types of references. That would relieve the load of the standing committees. It would alter the character of the standing committees, but they would then be what we intend them to be by the proposition that has been put forward tonight. They would be committees investigating the legislation that is passing through the Parliament. I have no objection to that. There are some problems which may arise. The committees may become overloaded. The Government will have to accept the proposition that certain references which take up so much time of the standing committees may need to be referred by the committee concerned to a select committee. Its early recommendation may need to be that the matter under investigation is of such a complex nature, so many submissions have been received and so much time is likely to be taken up that it ought to be referred to a select committee.

I hope that the Committee will take in hand the possibility of there being an increase in the appointment of select committees. I do not doubt that the Senate would have the capacity to take on it that extra work. It would certainly relieve the standing committees of that type of reference. Let us not mislead ourselves. These references of Government Business to standing committees in certain situations may lead to delaying tactics from those committees and may lead to much more partisan behaviour by those committees than exists at present. As long as we understand that, let us proceed with the proposal.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

-I support the proposal that is involved in this recommendation from the Standing Orders Committee. Like Senator Georges, I agree that there may be problems. One will have to look at this matter and see how it works. We may have to change it if upon looking at it and if at first experience it does not turn out as well as it might. I do not really think I can agree with the proposal brought forward by Senator Wriedt, namely that we ought to be looking at these matters before they become Bills. We are after all a House of review, and I think it is in our review function that we ought to be considering these matters. That is a function which the standing committees already perform. They consider references to them and often make substantial reports on matters that are not in the form of a Bill at all.

This proposal is different from the House of Representatives proposals. It is setting up specific and separate committees- only two for a start, if I am not mistaken- and they will consider a number of these matters, but we have eight standing committees. Obviously the House of Representatives will not deal with a great number of Bills in this way. We may have a problem in that we have eight committees, and those committees have an opportunity to sit separately and to do this work. It is a rather considerable waste of the time of senators that in the Committee of the Whole all senators are considering the Committee stage of a Bill, and only a few senators have a particular interest in the subject under discussion. Other senators will be away doing other work. There could be several committees sitting at the one time, and this proposal would enable that to be done. There is one problem that I would like to raise in relation to this subject. Paragraph 1 9 at page 8 of the recommendations of the Standing Orders Committee refers to the established procedure in legislative and general purposes standing committees which is that the Minister in charge of the Bill is not a member of the committee. The report goes on to state:

The Standing Orders Committee envisages, however, that, as is the practice in Estimates committees, the Minister and officers would attend meetings, when a committee may ask for explanations from the Minister, or officers, regarding the clauses of a Bill.

Then the significant sentence appears:

This would not necessarily inhibit the normal committee practice of calling witnesses.

That is a fairly negative recommendation. It rather suggests that it is not likely that one of those committees would have witnesses called before it. I think that would be very unfortunate. Although it is of course very rare for witnesses to be called in the Parliament or in the Committee of the Whole as we are now, nonetheless I think it is desirable that when dealing with Bills this practice should be used. Recommendation 5 at page 1 1 of the report states:

The procedure to be adopted by a legislative and general purpose standing committee shall, as far as possible, be the same as that in Committee of the Whole:

Our Standing Orders, without reading them, contain provisions for witnesses to be called in the Committee of the Whole. I think it would be a very rare thing for this to happen; nonetheless I hope that it will not be regarded as a rare thing to happen when a committee is considering a Bill. Committees that are looking at Bills often need specialist assistance. If I may refer to the committee of which I am Chairman, the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, it often has been very valuable to that Committee to have a qualified lawyer, a lecturer in law or someone like that -

Senator McAuliffe:

– You have four or five on the Committee.

Senator MISSEN:

– We may have a number of lawyers on the Committee, but such assistance is very useful. For example, when the Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs did a reference on the Evidence Act in the Australian Capital Territory the lecturer in law at the Australian National University was there and discussed various clauses, made suggestions, did some drafting and came up with proposals. So it can be very helpful to have present a witness who can give qualified evidence.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Blended with a few trade unionists.

Senator MISSEN:

-Indeed, as Senator Mulvihill says, a few trade unionists. I am not making any special claim for lawyers as expert witnesses. Some of the most expert and no doubt the most highly skilled and devious people in that mysterious game are probably trade unionists of experience, and I am sure they would be a good example of the use of witnesses. What I want to say about this matter is that there appears to be some inhibitions about the calling of witnesses. I hope that that will not be the case because it seems to me that it is of value to use them in committee activities. Paragraph 2 1 of the report of the Standing Orders Committee makes reference to the initial problems that may be experienced with the new procedure. One initial problem, as I see it, is who will decide which Bill will go to a committee and to which committee it will go. Sometimes a Bill may involve more than one aspect of interest. To take my own area of interest, there may be a Bill with a legal aspect to it and also a social welfare aspect to it. In that instance someone has to make a decision on which is the appropriate committee to consider the Bill. Clearly both committees will not deal with it. There is no provision in this report for any committee to be set up for the purpose of deciding which committee will look at such a Bill. I see this as a small problem which no doubt can be ironed out.

One would think that there is quite a case for most or possibly all Bills to go to one of the committees for at least an initial or a cursory examination. One may ask whether it is a matter for the Government to determine which Bill is to get the real scrutiny. It may not be for the Government to decide. It may be something which the Senate itself should determine. I think that there is some case for a representative committee having a look at each Bill and then deciding: ‘Yes, this is one suitable for examination. We cannot do all the Bills but this is a good one for examination and it ought to go to a particular committee ‘. I just throw that into the ring because that has not been determined in this report of the Standing Orders Committee. I do not want to be nitpicking in this consideration but I believe the proposal is an excellent idea and that, with our existing committees, we ought to be able to make quite a success of it.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– I would like briefly to contribute a couple of thoughts to the discussion. I totally support the Standing Orders Committee report. We are debating a proposed sessional order which would enable us to take a little further the development of the consideration of proposed legislation by using the committee system. There were two possible avenues which were discussed in some detail by the Joint Committee on the Parliamentary Committee System which reported in 1 976 after some considerable period of investigation including a subcommittee travelling overseas both to Ottawa and to Westminster to consider the ways in which committee systems were operating in those places. It reported a recommendation that the sort of system that we are discussing now should be introduced. However, because the Senate had advanced as far as it had in the development of its Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committees from 1970 onwards the Joint Committee report simply identified the two possible avenues of approaching this. They were: Firstly, that we could have the investigatory type committee- the present standing committee system- which is basically involved in investigation and report or, that we could have that committee with the added task of considering proposed legislation with the dual role of being both an investigatory committee and a legislative committee and, secondly, could separate the functions by having separate legislative committees. This is one of the matters that the Joint Committee dealt with at some length.

I will not dwell on the actual recommendations that it made except to say, for anybody who is interested in looking further at the two possibilities, that it may be that after a trial period some of us may wish to consider another possibility. I simply draw attention to the fact that the two possibilities were canvassed in that Committee’s report. I think that we can use our present investigatory committees for the legislative function, which was originally envisaged for them. I support the trial period. Let us see how it goes. If it has some bugs, let us either iron them out or try the alternative. That is no reason for saying that we should not try it.

There is a problem in making time available for these committees to operate. I think the best thing I can do is to give an example. I will say very little else because I think we spend far too much time in this chamber in debate particularly in relation to policy matters when we could be getting on with the more effective work of committee procedures. I hope that it will not be long before the day arrives when we will do away with the second reading debates as we know them now and have them only when there is some real matter involving the Senate which requires a separate regurgitation of the second reading debate which has already taken place in the other chamber. I do not think we should be concerning ourselves as a matter of course with a regurgitation of the policy considerations which led to the introduction of the legislation. We should be concentrating far more on the detail of the legislation and on the other aspects of Senate committee work such as the investigatory committees, Estimates committees and other committees.

I think the people want far more from Parliament than mudslinging, interchange, party stances and objection on a predetermined basis. This proposal for consideration of legislation by committees is something that could very well mean that the people will get a little more than they have been getting in the past. I was a member of the Joint Committee on the Parliamentary Committee System that went to Ottawa and to Westminster in London. I was tremendously impressed in London with the fact that the Government there did not seem to be quite so precious about accepting amendments. The Government seemed to consider that debate in the committee stage was about the working of the Bill, not about the policy, that people may have some substantial contribution to make and if they had a substantial contribution to make it ought to be listened to.

I was very pleasantly surprised to find for instance at Westminster the Government accepting on a Bill relating to children a whole lot of proposals from representatives of the Opposition in that Parliament following considered debate on ways by which the Bill could work more effectively. The Government there gave the undertaking that it would consider the points raised and would introduce a suitably drafted amendment. In other words, what the debate did was to knock into shape the thoughts about the legislation. What the Government then did was to undertake to produce a suitable amendment for the stage when the legislation went back into the chamber.

I cannot help but think that we should do more along the lines which would make our legislation more effective. Probably we pass more legislation than we ought to pass. If that legislation can be made more effective by considered free flowing debate having taken place we will be better serving the interests of the people who sent us here. I think this is an excellent trial to undertake. Let us undertake it on a trial basis. If it has some bugs, let us iron them out. I support the proposal.

Senator McAuliffe:

- Senator, I like your reference to what you saw at the House of Commons. Would you support the idea of Opposition parties supplying the chairman for many of these committees?

Senator RAE:

– Yes, I would support that.

Senator McAuliffe:

– I am being serious with you.

Senator RAE:

– I have for many years believed that Parliament tends to be overborne by the interests of government as opposed to the interests of the Parliament. I see that as one of the offsetting factors in creating a balance. This brings me to the final point that I wanted to make in relation to this consideration. In the House of Commons there is in relation to the constitution of the legislation committees a committee of selection which considers the Bills which are proposed. I know that we are talking about a trial period but I raise this because I do not want it to be forgotten. It may be necessary for us to consider a different approach. If we do, one of the points that we would need to consider is how we will select some other form of legislation committee to ensure that all sections of this chamber get an adequate opportunity and that the debate which takes place will not be on partisan lines but in an endeavour to ensure that the policy having been determined there is a maximum input into the consideration of the detail of the legislation. This is the approach which I hope will be adopted. The policy is determined basically in the House of Representatives. If it is a matter of major importance this chamber can redebate the policy, but I hope only on a matter of major difference and major importance. When the matter gets to the legislation committee we get down to making the nuts and bolts screw up.

I could add to that argument but I will not. I simply say: Let us make sure that we remember that there are a number of other ways to go about this. Let nobody say, if this trial does not succeed immediately, that we should wipe the whole thing. There are many considerations to be made. I think that we have done well over eight years to develop our legislative and general purpose committees to the stage to which we have developed them. Let us use the approach of gradualism. Let us not say that because we tried this and it did not work 100 per cent immediately it is not effective. We should say: Let us give it further consideration. When we are considering it let us consider such things as the committees of selection to ensure that on any matter there is adequate opportunity for those in the chamber who have a particular interest to participate. Standing Order 36aa provides: a Senator, though not a member of a Standing Committee, may participate in its public sessions and question witnesses, unless the Committee orders otherwise, but shall not vote.

Let us consider whether that is adequate to ensure–

Senator McAuliffe:

– It is the same with the Estimates committees.

Senator RAE:

– Yes. But let us make sure that this gives an adequate opportunity to participate. It may be that that is where this trial will fail and that we need to consider some further protection to ensure that all interested senators have the opportunity to participate. For instance, I am not sure that the present Standing Order 36aa would enable a senator who is not a member of a legislative and general purpose committee to make suggestions for a report. We know that he cannot vote but I hope that he could at least make suggestions for what ought to be involved in the report. If he cannot, it seems to me that the system is not likely to work. If he is particularly interested, if he is prepared to attend using Standing Order 36aa and to participate and if he is then precluded from discussion there, he will come back into this chamber in the Committee of the Whole and, instead of his suggestions being considered in the committee atmosphere, they will be considered in the chamber atmosphere and we will be back to the problems that we have been trying to avoid. These are just some of the matters involved. One could talk about other problems that can arise. I think that the best thing to do is to introduce it, see how it works, see what problems arise and approach the matter in a spirit of trying to overcome the problems as they arise.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– 1 am interested in what Senator Rae has said. I do not think that Standing Order 36aa prohibits a senator who sits in on a meeting of a standing committee from making suggestions. He is prohibited from moving motions and voting, but if he makes a suggestion of merit there is no reason why a formal member of that committee could not then adopt his suggestion, particularly if he happened to be from the same party, and move a motion. Mr Chairman, this may be a little unorthodox. Obviously Senator Rae has some inhibitions or feelings about this matter. If there is a legal interpretation as to why this should not be done, I would like to know what it is. Perhaps Senator Rae could tell me that. From looking at the Standing Orders I cannot find anything wrong with an honourable senator’s acting in that way.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– I will develop my point a little further as some interest has been shown in it. As I said earlier, Standing Order 36aa states: a senator, though not a member of a Standing Committee, may participate -

I emphasise the following words- in its public sessions and question witnesses, unless the Committee orders otherwise, but shall not vote.

It is my belief that that means that the senator who is not a member of the committee may not be present during the private or deliberative sessions of that committee, and therefore at the time when a report is being prepared and when the discussion takes place he has no right to be present. That may not be a correct interpretation. I think it is the interpretation that has been accepted in the past in relation to that Standing Order and it may very well be one to which we need to give some further consideration.

Senator Keeffe:

– There is no legal barrier?

Senator RAE:

– My view is that the clear interpretation is that a senator who is not a member of a committee is not entitled to be present when the committee is in its deliberative sessions. He is entitled to be present only when it is in its public sessions, which means in practice that a senator who is not a member of the committee cannot be present when it is discussing what is to go into the report.

Senator McAuliffe:

– I think that you are right, because in the Estimates committees a senator can sit in and make an observation or contribution, but when you are compiling your report in a private session that is for the committee people only.

Senator RAE:

– That is my understanding. I have had assistance to rule that way at various times in committees of which I have been chairman. I raise the point gently because I think it is one to which we ought to give some thought. I raise it not in order to hold up this matter tonight but as a reason for not forgetting the point in the trial period and, if necessary, coming out of the trial period with a recommendation that something be done about changing this provision.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I rise again very briefly. I do not quite agree with Senator Rae’s interpretation. On occasions in the past an honourable senator has sat in at meetings of a standing committee hearing public evidence and has been able to make a very real contribution to the general questioning and debate taking place at that time. On one or two occasions I have noticed that honourable senators, particularly members of that person’s party, have put forward his suggestions at the closed session of the committee and they have been adopted by the committee. I do not think that this provision is inhibiting or that we need to expand the rules. Obviously, if that sort of debate takes place in public it has an influence on the members of the committee. I would like to see some more evidence before the rule was laid down in black and white.

Another honourable senator, particularly from that person’s party but even from the opposition party may put forward his suggestions to the committee. When 1 became a member of this chamber I was in favour of abolition of the Senate. I am still in favour of it but I do not have many friends left today. The committee system has done a tremendous job of building up the prestige of the Senate. We cannot call it a States’ rights House, lt is not a States’ rights House and it has not been since 1901 because we have divided frequently on party lines. This chamber brought about the downfall of the Whitlam Government on party lines, as no doubt Senator Rae would recall quite clearly. Honourable senators opposite held up Supply. They did not block it; they held it up; they deferred it. Sometimes that is spelt ‘defurred’ and sometimes ‘deferred’. Honourable senators opposite did it both ways. That was the end of an elected government. These arguments have been raised at the Constitutional Convention. I think it was my revered friend, the Deputy Premier of Queensland, who said: ‘Let us have a moratorium for 20 years while we all think about it. ‘ Only the younger members in this chamber will be around in 20 years time to think about these sorts of things. If we are going to have democratic government we have to look across the board at a whole range of issues. The issue that has been raised by Senator Rae is a very important one and I think that we ought to take it into consideration when we are talking about this sort of legislation.

Senator HARRADINE:
Tasmania

-A very interesting point has been raised. I do not want to debate with Senator Keeffe whether the Senate is a parties ‘ House or a States’ House. My view is that clearly it is a States’ House and that, both within the caucus and within the parliamentary parties, the equality of representation from the States is an important factor. We have had revealed an interpretation which puts limits upon the ability of an honourable senator to participate in the discussions of a legislative and general purpose standing committee. There is a difference between Standing Order 36AA(9) and Standing Order 36AB ( 10). Standing Order 36AB(10), which deals with Estimates committees, states:

A Senator, though not a member of a Committee, may attend and participate in its deliberations, and question witnesses unless the Committee orders otherwise, but shall not vote.

Standing Order 36AA(9), which deals with legislative and general purpose standing committees, states:

A Senator, though not a member of a Standing Committee, may participate in its public sessions and question witnesses, unless the Committee orders otherwise, but shall not vote.

Clearly that Standing Order is more restrictive than that containing provisions which entitle a senator to participate in the deliberations of an Estimates committee. I do not think it is too late tonight to add an amendment to the current proposition which would have the effect of giving a senator the same rights on a legislative and general purpose standing committee as he has on an Estimates committee. Judging from the debate that has preceded the discussion on this particular item of the report of the Standing Orders Committee, I think such a proposition would meet with the approval of all concerned. I would hope that it would. In order to test the feeling of honourable senators on that particular matter 1 would be prepared to move as an amendment to the current proposition that Standing Order 36AA (9) be deleted and that the following be inserted in its place:

A senator, though not a member of a committee, may attend and participate in its deliberations, and question witnesses, unless the Committee orders otherwise, but shall not vote.

Those words are precisely the same as are provided in Standing Order 36AB ( 10) in relation to Estimates committees. I would like to hear the views of other honourable senators on that particular matter before formally moving that proposition.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– In response to Senator Harradine ‘s invitation, my comment is that basically I agree with him but I do not want to do anything which would hold up the introduction of these proposals tonight by debating something which could be corrected later. What we are dealing with is a proposal which will have effect for the remainder of this year only. It is to apply specifically only during 1978.1 am prepared to accept the situation in which we simply acknowledge that there may be some bugs. Let us not interfere with the proposal which has come from the Standing Orders Committee. We have put on record tonight the view that there may be better ways of going about it. Next year when we review how it operated during this session we will be able to ask: ‘Do we need to make it as Senator Harradine suggested it might be- in other words, using the words which apply in relation to Estimates committees- or should we broaden it even further?’ It may be that there is a whole range of different possibilities to consider.

Senator Harradine:

– By taking out the words unless otherwise ordered ‘.

Senator RAE:

– There are a number of possibilities. I simply suggest that we adopt what the Standing Orders Committee has recommended, whilst recognising that the proposal will have effect for a trial period until the end of this year only. We will see what happens and then determine how we need to approach it next year. The final point I make is that there is an ultimate safeguard in that whatever goes wrong in relation to the committee procedure can be corrected in this chamber. So nobody will be totally defeated. It is not as though it is essential that we correct a potential defect now, because everybody has the right to speak when the matter comes back before this chamber. So my reaction to Senator Harradine ‘s suggestion is that whilst I am inclined towards it I suggest that we leave it as it is, accept the recommendation, and bear in mind what he says when we discuss it after the end of the trial period.

Senator LAUCKE:
South Australia

– I hesitate to take part in the debate. I have been listening this evening with keen interest to what I regard as a most interesting debate on the reports from the Standing Orders Committee. I believe it would be wise to adopt the position as set out by Senator Rae in response to the invitation of Senator Harradine. We should try out the present proposal, bearing in mind the preparedness of the Senate generally to look at suggestions for betterment. We have always gone by the policy of gradualism when dealing with these matters. I believe that the best interests of the system can be served if we accept the current proposal in the meantime. We can look for betterment when we find it necessary to vary that proposal.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Item 5- Other Matters- noted.

Senator HARRADINE:
Tasmania

– I seek leave of the Committee to refer very briefly back to paragraph 3 of item 1 which deals with the matter of research officers being under the direction of the respective committees and their chairmen.

Leave granted.

Item 1- Estimates Committees: Staffing Arrangements

Senator HARRADINE:

– Earlier in the evening I invited the President or someone elseobviously it would be the President- to respond to a suggestion I made that the research facilities and officers of the committees should be available directly to individual senators. The only response thus far to that suggestion has been from Senator Walters who questioned whether that was appropriate and suggested that an individual senator should not use the research facilities or research officers of the committees to be provided with secret information. There is no question of secrecy at all. We are dealing with accountability of public funds. The public is entitled to know the full facts of the position. As I mentioned in my invitation, most of the work of the Estimates committees is involved in dealing with whether or not the Estimates are appropriate for the efficient implementation of the policy objectives in relation to which the Estimates have been submitted.

However, there are certain sensitive policy areas in relation to which the Minister or the public servants may not be forthcoming. Let me state publicly that most of the public servants who have appeared before Estimates committees have been thoroughly open and objective and have responded to questioning, but on a number of occasions after questioning public servants I have found with hindsight that I have been fishing in the wrong pool. Neither the Minister nor the public servants have advised me that I have been fishing in the wrong pool. Honourable senators may say that that is my bad luck. However, that is the very reason I make the suggestion that individual senators should have the research facilities available to them, namely, so that on these politically sensitive matters they can present their questions in a manner which will elicit the information which is required. I feci that that is essential in order to ensure that the senators are able to deal with these matters effectively and to elicit the full information which is required to ensure proper accountability of public funds.

Senator LAUCKE:
South Australia

– It is suggested in the report that the research of the research officers be carried out under the direction of the respective committees and their chairmen to ensure that there is an effective thrust of questioning as determined collectively in the committees. I believe that my assessment and interpretation of the situation is right. Certain committees considering matters before them would agree among their members on a line to pursue on certain items after collective discussion of what should form the major thrust so that they shall be effective. I see Senator Harradine ‘s point about assistance to individuals in minority parties or Independants. Is that what concerns Senator Harradine?

Senator Harradine:

– And also Opposition senators may wish assistance.

Senator LAUCKE:

– Bear in mind that any senator is able to be present at any committee hearing to see what is going on. As has been mentioned previously, although a senator may have an influence through being present at the committee hearings and expressing points of view that would be heard by the committee, he would not have an influence in the preparation of the final report. The matter of freedom of access to committees has been mentioned and I can say no more than that in elucidation. It is not within my province or authority to do other than endeavour to explain that which has been determined within the Standing Orders Committee for discussion and determination in the Committee of the Whole.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

page 106

QUESTION

SECURITY IN PARLIAMENT HOUSE

Report of the Privileges Committee

Debate resumed from 30 May, on motion by Senator Drake-Brockman:

That the Senate take note of the report.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

– I am a member of the Privileges Committee which dealt with this matter. The Senate will recall that the matter referred to the Senate Privileges Committee was the appropriate means of ensuring the security of Parliament House. As a member of the Committee, I have some hesitation about commending the report of the Committee; but I think I can fairly say that it is a careful report and perhaps the reference to the Committee performed a useful function in that it enabled the

Committee, in the cold light of day, to look at a number of matters which had been the subject of some heat at the time.

The Senate will recall- I shall use that old 25 April expression ‘Lest We Forget’- that the reference of this matter was occasioned by the incident known as the Hilton bombing. As a result of that a high degree of political neurosis developed in Australia, perhaps in an artificial way. This Parliament was singled out as a likely target for a terrorist attack. Security arrangements at the time of the opening of the Thirty-first Parliament resulted in my colleague Senator Georges, who sits beside me here- a splendid example of Australian Greek manhood and a member of this Senate- not being admitted to the Australian Parliament. Senator Grimes, who sits alongside me, likewise was not admitted. That engendered a great deal of nervousness in me because I sit between these two honourable senators. Accordingly, I was happy to participate in the work of the Privileges Committee looking into the question of the security of Parliament House.

It will be recalled that following the Hilton bombing and the ceremonies which took place here in Parliament there were a number of instances of the kind to which I have referred. Mr President, you as a presiding officer, together with your counterpart in the House of Representatives, Sir Billy Snedden, laid down certain procedures which it was intended should be followed in relation to the security of Parliament House. I refer the Senate to some of the increased protection measures which were seen to be necessary at that time but which were not referred to in the tabled statement. For example, it was suggested that persons entering the public galleries of the chambers should pass through detection equipment similar to that now used at airports. There was a suggestion that the side doors on the lower floor of the building be locked regularly with deadlocks and alarm systems. I understand that that has happened. At one stage there was an attempt- which was resisted on the Opposition side by me and on the Government side by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony)- to have the outside doors on the front verandah of the main floor of the building locked and sealed. I know nothing about the perks of being Deputy Prime Minister, but I can assure honourable senators that one of the best things about being Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate is that one has a door that enables one to escape some of the dreadful atmosphere of this building- I speak of the physical atmosphere, of course- by opening that door. We would have been deprived of those sorts of privileges, which seemed to be properly so-called, if the sort of hysteria which caused such measures to be suggested at the time had been allowed to continue.

The Privileges Committee considered this matter. It is of extraordinary interest that in view of all the fuss at the time the Privileges Committee asked people who were desperately concerned or professed to being desperately concerned about this matter to give evidence to the Committee about their concerns. The report which is before the Senate lists the witnesses who appeared. Not one senator or one member of the House of Representatives gave evidence.

Senator Georges:

– Carrick is the only one.

Senator BUTTON:

– Evidence was given by Mr Fleming and Mr Worth and not by Senator Georges, the reluctant witness.

Senator Georges:

– I offered to give evidence, but you wanted me to go through the whole rigmarole of making written submissions.

Senator BUTTON:

– The burden of Senator Georges’ objection and the reason he did not give evidence is that he was required to make a written submission first. This is probably a matter which ought to be referred to Senator Carrick in his capacity as Minister for Education dealing with literacy and numeracy matters. The threat of having to put in a written submission was obviously something that caused Senator Georges to be, as lawyers would say, in terrorem and persuaded him not to give evidence.

Senator Webster:

– There was a written submission. A number of them put in written submissions, as you will be aware.

Senator BUTTON:

– I do not know Senator Webster’s views. I do not remember his submission being drawn to the Committee’s attention. Perhaps that was an oversight. The report would no doubt have been different if it had been. The people who gave evidence included the Clerk of the Senate, Mr Odgers, Mr Bullock, the Deputy Clerk of the Senate and Mr Smith, the Usher of the Black Rod. One of the interesting things which the Privileges Committee learnt from those witnesses- this is an important matter relating to the precincts of Parliament House- is that the precincts of Parliament House had never been properly defined. That matter is referred to in the report of the Privileges Committee. The importance of that point in relation to the security of the Parliament is, of course, that before we lay down any provisions we have to determine what we intend to secure.

As I have said, the report of the Committee refers to a need to define the parliamentary precincts. This is based on the evidence of the Clerk, the Deputy Clerk and the Usher of the Black Rod. There are references in the report to the procedure at Westminster and a suggestion that in the Australian context at least some effort should be made to see that the same police force is responsible for the protection of the Parliament inside and outside. That is a suggestion which I recall being made in the days of the Labor Government by the former Leader of the Government in the Senate, now Mr Justice Murphy. It was not acceded to at that time, but the Senate Privileges Committee has now seen fit to make a recommendation on that point. There is a recommendation for the appointment of a parliamentary security co-ordinator.

The report contains a number of other recommendations which I refer to honourable senators because they are of relevance to them personally. There is a suggestion that senators and members should wear some form of identification badge. In general, it would probably be a commendable practice, but the ups and down of political fortunes are such that there are certain occasions when people would not wish to be identified by the public as members of Parliament. There are also some suggestions regarding the identification of visitors who come into the Parliament and an important recommendation that in the Committee’s opinion it is most undesirable that the entrance doors of Parliament House should appear to be garrisoned by groups of officers. Honourable senators will recall that prior to the deliberations of the Privileges Committee it appeared as though one was entering a defence establishment or some such building because of the number of police officers and other officers on duty at the doors.

In an earlier debate on a similar matter I made the point with which I think many honourable senators agree that the best security is the least obtrusive security. At the time I suggested that there was a degree of hysteria about the whole matter and that the flamboyance and very obvious nature of the security in force did not by any means bring about the best form of security. I also refer to the excessive population in Parliament House. I pay tribute to our former colleague, Sir Reginald Wright. He made the point very strongly on the Committee that in his view there were too many people in Parliament House and that that affected, amongst other things, the security of the building. That paragraph of the report concerns all members, particularly where it relates to the new and permanent Parliament House.

The Committee emphasised that no steps which were suggested in the report and in the statements of the Presiding Officers were in any way a breach of the privileges of members of the Parliament. That is the important point which the Committee finally concluded and, in terms of the function of the Privileges Committee, that is its major finding and conclusion. A lot of evidence was given to the Committee in respect of terrorist activities which in my view, as a member of the Committee, was very much based on hearsay and on circumstantial evidence. In the light of that, the Committee’s conclusions regarding this matter are fully justified.

The Committee was chaired by former Senator Drake-Brockman. If I might say so, he worked the Committee hard in the last days of his membership of this Senate and the report, to that extent, is a tribute to him. I say finally that the whole issue illustrates that something which is given a very dramatic and cataclysmic colour by political rhetoric and so on, in the hands of a committee can be put in much better proportion than it might have been if it had been left in the hands, for example, of the present Government. To that extent the whole committee function has done a service to this Parliament and is to be commended. I commend the report to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Peter Baume) adjourned.

page 108

CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT BILL (No. 3) 1978

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

First Reading

Motion (by Senator Webster) proposed: That the Bill be now read a first time.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 108

SECURITY IN PARLIAMENT HOUSE

Report of Privileges Committee

Debate resumed.

Senator THOMAS:
Western Australia

– I should like to refer to some of the matters that occurred to us during the inquiries of the Senate Standing Committee on Privileges. I would like to pay respect particularly to former

Senator Drake-Brockman who chaired the Committee and to former Senator Wright who played a very important part in the Committee’s deliberations. For the benefit of the Senate I will briefly run through the recommendations that we made. The first recommendation concerned the definition of the precincts of Parliament House. The Committee discovered that no attempt had been made to define the precincts of Parliament House and that makes it very difficult to maintain security over the whole establishment. It was pointed out to us that the various responsibilities of the Australian Capital Territory Police and the Commonwealth Police present difficulties. That was drawn to our attention in a very clear and concise way.

The first recommendation of the Committee was that the Parliament should attempt to define the precincts of Parliament House. The second recommendation was based on evidence that we received with reference to the Parliament of Westminster in which, under sessional orders, a certain motion is moved. That motion is printed in the report and I need not repeat it, but I would recommend that honourable senators study it. It is recommended that at the commencement of each parliamentary session the Parliament should establish the police authority that is to protect the parliament.

The third matter that we considered concerned the dual duties of the Australian Capital Territory police and the Commonwealth police. We appreciate that the Mark report is before the Parliament and that it recommends that the two police forces be amalgamated. Accordingly, there is little we can do until the Government makes a decision on that report.

The next recommendation concerned the establishment of a permanent security coordinator. As is probably well known to honourable senators, Mr Worth is filling that position on a temporary basis. It is our firm recommendation that it should be made permanent; that the coordinator should be directly responsible to the Presiding Officers; and that in cases of emergency he should be able to act on his own initiative. It was pointed out that an emergency situation, in which the co-ordinator would not have the time or ability to contact the Presiding Officers, could occur.

The next matter is doubtless of great interest to Senator Georges, who has expressed strong feelings concerning it. I understand that he will be speaking when I conclude. It has to do with the identification of members of Parliament. It was pointed out that in most other parliaments of the world members wear an identification badge. I have had an opportunity of seeing such badges worn in the Diet of Japan.

Senator Georges:

– What a comparison!

Senator THOMAS:

– I must say, in that regard, that on many occasions Senator Georges wears oddly shaped badges representing odd organisations. In fact, I have seen him on television wearing some rather strange badges representing some very strange people, so it should not be very different for the honourable senator to wear an identification badge indicating that he is a member of the Senate of Australia. The Committee recommended unanimously that that practice be adopted in this Parliament also.

With regard to the admission of visitors, the Committee believes that once a signature has been obtained from a visitor and from the member of Parliament who admits him, it should no longer be necessary for the member to be responsible for him; that if, in the opinion of the member, he is of such standing as to be suitable for admission to the precincts of Parliament House he should be regarded as suitable to be allowed to find his own way out, and his own way around the Parliament.

The final recommendation concerned what Senator Sir Reginald Wright criticised so strongly: The undesirability of having too many people around the entrance doors of Parliament House. He used the term ‘garrison’ in describing the concept of having a group of officers at the various doors of Parliament House and convinced the committee that, except in cases of emergency, it was not necessary to have at each door more than perhaps two parliamentary officers and one police officer.

The committee considered this general subject in great detail. It had many meetings and heard much evidence. I refer particularly to the evidence given to the Committee by Mr Fleming, who is attached to the Department of Administrative Services, and by Mr Worth, who is the acting co-ordinator for the security of Parliament House at the moment, as well as the evidence given by the officers of the Senate and the House of Representatives, who provided much useful information. We also had evidence from senior officers of the Commonwealth Police as well as officers of the Australian Capital Territory Police. We were very grateful for the assistance we received from the staff of the Committee. I wish to say again that the report was a unanimous one.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I listened with great interest to what

Senator Thomas said in regard to the wearing of badges of office. He related to us what he saw in the Japanese Parliament. I am one of those people who have no desire to emulate what takes place in the Japanese Parliament. Senator Thomas should be aware that every member of this Parliament has a badge of office, his gold pass, and in my view that is sufficient. If there is any doubt about our identity we can produce our gold passes. I might say that the identification badges worn by the staff are absolutely useless. Unless one had a microscope and leaned right up to the person’s chest one could not see whether the photograph was a photograph of that person. He could wear any photograph at all and nobody would know because the photographs are so small and obscure.

The other thing that concerns me is the pass that is issued to visitors to this Parliament. Some ofthe passes have stamped on them: ‘Will not admit to the Parliamentary Refreshment Rooms’. When senators or members bring their wives, families or guests here they are not allowed to take them into the refreshment rooms if they are wearing a pass that is stamped ‘Will not admit to the Parliamentary Refreshment Rooms’. The security here is so strict that the people in charge of it cannot see that those words should not be stamped on a visitor’s pass. A member of parliament has every right to take his guests into the Parliamentary dining room if he wishes. If not, why is the guests’ dining room still in use? We should abolish it if we are not allowed to take our guests there for a meal or take them to the other part of Parliament House for light refreshments.

If the Senate Standing Committee on Privileges is going to have another look at the security of Parliament House, those are the things that it ought to put under very close scrutiny. I agree with the remarks of ex-Senator Wright that there is a garrison on every door. We hear talk about staff ceilings and about crime in the community, yet we have had a great upsurge in the number of Commonwealth Police staffing the Parliament. Why did that come about? It came about because of a brainstorm of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) as a result of a happening at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Regional Meeting. The incident occurred in Sydney, not in the precincts of this Parliament. Yet because of it this great smokescreen has been put about that we have to have absolute security. The situation is such that yesterday when I escorted a lady to the other place to go into the Visitors Gallery she had to suffer the indignity of having an attendant look in her handbag. I have been informed today that security is so good that there was an occurrence in the other place in which a shower of leaflets was thrown down from the gallery. Where is the security? It is not worth twopence. It is just a waste of time, a waste of public money and a waste of the members of the Commonwealth Police Force, who ought to be employed looking after law and order in this country, not embarrassing people who want to come into the Parliament. This is a people’s House and it should be open to the people, open to the visitors brought here by members of Parliament.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– I will be brief, Mr President, because I wish to allow Senator Mulvihill to speak. However, it is necessary to make the point that Senator Button may have misrepresented the position of senators. It will be recalled that there was a debate in this place during which some substantial submissions were made. My information is that the Privileges Committee took that debate into account and that unless we had something to add there was really not much point in appearing before the Committee. I want to make that clear. I am pleased to see that common sense has prevailed and that during the period we have been absent from this place the rather horrendous proposals in the Presiding Officers’ statement have not been carried out. Some rather constructive work has been done in regard to the security of this place. It was not just from some terrorist act that we needed to be protected; we needed to be protected from other hazards.

I am pleased to say that I have received a letter signed by the Usher of the Black Rod concerning the security of Parliament House and certain evacuation procedures in case of fire and other emergencies. That program, that scheme and the layout of those proposals are in keeping with what the Senate desires. The proposals have been properly determined. Whoever was responsible for the layout of the proposals is to be commended. In particular it is to be commended that this has been done in an unobtrusive manner. That is what we have been trying to get at. The security of this place should have been tightened up. It has been tightened up but it should not be obvious that this has been done.

I make the point that if at any time this place has to be evacuated because of a scare, I hope that the work of the two chambers will not be affected and that we will not suddenly find ourselves having to submit to a plan of evacuation because some lunatic has rung up and said that a bomb happens to be placed in the basement. I take it that in those circumstances when the Houses are in session they would continue to sit whereas the rest of the Parliament might need to be evacuated.

Senator McAuliffe:

– If you want to go up in smoke, that is your business.

Senator GEORGES:

– All I can say to that is that unless honourable senators are prepared to take the risk they ought not to be here. A caper in some establishments in Brisbane is that whenever people want a half-day off work someone rings up and creates a scare. Then everyone just traipses out of the building and spends the rest of the afternoon in the local park. I am not suggesting that we should evacuate for the slightest reason and spend our time in the rose gardens. What has been done in a commonsense way is acceptable.

I raise another point which relates to identification. I am not talking about the identification of parliamentarians. It seems to me that the identification of a person is necessary for that person to gain access to certain areas. But once that person gains access to those areas surely it is not necessary for that person to wear rather prominently a badge which, especially for women, is not in keeping with the rest of that person’s outfit. It seems to me obnoxious that our guests should have to wear those badges in the dining room. Suerly once they enter that area the badge could be put away.

Senator Coleman:

– But your wife cannot get in without you anyway, even if she has a badge.

Senator GEORGES:

-That is another matter with which I shall deal individually. The point I am making is that it seems ridiculous to have over-identification. It is ridiculous also to have an attendant of this place, who by his office is given a special type of identification in the form of a uniform, required to wear a badge also. It is ridiculous also for a policeman with his badge of office, namely, his uniform, having to wear further identification. To my mind that is overdoing it. I would like honourable senators also to take very much into consideration the proposition that if we are to secure this place and to do it in a sensible way so that it is not apparent, the wearing of those identification badges unnecessarily should be discouraged. I make the point also that honourable senators should check up and find out how many badges have been issued. I would say that practically every citizen in Canberra has a badge.

Senator Coleman:

– They are not bringing anything on the black market any more. They were for a while but the fee has gone down.

Senator GEORGES:

– Nevertheless, perhaps this is a matter which can be corrected as quickly as possible.

Senator MULVIHILL:
South Australia

– I will not traverse the matters covered in the contributions by earlier speakers. The only reason I welcomed the reference of this matter to a Senate standing committee was that if we opened the door just a little bit the Senate would at least be able to scrutinize the various security agencies, even if to have only a quick look at them. I have advocated that, with the ballooning budgets of all security agencies, we should see that we get equality ‘ and a small committee should be set up to look at the situation. I have even advocated the resurrection of the Townley committee. I have never been involved in a situation such as that which befell Senator Georges and Senator Grimes, but recently I had to go into a British Minister’s office in Whitehall. It was one of those offices that deals with a very difficult area. I said in jest: ‘Well, what have you got on me?’ They read out a few things including the characteristic: ‘Watchful blue eyes’. Well, I do not know whether I earned that characteristic from being around here, but the point I am making is that the House of Commons at least has a committee that does observe the quality of security.

Senator McLaren raised the question of whether we were getting value for our money. I believe that the consolidation of our various arms of the law in a civilian sense, as set out in each successive Budget, merits a permanent ongoing committee. There has to be co-operation of our security arrangements because of people like the Skull, a very dangerous man, who comes in from New South Wales. I think he is well known for his role in pro-apartheid acitivities in New South Wales. So I simply say this: I endorse all that has been said, but I do not believe the matter should end there. I believe a small committee should be overseeing the various agencies. With all due respect to the Attorney-General, Senator Durack, he knows that I am still awaiting the follow-through in relation to a deal a trainee Australian Security Intelligence Organisation fellow was trying to do with an Eastern European diplomat. It amazed me, that with all the head shrinkers employed by ASIO to test people, how that fellow got through the original screening. The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation has been granted a bigger budget and we will not be able to ask questions about ASIO at the Estimates committee hearings, yet nobody can tell me what the form of recruitment is and how many odd people- mentally disturbed people- ASIO seems to be conned by. It was not only that fellow; there was another one about whom Senator Brown told us. That fellow got hand-outs of government money. On the face of those points, I think we should have an on-going committee. I do not mind whether it is the Button-Thomas committee or even the more illustrious Townley committee, but we should have that committee.

Senator SIBRAA:
New South Wales

– I would hate to see this Parliament in a situation similar to that which I encountered while in the Federal Republic of Germany. To gain admission to the Parliament to see a Minister, I had to put a passport in a metal tray which was then taken away behind a bomb-proof glass window. Then I was admitted into another room where there was some more bomb-proof glass and the Minister had to come out and get my passport, look at it and then sign a paper to verify the fact that I was coming into the Parliament. Such action might have been necessary in West Germany because of groups like BaaderMeinhof, but I do not think it is necessary in Australia at this time.

I support the remarks made by Senator McLaren about the gold pass. If there were to be any problem with any of us getting into any of the entrances of this Parliament, surely, by the showing of the gold pass, this problem would be resolved. Badges were also mentioned. During the general election campaigns in 1974 and 1975, I was working at the meetings with the then Prime Minister of Australia. It was necessary for the special branch to be able to identify those people who had access to the microphones on the stage, and I was one of those people. We were using a badge system that could be identified by the special branch. I will not go into the details, but I would say that 99 per cent of the population could not tell the identification that we were wearing. I think the present badges being used are a farce. As Senator Georges has said, probably thousands of them have been issued. I think one could manufacture such a badge in about five minutes by buying the necessary equipment across the counter at Coles. I think the present badges are useless. I think the whole matter is still quite serious. It is something that ought to be re-examined.

Senator COLSTON:
Queensland

-! wish to mention something which my Deputy Leader, Senator Button, mentioned earlier this evening. I am afraid that his latin was lost on me because it is too long since I studied latin at secondary school. I made a submission to the committee. My submission simply said that I would like the comments that I made during the debate on the issue which was held previously to be taken into account.

Debate interrupted.

page 112

ADJOURNMENT

Radio Station 3CR, Melbourne- Answers to Questions on Notice- Imports of Spirits and Wine

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! It being 1 1 p.m., in conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-Earlier this week I sought to present a petition to the Senate. On examination by the Clerk’s office, I was informed that the petition was not in accordance with the Standing Orders. The petition relates to a radio station known as 3CR in Melbourne and expresses concern at alleged incitement to racial hatred and violence as a result of certain programs on that station. I seek leave to have the petition incorporated in Hansard. It contains more than 50 signatures.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted?

Senator Peter Baume:

– Have you shown it to us?

Senator BUTTON:

-No, but I will.

Senator Durack:

– May I have a look at it?

Senator BUTTON:

-Yes. In relation to the subject matter of the petition I state that in my capacity last year as shadow Minister with responsibility for broadcasting matters I had discussions with some officers of 3CR in which I informed them that I regretted much of the material which was put on station 3CR, but I did affirm their right to say it. I should add that I find that the station in fact does a great disservice to the public broadcasting movement in this country by many of the programs which are put on that station.

I do not normally listen to 3CR myself. The only occasion on which I have done so was to hear a program called, I think, The Waterside Workers’ Breakfast Show, which was presided over by one Jack the Hat who was a natural cornmedian now, unhappily, deceased. It was an exemplary program in terms of the content of the public acclaim which it properly receives. I have not personally heard the material which is the subject matter of the petition. I understand, from people whose views I respect, that it is properly regarded as offensive material. It is regrettable, as I say, that that sort of material is broadcast on station 3CR. For those reasons I have sought leave to have the petition incorporated in Hansard. I subscribe to the general view which is expressed in the petition, although I do not personally subscribe to some of the solutions which are offered.

The PRESIDENT:

– I will ask in a moment whether leave is granted for the incorporation of the petition. I take it, Senator Button, that when you seek incorporation of the document you do not wish that the signatures be incorporated as well.

Senator Button:

– I have indicated the number of signatures on the document. That will be recorded in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

To the Hon. the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned respectf Fully showeth:

This petition is most humbly prayed that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, assured that

The petitioners request that the Federal Government and Broadcasting Tribunal should enforce the required standard of broadcasting as laid down for all other stations, on community radio 3CR call on Federal Government to legislate against incitment to racial hatred and violence.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I wish to raise a matter tonight which I have raised on several occasions in the Parliament. I express my dissatisfaction with the answers that I am getting from Mr Fife, the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. On 5 April, by way of a question without notice, I sought certain information from Senator Durack in his capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. I sought the names and addresses of each company and /or individual who had imported brandy and whisky into Australia in each of the last five years, the quantity of brandy and whisky imported by each company or individual in the last five years and the country of origin of such imported brandy or whisky in each individual case. On 13 June Senator Durack wrote to me. He said:

During Question Time in the Senate on 5 April you requested details of brandy and whisky imported into Australia. I undertook to refer the question to my colleague, the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs for his consideration.

Mr Fife has advised me, after consultation with the Australian Statistician, that the Australian Bureau of Statistics does not record the names and addresses of importers of goods into Australia and therefore statistics on this basis, as requested, are not available.

He went on to say that he was providing me with a chart showing details of the country of origin and the quantities of whisky and brandy et cetera which had been imported into the country. That was not satisfactory to me because it did not answer my question. I could have obtained those statistics from any other source. On 6 July I wrote to Mr Fife as follows:

On 5 April I sought information from Senator Durack in the Senate (copy of question enclosed ).

Senator Durack has written to me under the date of 13 June to say that you have advised him, that as the Bureau of Statistics does not record the names and addresses of importers of goods into Australia, the information I sought is not available.

I take it that what is meant is that the information sought is not available from the Bureau, but would be available from another source.

I would therefore respectfully request that I be supplied with the information I sought from the appropriate authority.

That was on 6 July. To date I have received no information in respect of the details which I sought. On 25 May I raised with Senator Durack another matter which came within the jurisdiction of the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. It was a question in relation to the importation into Australia of a cheap Japanese akadama plum wine. To save the time of the Senate, I will not repeat the whole question. I gave Senator Durack a copy of the advertisement which appeared in the Eastern Press and I asked him whether it was correct. I asked:

If so, will he inform the Senate of the name of the firm which has been granted the import licence for this product . . .

I had received no answer from the Minister, and on the last day of the sitting of the House I again asked:

I now ask the Minister whether he can expedite an answer to my question of 25 May in which 1 sought the name of the firm importing this Japanese plum wine, the date of the granting of the import licence and the quantity of wine imported.

On 5 July Senator Durack wrote to me as follows:

I refer to the Question Without Notice concerning imported plum wine which you directed to me in the Senate on 25 May 1978.

I have been advised by my colleague, the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, that the akadama plum wine which was referred to in the Sydney Sun advertisement of 24 May 1978 is not currently subject to any import licensing or tariff quota arrangements. Under the terms ofthe Industries Assistance Commission Act 1973 the Government would require a report from the Temporary Assistance Authority or Industries Assistance Commission before it could alter the tariff treatment of imported wine.

The question of a reference to the IAC on the future assistance arrangements for the Australian wine producing industry is presently under consideration by the Minister for Primary Industry.

On this occasion the Minister again completely ignored my question. I wanted information as to the identity of the importers of this wine and the quantity that was imported. Yet I am told in a letter from Senator Durack that this information is not available. I am asking Senator Durack tonight why it is not available. Does not the Government know who the people are who import into this country brandy, whisky, vodka and Japanese akadama plum wine? If the Government does not know, how is it getting in? ls it being brought in illegally? ls it coming in the same way as the Vietnamese refugees are coming in? Is it being landed on the country without any proper supervision? I ask Senator Durack for the third time whether he will consult his colleague in the other place and see that he provides me with the information I seek. Otherwise / give notice now that I will pursue the matter though the hearings of the Estimates committees and I will not give up. It will be like when I sought the tabling of the River Murray Commission report. It took me nearly 1 2 months to get the report. I will hang on like a terrier hangs on to a rat until I get that information.

The people in the Riverland region of South Australia, the grape growers, are seriously embarrassed by the situation in which they had to leave a great portion of their last grape crop hanging on the vine because there was no sale for the grapes. This Government is allowing the importation into this country of cheap Japanese plum wine which is in competition with our own home grown product, yet it has the hide to tell us that it does not know who is importing it. Of course it knows. Why will it not tell us? Is the reason that the proprietary wineries which will not buy the produce of the grape growers in the Riverland of South Australia are in fact importing brandy, whisky and this cheap wine? That is why the people of the Riverland of South Australia want an answer. I hope that the Minister will provide that information to me before the Estimates committees sit.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

-! am sorry to delay the Senate and to return it from the heady subject of plum wine to another subject that has already been referred to, but I note that Senator Button tonight has had incorporated a petition. I received a petition from 44 citizens of the State of Victoria who sought likewise to make a complaint. Unfortunately it was not in terms that would be suitable for it to be placed in the record as a petition. They express their concern about certain statements on station 3CR and call on the Government to legislate against incitement to racial hatred and violence. I have shown this document, which I believe is in the same form as the previous one, to members of the Opposition. Without going further and saying any more than Senator Button has already said about the matter, I would like to have recorded their protest since they have gone to the trouble to acquaint the Parliament with it. I therefore seek leave to have the document incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted

The document read as follows-

To the Hon. the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:

This petition is most humbly prayed that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, assured that

The petitioners request that the Federal Government and Broadcasting Tribunal should enforce the required standard of broadcasting as laid down for all other stations,’ on community radio 3CR call on Federal Government to legislate against incitement to racial hatred and violence.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral and Minister for Administrative Services · LP

- Senator McLaren raised an issue in relation to two questions that he asked me as Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife). I do not have any further material in relation to the first question to which he referred and the answer I gave. I was not advised that that matter would be raised by the honourable senator. I will simply take note of what he has said and endeavour to have that -

Senator McLaren:

– I am not blaming you.

Senator DURACK:

– I know that the honourable senator is not blaming me. I am explaining that the message I got from him or from his office did not indicate that that was the problem. Nobody is blaming anybody. I am only explaining that I am not in a position to answer that particular point. The second matter raised by Senator McLaren referred to the importation of plum wine. He has made great threats about what he will do to ensure that he gets an answer to his question. I advise him that he perhaps ought to rephrase his question because I think the one he asked has already been answered. The question he asked me on 25 May was whether I would inform the Senate of the name of the firm which had been granted the import licence for the product, the date of granting of the licence and the quantity imported. The answer I gave him on the advice from my colleague the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs was that the wine referred to by him was not subject to any import licence or tariff quota arrangements. So that is the answer.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 11.14 p.m.

page 115

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Land Zoning of Stumpy Gully Estates (Question No. 176)

Senator Primmer:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 28 February 1978:

  1. Was Stumpy Gully Estates, the land in which the Right Honourable P. R. Lynch or his family company had a financial interest, zoned by the Westernport Regional Planning Authority for conservation purposes or as an area of special interest, prior to Mr Peter Leake’s taking up his position as Chairman of My Lynch ‘s electorate committee on 6 October 1972.
  2. Was the zoning of the land in question altered in any way after 6 October 1972.
  3. Was the original zoning of the land altered in the 12 months prior to 6 October 1972.
  4. Was use of the land in question at all times a matter for the discretion of the Westernport Regional Planning Authority of which Mr Peter Leake was Chairman prior to his association with Mr Lynch.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) to (4) I refer the honourable senator to the statements which have already been made public in respect of these matters following independent inquiry by Mr Stephen Charles, Q.C.

Government Inquiries (Question No. 370)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 10 April 1 978:

  1. 1 ) What Government inquiries have been instituted since 1 January 1976.
  2. ) What has been the total cost of each inquiry.
  3. ) What is the total cost of each completed inquiry.
  4. Which inquiries have submitted reports.
  5. When are the inquiries, which have not yet reported, expected to submit reports.
Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Acting Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: lt has been the practice of successive Governments not to authorise the expenditure of money and effort involved in providing answers to general questions such as this. Certain information relating to major inquiries is contained in the answers to Question No. 192 (House of Representatives 26 May 1977, Hansard, page 2020), No. 73 (House of Representatives 5 May 1978, Hansard, pages 1949-50) and No. 116(Senate 30 May 1978, //anion/, page 2 103).

Army Reserve: Recruiting (Question No. 418)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 3 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many members of the Army Reserve were recruited in each year from 1970 to 1977.
  2. How many Army Reserve members who were recruited in each year from 1970 to 1975 left: (a) within two years; and (b) at the end of two years.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. 1970-7,542, 1971-5,925, 1972-6,377, 1973-5.778. 1974-5,537, 1975-7,437, 1976-6,307, 1977-7,137.

  2. 1970 (a) 3.206(b) 177; 1971 (a)3,076(b) 192; 1972

    1. 3,457 (b) 145; 1973 (a) 3,022 (b) 95: 1974 (a) 2,81 1
    2. 119; 1975 (a) 3.924(b) 172.

Prime Minister’s Telecast (Question No. 430)

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 3 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) How much did it cost the Government to hire the private production company, Colorvideo, to produce the Prime Minister’s address to the nation which was screened nationally on 16 April 1978.
  2. Are such talks traditionally produced free of charge by the Australian Broadcasting Commission; if so: (a) did the Prime Minister’s choice of a private company result from the shortages of staff and facilities at the Australian Broadcasting Commission which are the result ofthe Government’s staff ceilings policy; or (b) was the decision intended to imply that the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s skills and facilities were inadequate for the purpose.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Costs met by my Department in relation to the address to the nation telecast on 1 6 April amounted to $8,48 1 .
  2. The selection of a private company was not related to the Government’s staff ceilings policy nor was that selection intended to have the implications referred to in the honourable senator’s question.

Special Broadcasting Service (Question No. 432)

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 4 May 1 978:

  1. 1 ) Will ethnic groups be considered on an equal basis to other community groups if they apply to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal for a public broadcasting licence.
  2. What are the criteria being used by the Minister in his selection of persons to be appointed to the Special Broadcasting Service.
  3. Will the Minister provide a list of persons so far appointed to the Special Broadcasting Service, including the names of any persons who were appointed, but are no longer working for the Special Broadcasting Service.
  4. When, and through what media, will the Special Broadcasting Service begin operating.
  5. Is the inquiry, announced by the Minister, into an ethnic television station, to be a public inquiry.
  6. Who will be permitted to present views to the inquiry, and who will have access to the proceedings of the inquiry.
  7. What assistance will the Government provide to groups who wish to participate in the inquiry.
  8. What role does the Minister envisage for the Australian Broadcasting Commission in ethnic broadcasting, after the Special Broadcasting Service has commenced operations.
  9. What research has been conducted for the Minister into the potential audience for ethnic broadcasting.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes. In my Statement on the Guidelines for the Planning of Public Broadcasting in Phase 1, I indicated that in planning development of broadcasting services for each particular geographical area, a prime consideration will be the need to offer listeners the widest possible diversity of programming options.
  2. All employees of the Special Broadcasting Service below the position of Executive Director are Public Servants whose positions are filled in accordance with normal Commonwealth Public Service recruitment procedures. Permanent appointments such as those for Director, Assistant Director and Station Manager are advertised in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette and in the press. Temporary positions such as those of Program Officer are also advertised in the press and within 2EA and 3EA programs. The position of Executive Director is a statutory appointment subject to approval by the Governor-General.
  3. –

Executive Director- Ron Fowell

Director- Michael Thompson (Acting)

Assistant Director- Sydney- Jenny Looman

Assistant Director- Melbourne- Yehuda Svoray (Act ing pending permanent appointment) vice Uri Themal (transferred to Immigration and Ethnic Affairs 20 February 1978)

Station Manager- Sydney- Ulf Honold

Station Manager- Melbourne- John d ‘Andrea

Journalist, Grade A- Robin Poke

Journalist, Grade B- Renato Maffei

Program Officer, Grade 3, Sydney- Sophia Catharios

Program Officer, Grade 3, Sydney-Alex Vale

Program Officer, Grade 3, Sydney- Nabil Tannous (resigned 13 March 1978)

Program Officer, Grade 3, Melbourne- Yehuda Svoray (acting as Assistant Director Melbourne from 12 April 1978)

Program Officer, Grade 3, Melbourne- Jose Stobnic

Program Officer, Grade 3, Melbourne- Walter Schauble

Program Officer, Grade 3, Melbourne- Tullio Formosa

Program Officer, Grade 2, Sydney-Pepita Conlon

Program Officer, Grade 2, Sydney- Vladimir Lusic

Program Officer, Grade 2, Sydney-Eduardo Gonzalez

Program Officer, Grade 2, Melbourne- Suheila Speer

Program Officer, Grade 2, Melbourne- Nick Anton

Program Officer, Grade 2, Melbourne-Chris Havik

Program Officer, Grade 2, Melbourne-Kathy Kerry.

  1. The Special Broadcasting Service has been responsible for the operation of the two Ethnic Stations 2EA Sydney and 3EA Melbourne since 1 January 1 978. Negotiations are currently under way for assistance to ethnic groups in Adelaide and Perth who currently broadcast on stations licensed temporarily under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1 905.
  2. No official inquiry has been announced in regard to an ethnic television service. In the Prime Minister’s Policy Speech of21 November 1977, he stated’We have put ethnic broadcasting on a permanent basis and we will establish ethnic television’. This Government commitment was repeated by the Governor-General in his speech on the opening day of the Thirty First Parliament on 21 February 1978 when he stated that ‘An ethnic television service will be established ‘.

The Government will shortly be giving consideration to the various options which are available for the establishment of such a service, but prior to any determination being made on this matter, I would envisage substantial consultation will be necessary with the ethnic communities and all other interested parties.

  1. See above.
  2. See above.
  3. In accordance with the relevant provisions of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942, the ABC is required to have regard to the program services of the Special Broadcasting Service.
  4. Audience research for 2EA and 3EA was conducted in August 1975 by McNair Anderson. The languages surveyed in both cities were Greek, Italian and Turkish. A new survey of a similar nature is currently being conducted in both Sydney and Melbourne so as to upgrade the results of the 1975 survey.

School Building Plans (Question No. 433)

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 4 May 1978:

What is the average time for which schools in Australia have been waiting for departmentally-approved building plans to proceed.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

In the case of government schools State Education Departments carry responsibility both for the determination of priorities for building projects and for the approval of plans. The planning and approval procedures vary from State to State and involve other authorities besides the Education Departments. No details of any delays which may have occurred in relation to these schools are held at the national level and such information would have to be sought from the State Education Departments themselves.

Plans for building projects for those non-government schools which are submitted for Schools Commission funding require only the Commission’s approval. The average time delay for building plan approvals for non-government schools which have been offered Schools Commission grants is 1-2 weeks (i.e. from the date on which a school submits plans to the date on which the school is notified of plan approval). Formal plan approval can occasionally take considerably longer where there appear to be inconsistencies between the nature and standards of the project approved by the Minister and the project submitted by the school for plan approval; any such problems would be resolved by consultation with schools concerned.

In respect of government schools in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, for which the Commonwealth is directly responsible, the normal period of time between the point when the Department approves final sketch plans and when the contract is let is 1 5 months, during which documentation, calling of tenders and consideration of tenders is undertaken. The period between approval of the final sketch plans and completion of the contract is 3-4 years depending on whether it is a primary or secondary school.

Fisheries Research (Question No. 437)

Senator Lewis:

asked the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 5 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) Did the Division of Fisheries and Oceanography in the Commonwealth Industrial Research Organization receive a Commonwealth grant for a study of the Protective Effect of Selenium against the Toxic Action of Mercury Compounds in Fish.
  2. Is it the practice to permit interruption of research projects so funded to enable personnel engaged on them to take sabbatical leave; if not, what were the particular circumstances which permitted the Project Supervisor of this study to take sabbatical leave during the last half of 1977.
  3. What will be the additional costs to the project resulting from delays occasioned by the Project Supervisor’s leave and the rise in the Consumer Price Index during the extra time necessary to complete the project.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) No. A grant to support this project was made to the University of Adelaide from the Fishing Industry Research Trust Account (FIRTA). CSIRO’s Division of Food Research received a grant from this Account to undertake a project entitled ‘ Preparation of fish flour of known mercury and selenium content for animal feeding trials’.
  2. CSIRO officers are not granted sabbatical leave. On occasion they may be required to travel overseas for specific purposes.

I suggest that the remaining questions be directed to my colleague the Minister for Primary Industry who is responsible for the administration of FIRTA.

Professional Divers: Health (Question No. 442)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 5 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) Is the Minister aware of the high incidence of decompression sickness and chronic bone lesions causing serious disability or permanent incapacity among professional divers working in Australian Territorial waters.
  2. Is the Minister aware of the initiatives taken by the Professional Divers’ Association of Australia to have this problem examined.
  3. Did an inter-departmental committee directed by the Department of Health make recommendations for the establishment of a Central Medical Registry on decompression sickness to alleviate this serious problem affecting professional divers; if so, what were these recommendations.
  4. Docs the Minister intend to take any action for the establishment of such a Central Medical Registry.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. Yes. The committee’s recommendations were:

That a central registry on decompression sickness be established; that the National Health and Medical Research Council establish a Committee on Decompression Sickness; and that a small Federal advisory body be formed to consult with the States on the need for co-ordinated facilities to treat decompression sickness.

  1. The National Health and Medical Research Council at its 85th Session in Adelaide in June 1978 approved the establishment of a Committee on Decompression Sickness. I will consider the question of a central register when Council has considered that Committee’s report and advised me.

Mr Wylie Fancher (Question No. 453)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 8 May 1 978:

  1. Did Mr Wylie Fancher, of Atherton and Townsville. Queensland, incur a telephone account of many thousands of dollars in a search for alleged overseas loan raisings by the Labor Government.
  2. Will the Minister inform the Parliament if the telephone account has been paid by the Queensland Government or the Federal Government, and if the answer is in the negative, what action is being taken by Telecom Australia to recover the outstanding amount.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) I am advised that the Australian Telecommunications Commission does not disclose details of telephone accounts and their payment on the basis that these should be treated as being in commercial confidence. This is of course except for those disclosures which are necessary for legal action to recover unpaid accounts. I understand that this was the position also taken by preceding Ministers responsible for these matters.
  2. The action taken by Telecom Australia to recover moneys has already been stated in an answer to Question on Notice No. 956 in Hansard of 14 September 1977, page 1150.

Grants for Tertiary Education (Question No. 456)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 9 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) What was (a) the total value of Commonwealth support; and (b) the value of such support per student for: (a) Universities, (b) Colleges of advanced education, and (c) technical colleges for each of the financial years 1974-75, 1 975-76 and 1976-77.
  2. What was the total level of State support for technical colleges, and the per head level, for the same years.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. The actual expenditure by the Commonwealth Government on tertiary education for 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1 976-77 is set out below:

Enrolment information is not available on a financial year basis; however the actual student load for universities and colleges of advanced education for the period 1974 to 1977 is as follows:

  1. Expressed on the basis of equivalent full-time students calculated from weighted student units as detailed in the Universities Commission’s Sixth Report (paragraph 9.4).
  2. Expressed on the basis of equivalent full-time students as detailed in the Advanced Education Commission’s Fourth Report ( paragraph 6. 1 4 ).

Because of the diverse nature of course provisions in TAFE, there is no conventional method of deriving student load from gross enrolment information. Gross enrolment figures for the period 1 974 to 1 977 are as follows:

  1. Preliminary.

    1. The actual expenditure by the States from State funds on TAFE for 1 974-75, 1 975-76 and 1 976-77 is set out below:

Automatic Word Processing Equipment (Question No. 461)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 1 1 May 1978:

What are the ‘large tenders for sophisticated units’ which are ‘emerging’ in the Bureau of Census and Statistics referred to in the article ‘New generation typewriters outsmart the old electrics ‘, the Financial Review, 1 May 1978.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

The ‘large tender for sophisticated units’, to which the Financial Review article of 1 May 1978 referred, relates to automatic word processing equipment. This typing equipment is linked to an electronic memory and possesses facilities for amendment of drafts and high speed printout. Such equipment permits amendment of drafts without complete retyping in the conventional manner.

The equipment is being sought to upgrade and expand the automatic typing facilities already in use in the Central Office of the ABS and to provide similar facilities for State Offices. Experience with the two machines in use in Central Office at the present time has demonstrated the improved efficiency which can be achieved by these machines in the preparation of the considerable amount of large and often complex typed documents prepared by the ABS.

Tender specifications for the purchase of such equipment have been issued, and replies received, by the Purchasing Division, Department of Administrative Services. Although the final number of these machines which will be purchased is dependent on the processing capacity of the units ultimately supplied by the successful tenderer, it is expected that one machine will be purchased for each State Office and fewer than 10 for Central Office.

Royal Australian Air Force: Electronics Technicians (Question No. 466)

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 1 1 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many vacancies for the positions advertised by the Department of Defence in the Age, dated 29 April 1978, inviting applicants to train as Electronics Technicians in the Air Force which stated female vacancies had already been filled were open to women and to men.
  2. When did the Department advertise the female vacancies for the positions already filled, and by what means.
  3. If there was a less than 50 per cent quota on the number of vacancies open to women, will the Minister explain the reasons for the Department ‘s decision to limit the number of female trainees.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) As at 29 April 1978 there were 44 vacancies available for Air Force electronics trainees for the remainder of the financial year 1977-78. For the financial year 1978-79 it is planned to train a further 250 electronics trainees. Of these trainee positions on any of the many courses commencing over this period, any suitable female applicant up to a maximum of 4 (for the period) will be allotted a place. Until any of these female trainee graduates are available, the positions they will ultimately occupy will remain filled by males.
  2. No such advertising has been undertaken because the specific public advertising for so limited a number could not be justified cost-effectively. It is expected that sufficient suitable trainees will be found eventually from the many female aspirants for RAAF service who join applicant waiting lists each week.
  3. The decision to limit the female vacancies for electronics training to 4 only has been taken until a pilot scheme to determine the viability of the employment of women in this mustering has been evaluated. If the outcome is favourable some increase may be possible.

Commonwealth Employment Service (Question No. 468)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 1 1 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) For what age groups are the figures kept of registrants with the Commonwealth Employment Service.
  2. Does the Commonwealth Employment Service keep figures in each State, or any other figures, of Aboriginal registrants for employment.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Commonwealth Employment Service figures of registrants for employment are kept by two broad age groups: persons under 2 1 years of age and persons 2 1 years and over.
  2. Yes. The CES keeps figures for all States on a monthly basis of aboriginal registrants by sex, age, school-leaver and non school-leaver groups.

Ethnic Liaison Officers (Question No. 472)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 24 May 1978:

Are Ethnic Liaison Officers to be appointed in Government Departments to give attention to matters affecting migrants; if so:

to which Government Departments will they be appointed;

b ) how will selection of these officers be made; and

when will the appointments be made.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. the scheme to designate certain existing senior officers of Government Departments and Authorities as Ethnic Liaison Officers within their own organisations has been implemented in accordance with the Prime Minister’s announcement on 1 March 1978 and following consultations with the Public Service Board. The Departments and Authorities currently participating in the scheme are:

Departments

Department of Aboriginal Affairs

Department of Administrative Services

Attorney-General ‘s Department

Department of Business and Consumer Affairs

Department of the Capital Territory

Department of Construction

Department of Defence

Department of Education

Department of Employment and Industrial Relations

Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development

Department of Finance

Department of Foreign Affairs

Department of Health

Department of Home Affairs

Department of Industry and Commerce

Department of National Development

Department of the Northern Territory

Department of Post and Telecommunications

Department of Primary Industry

Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet

Department of Productivity

Department of Science

Department of Social Security

Department of Trade and Resources

Department of Transport

Department ofthe Treasury

Department of Veterans’ Affairs

Other Organisations

Australian Bureau of Statistics

Australian Electoral Office

Australian Taxation Office

National Capital Development Commission

Public Service Board.

  1. Selection of a senior officer to provide the focus of ethnic liaison matters rests with the head of the Department or Authority concerned in each individual case.
  2. In the organisations and departments listed above the arrangements are already operating.

Defence: Fleet Air Arm (Question No. 473)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 24 May 1978:

  1. Did the Acting Minister for Defence state, on 13 January 1 977, that six Tracker aircraft had been selected, before the Nowra fire, for the Fleet Air Arm.
  2. Did the Minister state that these aircraft would bring the Fleet Air Arm up to a full operational strength of 14.
  3. Did the Defence Department state on 7 April 1977. that the Fleet Air Arm had received only five operational aircraft, which would not require major overhaul for about twelve months.
  4. Did the Department state that a further 1 1 of the 16 aircraft ordered from the United States of America would require major overhaul.
  5. 5 ) When will the Fleet Air Arm be brought up to an operational strength of 14.
  6. ) When will the five aircraft which were sent to the Fleet Air Arm be overhauled.
  7. What is the current estimated cost of the major overhaul referred to in the Minister’s statement.
  8. How many of the Tracker ASW aircraft are presently at an operational standard.
  9. What will be the operational strength of the Tracker ASW squadrons when the remaining 1 1 aircraft referred to in the statement of 7 April 1 978 is completed.
  10. What is the current estimated cost of overhauling these 1 1 aircraft.
  11. How many of the 16 S2G Trackers will be retained for spare parts.
  12. How useful will these aircraft be in providing parts for the S2G aircraft which survived the fire.
  13. Does the Royal Australian Navy have any other sources of spare parts for all Tracker aircraft.
  14. How long is the Royal Australian Navy expected to retain: (a) the S2E; and (b) the S2G aircraft in service with the Royal Australian Navy.
  15. Are the effects on the level of public debate considered when the Minister or his Department issue statements relating to technical matters of defence significance.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. Yes.
  4. Yes.
  5. 5 ) Operational strength of 14 Trackers was regained on 8 December 1977.
  6. The first of the five S2G aircraft delivered to the Fleet Air Arm was sent to Hawker de Havilland at Bankstown for progressive Aircraft Rework (PAR) at the beginning of May 1978 in the normal course of planned maintenance. A PAR provides for each aircraft to be removed from service every 30 months and restored to the degree necessary for it to operate safely for a further 30 months. The remaining four aircraft will progressively undergo PAR at Hawker de Havilland in accordance with the planned maintenance schedule.
  7. Costs of PAR are estimated at $140,000 per aircraft (exclusive of spares).
  8. 8 ) Fourteen.
  9. Fourteen. One additional S2G will be used for sonobuoy trials and the remaining aircraft are to be stored for possible attrition replacement.
  10. Four of the eleven aircraft will be stored as attrition replacement and seven will undergo PAR at an estimated cost of$ 1 40,000 per aircraft (exclusive of spares).
  11. 1 1 ) It is not planned that any will be broken down for spare parts during the life of the aircraft.
  12. 1 2 ) S2G ‘s were not in service with the RAN at the time of the fire but the degree of commonality between the S2E and S2G is assessed at about 85 per cent.
  13. Yes.
  14. 1 4) It is planned that S2E and S2G aircraft will remain in Front Line service with the RAN until 1985, and may be retained beyond that date for Second Line service if required.
  15. Yes.

Defence: Tracker Aircraft (Question No. 474)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 24 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) What is the current estimated total cost of purchasing the 16 Tracker aircraft from the United States, referred to in the Minister’s statement of 1 April 1977, expressed in Australian dollars.
  2. What is the current and future estimated cost of overhauling all 1 6 S2G Tracker aircraft in Australia.
  3. Does the Minister still regard the purchase and subsequent overhaul as ‘exceptionally good value’.
  4. What is the average age of the Tracker aircraft purchased from the United States of America.
  5. How many hours of life are left in: (a) the airframe; (b) the engines; and (c) the avionics of the S2G aircraft.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. The current approved project cost, at January 1977 prices, is $6.938m. This is also the current estimated cost.
  2. Estimated costs are $2. 240m at current prices (exclusive of spares). PAR for 16 S2E aircraft would have cost approximately $1.5m and the real increase in cost of overhaul for the S2G aircraft is $0.740m.
  3. Yes.
  4. Not precisely known, though the USN Bureau numbers are all in a series which were allocated during 1966-67.

  5. (a) airframe- At time of purchase an average of 1 5,000 hours per aircraft.

    1. engines- Engines have no finite life but are stripped and inspected for wear at regular intervals of hours run. As might be expected the total of 32 engines purchased in the 1 6 S2G aircraft had varying hours remaining to next inspection but all were fully serviceable, as witnessed by the aircraft flight delivery across the United States.
    2. avionics- Avionic equipment has no finite life but is maintained on its condition and its ability to meet specified performances.

Teaching of Asian Languages (Question No. 480)

Senator Lewis:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 24 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many teachers who have graduated during the past two years were qualified on graduation to teach Asian languages, and what languages are they.
  2. How many Government schools teach Asian languages, and what languages are they.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) No accurate statistics are available.
  2. Survey information from the report ‘The Teaching of Modern Languages in Australian Schools 1975’ indicates that of Government secondary schools in Australia, 11. 1 per cent taught Indonesian/Malay, 6 per cent taught Japanese and 0.4 per cent taught Chinese. In Government primary schools 0.2 percent of schools taught Indonesian/Malay and 0.4 per cent taught Japanese. These percentages are accurate particularly for high schools as all high schools were included in the sample.

The Asian Studies Co-ordinating Committee of the Curriculum Development Centre conducted a survey earlier this year on Asian language enrolments in primary and secondary schools. I have set out the results of that survey for the honourable senator’s information but 1 would point out that the returns are incomplete.

Post Office, The Monument, Queensland (Question No. 485)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 25 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) When did the post office open at The Monument, Queensland.
  2. Were any special postmarkers used at The Monument post office on that occasion; if so, what were they, and how many articles were cancelled with each.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The post office at The Monument, Queensland opened on 1 November 1976.
  2. There were no special postmarkers used for the opening of The Monument post office.

Australia Council (Question No. 493)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has the Minister seen the suggestion of the Australia Council in their annual report for 1976-77 ‘that Council should be allowed within the constraints of its own budget, to decide whether it can best support certain activities or organisations by providing cash, or the Council ‘s specialist services, or a combination of the two. The rigid staff ceiling does not allow Council to respond to needs as effectively as it would wish ‘.
  2. What consideration, if any, has been given by the Government to this suggestion.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes.
  2. The relevant comments in the report of the Australia Council were amplified further in a submission on staffing which the Council made directly to me. The Government has clearly stated its policy that maximum restraint is to be applied within the Government sector in the interests of the over all recovery of the Australian economy. This restraint applies to levels of staff as well as expenditure and extends to ail Departments and instrumentalities for which it has budgetary responsibility including the Australia Council. The staff ceiling for the Australia Council for 1 978-79 was fixed in the light of that policy.

Naval Vessels: Visit to Brisbane (Question No. 494)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 25 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) Did HMAS Swan, HMAS Yarra. and the submarine HMAS Otway visit Brisbane on Friday 19 May 1978; if so, (a) what was the length of the visit of these vessels; and (b) were any crew members accommodated off the vessels at public expense during the visit; if so, (i) how many members were involved; (ii) where were they accommodated; and (iii) what was the cost of accommodation.
  2. Did any other Australian naval vessel visit Brisbane during the same period; if so, what are the details if questions ( 1 ) (a), ( 1 ) (b) (i), (ii) and (iii) are applied to (2).
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes

    1. 9.00 a.m. on 19 May 1978 to 10.00 a.m. on 22 May 1978.
    2. Yes, the non-duty crew members ofthe submarine HMAS Otway were accommodated ashore at public expense. This was in conformity with normal practice under certain conditions in view ofthe limited accommodation on submarines.
    3. (i) to (iii) 7 officers, Crest Hotel, $42 1 . 85 1 8 senior sailors, Albert Park Motel. $892.09 34 junior sailors, Tower Mill Motor Inn, $2,08 1 . 00.

  2. No.

Universities and Colleges of Advanced Education: Enrolments (Question No. 498)

Senator Archer:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 25 May 1978:

  1. Will the Minister advise the total number of places available in each State and Territory as at the commencement of 1978 at (a) universities; and (b) colleges of advanced education.
  2. What are the total number of students enrolled in (a) universities; and (b) colleges of advanced education.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) (a) Before the commencement of each academic year, the Tertiary Education Commission specifies a planned level of student load for each university for the following year, expressed in terms of equivalent full-time students at the undergraduate and postgraduate levels. Each university decides on the balance of enrolments between full-time and part-time study within each faculty or school. Thus, the number of places offered depends on the balance between full-time and part-time students as determined by the university within the total student load specified by the Commission. However, an estimate of total student numbers which approximate the student load levels for 1978 is contained in Table 4. 1 2 of the Commission ‘s report Recommendations for 1978. The numbers are as follows:
  1. On the same basis, planned enrolment levels for colleges of advanced education, upon which the Commission based its financial recommendations for 1978, are set out in Table 8.4 of the same report. The numbers are as follows:
  1. Student enrolment data for 1978 have not yet been finalized for universities of colleges of advanced education. The number of students enrolled in 1977 was 157,919 for universities and 142,476 for colleges of advanced education.

Tidbinbilla Nature Reserve (Question No. 499)

Senator Archer:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice, on 26 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) What was the budget allocation for the Tidbinbilla Nature Reserve for each financial year since and including 1974-75.
  2. What are the details of the projected development of the reserve.
  3. How many officers are employed on the reserve.
  4. What was the actual or estimated number of visitors to the reserve in each year since and including 1 975.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

I am informed by my Department that:

The budget allocation (using actual expenditure figures) for the Tidbinbilla Nature Reserve since 1974-75 has been:

In 1977-78 it is estimated that expenditure will be of the order of $278,000.

  1. The following development proposals are planned for the Reserve:
  1. 3 ) There are 1 6 officers employed on the Reserve.
  2. The estimated number of visitors to the Reserve in each year since 1 975 is as follows:

Postage Stamps (Question No. 509)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 29 May 1 978:

  1. 1 ) Why will the stamp pack of the Australian trees issue of stamps not be issued on the first day of issue of the individual stamps (1 June 1978).
  2. When will the stamp pack be issued.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Delays in the production of one of the four stamps in the Australian trees series caused the date of issue of the associated stamp pack to be postponed.
  2. The stamp pack was issued on 19June 1978.

Stamp Preview (Question No. SIO)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 29 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many copies of Stamp Preview No. 4. 1978 were mailed to addresses: (a) within Australia; and (b) overseas.
  2. Were any paid advertisements included with copies of this issue of Stamp Preview mailed: (a) within Australia; or (b) overseas; if so, what are the details of this advertisement, or these advertisements, including the number distributed, the cost to Australia Post of printing and distribution and the amount received by Australia Post for distributing the advertisement or advertisements.
Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Minister for Post and Telecommunications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: ( 1 )(a) 231,1 19; (b) 30,782.

  1. Yes; one paid advertisement, for the third edition of The Colour Catalogue of Australian Stamps, published by David Mortimer, Southsea, England, was included with each ofthe 261,901 copies of Stamp Preview No. 4, 1978 mailed to addresses within Australia and overseas. In accordance with the usual arrangements in such cases, Australia Post incurred no printing or additional distribution costs.

Australia Post received additional net revenue of $8,010.25.

Defence: Coastal Air Surveillance (Question No. 511)

Senator Kilgariff:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 30 May 1978:

Are special funds allocated for the following activities: (a) commercial air charter; and (b) Air Force and Navy reconnaissance, in view of the absence of a Coastguard Service in Australia.

Senator Durack:
LP

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

There is no special appropriation of funds in the Defence vote for commercial air charter. Expenditure on charters is provided from normal departmental funds, as required. No funds are provided from within Defence appropriations for the charter of commercial aircraft for civil coastal surveillance.

There is no special appropriation of funds for Air Force and Navy reconnaissance. The flying hours and steaming time used by Service aircraft and ships for civil coastal surveillance are financed from within normal annual appropriations.

Deep Space Tracking Stations (Question No. 515)

Senator Lewis:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 29 May 1978:

Will the telecommunications complex in Deakin, when completed, service the Deep Tracking Stations at Orroral Valley, Honeysuckle Creek, Tidbinbilla or any other tracking station in Australia; if so, what services will be provided.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

Telecom Australia does not plan to provide services for any tracking stations in Australia in the telecommunications complex being constructed in the new building at Deakin. The NASCOM switching centre, established in the existing Deakin telephone exchange building in 1965, will continue as a switching and control centre for all NASA communications to and from the Australian sector and will be slightly upgraded for the NASA space shuttle trials.

Northern Territory Finances (Question No. 520)

Senator Robertson:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Northern Territory, upon notice, on 3 1 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) What are the sources of revenue available to the Northern Territory.
  2. What taxes does the Government expect the Northern Territory Assembly to raise.
  3. In particular, is it the Government’s intention that the Northern Territory raise additional revenue by an income tax levy.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

– The Minister for the Northern Territory has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: ( 1), (2) and (3) The sources of revenue available to the Northern Territory are precisely those available to the existing States and the Commonwealth Government merely expects the new NT Government to act responsibly in its revenue raising activities consistent with the recent financial arrangements agreed between the two Governments.

Commonwealth Employment Service: Advertising (Question No. 528)

Senator Georges:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 1 June 1 978:

  1. 1 ) What funds have been allocated to the Commonwealth Employment Service for advertisements similar to that which appeared on page 6 of the Financial Review, 22 May 1978.
  2. How much ofthe allocation detailed in (1 ) has so far been spent, and in which newspapers have the advertisements appeared.
  3. 3 ) To whom are the advertisements chiefly directed.
  4. Are there any plans to increase this form of advertising; if so, what are the details.
  5. Are similar advertisements appearing on television and radio; if so, what are the details.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The advertisement mentioned was a general advertisement promoting to employers the Government’s manpower training schemes with the objective of creating job vacancies. Funds allocated to promoting the manpower training schemes in 1977-78 were $1,0 15,000.
  2. In 1977-78 approximately $850,000 was spent on promoting the manpower schemes.

Advertisements appeared in 68 newspapers throughout Australia. They are:

New South Wales- Sydney Morning Herald; Daily Telegraph; Newcastle Morning Herald; Albury: Border Morning Mail; Bathurst: Western Advocate; Broken Hill: Barrier Daily Truth; Dubbo: Daily Liberal; Goulburn Evening Post; Grafton Examiner; Murwillumbah; Daily News; Orange: Central Western Daily; Tamworth: Northern Daily Leader; Wagga: Daily Advertiser; Wollongong: Illawarra Daily Mercury; Sun-Herald; Sunday Telegraph; Sunday.

Victoria- Age; Sun; Ballarat Courier; Bendigo Advertiser; Geelong Advertiser; Mildura: Sunraysia Daily; Shepparton News; Warrnambool Standard; Observer; Sunday Press.

Queensland- Courier Mail, Sunday Sun; Bundaberg: News Mail; Cairns Post; Gladstone: Observer; Ipswich: Queensland Times; Mackay: Daily Mercury; Maryborough: Chronicle; Mt Isa: North West Star;

Rockhampton: Morning Bulletin; Southport: Gold Coast Bulletin; Toowoomba Chronicle; Townsville: Daily Bulletin; Warwick: Daily News; Sunday Mail.

South Australia- Adelaide Advertiser; Sunday Mail.

Western Australia- West Australian; Sunday Times.

Tasmania- Hobart Mercury; Launceston Examiner; Burnie Advocate.

Northern Territory- Darwin: Northern Territory News.

National- The Australian Financial Review; National Times; Canberra Times.

Ethnic Press-

Italian- La Fiamma; II Globa; II Corrier/ Settigiorni.

Greek- Athletic Echo; New Country; Hellenic Herald; Greek National Veina; Greek Times; Neos Kosmos; Neo Kyma; Hellenism.

Yugoslav- Novosti; Novo Doha; Coration Weekly.

  1. Employers.
  2. No.
  3. There were no similar advertisements appearing on television and radio at that time, although previously these forms of media had been used.

Queensland Youth Employment Support Scheme (Question No. 529)

Senator Georges:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 1 June 1978:

  1. 1 ) What funds, if any, does the Commonwealth Government provide, either directly or indirectly, for the Queensland Government’s Youth Employment Support Scheme, administered by the Queensland Department of Children ‘s Services.
  2. What liaison, if any, was there between the Commonwealth and Queensland governments prior to the establishment of this scheme.
  3. What continuing liaison is there between the Commonwealth and Queensland governments relating to this scheme.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1), (2) and (3) The Queensland Government’s Youth Employment Support Scheme, administered by the Queensland Department of Children’s Services, aims to assist young unemployed persons to find and retain employment. It operates in two modes:

  1. YESS centres established in Brisbane;
  2. grants up to $4,000 to community organisations in country towns in relation to administrative expenses (not wages costs) incurred by organisations in providing support services to young unemployed persons.

The Commonwealth Government does not provide any funds, either directly or indirectly, for the Scheme.

The Queensland Government initiated discussions at officer level with the Director of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations in Queensland, prior to the commencement of the scheme.

Liaison has since been maintained between the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations and the

Queensland Department of Children’s Services to ensure coordination of services and programmes.

Macquarie Island Mail Drop (Question No. 532)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 2 June 1 978:

  1. 1 ) What was the cost of the mail drop flight to the subAntarctic base on Macquarie Island made by the Royal Australian Air Force on 7 September 1977.
  2. Did the flight carry any passengers; if so, who were those passengers.
  3. Have subsequent mail drop flights been made by the Royal Australian Air Force; if so, how many flights have been made.
  4. Did these flights carry any passengers; if so, who were those passengers.
  5. Is it planned to commence regular mail drop flights to the sub-Antarctic base at Macquarie Island; if so, when will such flights commence, and how frequently will the flights be made.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) There is no cost attributed to the mail drop which was carried out whilst the aircraft was on a routine training mission. RAAF flights in this area are designed to practice crews in long range navigation in areas of high latitude without ground based navigation aids.
  2. 2 ) The flight carried the following passengers:

Senator Townley

Mr D. Rodgers, Press

Mr R. Polkington, Press

Mr T.Gill, Press

Ms J. W. Butler, Press

Mr P. Fuller, Press

Mr F. Schocroft, Press

Major RossSmith, Services Press Liaison.

  1. No subsequent mail drops have been made by the RAAF. However, mail drops are planned for 21 June 1978 and mid September 1978, both for Macquarie Island, when RAAF aircraft have training missions to that area.
  2. Not applicable.
  3. Depending upon RAAF training commitments, the Antartic Division has requested mail drops to Macquarie Island as near as possible to mid-winter i.e. 21 or 22 June, and in September which is the midpoint between the June mail drop and the arrival of the relief ship in November.

Department of Employment and Industrial Relations: Northern Territory Region (Question No. 533)

Senator Kilgariff:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 1 June 1978:

  1. What is the Government’s intention concerning the present structure ofthe Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, in view of the Government’s proposal that the Northern Territory be granted self-government on 1 July 1978.
  2. What will the Department’s responsibilities be in the Northern Territory.
  3. 3 ) What is the present staffing establishment.
  4. Are all positions filled; if not, are the vacancies to be advertised.
  5. Is it intended to review staff ceilings and establishment levels, particularly in view ofthe anticipated development in uranium mining and the construction of a new uranium town.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. A Northern Territory Region, under a position of Director responsible directly to the Permanent Head was created on 11 July 1975. The structure of the Region will be unchanged by self-government.
  2. The Department’s responsibilities in the Northern Territory will be unchanged by self-government. The Department’s responsibilities include the Commonwealth Employment Service, Aboriginal Employment Service, vocational guidance, industrial relations and Government manpower programmes.
  3. Northern Territory staffing establishment at 31 May 1978 was 121.
  4. As at 31 May 1978, 104 out of these 121 positions were actually filled.

There are 52 substantively vacant positions of which 44 have been advertised to date, in the Government Gazette and /or Press.

  1. All Regional Office staff ceilings are being reviewed in the light of the total provisional Departmental ceiling allocation for 1978-79.

Establishment levels are continually being varied in the light of increased workloads and new initiatives. The effects of the anticipated development in uranium mining will be closely monitored, and any necessary variations to establishment will be made in the light of developments in this area.

Unemployment Figures (Question No. 536)

Senator Georges:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 2 June 1978:

  1. 1 ) Are the seasonally adjusted unemployment figures up to and including1 April 1978, prepared by Dr Allan Hall of the Australian National University and published in the Financial Review, 23 May 1 978, accurate.
  2. Will the Government consider reintroducing the preparation and publication of seasonally adjusted statistics.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) It is not strictly correct to talk in terms of seasonally adjusted figures being ‘accurate’ or otherwise. Seasonal adjustment refers to a number of statistical techniques which can be used to evaluate the effects of normal seasonal influences operating on various statistical series. Different techniques may be more or less appropriate for different series. In any event, no seasonally-adjusted series can be regarded as in any way definitive. They must be treated with caution as being no more than useful indicators of movements.

The situation is particularly difficult in respect of the 3 major series currently measuring unemployment in

Australia, namely, the Australian Bureau of Statistics series based on the monthly labour force survey, the Commonwealth Employment Service number of registered unemployed and the Department of Social Security’s number of Unemployment Benefit recipients. In alt 3 series, the adequacy of the seasonal adjustment process depends on the ability of the techniques to identify normal seasonal influences. However, the high level of unemployment as measured by all 3 series since mid- 1974 appears to have been accompanied by shifts in the pattern of seasonal variation and there are currently insufficient data available to enable normal seasonal influences to be identified.

  1. Seasonally adjusted data on CES registered unemployed were withdrawn from publication following an agreement reached at a Conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers of Labour. The question of reintroducing seasonally adjusted data is being kept under review. Seasonally adjusted data will not, however, be reintroduced without consultation with State Ministers of Labour.

Solar Energy (Question No. 537)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister for Science, on notice, on 6 June 1978:

  1. 1 ) Have Professor L. Lyons, of Queensland, and a team working with him, discovered a new method of producing electricity from solar power.
  2. Is the development of the process to the commercial stage in jeopardy because of lack of funding.
  3. Will the Government provide sufficient funds to develop what appears to be a promising method of producing cheap electricity.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Professor Lyons and his team have developed a new method of preparing low cost, high quality thin films of certain semi-conducting materials for the conversion of sunlight into electricity.
  2. Under the Australian Research Grants Scheme, the Government has provided funds totalling more than $240,000 to support this work, including $50,616 in 1978. The research has reached the stage where it may be of considerable interest to industry but more developmental work is needed before any estimate can be made ofthe cost of the electricity produced.
  3. The Government has recently announced the establishment of a National Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Council reporting to the Minister for National Development. Amongst other things, the Council will assess proposals received by the Government relating to energy research and development and recommend research assistance. The Council would be the appropriate body to fund the development of the inventions if they are assessed to have commercial potential.

Payments to Queensland Board of Advanced Education in 1977 (Question No. 541)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 6 June 1978:

Was the Queensland Board of Advanced Education faced with considerable difficulties during 1977 in obtaining prompt payment of its entitlement under the States Grants legislation to meet operating and capital commitments of colleges, as claimed in the Board’s annual report of 1977; if so, why.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

In relation to the comments in the Queensland Board of Advanced Education’s annual report of 1977 I am advised that while some delays have occurred in the administration of States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) legislation these have been only minor in nature. Colleges of advanced education in Queensland have not experienced any significant difficulties in obtaining their full entitlements under the relevant legislation.

Tertiary Education (Question No. 542)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 6 June 1978:

Was the period preceding the establishment of the Tertiary Education Commission and its three associated Councils characterised by a high degree of uncertainty as the outgoing Commissions tended to fulfil caretaker roles, as claimed in the 1 977 Annual Report of the Queensland Board of Advanced Education; if so, why did this occur; if not, what occurred to suggest to the Board that such uncertainty existed.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

It is fair to say that there would have been a degree of uncertainty in the period preceding establishment of the Tertiary Education Commission. As the three Commissions, the Universities Commission, the Commission on Advanced Education and the Technical and Further Education Commission, were aware that their existence was to be terminated it was inevitable also that there should have been some tendency for them to take caretaker roles in relation to some aspects of their responsibilities.

The establishment of the Tertiary Education Commission was an action of far-reaching consequence for Australian education. The Government considered it appropriate for its intentions to be widely known and for those interested, including the institutions and the State Governments, to have sufficient opportunity to express their views on the proposed new arrangements. The hasty introduction of a new structure without consultation would have reduced the period of temporary uncertainty, but at a possible serious cost to the longer term effectiveness of the structure.

In order to facilitate transition from the previously existing arrangements, an Interim Committee for the Tertiary Education Commission consisting of the Chairman of the three Commissions and the Secretary of the Department of Education, as Chairman, met in the period before the establishment of the new Commission.

Colleges of Advanced Education in Queensland: Course Approvals (Question No. 543)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 6 June 1978:

  1. 1 ) Why did the Tertiary Education Commission not consult with the Queensland Board of Advanced Education, as stated in the Board’s 1977 Annual Report, on the Board’s request for approval in 1978 of seventeen new courses.
  2. Were nine ofthe requested seventeen new courses approved; if so: (a) which courses were approved, (b) what were the reasons for not approving the remaining eight courses, and (c) were the reasons for non-approval conveyed to the Queensland Board of Advanced Education; if so, when.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The decision by the tertiary Education Commission not to approve for funding purposes in 1978 eight new courses recommended by the Queensland Board of Advanced Education was made in October 1977 on the advice of its Advanced Education Council. Following the decision, representatives of the Board and the Council discussed the matter and correspondence was exchanged. The Council subsequently reviewed its earlier recommendations and, on its advice, the Commission reaffirmed its earlier decision not to approve these courses for introduction in 1978.
  2. (a) and (b) I refer the Honourable Senator to my reply to Senate Question No. 1 which appeared in Hansard of 24 May 1978.
  3. ) (c) The Commission ‘s original decisions on the seventeen proposed new courses were conveyed to the Queensland Board of Advanced Education on 28 October 1977. The background to the decisions to defer approval of courses was set out in a letter to the Board on 10 November 1977. Advice that the Commission had reaffirmed its original decision was given to the Board in a letter on 23 December 1977.

Tertiary Education, Queensland (Question No. 544)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 6 June 1978:

Did the Queensland Board of Advanced Education make known its views to the Commonwealth Government, prior to the publication of the Board ‘s 1 977 annual report, of the implied criticism in that report of the ‘relatively long delay in establishing the new bodies (the Tertiary Education Commission and its three associated councils) after public announcement of the Government’s intentions’; if so, what was the Commonwealth Government’s response; if not, does the Commonwealth Government now intend to respond to the Board ‘s comment.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

While it is possible that in the period before the Tertiary Education Commission was established reference was made in day-to-day contacts between the Queensland Board of Advanced Education and the Commission on Advanced Education to timing ofthe establishment of the TEC, there is no record of any formal complaint from the Queensland authorities to the Commonwealth Government; and it would not be appropriate for the Commonwealth Government to respond to the Board’s comment on the basis of a report made by it to the Queensland Government.

Women’s Royal Australian Naval Service (Question No. 547)

Senator Townley:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 8 June 1 978:

  1. Are officers in the Women’s Royal Australian Naval Service paid only about 80 per cent of the pay of equivalent officers in the Royal Australian Navy, whereas Petty Officers and other ranks in the Women’s Royal Australian Naval Service receive 98 per cent of the pay of male petty officers and sailors.
  2. When will equal pay be extended to Women’s Royal Australian Naval Service officers.
  3. When will the ranks of Women’s Royal Australian Naval Service Officers (currently Third Officer, Second Officer, First Officer and Chief Officer) be changed to the male equivalent, namely Sub-Lieutenant, Lieutenant, Lieutenant-Commander and Commander.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) The Government has accepted the recommendations of the Committee of Reference for Defence Force Pay that salary differences between all male and female members of the Defence Force be abolished. Subject to the gazettal of the necessary regulation changes, payment will be effected from 5 January 1978 for Air Force and 6 January 1 978 for Navy and Army.
  2. Male rank titles for the categories mentioned will apply to female officers in the Women’s Royal Australian Naval Service from the date of gazettal of amending regulations.

Seaweed (Question No. 550)

Senator Archer:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 8 June 1978:

  1. 1 ) What regulations exist concerning the harvesting of seaweed from the shores of Australia?
  2. ) Are such regulations under State jurisdiction; if so, are the provisions of all State laws relating to harvesting seaweed similar?
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Some States have legislation controlling the harvesting of seaweed from the shore. Under Commonwealth regulations it is an offence to gather seaweed in Jervis Bay.
  2. Except for areas such as Jervis Bay, the harvesting of seaweed from the shore comes under State jurisdiction. I understand the regulatory approach taken by the various States is not similar. Details of State legislation would need to be ascertained from the State departments concerned.

Seaweed (Question No. 551)

Senator Archer:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 8 June 1978:

Is the seaweed resource around Australia available for utilisation and exploitation?

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

Yes, subject to the provisions of the relevant State and Commonwealth legislation.

Seaweed (Question No. 552)

Senator Archer:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 8 June 1978:

Are there any restrictions on the use of seaweed, in any form, as food additives or as fertilizer?

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

Regulation of the use of seaweed and its derivatives in foods for domestic use is the responsibility of State governments.

I understand that there are no restrictions on the use of seaweed as a food or as a food component provided that it meets general requirements relating to hygiene and labelling.

Derivatives of seaweed which are used as additives (i.e. agar agar, alginates and carrageenan) are mostly interchangeable and are permitted in a wide range of foods at specified levels. These additives must also conform to specifications of purity laid down in authoritative reference texts such as the Food Chemicals Codex or the British Pharmacopoeia.

Control over the sale of fertilizers is primarily a responsibility of the State governments and as far as I am aware there is no State legislation relating specifically to the use of seaweed as a fertilizer. The question of uniform standards for organic and natural fertilizers has been considered by the States, and it was recently agreed that a condition for registration by State Fertilizer Boards or other controlling agencies, of special fertilizers with low concentration of conventional plant nutrients, is that adequate efficacy data be submitted prior to acceptance of registration.

Seaweed (Question No. 553)

Senator Archer:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industy, upon notice, on 8 June 1978:

  1. Has the Department of Primary Industry experimented with, or verified trials of, seaweed or seaweed products in Australia?
  2. Has it received any requests to do so?
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

– The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1)and (2)No

Seaweed (Question No. 554)

Senator Archer:

asked the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 8 June 1978:

  1. 1 ) What information does the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization have on trials, carried out by universities or similar institutions, State authorities, companies or individuals in Australia, with seaweed extracts or products in (a) fertilisers, and (b) food additives.
  2. Is any of the data accepted and approved by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) CSIRO is aware of experiments with seaweed extracts as fertilisers by the Victorian Department of Agriculture and the University of Tasmania. One Australian company producing a seaweed extract mentions trials in its publicity material. CSIRO has no knowledge of experiments in Australia with seaweed extracts and/or products as food additives, though such products as agar, algin and carrageenan are extensively used as additives on a routine basis.
  2. CSIRO is not aware of any Australian experimental data published in recognised scientific research journals. It knows of an honours degree thesis held in the University of Tasmania. It would accept results published in recognised journals or presented in theses for which higher degrees were awarded.

Seaweed (Question No.555)

Senator Archer:

asked the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 8 June 1 978:

  1. 1 ) Does the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization recognise seaweed as a resource available for utilisation.
  2. Under what circumstances would the Organization engage in research or trials on the use of seaweed as food additives or fertilisers.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1) CSIRO recognises that seaweed can be used as a resource and is so used in various countries ofthe world.
  2. CSIRO would engage in research on seaweed as a food additive or fertiliser if the Organization were satisfied, after full consideration, that it should respond to a perceived national need in keeping with its statutory responsibilities, and that the necessary research resources could be made available. It might be possible on occasion for a CSIRO research group to accommodate a small project within its existing commitments. In all cases, CSIRO would have to be satisfied that a geniune research need existed. The Organization does not test proprietary commercial products as a service.

Seaweed (Question No. 556)

Senator Archer:

asked the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 8 June 1978:

  1. 1 ) Has the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization experimented with, or verified other trials of, seaweed in Australia.
  2. ) Has it received any requests to do so.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) During the Second World War, when supplies of agar from Japan ceased, CSIRO’s predecessor, the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, made a study of the manufacture of agar from Australian seaweeds, which included an assessment of the seaweed resources available. In the early 1950s, CSIRO studied the giant brown kelp from which alginates are made and assessed the potential of the kelp beds off Tasmania’s east coast. In 1975, CSIRO experimented with a proprietary brand of aqueous seaweed extract fertiliser called ‘Seasol’. This was done because, at the time, it was believed there might be scientific value in attempting to find whether the product had any unusual properties over and above those of conventional inorganic fertilisers. No such properties were found, under the conditions of the experiment.
  2. The work on ‘Seasol’ was done at the request ofthe manufacturer. Subsequently, the manufacturer made a second approach asking that CSIRO carry out a wide range of further experiments to enable the manufacturer to meet import regulations of countries into which he was hoping to introduce ‘Seasol’. CSIRO declined the request because ofthe earlier results and the fact that the Organization does not provide an analytical service to manufacturers of proprietary products. In 1975, the South Australian Coast Protection Board asked CSIRO to investigate ways of using or disposing of seaweed that had been accumulating on some of Adelaide ‘s beaches, but the Organization was unable to accommodate any such work into its existing research programs.

Seaweed (Question No. 557)

Senator Archer:

asked the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 8 June 1 978:

  1. 1 ) Are the results of trials on the use of seaweed overseas, such as the work done in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics which has indicated substantial yield increases in selective cropping, accepted and recognised by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization.
  2. What information does the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization have on such work and use.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Provided that the results of overseas work on seaweed are published as research papers in internationallyrecognised scientific research journals, CSIRO will accept such work.
  2. CSIRO has available abstracts of more than fifty published research papers, bibliographies, review articles and text books on the subject of seaweed utilisation and properties around the world. In general terms it can be said that seaweed is used as a resource to varying extent in numerous countries. It is used extensively as an important source of the food additives agar, algin, and carrageenan. It is also used in some countries as the raw material for an aqueous extract fertiliser, or directly as an organic fertiliser in much the same way as many other organic materials are used in areas where bulk quantities are available at little cost. There is some evidence that substances known as cytokinins present in certain seaweed species, under some circumstance, stimulate cell activity and plant vigour and depress the effects of pathogenic soil-borne organisms. Cytokinins are the subject of current Australian research. However, no consistent evidence has emerged to suggest that seaweed fertilisers have special advantages in most commercial situations over conventional and generally-used inorganic and organic fertilisers, and it is likely that they would be less cost-effective than the latter as a source of standard nutrients.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 16 August 1978, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1978/19780816_senate_31_s78/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant