Senate
14 September 1978

31st Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 31st Parliament
  3. 1978

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Condor Laucke) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 591

PETITIONS

Metric System

Senator LEWIS:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 23 citizens of Australia:

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

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth objection to the Metric System and request the Government to restore the Imperial system.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Telephone Charges

Senator LEWIS:

– I present the following petition from 15 citizens of Australia:

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

Telephone users outside major metropolitan telephone districts, particularly those conducting businesses outside those districts, suffer an unfair burden for fees charged for calls.

The system of charging for calls on the basis of distance between non-adjoining zones instead of for the time of the call is unreasonable.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should require Telecom Australia to meter all calls, including local calls, and charge a uniform rate on a time basis regardless of distance between calling parties.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Freedom of Information Bill

Senator SIBRAA:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 26 citizens of Australia:

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

We, the undersigned librarians at the Dixson Library, University of New England, Armidale, NSW, are gravely concerned at the following aspects of the ‘Freedom of Information Bill 1978’:

That there are so many categories of exempt documents.

That Ministers and senior Public Servants will have absolute power to grant exemption certificates denying access to documents.

That there will be no right of appeal against exemption certificates.

That an unduly long period of 60 days is allowed for decisions on access to documents.

That the provisions of the Bill will not apply retrospectively.

As professional librarians we are strongly committed to maintaining the free flow of information which is essential to any elightened democracy. We believe that the Bill, if passed in its present form, will not achieve its stated object or ensuring free and full access to official documents.

Your petitioners therefore respectfully urge that the Bill be referred to a Senate Committee of Inquiry, and that the Committee give particular attention to the provisions outlined above.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

page 591

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 591

QUESTION

ELECTORAL REDISTRIBUTION INQUIRY: ALLEGATIONS AGAINST DISTRIBUTION COMMISSIONERS

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Administrative Services. In sworn evidence before the McGregor Royal Commission on 7 June the Minister’s predecessor said:

Nobody ought to believe that this was the sole and only piece of criticism about the last redistribution. There were far more serious allegations made in New South Wales- far more serious. There were allegations made against the Commissioners in Western Australia over the boundaries of the Kalgoorlie seat. There were allegations made almost everywhere.

Is the Minister aware that this sworn evidence was given? Has he had time to investigate the matters? If so, with what result?

Senator CHANEY:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Education · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– The piece of evidence read out by the Leader of the Opposition is a piece of evidence that I think I read, but I have no precise recollection of the words. I accept that they are the words which were used on 7 June. I have not had an opportunity to investigate those allegations, although the Leader of the Opposition may remember that there was debate in this chamber about the redistributions in Western Australia. I remember that debate particularly because that country of course, is a part of the country with which I am most familiar.

Members of the Opposition did make some complaints in this chamber, as I recall, that the seat of Kalgoorlie had been altered to the Australian Labor Party’s detriment by the inclusion of certain parts of the northern wheat belt. As I recall, the response that was given to that question was that this was part of the process which had been demanded by the Opposition for many years, namely a process of equalisation of the size of electorates. The seat of Kalgoorlie is now within 5 per cent or 6 per cent of quota, a matter which I would have thought would have gladdened the hearts of those who favour one vote one value.

If there are more serious matters than that implicit in the quotation which has been put before the Senate by the Leader of the Opposition I will, of course, have them checked. I can say in general with regard to the Royal Commission report that it is my view that there are a number of matters in it which require detailed consideration and analysis.

One other matter that has been raised by the Opposition, by Senator Button and, I think, by Senator Gietzelt- I referred to this matter in the tabling statement that I made on Tuesdayrelates to future practices in respect of the preparation of electoral analyses and when they are prepared what ought to be done with them. I would say to the Opposition that matters such as that are matters which require serious consideration. They need government consideration; they need reporting to this chamber and no doubt debate in due course.

page 592

QUESTION

EXTRATERRITORIAL ENFORCEMENT OF ANTITRUST LAWS

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Did the Attorney-General, on his recent visit to the United States of America, discuss with the Government the possibility of an agreement in relation to the enforcement in Australia of American antitrust laws particularly as they affect uranium marketing? If so, in view of the severe monetary penalites involved in the antitrust laws in America and the possible consequences for some Australian companies, will he inform the Senate on the current state of the negotiations?

Senator DURACK:
Attorney-General · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– As honourable senators probably know, I took the opportunity in the two-week parliamentary recess to visit Washington with senior officers of not only my own Department but also the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs and the Department of Trade and Resources for the purpose of having consultations with the United States AttorneyGeneral and representatives of his Department, the Department of State and the Federal Trade Commission concerning the extraterritorial application of antitrust laws. The Senate will recall that concern about the extraterritorial application of United States antitrust laws led to the enactment of the Foreign Proceedings (Prohibition of Certain Evidence) Act 1976. Orders were made under that Act prohibiting Australian based evidence from being used for the purpose of United States legal proceedings concerning marketing arrangements for uranium.

Those proceedings included a grand jury inquiry and civil action for treble damages by the Westinghouse Corporation, in which action at least one Australian company was a defendant. Since the orders were made the Australian Government and primarily my Department have had detailed exchanges with the United States Government in relation to the grand jury inquiry. I am pleased to say that that has now terminated without any prosecution proceedings being instituted against any Australian company. I believe that submissions that we made to the United States Government in connection with the grand jury inquiry assisted the United States authorities to reach their decision not to institute any such proceedings.

The arrangements for the consultations which I had last week in Washington were made some time ago, following a meeting between my predecessor and Judge Griffin Bell. The aim was to explore how, for the future, the enforcement policies of the United States authorities might take account of the laws and policies of the Australian Government and the national interest of Australia. The consultations were broadly based in that they were concerned not only with prosecution proceedings but also with civil proceedings which are of great significance because they can result in damages of enormous sums- the treble damages suits- to the detriment of the national interest of countries such as Australia.

I am pleased to say that the consultations I had last week were both friendly and constructive. When the consultations were first proposed it was hoped that they would serve the useful purpose of enabling each side to obtain a better understanding of the other’s position. In fact, they went much further than that and it became clear that there was a desire on both sides to reach an agreement. As a result of the consultations I am looking forward with some optimism to the prospect of that agreement being reached in the near future. A further meeting at officer level is expected to be held soon with a view to reaching such an agreement.

Senator YOUNG:

– I wish to ask a supplementary question. The Attorney-General used the words ‘in near future’. Can he give some indication of what he means by those words?

Senator DURACK:

– It is anticipated that the heads of agreement on which the consultations took place will be considered in detail over the next two or three months by the Department of Justice and the other United States departments involved. That document, of course, then has to be submitted to us for further consideration. We are hoping at this stage that such an agreement will eventuate within six months.

page 593

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY: SYSTEMS AND PROCEDURES

Senator GRIMES:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-I ask the Minister for Social Security a question. In view of the allegations made by the Auditor-General of overpayments of pensions and benefits in her Department and her announcement that changes are to be made to prevent this, will she make available to the Senate the findings of the review team which looked at the operational systems and procedures of her Department so that senators and others may be better able to judge the need for the reforms which are being carried out in her Department?

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

– The report of the review team which was received by the Department is not in a form that is capable of being circulated, bearing in mind the responsibility of government to protect the systems and procedures that are used to ensure that only those who are eligible are receiving pensions and benefits. There were recommendations in the report which, if publicly disclosed, would make difficult the Department’s job of ensuring that there is no abuse of the social security system. It was decided by the Government that it was not a report that would be publicly released. If Senator Grimes has an interest in the systems and procedures that are used within the Department I will see that an officer is able to advise him so that he may be informed of any systems about which he has some questions. It was considered that it would not be in the public interest publicly to release the report of the review team.

page 593

QUESTION

MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATIONS

Senator COLLARD:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Recognising the effect that the sales tax reduction as announced in the Budget will have on motor vehicle registerations and also the fact that motor vehicle registrations are generally regarded as an economic indicator and thus the figures for the September quarter will not be a fair indicator, can the Minister advise the Senate of the number of motor vehicle registerations in the two quarters prior to the Budget?

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

– The latest available figures are contained in the August issue of Round-up of Economic Statistics’ published by the Treasury. No doubt, Senator Collard would be aware of that publication and that issue. It discloses that in the month of June registrations of new motor cars and station wagons, seasonally adjusted, rose by 3.5 per cent to 36,900 vehicles. This compares with 35,600 vehicles in May and an average monthly level of 35,900 for the first nine months of 1977-78. In the June quarter, registrations totalled 1 10.300 compared with 106.900 in the March quarter and 105,700 in the December quarter. I have a copy of the latest issue of the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ bulletin entitled ‘Registrations of New Motor Vehicles’. It contains further details, including the number of new vehicles registrations up to July 1 978 in all States. I will let the honourable senator have a copy of it.

page 593

QUESTION

VENOM DISEASES

Senator MCAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Health whether the Government is aware of the little, if any, formal instruction given at any medical school in Australia about Australian venom diseases and the treatment of bites from venomous Australian creatures such as snakes, spiders and some marine creatures. Is the Government concerned at this lack of knowledge in most Australian doctors and does the Government intend encouraging the introduction of such courses for medical students, particularly students in those areas of Australia where the incidents of such diseases is highest? Is the Government aware of the concern of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories at the lack of knowledge and the widespread misunderstanding among the medical profession about the correct management of snake bite?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

- Senator McAuliffe has raised an interesting and important question. In answer to the first two parts of his questionthat is, whether the Government is aware of the little, if any, formal instruction and whether the Government is concerned at this lack of knowledge- I am advised by the Minister for Health that he would answer yes to both questions; he is concerned about the lack of knowledge. In the third part of the question the honourable senator asked whether the Government is aware of the concern of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. The Minister for Health is concerned about that matter also and I understand that he has referred it to the National Health and Medical Research Council in the context of its current investigations. As to the first two parts of the question, the Minister for Health also advises that this matter has been considered by the National Health and Medical Research Council which has been investigating the provision of publicity on this information to the medical profession. The matter raised by Senator McAuliffe is one of concern and is receiving the attention of the National Health and Medical Research Council. It is hoped that the problem that has been highlighted can be overcome.

page 594

QUESTION

HOUSING: RENTAL SUBSIDIES

Senator MacGIBBON:
QUEENSLAND

-My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. In view of the fact that section 26E of the Income Tax Act is being reviewed, will the Minister take all reasonable steps to ensure that parity is maintained between all employees receiving subsidised housing from their employers because in Queensland at the present time employees in the sugar industry are financially disadvantaged with respect to other industrial employees in a similar category?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I draw Senator MacGibbon’s attention to the fact that recently in another place the Treasurer responded to a similar question by Mr Braithwaite. The Treasurer said that a review of section 26E of the Act is being carried out by the Government and in the course of the review the Government will be taking advice, naturally enough, from the Commissioner of Taxation. The Government can say to honourable senators that in the course of that review it will take into account the position of persons and companies which presumably recently received assessments of tax based on revised rental values. The honourable senator would appreciate that whenever changes, of either a minor or major degree, occur in revenue laws there is always a cut-off point of some description and some people receive and some do not receive the alleged benefit of the change. I cannot give the honourable senator any assurance other than that I will keep in mind and bring to the attention of the Treasurer that in the course of the review what he said should be given full consideration.

page 594

QUESTION

ARREST OF CROATIANS

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I refer the AttorneyGeneral to the recent arrest of a number of Croatians allegedly involved in illegal activities at Eden on the South Coast of New South Wales. Is it a fact that amongst those charged are persons whose names were included in the documents tabled in the Senate in 1973 by the then Attorney-General, Senator Muphy, when the Senate was concerned wtih Croatian terrorism? Does the Minister have the names of such persons who have a consistent association with terrorist organisations or activities and who are known to be involved in acts against a friendly power?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– There are people who are now on very serious charges as a result of raids. It would be totally improper and, indeed, deplorable, if I were to make any statements implicating or implying in any way the guilt of the people in those proceedings or in other proceedings.

page 594

QUESTION

GOULBURN ISLAND: WATER SHORTAGE

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Construction. I refer to Goulburn Island off the north coast of Arnhem Land, where the Aboriginal people experienced an extreme water shortage towards the end of the last dry season. Following representations, certain works have been programmed to alleviate the shortage, which was particularly serious last year. Can the Minister advise now whether planning and programming have been completed to overcome possible future shortages of water, particularly in the latter part of this year?

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

– Following the transfer of responsibilities to the Northern Territory, I understand that the water supply for Goulburn Island is now the responsibility of the Northern Territory. I can inform the honourable senator that the works to which he refers have been included in the draft 1978-79 civil works program. The estimated cost of the water reticulation system is about $240,000 and the cost of the boat landing facility is about $183,000. The provision of a water reticulation system will be given priority and, subject to its inclusion in the approved program, the Department of Construction expected that it would invite tenders for the work about the end of July 1978. The boat landing facility requires some detailed design work prior to the calling of the tenders, but construction of the project is expected to commence later in the 1978-79 financial year. I note that the Aboriginal councils are concerned about the water supply system. The Minister for Construction has indicated to me that Senator Kilgariff can be assured that this installation will be given attention as soon as the project is included in the approved works program.

page 594

QUESTION

ALICE SPRINGS RAIL LINK

Senator ROBERTSON:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. Is it a fact that secondhand rails are being used in the construction of the rail link between the southern States and Alice Springs? Is it also a fact that plans to build a modern passenger and freight terminal in Alice Springs have been scrapped? If so, will the Minister not agree that these actions are inconsistent with the

Government’s announced intention to build a line of world standard and provide appropriate facilities to complement that line? Will the Minister undertake to take immediate steps to see that the promise given to the people of Australia is honoured?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I will refer that question to the Minister for Transport for a reply.

page 595

QUESTION

CATTLE DISEASE

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

-Has the Minister for Primary Industry been approached by the Tasmanian Government concerning the declaration by Tasmania that it has an advanced disease free status relating to cattle? Has the Minister or his Department received representations on the matter? Does the evidence and information available indicate that such a declaration would be reasonable, and are there any reasons why such a declaration should not receive full support from this Government and the animal health authorities? Is the way now open for Tasmania to make this declaration, having in mind the benefits this could give to Tasmanian breeders of cattle free from the vast majority of diseases known either Australia-wide or world-wide?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for Primary Industry has indicated that he has not been approached by the Tasmanian Government to agree to or to comment on any proposal to declare Tasmania as having achieved advanced disease free status for cattle. So, apparently, the State Government has not made an approach for that purpose. The Minister has received representations on this matter from Senator Archer. Undoubtedly, he is more interested in that State than many of the people who are involved in government there at the present time. Information available will support a special cattle health status in Tasmania for the diseases of brucellosis and tuberculosis, which have been eradicated. The Bureau of Animal Health has already notified the international animal health organisations and Tasmania is noted in the various animal health year books as being free of these two diseases.

Hydatids eradication is well advanced, whilst other diseases, such as ephemeral fever and tick fever, have never appeared in Tasmania. Perhaps that is because there is a Labor Government there! There is no reason why any declaration on animal health should not receive the full support of the Commonwealth Government provided that such a declaration does not adversely affect the national interest or does not draw undue attention to relatively minor or doubtful cattle diseases in other States. The

Commonwealth Government would not encourage any State or Territory to declare itself free of a disease agent which might cause disease but which at the present time does not cause disease in the field.

page 595

QUESTION

PATERSON’S CURSE

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for Science: What methods of biological control have been developed by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation for the weed, Paterson ‘s Curse? When is it proposed to implement these controls?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– The honourable senator has asked a particularly important question. I can assure him that he raises a matter which, even though his Labor colleagues in their ignorance laugh at it, is a very important matter. For instance, those people who are interested in primary industry and those people who have knowledge of this matter are aware that Paterson ‘s Curse is indeed a curse for many farmers and producers, but it is the lifeblood of some particular primary producers. In the past year, I have received many letters requesting me not to take notice of the pleas that I have received from various councils and from sheep and cattle interests asking that the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation pursue the development of a means of getting rid of Paterson ‘s Curse. Apparently the beekeeping industry, which is important, is very much involved in the use of Paterson ‘s Curse in the production of a particular type of honey.

This presents a problem because the CSIRO has been requested to make some investigation into the biological control of this weed. Indeed, it believes at present that it has had some success. It believes that it is an appropriate time for it to attempt to distribute some small insects which might be able to control Paterson ‘s Curse. However, with the conflicting interests that are abroad in the primary industry field, the CSIRO has referred the matter back to the Australian Agricultural Council. It is there that a decision must be made as to whether the CSIRO, for which I am responsible, should pursue the policy of attempting to rid Australia of Paterson ‘s Curse or whether the interests of those people who wish to retain Paterson ‘s Curse should be paramount.

page 595

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT LOAN: INTEREST RATES

Senator MESSNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question which is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer refers to the recent Government loan, which closed on 2 1 August. Can the Minister inform the Senate of the details of the loan? Is it a fact that cash subscriptions to this loan constituted an all-time record? Could the Minister say whether, with this Government’s credit rating both at home and overseas so high, the August loan result will help create the circumstances for further reductions in interest rates?

Senator Georges:

– He has given the answer, too.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– Even Senator Georges ought to be interested in the success of a major cash loan. Certainly the Jeremiahs would find nothing to crow about. That is a matter of judgment for Senator Georges. Addressing myself to the positive question raised by Senator Messner, the fact is that the cash subscriptions for the August loan constituted an all-time record. Subscriptions totalled $780m, surpassing the previous highest Commonwealth loan raising, which was in July 1976, by $54m. Subscriptions from the non-bank sector totalled about $575m, or approximately 74 per cent, and that is particularly significant.

Subscriptions were well spread over the four stocks offered in the loan. The 1980 stock attracted 17 per cent of subscriptions, the 1983 stock 37 per cent, the 1988 stock 24 per cent and the 1997 stock 22 per cent. In addition, of the $44 lm in securities which matured on 15 August, $41 7m has been converted, $18m has been redeemed, whilst holders of $6m have yet to indicate their intention. Yes, the loan result is a clear indication of this Government’s credit worthiness. It is also a clear indication of general acceptance of the Government ‘s economic policy as outlined in the Budget. The loan result will help to create circumstances in which a sustainable reduction in interest rates could occur.

page 596

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES: FEDERAL AND STATE UNIONS

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Attorney-General, both in his own ministerial capacity and as the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. I refer to the repeated pleas by Sir John Moore about the failure to provide some detailed apparatus that will meet a dispute where one of the parties has State trade union registration and the other is in the Federal sphere. The Minister will know of the case I am talking about, involving the Transport Workers Union of Australia in New South Wales and the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia and concerning a container dispute. I make the point that, with changed working operations, there will be more of these genuine disputes. Can he say what the Government is doing to meet the concern of Sir John Moore as well as my concern and the concern of Senator Bishop when we raised it 12 months ago in relation to the Estimates?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-I take it that Senator Mulvihill is referring to the vexed problem known as the Moore v. Doyle situation. Is that the one?

Senator Mulvihill:

– Yes.

Senator DURACK:

-I thought so. That is why I have decided that at this stage I should fall back on my right not to give legal opinions in answer to questions. I recognise the enormous complexities and difficulties that are inherent in this and the lengthy debates, political and otherwise, that have gone on about it, and the concern felt by everyone who works in this jurisdiction. I will refer the matter to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and discuss with him just what is the present state of play, if I might use that expression, in relation to the problem.

Senator Button:

– It is an eight-year-old game.

Senator DURACK:

-Yes. There are a lot of games that go on for longer than that. Some of them go on forever. I hope, having done that, I will be in a better position to provide a more detailed answer to Senator Mulvihill ‘s question.

page 596

QUESTION

SOUTH AFRICA: STEVE BIKO

Senator TEAGUE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs refers to the arrest this week of Mr Steve Biko ‘s family in South Africa, on the first anniversary of Biko’s controversial death in detention in that country. Will the Australian Government continue to deplore the detention of South African citizens without charge or recourse to trial? Will the Australian Government protest to the South African Government and call for the immediate release of the Biko family and others similarly detained?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I have no more detailed knowledge of the alleged incident than what I have gained from the Press. Therefore, I cannot answer at first hand a question on the factual situation. To be able to respond to that, one would need to know the circumstances and the alleged claims which have given rise to the arrest of the Biko family. One would need to know whether the establishment of a prima facie case has been attempted. Without that background I cannot respond. In general terms, the Australian Government always has been vocal in asserting that democratic rights should be maintained and that people should not be arrested without charge or detained without charge. I think that my best plan, since the question relates to a specific, is to refer it to my colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and seek further details for the honourable senator.

page 597

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION: STAFF RELATIONS

Senator RYAN:
ACT

– I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications to a report in this morning’s Melbourne Age which describes complaints made by an Australian Broadcasting Commission television journalist about derogatory, in fact racist, remarks made to her by a senior officer of the ABC. I ask the Minister to explain what mechanism exists within the ABC to examine such complaints. If such charges are found to be true, what action is open to the ABC management to protect ABC staff from insult and harassment by senior officers?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I will refer that question to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications for reply.

page 597

QUESTION

TAXATION OF LUMP SUM PAYMENTS

Senator LEWIS:

– My question, which I direct to the Minister representing the Treasurer, relates to the taxation of certain lump sum payments which was mentioned in the Budget Speech whereby changes are made in taxation on payments for unused annual and long service leave. In the Budget Speech the Treasurer said:

  1. . however, such payments in respect of long service leave for service prior to tonight will continue to be taxed under the present arrangements.

In that sentence no reference is made to the tax on payments for unused annual leave. My question is in connection with unused annual leave accumulated prior to the reading of the Budget Speech. Why are there no phasing-in arrangements for accumulated annual leave? Is not the application of the new provision to entitlements gained earlier than the reading of the Budget Speech unfair and in fact retrospective? Would this not apply in Australia to merely a handful of people who would have accumulated their annual leave over perhaps the last two years or so, no doubt to the detriment of their own health? After all, the measure applies only to salary and wage earners, who are not involved in taxation avoidance schemes. Will the Government reconsider this measure?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The question from Senator Lewis requests a series of quite precise and factual answers on various aspects of the matter. I think that my best plan is to refer the question in its detail to my colleague, the Treasurer, and request a detailed response.

page 597

QUESTION

CONTROL OF FARM CHEMICALS

Senator SIBRAA:

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry aware of the situation in the State of Michigan in the United States where a large stockfeed firm- the Michigan Farm Bureau- inadvertently mixed with stockfeed a highly toxic industrial chemical known as PVB, instead of the normal supplement, resulting in the poisoning of millions of people and the slaughter of tens of thousands of head of livestock? What, if any, precautions are in force in Australia to prevent this type of action occurring and will the Minister investigate the possibility of seeking controls over all sorts of chemicals used on or near farms?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I will refer the honourable senator’s question to the Minister whom I represent. It might be appropriate for the honourable senator to place such a question on notice.

page 597

QUESTION

BOX JELLYFISH

Senator MAUNSELL:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister for Science. What research findings have been made by the Institute of Marine Science near Townsville in relation to the deadly box jellyfish which abound in northern waters during the summer months? Has any research been undertaken by the Institute into the widely held theory that the large turtles prey on these jellyfish and that one reason for the proliferation of the jellyfish is the reduction of the turtle population?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– The honourable senator asks a question directly relevant to the interests of marine science research and to the research of the Australian Institute of Marine Science. My understanding is that extremely limited research has been undertaken on the box jellyfish although I believe I am correct in saying that at the James Cook University some research has been carried out. I have a recollection of discussing this matter with staff at the university at the same time as they and the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories in Melbourne were looking at the toxic effects of the blue-ringed octopus, which is another marine creature with serious effects found in Queensland. The Institute of Marine Science has been concentrating its work on other projects. It has been looking at tropical marine food webs in a variety of areas and at reef building organisms on the Great Barrier Reef in the honourable senator’s State. It has been giving a great deal of attention to marine tropical pollution. The honourable senator will recognise that a specific item such as the box jellyfish requires fairly intensive investigation.

The Institute of Marine Science has not at the present time the level of staff that it should have. When the Institute was originally set up by a former coalition government it was intended that it would have a staff of about 1 13. It has little in excess of 70 staff at the moment and for reasons of restriction on finance and restriction on staff it has not been able to conduct all the research that it would wish. Of course, it has scores of years of research in front of it. Investigation into a matter such as the honourable senator mentions requires specialist attention by a particular type of scientist. I know that in part of the program that the AIMS has in introducing overseas scientists for specified tasks it has been unable to find anyone who has shown a particular interest in investigating the box jellyfish.

page 598

QUESTION

BRANDY INDUSTRY

Senator ELSTOB:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question, directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer, is in reference to a meeting held in Adelaide on 30 August between the Treasurer, Mr Howard, and representatives of the brandy industry. Mr Howard is reported as saying that he would have discussions with his colleagues in Canberra about a reversal of the Budget decision to increase the brandy excise savagely. I ask the Minister: Have these discussions yet taken place and, if so, what is the outcome?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I will refer the matter to the Treasurer and seek his detailed response.

page 598

QUESTION

APPEARANCE OF ABORIGINALS IN JUVENILE COURTS

Senator PETER BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs a question. Is it a fact that the rate of appearances of Aboriginal youths before the juvenile justice system in South Australia between 1972 and 1977 was five times the rate for all youths in that State? Specifically, it is a fact that 440 out of each 1,000 Aboriginal youths in South Australia- that is, 44 per cent of all Aboriginal youths aged between 10 and 17 years- have appeared before the juvenile court system? Is the incidence changing and, if so, what evidence exists to demonstrate this change? What positive intervention is being undertaken to overcome the problem, which is probably Australia-wide rather than limited to the State which I have used for illustrative purposes in this question?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I have some information on this matter that was provided a day or two ago by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. It is not precisely the information required by Senator Baume. The information that I have is that in this Budget some $325,000 has been set aside for projects to upgrade the serices available to Aboriginal juveniles. These funds are additional to the ongoing expenditure on welfare of $2.089m of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. I understand that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has taken a number of measures to reduce the level of delinquency among Aboriginal juveniles. He convened a national symposium on the care of Aboriginal juveniles in State corrective institutions which took place on 30 May and 1 June of last year. Subsequently the Minister agreed to a recommendation made at this symposium that regional conferences on the topic of Aboriginal juvenile delinquency should be convened in each State with representatives from Aboriginal organisations, the relevant State authorities and any other bodies. I understand that arrangements for these regional conferences are nearing completion and that these conferences will consider draft policy guidelines on measures to improve the situation of Aboriginal juveniles and provide an exchange of views and ideas on any other necessary action. I will look at the question that was raised by Senator Baume to see whether what I have been able to advise him covers all the points raised. If not, I will advise him accordingly.

page 598

QUESTION

CASEY UNIVERSITY

Senator BUTTON:

– My question directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence relates to the status of plans for the development of Casey University. I ask the Minister: What is the present situation regarding that matter?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I am, of course, aware of the decision to establish a tertiary institution for the three Services. That decision has been made in principle. I am not aware of the details of progress. I will ask my colleague the Minister for Defence and get an answer.

page 598

QUESTION

EUROPEAN CARP

Senator KNIGHT:
ACT

-The Minister for Science is in such good form that I feel compelled to put a question to him. I ask the Minister: In view of the problem of European carp in Lake Burley Griffin, can he say what action has been taken to cope with this problem? Can the Minister indicate the extent of the problem in the waterways of the Australian Capital Territory? Particularly, can he say whether any research has been carried out in recently-established areas such as Lake Ginninderra and Googong Dam?

Senator Georges:

- Mr President, I raise a point of order. Although Senator Knight may not have asked that question previously, somebody else did. We were given a rather lengthy answer to exactly the same question on a previous occasion. I know that it is a bit -

Senator MacGibbon:

– It has rained since then.

Senator Georges:

– Perhaps the problem has grown somewhat and perhaps the Minister can say just that and then sit down. But we do not want a repetition of the answer that he gave to the same question on a previous occasion.

The PRESIDENT:

– There is no point of order.

Senator Knight:

- Mr President, I wish to speak to the point of order. I am not aware of any such question having been asked before, particularly with respect to Lake Ginninderra and the Googong Dam.

The PRESIDENT:

– I have ruled that there is no point of order because the terms in which the question is couched are different from those which I have heard previously.

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-Question Time is becoming a very awkward time. If I attempt to give reasoned and sensible answers to questions such as the one which Senator Primmer asked–

Senator Wriedt:

– You always fail.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I heard the stupid comment from the Leader of the Opposition who just said: ‘You always fail’. It is annoying to hear comments by senators who try to interfere with the answers. I feel that the honourable senator who asked the question should have been heard in silence, because I might get the answer tangled up with an answer on Paterson ‘s curse and I would hate to do that.

I do not think I can answer directly the question relating to the two waterways about which the honourable senator asked. He may know that I have stated previously that research into carp is not something which comes within my province as Minister for Science. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation does not do any work on this matter. But Senator Knight, a senator for the Australian Capital Territory, who has an enormous interest in this matter of the effects of carp in Lake Burley Griffin, has discussed this matter with me on many occasions in my capacity as Minister representing the Minister for the Capital Territory. He has been one of the very active senators who have sought to find a solution to the problem of the effects of carp. All I can say is that in view of the very detailed answer which I have to such a question and in case I incur the wrath of honourable senators in giving it, the Senate may allow me to incorporate the answer in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted?

Senator Georges:

– No.

Senator WEBSTER:

– In that case I will give the answer. One of the important matters raised by Senator Knight relates to the introduction of other species into Lake Burley Griffin which may have the effect to a substantial extent of controlling carp. Large numbers of brown and rainbow trout, plus silver and golden perch fingerlings–

Senator Georges:

– I raise a point of order. This answer has already been given. I refused leave because the answer is already in the record. What we are getting now is tedious repetition in answer to a tedious question, which is a misuse of Question Time.

The PRESIDENT:

– I call on the Minister to continue his reply.

Senator WEBSTER:

-The answer that I have just given in part has never been given in the Senate. The ignorance of honourable senators on the Opposition side is such that one would think that they would use their brains to expand their knowledge on an important matter such as this. It does affect the people of the Australian Capital Territory, even though it does not affect the people in Queensland.

The PRESIDENT:

– Kindly do not debate the question.

Senator KNIGHT:

– I ask a supplementary question. As the Minister for Science was not able to give information relating to Lake Ginninderra and Googong Dam- this is a matter of considerable importance despite what some honourable senators opposite might think- I simply want to ask the Minister whether he could obtain the information which I sought relating to Lake Ginninderra and Googong Dam.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I certainly could. I will refer the matter to the Minister whom I represent.

page 599

QUESTION

PARLIAMENT HOUSE SECURITY

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

- Mr President, I direct my question to you. It is in reference to reports in today’s Press that the Prime Minister told a joint government party meeting yesterday that security in Parliament House was to be further tightened. I now ask you, Mr President, whether the Presiding Officers have been party to discussions on these further security measures. If so, why is it that the Joint House Committee has not also been a party to the discussions? Could it be that this is another instance of this elected committee being ignored when important decisions are taken?

The PRESIDENT:

-I must advise the honourable senator that security in this place is the direct responsibility of the two Presiding Officers. We have consultations on this very important matter consistently because we are concerned that the best possible security for this place be achieved. As I said, this is a matter for us Presiding Officers to determine.

page 600

QUESTION

ILLITERACY

Senator LAJOVIC:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the attention of the Minister for Education been drawn to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald of Tuesday, 12 September, headed ‘217,000 illiterate people in Sydney’? Can the Minister inform the Senate what steps are being taken to deal with the problem of functional illiteracy in Sydney and other parts of Australia, as described by Dr Judith Coyen in her booklet entitled ‘Libraries for Literacy’? Dr Coven dennes functionally illiterate people as those who are unable to use the telephone book, to refer to job columns in the daily newspapers or to fill in an application form. Further, do the findings of Dr Coyen confirm the fact that there are deficiencies in our past or present educational methods that have led to this apparent failure to teach basic reading skills?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I have had my attention drawn to the article. At the time I invited my Department to study it. My understanding is that Dr Cover ‘s earlier work on the rate of functional illiteracy among adults is well known. I certainly have noted the report of her booklet which is called ‘Libraries for Literacy’.

Honourable senators will be aware of some of the steps that have already been taken by the Commonwealth Government to deal with this problem. For example, the report of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Specific Learning Difficulties in Children and Adults has received very close attention by my Department and other agencies in the portfolio, such as the Education Research and Development Committee. In particular, the study of the Australian Council for Educational Research on literacy and numeracy in Australian schools identified the extent of mastery of literacy in Australian 10- year-old and 14-year-old children. I have responded on this matter to the Senate in the past. This study has had the effect of increasing the awareness of State education authorities of the extent of the problem. They are taking their own action in an area which is their responsibility. The Commonwealth is in consultation with them. The Schools Commission, however, has also set up the Special Education Advisory Group. During 1978 the Commission intends to conduct a national survey which will enable it to make recommendations on provisions for children with learning difficulties.

Another very relevant initiative is, of course, the first teacher education inquiry which was established in June this year. Among the specific terms of reference, that committee is asked to address itself to the extent and effectiveness of various forms of teaching practice and training in early detection, diagnosis and remediation of learning difficulties and handicaps. An interdepartmental working party on adult literacy is being convened by my Department. It has the participation of a wide range of departments. Concern for the welfare of migrant groups led the Government to commission the Review of Post-arrival Programs and Services to Migrants under the chairmanship of Mr Frank Galbally. The proposals contained in the report have been accepted by Government. Included in the $6. 5m provided in the Budget are funds for adult and child migrant education programs which will help to improve the literacy rates.

page 600

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. It more particularly concerns Senator Chaney because it refers to staff ceilings, with which he is familiar, and in particular the position in respect of the Australian Telecommunications Commission and the Australian National Railways Commission. The Minister will know the great difficulties presented to young people in seeking employment in ordinary occupations but, in particular, in apprenticeships. I put it to the Minister that despite the many support schemes which the Government is presently either proposing or endorsing, such as the Commonwealth Rebate for Apprenticeship Full-time Training Scheme, the Community Youth Support Scheme and the National Employment and Training Scheme, government or ministeral policies and instructions, particularly to the Australian National Railways and Telecom in respect of staffing, are prohibiting the employment of young people, especially apprentices. I ask whether the Ministers concerned would be good enough to examine the position to see to what extent financial or staff ceiling restraints might be lifted to allow more young people to be employed.

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I represent the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations who has some general overview of these matters, although really the question is one for the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service matters, Mr Viner. Certainly the question that Senator Bishop has asked is one which in the first place should be addressed by me to Mr Viner in that capacity. I recall Senator Bishop’s long interest in this matter and the many questions which he asked me last year on the same subject when in this chamber I represented Mr Street who was then responsible for Public Service matters. I answered those questions as the Minister representing Mr Street. At that time there were directives to the Public Service Board that despite staff ceilings the Board should have regard to recruiting young people for training. That was some dme ago and I am interested in what Senator Bishop has said about other instructions which seem to be in contradiction of the earlier instruction. I certainly will seek information on the latest instructions and pass the question on to the various appropriate Ministers, one of whom will be the Minister for Post and Telecommunications.

page 601

QUESTION

ABORIGINES

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

– I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I preface my question by referring the Minister to page 1 1 in the third edition of the Commonwealth Style Manual wherein it states:

When referring to the first inhabitants of Australia, prefer the forms Aboriginal (singular noun), Aboriginals (plural noun) and Aboriginal (adjective). While the form Aborigine is not acceptable as an alternative to Aboriginal for the singular noun, Aborigines may be used as an alternative plural form. These words should be dignified with a capital letter in the same way as Maori, Negro and Red Indian.

In an effort to establish an Australian and international racial identity for the indigenous persons of mainland Australia and Tasmania, I ask the Minister to refer to such people by using the words ‘Aborigine’ for the singular noun and Aborigines’ for the plural noun as contained in the Concise Oxford Dictionary 1976, sixth edition, and for the word ‘Aborigine’ to have a capital A. To set an example for the Style Manual, I ask the Minister to make this change from the use of the noun ‘Aboriginal’ so that we, the Aborigines, will not be referred to in the same manner as indigenous persons of other nations. I believe it is only in this way that the Aborigines of Australia can truly feel unique, as we are, and gain an identity of our own.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– The honourable senator referred both to the Commonwealth Government’s Style Manual and to the latest edition of the Concise Oxford Dictionary. I am glad to see that in the first and subsequent editions of the Style Manual advice is given that the word ‘Aboriginal’ and its derivatives should be dignified with a capital letter, in the same way as Maori, Negro and Red Indian, when referring to the Aboriginal inhabitants of Australia. I am pleased to note that while it was not common practice in 1966 when the manual first appeared, the use of an initial capital is now accepted not only in government publications but also very widely in the Press and in other publications.

I draw the honourable senator’s attention to the entry in the Concise Oxford Dictionary immediately preceding the one to which he refers in which under ‘aboriginal’ the example is given of ‘Australian Aboriginals’ with an initial capital. I understand that the Style Manual committee gave the matter careful consideration before deciding originally to advise using the singular ‘Aboriginal’ and the plural ‘Aboriginals’. Eminent authorities including the Oxford Dictionary and Fowler’s Modern English Usage were opposed to the use of Aborigine’ as the singular form. Usage changes, however, and in the second and third editions of the manual the note was added:

The form ‘Aborigine’ is not acceptable as an alternative to Aboriginal’ for the singular noun, but ‘Aborigines’ may be used as an alternative plural form ‘.

There is good cause for encouraging uniformity, at least in official papers. The use of ‘Aboriginal ‘ and ‘Aboriginals’ is comparable with the use of the abjectival form ‘Indian’ as the noun also. I know that some people prefer the forms ‘Aborigine’ and ‘Aborigines’. The honourable senator may wish to make representations for a change in the Style Manual through my colleague, the Minister for Administrative Services. If so, I feel sure that the discussions he could arouse from the comments he has made in this question would be of interest to the Committee that seeks to give the dignity to the Aborigines of Australia that we all believe signifies the unique qualities that they have.

page 602

QUESTION

ALLEGED FLIGHT OVER AUSTRALIA BY RUSSIAN AIRCRAFT

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-Yesterday Senator Harradine asked me a question about a photograph which appeared in the Sunday Independent of 21 August this year. The photograph purported to show a Russian TU95 long range bomber. It was stated that the photograph had been taken by a United States Navy Phantom aircraft from the USS Midway when off the Western Australian coast. The Minister for Defence has advised me as follows: The USS Midway visited Fremantle between 17 and 23 October 1977. On 25 November 1977 the USS Midway was subject to reconnaissance by two Russian TU95 long range reconnaissance aircraft. At the time the USS Midway was located in the South Arabian Sea. The photograph was taken on 25 November. The TU95 aircraft are assumed to have been based in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

page 602

CORRECTION TO HANSARD

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

-Mr President, I seek leave to have a correction made to yesterday’s proof copy of Hansard.

Leave granted.

Senator McLAREN:

– Prior to the debate last night on the adjournment you, Mr President, put down a statement in the Parliament, which appears on page 578 of Hansard. During my remarks in the adjournment debate, which appear in the second column of page 582 of Hansard, I said:

Mr President, you put down a statement tonight which causes me even greater concern. I shall refer to part of it. You said in your statement:

There then follows a quotation which records some of my remarks as being your statement. In fact, the first five lines of the quotation are your statement and the rest of what appears are my own remarks. I seek leave to have that corrected.

The PRESIDENT:

– I thank Senator McLaren for bringing this matter to my attention. I shall have it attended to. From what he indicated to me, I can see quite clearly that what appears as a quotation from my statement is not accurate. It includes part of the speech made by Senator McLaren.

page 602

REGISTERED MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL BENEFITS ORGANISATIONS

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– Pursuant to section 76A of the National Health Act 1953 I present the annual report on the operations of the registered medical and hospital benefits organisations for the year ended 30 June 1 977.

page 602

MEDICAL RESEARCH ENDOWMENT ACT

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– Pursuant to section 9 of the Medical Research Endowment Act 1937 I present a report on work done under that Act during 1977.

page 602

EXCISE AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 12 September, on motion by Senator Webster:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– in reply- I understand that in my absence on Tuesday debate on the Excise Amendment Bill 1978 had reached the stage where the Minister was to reply to the second reading debate. First of all, I must apologise to the Senate for my absence during the whole of the second reading debate on the Bill in the Senate. That was due to the fact that I had a long standing engagement to host a reception in Sydney to the International Bar Association. I am sure that honourable senators would understand that welcoming on behalf of the Government of Australia the large number of distinguished guests who were attending the conference of the Association was an appropriate reason for my being absent from the Senate.

Senator Georges:

– We accept your apologies.

Senator DURACK:

– Thank you, Senator. However, I have ensured that I have been informed of the major matters which were raised by honourable senators in the course of the debate on this measure. I propose to make some comment on some of the major points. If any honourable senators feel that I have overlooked a matter no doubt they will have the opportunity of raising it during the Committee stage of the Bill.

At the outset of my remarks, I emphasise that the prime objective of this Bill, which is associated with a levy and is a vital component of the imposition of that levy, is to raise revenue in the light of the need of the Government to obtain a major source of revenue for purposes of the Budget for the present financial year. The additional levy that is to be imposed, or that in fact has been imposed- I will deal with that point later because there seems to be some misapprehension about it- is designed to raise an additional $676m this financial year. If we take into consideration the money raised by the levy as it was before this additional levy was imposed, which was running in excess of $300m this year, as a result of the imposition of this additional levy over $ 1,000m is at stake. So, obviously, this levy is a very major component of the Budget and of the Government’s budgetary policy.

That budgetary policy has been designed to further the campaign of the Government, which it has followed since it was elected to office, to fight inflation and significantly to reduce the rate of inflation in this country. Of course, the rate of inflation skyrocketed during the years of the Labor Administration.

One of the major strategies of the Government has been to reduce the deficit which it inherited. Therefore, when the Government came to make the final decisions in relation to this Budget it felt that it was enormously important to ensure that that process of reducing the deficit should be continued and that it was vitally important that progress in that area should be continued and should be seen to be being achieved. From the debate on the Budget, it is now well known that in this Budget we have budgeted for a deficit of some $2.8 billion, which will represent a reduction of the deficit. In fact, a reduction of the deficit occurred last year and, indeed, occurred in the previous year.

Therefore, because of the problems that the Government was having on the revenue side, as explained by the Treasurer (Mr Howard) in his Budget Speech- I do not propose to repeat them- it was important that, in order to achieve the necessary reduction in the deficit, the Government, bearing in mind all of its expenditure commitments, continuing and of an inbuilt nature, which I am sure the Opposition would not wish to see reduced further, found it necessary to obtain other sources of revenue. This needed to be done without increasing the otherwise inflationary pressure. The steady reduction of the deficit has been, and will continue to be, in itself a major means of reducing inflation. That is the background to this levy; that is the reason for it. I emphasise this because the debate, as I have read it, does not really indicate an understanding on the part of the Opposition as to the nature of, and the reason for the levy.

It has been suggested that this levy is in some way a substitute for a resources tax. It is not. It is a tax on consumers. It is not a tax on producers. The Government had given long and earnest consideration to the question of imposing a resources tax in this area, as had been foreshadowed in the Budget Speech last year by

Mr Lynch, but in the end the Government came to the conclusion that, for reasons which were stated by the Minister for Trade and Resources (Mr Anthony) in announcing the decision on 2 July, such a tax would be undesirable. Briefly it was because the Government, unlike the Opposition with its record in this matter, was deeply concerned about the effect that a resources tax would have on investment, particularly in the major areas of exploration and development, which are so important to the economic recovery in this country.

Senator Tate:

– Why did the Government support a resources tax until 2 July?

Senator DURACK:

– The Government said that it would be looking into the question of imposing a resources tax, as to whether and in what way it would be feasible. After detailed consideration, the Government came to the conclusion that it would in fact have undesirable inhibitions on investment.

Senator Walsh:

– After BHP got Fraser’s ear.

Senator DURACK:

– I know that Senator Walsh does not understand. Senator Tate was not a member then and perhaps did not fully understand the disastrous consequences to this nation of the three years in which Labor was in government, in the choking off and drying up of the whole of investment, particularly in the resources area, the area on which the strength of our economy is largely based.

Opposition members interjecting-

Senator DURACK:

– I know that honourable senators opposite simply do not understand the situation. I am wasting my breath arguing it. It is not particularly relevant to this debate. I mention it only because the matter of the resources tax was raised by certain senators, and I am explaining that this measure is not being put forward as a substitute for that tax, with which the Government has decided not to proceed.

This Bill is supplementary to the levy which has been imposed. The levy itself was imposed by Excise Tariffproposals (No. 3) which were introduced in the House of Representatives on Budget night. Those proposals enable the Government to collect the increased excise duty of $64.53 per kilolitre on crude oil produced in Australia as from Budget night. The collections are made legally until enacting legislation is passed in the Parliament. A Bill is commonly introduced towards the end of each session to validate tariff proposals. The relevant Bill will be coming forward in due course. The purpose of this Bill is to ensure that the rate of excise duty on crude oil which already is priced at import parity does not attract this increased levy. The Bill provides, in effect, for a simultaneous rebate at the time of the duty payments so that the net duty on import parity price remains at $ 1 8.90 per kilolitre. Non-import parity oil, of course, attracts the increased excise. As I said, the purpose of this Bill is supplementary to the imposition of the higher rate of excise which already has been imposed.

I will refer to one or two other matters which have been raised by honourable senators in the debate. One was the effect of this levy on the rate of inflation. It has been suggested by some honourable senators that this levy will lead to an increase of perhaps up to one per cent in the consumer price index for the December quarter and that indeed this will flow on into other quarters. The effect of an increase in the price of petrol and other petroleum products, although increasing the costs in the community and therefore being reflected in the CPI, will be offset by other decisions in the Budget. It is not sensible, appropriate or correct to argue that, because this measure will have an adverse effect on costs and therefore on the CPI, that will be the overall effect. The Budget has to be looked at as a whole.

Very careful consideration was given by the Government to the effect of its budgetary decisions on the CPI as a whole. The Government had firmly in its mind in framing this Budget the overall effect on the CPI. The Treasurer in his Budget Speech clearly explained that other decisions included in the Budget- I refer particularly to the abolition of the health insurance levy and the reduction in the sales tax on motor vehicles- would counterbalance any adverse effects on the CPI which undoubtedly would occur as a result of the increased costs of petroleum products. The overall effect of the Budget will not be an increase in the CPI for the December quarter. Therefore, to argue that this levy will have that effect is to ignore the Budget as a whole. This measure is part of the Budget. It is elementary, I would have thought, that the Budget has to be considered as a whole.

I now turn to the only other argument which I think I need deal with in summing up. Senators Walsh, Tate and Gietzelt expressed concern about the Government’s policies on energy conservation and research and the effect or application of this measure to those policies. Certainly it is true that in the Budget the Government has not predicted any downturn in the demand for petrol and petroleum products. It has not made any forecast in the Budget of such a downturn in the current year. But that would be a very shortterm effect. Obviously in the long term the pricing of petroleum products at what is really their true market price throughout the world must have long-term beneficial consequences in terms of the efficiency of the use of energy by the community and the rationalisation of the use of energy by the community. That will lead, therefore, to appropriate investment and commercial decisions in relation to the use of energy resources. It will also have the long-term effect of improving the efficient use of fuel in industry and I believe also by private consumers. It will also in the long term inevitably accelerate the trend towards the use of smaller cars.

Although the Government is not making any immediate prediction as to a downturn in demand, the actual level of demand of course depends very much on the level of economic activity in the community at any particular time. In the Budget the Government is forecasting some increase in gross national domestic product and hopefully in the coming year we will see an increase in economic activity in the community. That inevitably would lead to a greater use of these resources. That is another reason why we should not predict an immediate downturn. But obviously in the long run the pricing of these products at their proper market value will have enormous and very great importance for the efficiency of industry and for the conservation of these resources. For all those reasons the Government indicated earlier that it was its policy to move towards import parity pricing for these products. Now in this Budget the Government has decided to accelerate that process by implementing the policy at this time.

In addition to the implementation of that policy, which is a very important decision, the Government has taken other steps in relation to energy research and conservation. We have set up the National Energy Research Development and Demonstration Council. We have the National Energy Office and the National Energy Advisory Committee. These are matters on which the Government has taken very positive steps and on which it has very clear policies. It has a very clear determination to pursue these policies leading to a conservation of energy resources and particularly towards the encouragement of the exploration for and the development of new and expanded resources in this area. We have reason to hope that, because of the encouragement that the Government is prepared to give to exploration, research and development in these areas, the upturn in exploration activity of which we have already seen signs will continue.

This is a major plank in the Government’s platform. It is vital for this nation to endeavour to find more petroleum resources. That is part and parcel of the Government’s policy as well. It is not simply a question of the conservation of the resources that we have at present.

This Bill is a vital pan of the Government’s Budget and its Budget strategy. This strategy is being pursued and has been pursued since we came to office to reduce inflation in Australia. It is pleasing to note the continuing success that the Government is having with these policies. This was emphasised only this week by the latest figures provided by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development as to the rate of inflation in OECD countries. The Treasurer has already noted that the inflation rate in Australia in the 12 months to July 1978 was 7.9 per cent- the lowest that had been recorded in Australia since 1971-72. The latest OECD figures show that in the six months to July 1978 there was an even greater improvement and in that period Australia’s inflation was running at an annual rate of 6.9 per cent. So we are getting a clear further downward movement in the rate of inflation. I believe that the Government has every reason to feel confident that under the Budget policies that trend will continue and that towards the end of this year we will see further significant reductions in the rate of inflation as a result of the firm financial policies which the Government has pursued since we have been in office.

It is an encouragement to us to see how our nation’s economy is standing in relation to those of our major trading partners. The table of OECD countries shows that for the six months to July 1978 the inflation rate of Australia was 6.9 per cent; the United States of America, 10.5 per cent; Japan, 5.8 per cent; France, 1 1.9 per cent; the UK, 9.3 per cent; and Canada, 12. 1 per cent. West Germany had an inflation rate of 3.3 per cent and continues with the successful policies that the West German Government has followed. These policies have been maintained in West Germany consistently for many years. They are unlike the policies that the Australian Labor Party is always talking about. The Labor Party claims an association with the social democracies of the world but the West German social democratic Government is pursuing policies similar to the ones that we have pursued in office. These policies have been valuable in keeping its rate of inflation at lower levels. We have now reduced our rate of inflation to levels which are not only becoming comparable with those of our major trading partners, apart from

West Germany, but which also are definitely better than most of our major trading partners. I believe that that is a signal achievement of this Government. It is one which can be achieved only by pursuing the Budget policies and strategies of which this Bill is a major component.

Question put:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

AYES: 31

NOES: 22

Majority……. 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clause 1 (Short title).

Senator TATE:
Tasmania

– I would like to be informed of the components that go into determining the price of imported stabilised crude petroleum oil. What are the components that enter into the price? I think, for example, of freight. What other components go into making up that price?

The CHAIRMAN:

– I do not think the question applies to clause 1 which concerns the short title of the Bill. Maybe you can bring it up at a future time.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 (Determinations by Minister for National Development).

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– I gather that Senator Tate wants to ask questions about the same matter that I want to follow up. I refer the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) to sub-clause (2) of clause 3 which states:

The Minister for National Development shall, from time to time, determine, for the purposes of section … the price that is the import parity price . . .

The key phrase, as far as the purpose of my question is concerned, and I assume, also Senator Tate’s question, is the ‘import parity price’. Given the references by the Minister in his reply to the second reading debate to true market prices and to the Government’s intention to apply true market prices, I think this is the crucial phrase in the Bill. I guess that the Government has in mind doing something like adding to the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries posted price on crude oil the freight component, and that would be equated with the import parity price. There are, however, disturbing indications that the posted price of crude oil internationally is something like the Prices Justification Tribunal price of petrol in Australia, that is, a sort of fictional concept which has no direct application to reality. In other words, all sorts of under-the-table discounts are available at least on some occasions and from some suppliers of crude oil. I would like to know, if it is possible, the method that the Minister for National Development will use to determine what the import parity price is, given that there are substantial reasons to believe that the posted price is to some extent a fictional price or certainly is not the price which is actually paid.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– Two matters have been raised by Senator Walsh and Senator Tate. Firstly, on the question raised by Senator Walsh, the Government is operating not on what is called the posted price but on the actual State sales price. I think that what Senator Walsh has said is to this extent correct, in that the posted price is the price that is determined by a particular government as the price at which royalty is payable. The Government is basing its import parity price on the State sales price which presumably is the true market price. For instance, in relation to Arabian light oil, which is the basis of the formula, the posted price is $ US 13. 66 per barrel whereas the State sales price, which is the one on which we are basing the components, is $US 12.70 per barrel f.o.b. I think that is only confirming what I have already said. We are dealing with the market price.

The various components and the method by which the import parity price is calculated are pretty complicated formulae and ones with which I am not fully conversant. The details have been included in a statement made on 4 July 1978 by the Minister for National Development (Mr Newman) who fixes the price. The heading of the statement is ‘Calculation of the Import Parity Price of Indigenous Crude Oil ‘. I think it would be more informative for the Committee if I were to incorporate the statement in Hansard. Those honourable senators who are not familiar with the method would then have the full details available. I seek leave to incorporate it in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The statement read as follows-

CALCULATION OF THE IMPORT PARITY PRICE OF INDIGENOUS CRUDE OIL

The Minister for National Development, Mr Kevin Newman, announced today the details of the formula to be used in future in determining the import parity price for indigenous crude oil.

The Minister referred to the statement made by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) on 16 August 1977 when announcing the Government’s new crude oil pricing policy. At that time Mr Anthony said the import parity price would be set every 6 months by the Commonwealth Government on the basis of Arabian Light oil at the nearest refinery port, adjusted to allow for an appropriate quality differential, and that discussions would be held with the oil industry to determine the precise basis on which the calculation would be made. The Government had already taken the decision to move progressively to import parity pricing for all indigenous crude oil and producers are currently receiving the import parity price for at least some of their production.

Mr Newman said that discussions with both oil producers and refiner/marketers had been held and that all their views had been weighed in coming to a decision. The Minister went on to say that he had now decided on the formula that would be used to calculate the import parity price and the principal components to be used in the formula will be as follows:

Marker crude

Arabian Light oil at the official selling price in the Persian Gulf. The rate of exchange to Australian dollars will be the Reserve Bank mid-rate.

International freight calculated on the cost of shipping from the Persian Gulf to the nearest refinery port to the producing field in the largest tanker that can enter the port.

Wharfage. Insurance and Loss

Quality differential an allowance will be made for the comparative quality of each crude with respect to Arabian Light as a measure of its ability to meet the Australian market demand.

Compensation for credit terms an allowance will be made for the difference between credit terms offered by local producers and those offered internationally.

Domestic freight a deduction will be made for the average cost of domestic freight where the nearest refiners’ port ‘s unable to absorb all the production from a particular field.

In addition to the above a special freight allowance will be given to the Moonie producers to cover the cost of actual crude deliveries to the small inland refinery situated at Roma, Queensland.

The Minister indicated that the new import parity price to be effective from 1 July 1978 will be announced in the near future when the value of all the elements is known. In future the import parity price will be announced as soon after the first day of the new period as practicable.

CANBERRA

4 July 1978

Senator TATE:
Tasmania

– I would like some indication from the Attorney-General (Senator Durack), if possible, as to whether the average freight rate assessment component is still used in the calculation which leads to the price for imported crude oil. If that is still the case, will the Minister take note of the comments of the Royal Commission into the Petroleum Industry which indicated at page 338 that the average freight rate assessment is in no sense equivalent to the long term charter rate which is the rate which bears closest resemblance to actual market conditions. AFRA- the average freight rate assessment- is an average of monthly rates from all sorts of sources, and there is no actual relationship to long term charter entered into by say the Shell Company six years ago- I am speaking hypothetically- at the bottom of the charter market. In other words, it could bring oil to Australia in vessels chartered, say, six years ago at a very low rate but claim as part of the component in the price of the landed crude the AFRA rate, the current monthly average rate of all charter rates throughout the world. I should like to have that matter attended to, if possible.

Another problem in this area is in relation to transfer pricing. It is obviously in the interests of oil companies to move profits to havens where as little tax as possible is paid. That is a very businesslike mode of operation, lt means, of course, that a company which has several divisions throughout the world can get one division to charter a vessel at, say. $40,000 for a voyage- I am using purely hypothetical figuresand charge the Australian division of that company $80,000 as the freight component in getting the oil. A profit of $40,000 goes straight to the tax haven. These are the sorts of problems which need to be looked at when deciding on the validity of the freight component in the cost of imported crude oil.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

- Senator Tate is concerned as to the appropriateness of the freight rate component which, as Mr Newman said, ‘is calculated on the cost of shipping from the Persian Gulf to the nearest refinery port to the producing field in the largest tanker that can enter the port’. That statement is in fairly general terms. Senator Tate is seeking to take the matter into much more detail than that. I am informed by officers present that the method of calculation is to use the average freight rate assessement rate as modified by the world scale tanker freight rates. Criticisms of the AFRA scale were made by the Royal Commission on Petroleum in 1974-75. It is believed now that the closest independent evidence that can be obtained is, as I have said, the AFRA rate modified by the world scale tanker rates. I should emphasise, of course, that under this legislation the Minister can, at any time and in relation to any matters that he thinks fit, determine the import parity price. I understand that we have undertaken to consider the price every six months. If there is any evidence to indicate that the particular way in which we are proceeding to calculate the freight component of the import parity price at the moment is deficient, the Minister has the power to rectify it at any time.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– I wish to follow Senator Tate’s line of questioning. I am willing to accept the good intentions of the Government and the Minister to establish a true market price, but Senator Tate ‘s question has drawn attention to some of the complexities involved in establishing this price and to what some people would consider to be the impossibility of establishing with certainty what the real commercial price is. That leads me to ask the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) whether the Government has any policy on the importation of refined petroleum products. I shall give a hypothetical example. Let us suppose that the import parity price was above the true market price but because of all the complications involved the Minister and the Government had not been able to establish this with any certainty. We would then expect that independent operators, such as XL Petroleum Pty Ltd, importing refined petroleum products would be able to undercut Australian refined petroleum products produced from crude oil fed in at prices above the true commercial price. One market mechanism which ought to help to ensure that the import parity price is, in fact, the real price would be to allow independent operators to import refined petroleum products. Has the Government considered this matter? What will be its attitude towards importing refined petroleum products after all these new arrangements have become operative?

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I am advised that the Government has given consideration to the very important question which Senator Walsh has raised. Its investigations at this stage indicate that the pricing mechanism which it is adopting means that it would not be cheaper to import refined products and that selling prices would not be lower than the prices at which Australian refined products could be sold in Australia under this particular formula. At this stage, under the present methods proposed, the problem posed by Senator Walsh would not eventuate. I cannot take the matter any further than that. Senator Walsh raised a hypothetical question. If the problem arose, naturally the Government would have to look at the matter again.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– If the Government is convinced that the pricing arrangements would not give imported refined petroleum products any price advantage over Australian refined products- if that were so the problem would not arise, as the Minister said- can we assume that at least at this stage the Government would have no objection to the importing of refined petroleum products?

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I do not think I can give any undertaking in relation to this matter. As I said, it is a hypothetical question at this stage. Certainly any such importers would have to take an allocation of indigenous crude. That is a most important aspect. Nevertheless, this matter is hypothetical. I am not prepared to give any undertakings as to what the Government’s policy might be in relation to the pricing formula. When all is said and done, we come back to the fact that the Minister has the power to determine what is the true import parity price on the market basis. That would be another alternative. Instead of allowing the importation of refined petroleum products, the Minister might well decide to change his determination of import parity price at any time. I would have thought that this would be a potent factor in giving consideration to that approach to the matter. On information available to the Government the problem is not with us at the moment; nor is it foreseen as likely to arise. Therefore, I cannot give any undertaking as to what the Government’s policy would be if this event occurred.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– I appreciate the Minister’s difficulty in that regard but he now has raised another matter I want to follow. If I heard him correctly, he stated that any potential importer would be required to take a proportion of Australian crude. I want to check whether that will be the position. If so, why should an importer be required to take a proportion of Australian crude, given that it will now be priced at world parity? Would this not have the effect of freezing out of the market any importer who did not have refining facilities within Australia or an arrangement with some other company which did have refining facilities within Australia?

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-I strongly support the point that Senator Walsh has raised. I was under the impression that in order to get an allocation of Australian crude a company had to take up an allocation of overseas crude. That has been the past experience. It seems that there has been some change, and 1 ask: What is the change? The question that Senator Walsh has asked is important to the industry because if this move freezes out the importation of refined products, some companies will be at a further disadvantage compared with the major oil companies in Australia that have entered the market in a substantial way and are discounting in a very aggressive mannerperhaps we could almost say, discounting in an unfair manner. It may lead even to the closing down of what we term Australian-owned companies under the pressure of discounting by the major overseas-owned companies, such as Shell Co. of Australia Ltd and British Petroleum Co. of Australia Limited. I would like to be assured of the ability of the small operator, and perhaps an independent operator, to continue operating. Mr Sykes is or was an independent and he has indicated that this new policy will allow the independents to come back into the field and to import products. The AttorneyGeneral (Senator Durack) seems to be indicating, and this has led to Senator Walsh pressing his question, that this will not be the case. Refined products purchased overseas are protected by dumping laws. I take it that we will not allow the dumping of refined spirit on the Australian market, although I do not know how it can be avoided because already there is dumping of the product on the Australian market in such a way that many people are being hurt. I support Senator Walsh ‘s questioning and if the Minister, who is not directly responsible for this matter, is not certain of his ground perhaps he could get the information for us from the Minister who has direct responsibility.

Senator YOUNG:
South Australia

-Has not the quota system for indigenous crude applied since it was first introduced by Mr Gorton when he was Prime Minister? Virtually what has happened is that there has been a reversal of the position held by imported crude. At one stage Australian crude was dearer than imported crude but as time has gone on the position has reversed and Australian crude has become cheaper. Once there was a problem in trying to use Australian crude. Today there are benefits in doing so because the users are getting a cheaper crude. As I understand it, this system has continued since it was introduced by John Gorton when he was Prime Minister. I ask also whether this system has created any problems for small independent companies. My understanding is that it has not. In fact, some small companies have been able to do some exporting of refined spirit.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– We are getting into very detailed areas far removed from the Bill under consideration. The fact is that there has been no change at all in the policy that the Government has pursued, and which was first negotiated by Mr Gorton when he was Prime Minister. The present arrangement will operate until 1 980. Senator Young has stated the correct position. Senator Georges’ concern, arising from either something I may have said or some new policy resulting from this measure, has no foundation. The Government ‘s policy is continuing as it has been and as negotiated under the agreement which will operate until 1 980.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– That being the case, the would-be importer of refined petroleum products would be required to take an allocation of Australian crude. I want to place on the record that if that is so there is then no market mechanism to keep the pricing honest. There would be no market mechanism to prevent import parity pricing being written up above the true commercial price and consequently Australian consumers would be overcharged in terms of true world parity for petroleum products produced from both domestic crude and imported crude. There would be no market mechanism to prevent them from being overcharged for both. The only protection would be the ability of the Minister and the Government to determine what is in fact world parity price.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I thought I had made it perfectly clear that the Government will seek to determine what is the market price.

Senator Walsh:

– Why don ‘t you let the market determine that?

Senator DURACK:

– In Senator Walsh’s eyes there may not be a perfect market mechanism. He is such a great market economist I do not know why he sits on the Opposition benches and has not joined the Liberal Party. I would have thought that some of the fervent views he expresses on the market economy are more akin to our philosophy. I have stated the Government’s intentions. The Government has entered into agreements relating to the use of Australian produced oil which will have a very beneficial effect on Australia. These agreements are operative until 1980. Although perhaps without exactitude, the Government has ways and means of determining the international market price and this is the objective of the exercise. As I have said, the Minister has the power to vary his determination from time to time. I assume that that is the way in which he would proceed.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-! want to get just one point clear. Was it not the case that in order to obtain an allocation of Australian crude a company needed to have certain sales in the market place? Has that changed?

Senator Durack:

– No.

Senator GEORGES:

– So a company needs an allocation or substantial sales in order to get an Australian allocation. Having got that Australian allocation the company is required to import a certain amount of crude from overseas? Has the situation not changed? Let us suppose that I, as an independent, desired to import or buy crude. It is now not a disadvantage for me to buy overseas crude because the price is the same. Parity has been established. So I go overseas to purchase substantial amounts of crude. Senator Durack is now saying that, having done that, I am required to take up an allocation. I will get that allocation anyhow.

Senator Young:

– You have been, as I understand it, since 1 969 or 1 970.

Senator GEORGES:

– But I am importing crude from overseas. There is no disadvantage to me now. I can get crude in quantity now if I can pay for it. So I get overseas crude. The Minister is now saying that because I buy overseas crude I must take an allocation of Australian crude. He is also saying that the allocation of Australian crude is still based upon sales within the market place. Is that correct?

Senator Young:

– There is one slight difference. There is a levy of $3 a barrel now, previously $2 a barrel, but the indigenous producer does not get all of the parity price.

Senator GEORGES:

-We should not be engaging in this type of debate, Mr Chairman, but it is as to our entitlement. The reason I am asking these questions is that there was a faint hope that the dislocation in the market place caused by wholesale discounting by major companies was likely to end because of the new policy that we are discussing. Apparently, that is not the case. So the discounting that exists at present will continue to operate in the manner that it has been operating to the disadvantage of so many Australians.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I thought that Senator Georges was concerned about a logical difficulty arising out of something I had said, namely, that one has to have sales before one can get an allocation and so on. I am advised that one can import crude and sell it. The allocation is based on sales. However, one has up to six months in which to determine sales before being required to take the allocation. I think that probably overcomes the problem that Senator Georges saw arising. I can understand the honourable senator’s concern. What will happen to discounting as a result of these policies is something that we will see when the scheme is in operation. There may be greater difficulties in the path of the discounter- I do not know. We will just have to see what happens.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– The remarks of the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) have now thrown a great deal of doubt on the Bill. It is quite apparent from what he has said that the Government has not made any analysis of the results this Bill will have. He has just said that we will have to wait and see what will happen with the discounters after the Bill becomes operative. He said that we will probably have to wait six months. There is a great deal of concern amongst users of the refined product, particularly amongst primary producers. They get a cut rate for the refined product by buying in bulk; yet, in the metropolitan area it is possible to buy super grade fuel from discounters at a cheaper rate. There is a difference of 9c to 10c a litre in price between Adelaide and the country areas. We were led to believe that it was the Government’s policy not to have a difference of more than 2c a litre in fuel prices. That is not so. There is a difference of anything up to 40c a gallon. In answer to Senator Georges the Minister said that the allocation of Australian crude oil is based on sales. All retail sales outlets are one-brand service stations. Yet in the metropolitan area of Adelaide super grade fuel can be bought at 16.2c a litre.

Senator Elstob:

– It is 15.9c a litre.

Senator McLAREN:

– My colleague, Senator Elstob, says that he saw it for sale at 15.9c a litre in some places in Adelaide. I saw it at 16.2c. Yet in other places the same brand- BP or Shell- is as high as 22c and 23c a litre. Who is providing the subsidy? Is the retailer losing his profit or is the fuel company subsidising him behind the scenes? That is what I would like to know. Can the Minister answer that? What check can the Government make on this cut-price petrol that the fuel companies are selling through their onebrand outlets? I have seen super grade petrol at 16.2c; Senator Elstob has seen it at 15.9c. Yet the same brand in other outlets costs over 20c. Who is subsidising whom? This is what we want to know.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I simply do not know where this debate is leading. We seem to be on a completely different matter raised by Senator McLaren. It is interesting that Senator McLaren seems to be against discounting and Senator Georges, I gather, is in favour of it.

Senator Georges:

– No, I am not. I am not in favour of discounting. I am an orderly marketeer and support orderly marketing.

Senator DURACK:

– I do not know where we are. We are getting into a debate about whether there ought to be orderly marketing in the petrol industry. This Bill has nothing to do with the subject at all. This is a revenue raising Bill for the purpose of the Government’s Budget. That is what the debate is about and these other issues are quite different. Senator McLaren dealt with the policy about equalisation of prices and the freight subsidy scheme which was introduced some months ago. That still pertains. Even if the price of petrol goes up, as it undoubtedly has gone up and will go up in the future, as a result of this measure, the same differential should still be available under that equalisation scheme. The fact that there might have been discounting in cities has nothing to do with this measure.

Senator Georges:

– It is affected by this measure. That is the point that I am making.

Senator DURACK:

-That is Senator Georges’ view. I do not know whether or not it will be affected. We will see what happens.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– Will the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) make his advisers available to me so that they can straighten me out on this problem. I do not see any purpose in engaging in crossfire on this matter any longer. There is still confusion in my mind about what will happen. Perhaps the Minister can arrange to make his advisers available to me.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– There is one other matter that I want to raise. It arises out of the remarks of the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Durack) when he closed the second reading debate. He said that during the Labor Government’s term of office there was a downturn in oil exploration in this country.

Senator Durack:

- Mr Chairman, I raise a point of order. This has absolutely nothing to do with the matter before the Chair.

Senator McLaren:

– Yes, it has, Mr Chairman, because the Minister has said that bringing in this measure of world parity pricing -

Senator Durack:

- Mr Chairman, I have raised a point of order.

Senator Georges:

- Senator McLaren is speaking to the point of order.

Senator McLaren:

– I am speaking to the point of order. The Minister has said on more than one occasion in the Committee stage of this Bill that the world parity price, as well as being a revenue raising measure, was designed to encourage further oil exploration in this country. What he has said is on record. The Minister now says that there are signs that there is increased oil exploration.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I do not believe that the point of order can be upheld. I suggest that we might help this discussion, which already has moved over a wide area, if the honourable senators concerned waited for different circumstances before putting questions on the matters that concern them. Is there any other matter referable to clause 3?

Senator McLAREN:

-Yes, Mr Chairman. I wish to raise the same question as I was posing when the Minister took a point of order. You have now ruled that there is no point of order. Can the Minister give the Senate some evidence of where this increased exploration is taking place in Australia and what results he has to show honourable senators arising out of that increased exploration*^

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I really think that the question asked has absolutely nothing to do with the subject before the Chair. I was asked what wells have been drilled this year compared with other years. Apparently, Mr Chairman, you have ruled that the question is relevant to the matter before the Chair.

Senator Georges:

– He has not.

Senator DURACK:

– I thought that my point of order was overruled.

The CHAIRMAN:

– No.

Senator DURACK:

– If the Committee wants to continue to allow Senator McLaren to waste our time to this extent, I will deal with the matter. The information I have is that so far this year 27 exploration wells have been completed or are in progress. There are 59 current off-shore exploration permits. Minimum exploration commitments over the next five years total in excess of $400m. Interest is centred especially on the Exmouth plateau off the coast of Western Australia of which probably Senator McLaren, with his insular attitude, has never heard.

The CHAIRMAN:

– ^Minister, by way of explanation, I did not rule on Senator McLaren’s last question as a point of order; I ruled on a point of order that was raised prior to his question. I permitted him to ask his question, which has now been answered.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– Still on the matter of import parity pricing, I want to make it quite clear that my questions about potential importers referred to importers of refined petrol. I want reassurance that that was accurately understood. If it was and if the situation is that a potential importer of petrol would have to take an allocation of Australian crude oil, does the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) agree that unless such a potential importer could arrange to have that Australian crude oil refined in Australia by one of the few companies that have refining facilities it would have to be exported to somewhere else, which obviously would be expensive, or it would have to be just dumped. Will these marketing arrangements not protect the oligopolistic distribution and marketing system which is controlled by those few companies which have refining facilities in Australia? If the objective of the Government’s policy is to allow the market forces to operate, why will the Government not allow the market forces to operate by abolishing this obligation on potential importers of petrol to take an allocation of Australian crude oil?

Senator YOUNG:
South Australia

– We are digressing somewhat in this area, but, for the sake of clarification for the Committee, I ask the Attorney-General (Senator Durack): Is it correct that from the Gorton days, when this system of quotas was brought in, one company, which perhaps I should name- it is the XL company- was importing petrol from overseas and had to take a quota of Australian crude oil? If that is correct, there has been no change in policy.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I do not know how many more times Senator Young or I have to emphasise the fact that there has been no change in policy and that there is no intention to change that policy. The situation that Senator Young outlined is correct. Senator Walsh raised an important question. As a result of the Melville report, arrangements were made which laid down conditions under which in such circumstances, when an importer was required to take an allocation of Australian crude oil, it could obtain the refining of that crude oil. Those conditions, established I think 1974 -

Senator Walsh:

– What year?

Senator DURACK:

– They were first imposed as a result of a report presented by Professor Melville at the time of the Labor Government. Those conditions under that policy are still being applied. So there has been no change at all in the policy on the marketing of crude oil in relation to this matter.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Senator Durack) read a third time.

page 612

SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL AFFAIRS

The PRESIDENT:

– I inform the Senate that I have received a letter from the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Carrick, requesting that Senator Chaney be discharged from further attendance on the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs and nominating Senator Hamer to be a member of the Committee.

Motion (by Senator Durack) agreed to:

That Senator Chaney be discharged from further attendance on the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs and that Senator Hamer, having been duly nominated in accordance with Standing Order 36AA, be appointed a member of that Committee.

Sitting suspended from 12.57 to 2.15 p.m.

page 612

PIG SLAUGHTER LEVY AMENDMENT BILL 1978

First Reading

Debate resumed from 12 September, on motion by Senator Webster:

That the Bill be now read a first time.

Senator PRIMMER:
Victoria

-Just prior to the adjournment of this debate on Tuesday evening I was speaking on the matter of human rights and had completed reading into Hansard a letter from friends and relatives of political detainees in Singapore. I had mentioned earlier that I had some information relative to what I believed to be a lack of human rights in South Africa, but that I was conducting inquiries to try to establish the truth or otherwise thereof; also, that because of changing events, the information I had was some two or three months old and I wanted to bring it up to date.

I am now informed that throughout May and June of this year, at least 18 young Catholic workers were arrested in South Africa. The latest information I was able to receive by checking around, as of yesterday afternoon, indicates that many, perhaps all, of these young Catholic workers have been released. However, the people from whom I sought the information expressed the opinion that it was extremely hard to get authentic information of this nature out of a country such as South Africa. Whilst they are prepared to concede that all may have been released, they somehow feel that a number of them are still in prison. I am advised that those who have been released have not at any time been given reasons as to why they were detained and incarcerated in gaol. Furthermore, the latest information available indicates that it is suspected that persons belonging to the Young Catholic Student Movement in South Africa have also been arrested. There has been, and there continues to be, harrassment of young Catholic workers in that country.

For the information of honourable senators, I will outline briefly what detention under section 6 of the Terrorism Act of South Africa means to people such as these who are picked up by the police. It means unlimited detention without trial. No information as to one’s whereabouts is given to friends or relatives. There is no contact with family or friends. There is total control by police. There is no legal assistance. There is total isolation. There is torture to obtain information about friends and organisations. No information is given, as I have said, concerning why one is in prison. In short, the Terrorism Act is a means for the police to impose terror on the people. To be in such a situation means being in solitary confinement, which is a form of psychological torture, with frequent visits from an interrogator, who is the only link with the human race.

Those who have already been in prison in South Africa have given the following details: For three days one is prevented from sleeping. The electricity is on day and night. Then one is locked in a room with no lights. There are beatings and other forms of punishment. Meals consist of the following: Breakfast, soft porridge; lunch, boiled corn; supper, a light soup. I do not want to say much more about the matter, but I relate those facts because I believe, as I said on Tuesday, when I began to discuss this matter, a one-sided approach has been taken by this Parliament, and perhaps by many people in this nation who seem to believe that there is a lack of human rights in only one country of the world. Recent reports- as late as yesterday in the Canberra Times- refer to trials in South Africa in which it has been alleged that prisoners have been chained and beaten. There are further reports that 10 associates of Steve Biko have been picked up; that others have fled the country as, I am given to understand, is the case with a number of young Catholic workers. Young people have been forced into hiding, or into fleeing the country.

It does seem a pity that the sub-committee of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence was not given a wider reference in relation to human rights than the single reference of human rights in the Soviet Union. It is a world-wide problem. It seems to me that, as a nation and as a Parliament, we tend to be very moralistic about it when it happens thousands and thousands of miles away from home; but when it happens on our doorstep, as it has been happening over the last three years in Timor, we act, as I have said already in this Parliament, like a nation of dingoes and do nothing about it. It is happening right around the world. It is happening in Indonesia, Timor, West Irian or Irian Jaya, right on our border. We say nothing; we acquiesce. It is alright to protest when it happens 12,000 or 15,000 miles from home.

Senator KILGARIFF:
Northern Territory

– I support the Pig Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill 1978 and commend the indus.iry upon the action it has taken in bringing about an increase in levy fees, which will stimulate research and promotion within the country and no doubt assist exports. It was very interesting to note from the second reading speech in another place of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) that within the industry various committees, such as the Pig Industry Research Committee and the Pigmeat Promotion Advisory Committee, refer to the Minister requests for increased levies before they are submitted to the Governor-General. I believe this is a very healthy sign: The industry itself is prepared, without government assistance, to increase the levy in order to improve techniques in the production of pigmeat and in the promotion of sales of such meat.

This is one of those unusual measures upon the first reading of which, in the Senate, we can refer to various matters. It is my intention to speak briefly on matters associated with animals other than pigs. I turn to the beef industry, to discuss briefly the situation concerning bluetongue which, although it is a disease that affects sheep and not beef, has had an enormous effect on that industry. It is the beef industry of Australia that has had to suffer the effects of the calamity that has occurred. I say calamity because the disease of bluetongue has not been found in Australia. Only the virus has been found. Yet, to all intents and purposes, that news has been received by the nations that import beef and livestock from Australia in such a way that they are acting as if the disease itself has been found in Australia. I emphasise, not a disease but a virus has been found.

To go back over the last year or so, since the finding in the Northern Territory by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation of the bluetongue virus known as serotype 20 in a group of insects collected there, various steps, which I shall outline, have been taken. It is mainly the Northern Territory that has been affected. I say ‘mainly the Northern Territory’ because I recognise that the disease has had a severe effect in the north of Queensland. In the Northern Territory an endemic area was proclaimed in which absolutely no movement of cattle was allowed. Two other areas of the Northern Territory were affected to a lesser extent and movement was allowed to a greater degree. As I have indicated in the Senate before, at the time of the outbreak the live beef market in various neighbour countries to our north was rapidly increasing. The market collapsed overnight. In some areas there has been a slight easing. In the main areas of export, such as Kong Kong, whose large neighbour,

China, is alongside it, there has been no easing of the situation. A very healthy export industry, which as I said before was developing rapidly, was cut off overnight.

The producers were so concerned that at least two big delegations came to visit the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) at Parliament House, Canberra, late last year and this year. They asked for various things, such as full compensation for mustering, holding, handling and other costs involved in bluetongue testing for control or for movement of stock; the full market price for animals slaughtered because of bluetongue infection, including valuable stud cattle; carry-on finance at no interest and a moratorium on Commonwealth Development Bank loans, primary producer board loans and all other government loans; and the remittance of lease rentals until the industry is re-established and an extension of eligibility for carry-on finance to all affected properties. These were reasonable requests- and still are, in many respects.

The beef industry has been in an extremely poor condition. This has been brought about by distance from markets, poor returns and so on. When bluetongue first hit the industry, the industry was practically on its knees. In fact, the Government, because of these various representations to it, saw fit to make certain moves. Honourable senators will recall that on 1 7 May 1978 the Government announced, subject to agreement by the States to share costs on a dollar for dollar basis, an aid program which would include payment at the rate of $3 per head of cattle to offset mustering costs incurred in bluetongue virus control and for movement of stock in the control areas in north Queensland, the Northern Territory and the Kimberleys. A maximum payment of $3,000 per property was proposed for mustering during the period 1 January 1978 to 31 December 1978. Also, payments were to be made to producers to compensate for the cost of blood testing of cattle, at the rate of $5 per head for survey and surveillance testing and $10 per test for movement testing for export. The payments were available to all producers required to test both within and without the control areas. Payments were to be made for all tests conducted to the end of 1978, including those undertaken since the commencement of the bluetongue incident in October 1977. It was mentioned also that a grant of $225,000 would be made for the urgent acquisition of virology laboratory equipment. Western Australia was allocated $50,000. Queensland $75,000 and the Northern Territory $100,000. A laboratory is now part of the new Northern Territory Government’s works program for this financial year.

I have taken this opportunity to outline the problems that have been experienced and the aid that has been given by the Government. As the delegations have said to the Government, the advent of the bluetongue endemic area meant that about 1 50,000 square miles of cattle country will go practically out of production; assets worth over $500,000 will become worthless and exports worth about $10m a year will be lost to Australia; and 25 years of valuable and costly government experimental work on pastures and cattle in the Top End will go for nothing. Since the outbreak of bluetongue various moves have been taken. Further research is being done. I have here a statement by the Minister for Science (Senator Webster) on further bluetongue research. I have discussed the incorporation of the statement with the Minister and have shown a copy of it to the Opposition. I seek leave to have the statement incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The statement read as follows- 20 August, 1978. FURTHER BLUETONGUE RESEARCH

Further research into insect species capable of transmitting bluetongue virus will be carried out by CSIRO, the Minister for Science, Senator J. J. Webster, said today.

Senator Webster said the future emphasis of the bluetongue research at CSIRO’s Division of Animal Health would be towards:

Ascertaining which insect species are capable of transmitting bluetongue virus and determining the precise distribution range, seasonality and biology of the species.

Studies of the capacity of bluetongue virus to cause disease.

In collaboration with the Animal Virus Research Institute, Pirbright, U.K., CSIRO will also conduct studies on problems encountered with diagnostic tests’, the Minister said.

Investigations on improved methods of vaccinating against the strain of bluetongue virus discovered in Australia will also be initiated.

However, the level of pathogenicity that would be expected if it were transmitted by its insect vector into susceptible sheep under stress in the field, is unknown.

For many years the CSIRO Division of Animal Health has been engaged in a nationwide research program aimed at determining the potential insect vectors of diseases of livestock.

Considerable attention has been devoted to the insect genus Culicoides because it was known that species of this genus are the vectors of bluetongue in overseas countries. CSIRO scientists have evidence that at least two species of the genus Culicoides found in Australia are capable of transmitting the virus.

In conjunction with this program, the Division of Animal Health has also been co-ordinating the regular bloodsampling in 5 1 cattle herds scattered around Australia and Papua New Guinea.

This was part of the sentinel herd scheme established by the Division in 1 969 to monitor viruses in cattle- with emphasis on insect-borne viruses.

Since the announcement of the isolation of bluetongue virus, the Organization has re-deployed staff into bluetongue work and the effort will be increased yet again by a further re-deployment.

To date all staff have been involved in urgent activities such as the development of diagnostic tests, the preparation of diagnostic reagents, and the conduct of nationwide surveys in conjunction with the States to determine the spread of the virus’.

Senator Webster added that the Division was gradually phasing out its work on diagnostic testing as the States took over.

Senator KILGARIFF:

– This information statement is of considerable interest. The statement indicates that CSIRO scientists have evidence that at least two insect species found in Australia are capable of transmitting the virus. Perhaps that has not been said before. Perhaps one of the species was the one that was found in New South Wales in the last few months. However, at least work is taking place. Unfortunately, while the work is taking place the cattle industry still has many problems.

I refer now to a question which I asked the Minister for Science, who represents the Minister for Primary Industry in this chamber, on 16 August this year and which related to restrictions on the movement of stock within Australia restrictions on the movement of livestock to other countries and so on. Once again I gave the Minister and the Opposition notice that I intended to seek the incorporation of the question and answer. I seek leave to have them incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

Senator Kilgariff:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 16 August 1978:

  1. 1 ) What restrictions have been placed on the movement of stock within Australia, particularly the Northern Territory, because of the Bluetongue disease.
  2. Has there been any change in restrictions on the movement of livestock to other countries, and what is the present attitude of overseas client countries which import livestock from Australia.

Senator Webster, the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answers to the honourable senator’s questions:

  1. I) Bluetongue control areas were introduced following the discovery of a bluetongue virus ( serotype 20 ) in northern Australia in October 1977. The Australian Agricultural Council has continually reviewed the original restrictions and the present movement centre’s arc as follows: cattle from properties with no evidence of active or recent infection can move out of the bluetongue control areas without further testing. This applies to slaughter, breeding and store cattle. cattle from properties with evidence of recent or active infection are required to satisfy further conditions before movement. Slaughter cattle may be consigned for slaughter within 14 days of leaving the control area either to a sale or direct to an abattoir without further testing. Breeders and store cattle must be further blood tested before movement and only cattle negative to this test will be allowed to move to a suitable location in the control area for a further retest after 14 days. Cattle positive to this second test must be removed for direct slaughter or returned to the property of origin. Cattle negative to the second test may move out of control areas.

Insecticide treatment before movement is no longer required for bluetongue control.

These modifications minimise the risk to the sheep and cattle industry in the remainder of the country and reduce restrictions on northern cattle producers. Tasmania, and Western Australia in reference to its south-western areas, have reaffirmed that the testing and certification of -.ill ruminants entering these areas will remain in force for the time being.

  1. Yes. The present bluetongue certification requirements of overseas client countries are:

Total Bans

Argentina, Bulgaria, Canada, Fiji, the German Democratic Republic. New Zealand, People’s Republic of China. Romania, United Kingdom/Northern Ireland. Western Samoa.

Total Bans on Control Areas or Areas North of 18°S Latitude with Certification and Testing for the Remaining Areas

Hong Kong, Indonesia, Iran (sheep from Queensland). Kuwait, West Malaysia (breeding cattle only), Philippines, Republic of Korea (north of 22°S latitude).

Certification and Testing Only

Iran. Japan. West Malaysia (slaughter cattle only). Mauritius, Papua New Guinea, Taiwan, Brunei, Sabah, Sarawak.

The only recent change is by the Republic of Korea which has lifted its total ban on the importation of ruminants, and by Papua New Guinea which lifted its total ban on ruminants.

Senator KILGARIFF:

– I have had the question and answer incorporated in order to save time and to indicate to the industry and to people who are interested in the problem of bluetongue what the actual situation is today. I draw particular attention to the problems that still exist with the sale of livestock overseas. The answer shows that many countries still have total bans on the importation of Australian live beef. Until the problem can be overcome and countries can be assured that no danger exists in importing cattle livestock from Australia for killing, the beef industry in Australia and particularly in the Northern Territory will remain in considerable trouble.

However, this is not quite the case in the Northern Territory, which has made some step forward. The new Minister for Industrial Development. Mr Roger Steele, announced in July last that the Territory Government had agreed to new bluetongue zoning proposals which would free a large number of stations from movement controls on cattle. The scheme, which has been agreed to by the various States, will replace the present restricted zone that has applied for the past eight months with a two-zone system. The Minister made various comments regarding this situation. He said that the scheme represented a major breakthrough for Territory producers and would mean that at least 20 more properties would be able to move cattle without restriction. I am now referring to the Australian scene, not to overseas movements. The proposed free zone would consist of the Alice Springs district, most of the Barkly district and the southern Victoria River districts which run into many hundreds of thousands of square miles. In the proposed control area any property which was free or showed signs of serological evidence only in older cattle there would be no restriction on movements. On properties in the control zone where young cattle showed virus activity two specific tests would be required 14 days apart before movement would be allowed. As I have indicated, he also stresses that the proposed controls are only within Australia and that the existing export restrictions outlined in the paper I have had incorporated in Hansard still remain.

Naturally the people in the primary industries in the outback of the Northern Territory are extremely concerned. As an indication I read one or two excerpts from a letter written by a Mr Moore who is recognised as a leading cattleman in the Top End of the Northern Territory. He is general manager of a place called Mount Bundey which is one of the W. R. Grace Australia Ltd properties. He was referring to the legislation that was passed in the Federal Houses of Parliament a little while ago relating to the financial assistance that would be given to the producers affected by the bluetongue virus controls. I believe that letters such as this warrant airing. The writer is a commonsense, stable cattleman. Without any emotion or hysterics he outlines the situation. He recognises the value and worth of government assistance and he makes suggestions that could possibly assist the industry and bring about a more satisfactory solution. He said:.

The Bill itself is very general, however, no doubt regulations wili be drafted shortly and then we can get a better feel for the impact on producers. I have talked to a number of Top End cattlemen and without question, the S3 per head and S5 per head payments will be very well received.

So far as the $10 per head for movement testing is concerned, this will prove of great assistance, although, there seems to be some question as to how widely this will be applied. My understanding is that the $10 per head will apply only to those animals which pass negative to the test and are actually moved or exported. This does not help a producer with the animals which pass positive and which thus must be retained on the property as a possible future source of infection, or else sent to the local abattoir probably at distress prices.

We well know what he meant when he talked about distress prices. A distress price is the price of an animal which has very little market value. He went on to say:

Heavy bullocks probably won’t present that much of a problem as the abattoirs are paying reasonably well for this class of animal. Lighter steers which prove positive are only fetching low prices and thus there is a natural inclination to hold them over for another year and then sell them to the works.

I think his comments can be very helpful not only to the industry but also to government in assessing what future action can be taken. Mr Moore continued:

I cannot help but feel that a more satisfactory solution would be to encourage producers to send all positive ‘s to the abattoir (irrespective of weight) immediately following testing and this could be done by making even these animals eligible for the $10 per head. I know there is possibility of abuse, however, if at the time of drafting (which is done under Stock Inspector supervision), all positive’s were marked and loaded out direct to the Works, this would overcome much of the problem.

Alternatively, compensation could be paid on all positive slaughtered in the same way as in TB and Brucellosis reactors.

He then states that it would be greatly appreciated if his thoughts on the scheme were put forward. As I said before, he is a man well qualified in the beef industry. I believe that the advice of such a man should be heeded.

Senator O’Byrne:

– How is the virus transmitted?

Senator KILGARIFF:

– The virus has been transmitted by a mite, an insect. I think that insect has been isolated. It is my understanding that this insect, this mite, that has caused so much damage to the industry- once again I say that it has brought about the virus not the disease- has been air borne and could well have been blown in from our northern neighbours.

Senator O’Byrne:

– Does it affect some positively and some not at all?

Senator KILGARIFF:

– I understand that it brings about a type of reaction in animals but that this disappears. It actually disappears at some times of the year and then once again there is reinfection. No doubt the experts know much more than I do but it appears that much more research work has to be done. The matter on which I now wish to speak is not a small one but it will take less time. I wish to speak briefly once again about animals in the outback. A feral animal inquiry board has been set up in the outback of the

Northern Territory. I think this is of particular significance not only for the Northern Territory but also for Australia as a whole. For many years now there have been very many discussions about the value of feral animals to Australia. Also there has been a great deal of talk about the damage that feral animals cause in Australia. In fact a question was asked yesterday by a senator from Queensland about a feral animal. I think that person wanted that particular feral animalthe cat- to be saved. He thought that we should pussy-foot around with the cat and treat it very gently.

Senator O’Byrne:

– That would be a catastrophe.

Senator KILGARIFF:

– It would be a catastrophe. I agree with the honourable senator. That particular feral animal is a catastrophe for Australia now. The domestic cat that has gone wild has become a very fearsome and ferocious animal throughout Australia. I do not think we fully recognise the damage that it is doing to the small bird life and the animal life- the lizards and so on and all those other small animal citizens- of Australia. I believe that the cat has already removed some species and that many others are endangered by this animal which has the hunting instincts of a tiger. I suggest that rather than being looked upon as a gentle animal that should be retained, this animal should be hunted and exterminated and a bounty put on its head wherever possible. We see this happen in Fiji. Anybody who has been to Fiji will have seen the absolute consternation that occurs in the islands if the residents find that a cat is loose on their land. I was with the people on a particular island one day when it was discovered that a cat was loose. Practically the whole community turned out to hunt it down because they realised the dangers of that animal.

However, I was discussing the feral animal inquiry board. This board now for the first time- I do not know whether it has happened anywhere else- is looking at the question of the future of feral animals in this part of Australia. I applaud the fact that the board has been established and has its terms of reference and is now working. Many questions have to be asked and answered as to the future of various animals that are looked upon as being in varying degrees either a pest or of some commercial value to Australia. I refer to various animals such as the dingo that are being investigated now. We know that for 10 or 20 years the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation has carried out research in the outback on the dingo. If I remember correctly part of that research was financed by sections of the cattle industry. Substantial subsidies were given to the CSIRO to carry out that work. As those payments have ceased, the research work has been discontinued. I think that that is unfortunate as those who were carrying out this research work on the dingo were really getting down to an understanding of the basics of this animal. If further research had been carried out, the findings would have been of extreme interest to Australia.

I mention next the buffalo. Exports of buffalo meat have been worth millions of dollars to Australia. Buffalo meat has been used for human or animal consumption. Our trade with Germany benefited by $2m to $3m a year through buffalo meat exports. For various reasons concerned with interpretations as to the classification of the type of meat that it was, that export trade in buffalo meat was lost. This loss was very costly. The future of the buffalo is a controversial matter. Should it be removed, hunted out, exterminated completely or allowed to remain. I will not pre-empt or forecast what the board may decide but I must say that the domesticated buffalo has a commercial value to the Northern Territory and thus to Australia. It will continue to carry disease, as it does now, while it runs wild. The future improvement, control and stabilisation of the beef industry in the north of Aus.traslia depend upon the control and domestication of such animals as the buffalo.

In this context, I refer to the pig, which is the subject of the Bill now before the Senate. This animal must be viewed- no doubt it is- as another curse on Australia. As a carrier of tuberculosis and such, the pig endangers in the Top End the beef industry. As we all know, endeavours are being made to eradicate by 1984 diseases such as brucellosis and tuberculosisbrucellosis particularly- in this big industry which contains many hundreds of thousands of animals in the Northern Territory.

Last but not least I mention the rabbit. The rabbit problem is one of the reasons why I have taken the time to speak on this Bill. When these days the rabbit problem is mentioned, I suppose we think of the time 10 years, 20 years or 30 years ago when Australia was absolutely ravaged by plagues of rabbits. The destruction caused to this country by rabbits was so complete that in some areas not a blade of grass was left as feed for cattle or sheep. But by various means, including diseases such as myxomatosis, the rabbit to a degree has disappeared from the rural scene in most parts of Australia. Where it has not disappeared, its numbers have been controlled. We do not see the problems caused by rabbit”; that were experienced years ago. But there remain areas in Australia that are still very much contaminated and over-run by rabbits. The creatures are leaving the country absolutely desolated.

The Northern Territory has experienced good seasons for seven or eight years now. Rainfall that used to average, say, 10 inches a year, has averaged from 18 inches up to even 30 inches a year recently. The country has been rejuvenated. The comparison between the condition of that country now and its state in the drought years of the 1950s and early 1960s is absolutely amazing. Last week people close to the Northern Territory-South Australian border in the Erldunda area south of Alice Springs invited Mr Sam Calder, the Federal member for the Northern Territory, and me to visit their districts. We saw a botanical garden the like of which I have never seen before. Every type of wild flower and shrub was in full flower. It was a beautiful sight. Then we came across literally hundreds of square miles of desolation where the country appeared as though it was suffering drought conditions.

Senator O’Byrne:

– Sandy country.

Senator KILGARIFF:

– Yes. This area has been a breeding ground of rabbits for many years. The use of neither myxomatosis nor 1080 has eradicated the rabbit problem. Not only was the ground bare of growth but also were the trees and shrubs ringbarked. It is hard to imagine this, but rabbits in such areas not only eat from the ground but also actually climb trees. This claim is not fallacious. In areas such as this evidence can be seen where rabbits actually get into the boughs of trees in their endeavours to eat every portion of those trees. And so the trees are killed.

The point I am making is that it is ridiculous in these times of good seasons that such rich country should be denuded. I wonder what can be done. There has been much discussion about the introduction of the rabbit flea. Fears about its use have been expressed. The rabbit flea is another method by which myxomatosis can be introduced into rabbit populations. People in the community have feared that the rabbit flea would infect dogs and other types of domesticated animals and bring about chaos. But, as far as I know, this view is a fallacy. My understanding is that rabbit fleas will live only on pregnant does and perhaps on young rabbits. I understand that this would have tremendous effects which would reduce the numbers of rabbits rapidly. I suggest to the Government and the Minister that they should not look upon this area as containing a problem local to the border of South Australia and the Northern Territory alone but as an area that could continue to be a source of potential danger to and contamination of many areas of Australia if it remains a breeding ground. I support the legislation. I think the pig breeders and the pig industry of Australia are to be congratulated for their efforts in bring about more research on and promotion of their product.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– Debate on the first reading of a money Bill certainly ranges over a conglomeration of subjects. I take the Senate from bluetongue to black faces. I am greatly concerned that most correspondence I receive these days contains some complaint about the treatment of Aborigines and particularly the treatment by the Federal Government of the Aborigines at Aurukun and Morington Island. Today I received a letter from the Quakers Society of New South Wales asking that the Government take over that land in Queensland and whether I would declare my position on the Government ‘s intentions with regard to the demand for recognition of land rights of Aborigines at Aurukun and Mornington Island. I would have thought that it would be well known from my speeches in this House that I had made that declaration many times during debate on this subject. I have always tried to approach the question of Aborigines on a non-party basis, in the belief that despite what may appear to be the position at the present time there are many Government members with good intentions of trying to assist these unfortunate people who have been done a disservice in Australia. It occurs to me at this time that even the Cabinet which may be desirous of helping Aborigines may feel that it is restrained because of the legal position on the question of Aborigines.

It is not only speakers on this side of the Senate but also people throughout the whole of the community who say that the Government has the constitutional authority to acquire land and to hand it over to the Aborigines. I often wonder- I have some doubts- whether the Government has such constitutional power. I am of the belief that the legal advisers to the Government and the Department of Aboriginal Affairs also may have some doubts as to whether the Commonwealth has the constitutional power to take over land for Aborigines. Although it is said that in the 1967 referendum the people gave this power to the Federal Government, I think it is open to legal challenge that the people of Australia did give that power to the Federal Government in that 1967 referendum.

I, as a layman, am not the only person to express this doubt. Many legal authorities whom we could accept as constitutional authorities have expressed this doubt. It is a doubt that will never be resolved unless there is a challenge to the High Court. I am of the belief that the people of Australia voted in the 1967 referendum the way they did because they believed it would mean a better deal for Aborigines. About 92 per cent of the people in all electorates in Australia, including Queensland, voted to give to the Federal Government power for the purpose of bettering the welfare of Aborigines. The lowest percentage in any Federal electorate was 82 per cent. If the legal position is that the Commonwealth does not have this power the feeling is that a referendum today supported by all political parties would make sure that we do not have that power. The Government, despite any possible fears about what power it has, should act upon the basis that it believes it has the power and should acquire land on behalf of Aborigines in such a way that there would be a challenge to the High Court for the purpose of determining the actual legal position in Australia.

We know that sometimes on questions of who is the authority on interpretation the High Court brings down many unusual decisions. The judgment of the Chief Justice in the Webster case was that the words meant something different from what everyone thought they meant. Although everyone today thinks that in 1967 the people gave power to the Federal Government for the control of Aborigines, is that the real position? I have some support for my doubts. I launched a book by a Dr Hannah Middleton in Sydney on 30 June entitled But Now We Want Our Land Back. The book deals with the land rights of Aborigines. I sent a copy of the text of my speech to every legal person in the Federal Labor Party and asked them for their reactions on the legal points I had raised, I did not get a reply from them all, but of those replies that I did get the best that one could get was: ‘I think the High Court may rule’. None of the legal authorities were definite.

I was fortunate in the short time that I was a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs to get, without a meeting having been held, a report from Professor Colin Howard, the Dean of the Faculty of Law at the University of Melbourne on the paper he gave to Mr Justice Kirby, the Chairman of the Law Reform Commission, on the question of Aboriginal law. I fe$! that I cannot quote from it.

I think that so far it is a privileged document, although it was given to the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee with the approval of Professor Howard. Nevertheless, I have no knowledge as to whether he would permit its use in the Senate or publication. I can say only that he says that the High Court may uphold a challenge. There is nothing definite.

As Minister for Aboriginal Affairs there was much legislation which one would have liked to have brought forward and which on the advice that we had could have subjected this question to a challenge in the High Court. In my time as Minister it was the last thing that we wanted. Whilst the Constitution says that we have the power to make special laws for people of a particular race- much of the legislation that I would have presented would have dealt with part Aboriginals- it was not thought by the legal profession that a part Aboriginal would be classified as a person of any particular race. It was possible that he would be classified as a person without a race. Therefore, it was considered that that sort of legislation would be declared invalid. I can see the same thing happening to the legislation that this Government has brought in. I refer to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (Queensland Reserves and Communities Self-management) Bill. I was somewhat critical of the Government because it permitted the Bill to go through this Parliament in such a way that the next day the Premier of Queensland could declare a reserve not to be a reserve. So that Act could never have any application. The Government should have accepted Labor’s amendment which would have meant that a reserve was declared to be a reserve on the day that the legislation was passed. The Minister’s reply was that it would open up the question to legal challenge. I came back with the question of whether constitutional law could be declared to be unconstitutional because of a change in date. Some legal authorities on the other side thought that it was possible. In looking at the legislation I think that possibly they were right because the declaration of a reserve as an Aboriginal reserve as at that date was a declaration of an area of land which was Queensland Crown Land. Therefore, the authorities thought that a successful challenge was beyond our power. But, as we have found out, without passing Labor’s amendment the Bill can never become operative. This means that unless we acquire land we can never solve the problems of Aurukun and Mornington Island.

Since the introduction of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act Mr Viner has been handing out land titles to Aboriginal land trusts; but there is dissatisfaction in Aboriginal communities throughout the whole of Australia. They want land. Nothing will settle their grievances until they get land. There is feeling among the majority of Aborigines that they are justified in wanting the traditional land that is significant to their culture. Therefore we must introduce a land rights Bill for Aborigines throughout Australia. Even with the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act we found that Mr Justice Toohey was not overgenerous in respect of Borroloola. So there is no question of the Aborigines taking valuable land.

I refer now to an article in the Advertiser of Tuesday, 12 September. It concerns Mr Lanley, who is the chairman of Mornington Island’s Gunamamanda Community Council. He was speaking at a human rights seminar in Adelaide. He made his point pretty forcefully. He said that Aboriginals are enjoying and participating in European life at present. The article states:

However, said Mr Lanley, the old people saw many problems when Aboriginals moved away from the Aboriginal way.

It must be inside that we feel Aboriginal, we call it ‘durrkada’ which gives us strength- it makes us recognise ourselves as Aboriginal, ‘he said . . . lf our Dreaming and our laws and languages and our way of living die then that will be the end of Aboriginal people,’ he said.

It all goes back to the land, that is why land rights are so important to us.

We need the land to bc Aboriginal in our minds- that is why governments must give back the land if we are to keep our culture.

Take away our land like the Queensland Government is trying to do and we’re nobody, we will die out, finish. That land gives the true meaning to Aboriginal life. ‘

Mr Lanley said land was the key to Aboriginal spiritual and physical survival, even in the 20th century.

At the heart of everything is land- it is the way we feel and think about the land that makes us Aboriginal, ‘ he said.

It is the only way to keep our culture, and without it we are scattered into a country that is not ours, where we feel hunted, like wild kangaroos and dingoes.

If anyone has witnessed the period of mourning for a dead member of a tribe and seen the bereaved people moaning for nights and simply throwing up handfuls of dirt to their faces, he must realise the significance of land to Aboriginal people. As Mr Lanley said, if the Aboriginals do not have land they are finished; the white people are killing them. One can see the responsibility of the government of people who have taken over this country from the people who have lived here for 30,000 years. Although it is too late to turn back the clock we must do something. Many Government members are keen to do something about this matter. Their keenness must be tested.

When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, under section 51 (xxvi) they gave the Commonwealth the power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to the people of any race, other than the Aboriginal race in any State, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws. Until 1967 that was the constitutional position. We had the power to make laws for the good government of the people of any race except the Aboriginals. Quick and Garran state that this was similar to the American Constitution. The American Government wanted to make special laws for a migrant group but an American court found that it did not have the power to make separate laws; everyone was covered by the Constitution and the law had to apply to all. So that that did not happen in Australia, section 51 (xxvi) was included in the Constitution. Aboriginals were excluded because it was thought that they were entitled to the same laws and rights as Australians. It was believed that any special laws would be a restriction upon people of a special race. At that time we had Chinese men in the gold mines and Kanakas in the sugar fields in Queensland. Many of the State parliaments had restrictive laws. I believe that in my State a Chinese man could not work in a factory after 2 o’clock on Saturdays. Anyone else could do so, but at that time the Chinese could not do so because they were regarded as a threat to industrial conditions.

The question arises whether those laws were necessary. Section 51 (xxvi) of the Constitution gives us power to make laws with respect to immigration and emigration. One would have thought that that provision would have covered the situation. But it was believed that some of the imported labour, such as the Kanakas in Queensland, would not have come under the classification of immigrants and, therefore, special laws were made and there was special reference in section 5 1 (xxvi) to put the question beyond doubt. It was claimed that this constitutional provision discriminated against Aborigines insofar as the same laws could not apply to them as applied to other people. Following the referendum in 1967 and despite the fact that it was fought on the ground of a better go for Aborigines, we deleted the words ‘other than the aboriginal race in any State’. Now we have power to make laws for the good government of the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws.

One legal opinion I have seen assumes that the High Court could well rule that Aborigines are not people of a special race. The intention of the Constitution is to restrict the power of the Commonwealth to make a uniform law for its citizens- that is, for Australians if that term can be denned- and another law, a separate law, for people of a particular race. The court could well uphold the view that Aborigines, who were here before us, are Australians as are Europeans who have come to this country since. I do not know what the situation is when a migrant becomes an Australian citizen. Is he a person of a particular race? How about a first, second or third generation Australian? They are some of the things that we do not know and they must be tested.

If the court upheld that view, all that the 1 967 referendum did was to take out of the Constitution surplus words; the position now is as it was before the referendum. If this is so, then an appeal should be made to the people for the appropriate power. It is no use saying that the people gave the Parliament power to make laws in respect of Aboriginals in 1967; the Parliament has the power to make special laws in respect of people of a particular race. Whether that term applies to Aboriginals will have to be tested eventually. The opportunity should be made to test it now. Despite the overwhelming vote in the 1967 referendum for us to improve the conditions of Aboriginals, neither Labor nor Liberal Federal governments since have done anything for Aboriginals that could not have been done before the referendum. We have passed the Northern Territory Land Rights Bill but it could have been passed at any time after South Australia handed over the Northern Territory to the Commonwealth. We had jurisdiction over the Territory and could have brought in land rights legislation in respect of it long before 1 967.

The Commonwealth has taken over the policy making, planning and co-ordination of Aboriginal affairs in each of the States other than Queensland but this was done with the consent of the States and could have been achieved without the referendum. We have brought into operation the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (Queensland Discriminatory Laws) Act, introduced by the Labor Government, and have passed the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (Queensland Reserves and Communities Self-Management) Bill which we could not have passed before the referendum. However, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (Queensland Reserves and Communities SelfManagement) Bill can never have any application because of the power of the State Government to declare a reserve a non-reserve each time an Aboriginal community asks for the provisions of the Bill to be implemented. This is what the State Government did in the case of the Aurukun and Mornington Island communities. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (Queensland Anti-Discrimination Laws) Act, although an Act we could not have passed before the referendum, ensures some protection for Aboriginals, but it is valueless because it is never policed and cannot be policed.

When one group of Aboriginal road builders on a settlement struck for higher wages because they were getting only a living allowance, their employment was terminated and they had to wait six weeks for social security benefits. I wrote then to the Minister for Social Security stating that the Federal Government was penalising the citizens of Queensland who would not participate in an unlawful action agianst the Commonwealth Government. I received a reply referring to the terms and conditions of employment. The inference there is that they should have participated in an illegal act to get support from the Federal Government. That is a serious position in which a constitutionally elected government should place itself. I then wrote to the AttorneyGeneral asking what he was doing about breaches of the Act. He wrote back saying that there were no penalty provisions in the Act and therefore he could do nothing, but that the Aboriginals had a right to claim the award rates.

I wrote to the northern Queensland branch of the Australian Workers Union asking what it would do about the situation. The union said that it polices the award and that the award covered work on roads carried out by the Department of Main Roads. The work in question was being carried out by the settlement and only one of the strikers was a member of the AWU. I wrote to the Aboriginal legal aid office asking what it intended doing. It said that it had not been able to do much in this case because it had found difficulty in getting evidence. Then it said: ‘Now we have the evidence and we are considering it. but we are so restricted by finance that there is very little we can do to represent a defendant. We cannot at present see that justice according to law is done to the Aboriginal people ‘.

Although it can be of no benefit to Aboriginals, the passing of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (Queensland Reserves and SelfManagement) Bill and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (Queensland Discriminatory

Laws) Bill introduced other legal complications and it is worth considering them. I use as my authority Quick and Garran who, it has been hammered home to me since I have been in this Parliament, are the authorities on the interpretation of the Constitution. In the latest edition of their publication, The Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth, Quick and Garran, in dealing with people of a particular race, say:

In the Draft Bill of 1891, this sub-section appeared as the first of a group of three subjects, with reference to which the Parliament was assigned exclusive legislative power. It is now placed in the list of powers generally described as concurrent; that is to say, the States may occupy the ground until the Federal authority interferes and displaces them. The subsection can only exclude the action of State legislation respecting ‘the people of any race’, when the Federal Parliament declares, by legislation, that such race is a race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws’. Before such legislation the State Parliaments will be free to pass laws concerning any part of their resident population, including the people of any particular race, coloured or otherwise, but as soon as the Federal Parliament by legislative intervention has shown that it has dealt with, or contemplates dealing with, the people of a particular race by special laws, the power to discriminate in respect of that race will thenceforth be exclusively vested in it and the State legislatures Wili be deprived of jurisdiction.

The legal personnel in the Australian Labor Party were generally of the belief after considering the replies I got that the matter would have to be covered by a Federal law because there was some contradiction between Federal law and State law and under sections of the Constitution Federal law would be supreme. That is not the opinion held by Quick and Garran. Maybe a mistake was made. Quick and Garran do not say that the State cannot continue to legislate for its citizens. They say that after the Commonwealth moves into a field any discriminatory law of the States in that field is deprived of legality. This would apply also if the Commonwealth contemplated moving into a field. Quick and Garran say: . . as soon as Federal Parliament by legislative intervention has shown that it has dealt with, or contemplates dealing with -

Even contemplates dealing with- the people of a particular race by special laws, the power to discriminate in respect of that race will thenceforth bc exclusively vested in it and the State legislatures will be deprived of jurisdiction.

The conflict arises in that, if the Quick and Garran interpretation is the right one, only discriminatory State law would have no legal effect. In 1974 the Federal Parliament showed its intention to make special laws for people of a particular race, namely, the Aborigines. If Quick and Garran are correct, no discriminatory Jaw of a State concerning Aborigines can have any effect at this time. The general law may have effect. If the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Anti-Discriminatory (Queensland Laws) Act, under which we decided to accept Aborigines as people of a particular race, is a valid law, then the laws which Bjelke-Petersen is operating today are not valid. The laws which he is using to oppose the Federal law are not legal laws. No one will challenge the Queensland laws. The Commonwealth Government will not. I do not think it could, because it takes the attitude that it has the necessary power. It is saying this, whether it believes it on not. I think it should act.

Section 5 1 (xxxi. ) provides that the Commonwealth shall have the power for ‘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’. We accept that the Commonwealth Parliament has the power to make special laws for people of a particular race, the Aboriginal people. It also has the power to acquire property, as the Constitution provides very definitely. When a law is challenged, a court will not give an interpretation on anything that would lead to an absurdity. We must remember that there are no particular powers written into the Constitution to acquire property for Aboriginals. The only power is the power to legislate for people of a particular race. Aborigines are not mentioned. If section 51 (xxxi.) is interpreted as being a power to acquire property for Aboriginals, it must be a power to do the same thing for other ethnicgroups the Germans, the Italians, the Greeks and everyone else. If that was so, the Commonwealth could simply dismember and destroy a State. I do not believe that a court would ever uphold a claim that that power existed. The mischief it would create would be greater than any mischief it would solve.

Whilst 1 do not think that the Australian publicwould give the Commonwealth Parliament power to acquire land for all people of a particular race, I am certain that if all parties supported an appeal to the Australian public to allow it to alter the Constitution sufficiently to let the Government legislate to give land to Aboriginal people there would be a successful result. The question is whether we have a government that is courageous enough to take whatever action is necessary. There are two ways to legislate when there is constitutional doubt. A government can either go to the people for an alteration of the Constitution or it can pass a law which would be effective until it was challenged and upset by the court and then go to the people. If there is any honesty and sincerity in the present public agitation for a return of land to the Aborigines, and if we are to recognise a sanctity of land to the Aborigines and the necessity for their continued culture and well-being, then we should do something definite about it.

I make my appeal today because it is not sufficient for the Commonwealth just to say that it has the power. Let us exercise that power. The place to do that is Aurukun and Mornington Island. Everyone knows that if we acquired either Aurukun or Mornington Island there would immediately be a challenge in the High Court of Australia against the Commonwealth’s action. Only by such a challenge can we get some understanding of what the Commonwealth really means and what it is all about. In this debate on the first reading of the Bill I appeal to the Government to take action to try to test the powers it has under the Constitution.

Senator WALTERS:
Tasmania

-This first reading debate on the Pig Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill gives me the opportunity of bringing up a matter that is of concern to me. It relates to Commonwealth grants to specific organisations within the States and the amount of Commonwealth responsibility for the proper administration of these organisations. Under our federalism policy the general feeling of the Government is that the States should be responsible for the administration of the moneys that the Commonwealth gives in untied grants. Considerable untied grants are given to the States for community health programs. In the majority of cases they are on a dollar-for-dollar basis. A considerable amount of money is involved. The figure is $48. 3m for this financial year. The States set their priorities and the Commonwealth meets them on a dollar-for-dollar basis. This is fine. I believe that this is federalism at its best. However, if the Commonwealth states that it has a special commitment, I believe that that alters the whole case.

Let us look at the community health program in general. The total outlay this financial year is $48. 3m which is broken up among the States in the following way: New South Wales gets nearly $ 19.5m; Victoria nearly $14m; South Australia just over $3m; Queensland $5m; Western Australia $4m; and Tasmania nearly $2m. The States divide this money and share it out as they think fit. The priorities of the States vary quite considerably. I will not go through the whole method of how they deal with community health programs.

I would like to deal with the women ‘s centres in the various States. New South Wales is quite committed to women’s centres. Out of the community health program, it funds five women’s centres. On the other hand, Victoria is not committed to women’s centres and in fact does not fund any. South Australia funds one; Queensland does not fund any; Western Australia funds one; and Tasmania does not fund any. This is federalism at its best. The money is supplied from taxation and the various States put their priorities where they think fit. If the people of New South Wales look at the Leichhardt and Liverpool women’s centres, for instance, and decide that that is how they want their money spent that is fair enough. If they do not want their money spent on these types of organisations, they know what to do about it; they can vote the Government out at that next election. This way they have a proper say in the organisation of their State.

However, when the Commonwealth has a special commitment, as it does have in the area of women’s shelters, I believe that the whole aspect changes. That is the only area in community health where the Commonwealth Government does not make just a 50:50 commitment but makes a commitment to meet 75 per cent of the costs, as opposed to the States’ commitment of 25 per cent of the costs. We find that this financial year the Commonwealth, in providing 75 per cent of the money that will go to these refuges or shelters, will make a total grant of nearly $2,800,000. New South Wales will receive approximately $945,000, Victoria $574,000, Queensland $408,000, South Australia $361,000, Western Australia $337,000 and Tasmania $158,750. So the Commonwealth Government feels quite a commitment. To underline the Commonwealth’s commitment under which, as I said, it meets 75 per cent of the costs of such shelters as opposed to the States meeting 25 per cent, a short time ago Queensland did not fund its shelters. As a result, because of the Commonwealth’s special commitment to these shelters, it decided to fund shelters in Queensland on a direct grant basis. I believe that this underlines completely the Commonwealth’s commitment in this area. With this I agree fully.

What I am concerned about is the fact that if something happens in one of those shelters- if there is misconduct of any description- even though the Commonwealth says ‘we have a special commitment in this area and we are willing to make a special effort in this regard ‘, it says we leave the administration of and the investigations into these shelters to the States. As I said, the States have a commitment to meet only 25 per cent of the costs in this area. I do not believe that that is a very large involvement. I do not believe that all the States do in fact involve themselves very much in these shelters and refuges.

As you may know, Mr Deputy President, at present investigations are being carried out into the shelter at Hobart. The Tasmanian Minister for Welfare is looking into allegations of improper conduct in the shelter. At first improper conduct was admitted by the staff. They said that improper conduct had occurred in the shelter and that the people responsible had been asked to leave. However, later it was reported that women from the shelter had said that the allegations were exaggerated, that there was no improper conduct and that in fact children in the shelter were not at risk. The staff admitted originally that improper conduct did take place at the shelter; now it is claimed that the situation has been exaggerated and that, after all, there was not very much substance in the allegation. To my mind that makes the shelter all the more suspect and makes my worry and concern far more -

Senator O’Byrne:

– Just a mischievous political stunt by Hodgman.

Senator WALTERS:

– I do not think that the honourable senator ought to comment because I think he will find that the Minister -

Senator O’Byrne:

– My wife was very closely associated with the shelter and she knows that the allegation is just mischievous.

Senator WALTERS:

– Maybe she was and maybe it was at a time when shelters were conducted in a totally different way. If the honourable senator is talking about the Launceston shelter, I could not agree with him more. It is run in a very responsible way and no such allegations have been made against it. But such allegations have been made against the Hobart shelter. Not only have such allegations been made against it, but the Minister for Welfare in Tasmania, who belongs to the honourable senator’s Party, sees–

Senator O’Byrne:

– You blamed him for taking the photographs.

Senator WALTERS:

– I am not blaming him at all. I am saying that he very properly is carrying out an investigation into this matter in a very proper way- perhaps a bit late, but nevertheless it is being carried out in a very proper way. So, if I were the honourable senator, I would be very careful about what I said in case when the investigations have been carried out he is left hanging out on a limb. The Depanment of Community Welfare in Hobart has stated that it has no regular supervisory responsibility for the shelter. If that is so, who is responsible for the shelter? The Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) said:

The State is responsible for general administration and oversight of the Women’s Refuges.

If the State is responsible but the Department of Community Welfare in that State states that it has no regular supervisory responsibility, I can see that things are being left pretty high and dry. Nobody seems to be responsible for the shelters. The allegations that have been made against the Hobart shelter I believe point out that, the way the shelter is at the moment, it is the worst possible atmosphere to which any woman who has recently been abused could go. If she has left her home under circumstances that forced her to go to a shelter, I believe that the atmosphere of that shelter at the moment would be the worst possible atmosphere for her and her children.

I have asked the Minister- and I certainly will be seeing him later- to withhold the additional grant of $22,000 that has been promised to that shelter until the investigation has been carried out. What I am querying is the fact that the Federal Government is saying that it has no responsibility in this area. It admits that it has a special commitment to this area- it has made it an area of very special commitment- yet it states that it will leave such shelters to the States to administer. I believe that this is entirely wrong. I believe that this commitment should be treated in much the same manner as the commitment to homeless persons hostels. Those hostels have been looked after by the Commonwealth Government and I believe that the Commonwealth Government should look after the shelters in the same way if it has a special commitment.

I believe that the Salvation Army, St Vincent de Paul and the people in these areas who have had so much experience in running shelters and in caring for all these disadvantaged people ought to be given funding in this area. Yet which House in Hobart, which is run by the Salvation Army, has had no funding. Elim House is a women’s shelter operated in exactly the same way as is the Hobart women’s shelter, but the latter has received all of the funding. To date, Elim House has had no Commonwealth assistance. It has gone about its work in a quiet fashion and, according to the people who operate it, if it were funded on the same lines as the Hobart women’s shelter, it could expand and take in a number of women who are requiring this service.

These people are experienced. The Salvation Army is respected by the whole community. How is it that it has not been approached? We seem to approach the wrong people in regard to expansion in this area. I believe that the Salvation Army ought to be asked if it will expand, if it will add to Elim House and take over the responsibility for these women, who so desperately need this service.

I ask the Minister in charge of the House, the Minister for Science (Senator Webster), to approach the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) and ask him whether the Government would fund the efforts of the Salvation Army in this regard; whether the Federal Government could take over some of the responsibility in an area to which it has said it is so financially and philosophically committed, an area to which I too am committed. If the Minister would do that I would be very grateful. I hope that the Minister for Health will be able to see his way clear to meet that request.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

-I do not wish to delay the House on the first reading of a money Bill, but I was provoked by the Comments of Senator Walters on this matter, and by events which led to her making them. Women’s shelters are, of course, very important. The whole program of supporting women’s shelters, which was introduced by a Labor government, has been very important to the community in the last few years. I do not suppose that any program has more justified itself. How many hundreds and thousands of women and children who have got into difficulties through the problems associated with nuclear families in this country, who have become split away from the nuclear family, and who have had nowhere to go, have been helped by women’s shelters in the various States.

These shelters are run in all cases by groups of volunteers who devote to them a great deal of their time and effort, both physical and emotional. The people who have gone into these shelters have been in very difficult circumstances and have found the shelters a haven in which they can be protected. This is accepted by everyone. This has been a successful scheme, conducted and funded largely by the Commonwealth. I believe that is the way it should be. It is gratifying to hear, for the first time that 1 can remember, Senator Walters supporting a Commonwealth scheme which involves what she calls a centralist approach to the conduct of these centres. Usually we on this side of the chamber are condemned for suggesting that the Commonwealth can run and look after national programs as well as, or better than, the States. So we have established that Senator Walters agrees that this has been a good program, although conducted by the Commonwealth.

However, there are several disturbing aspects of the matter Senator Walters brought up which should be aired in this place in order to get the matter into perspective. There may have been some difficulties in the Hobart women ‘s shelter. I certainly am not denying that. I am not in a position to question that one way or the other. Allegations about these difficulties have been made, and the State Minister for Community Welfare is conducting an investigation. Most of us who have been interested in women’s shelters have been careful to keep them out of the limelight as much as possible, to keep the publicity level low. Even the siting of most of them is, for obvious reasons, kept secret. In this way the women who go there can indeed be protected and sheltered. The difficulties arose in this case because some photographs were allegedly taken at the women’s shelter in Hobart- photographs allegedly showing behaviour which was not very proper in such a place.

Senator Walters:

– They have admitted that.

Senator GRIMES:

– The women who conducted the shelter admitted that something had gone on. They told me that they had corrected the difficulty that arose at the time; but that is not what 1 am talking about, senator. I am talking about the fact that allegations were made; that photographs were taken and delivered to a member of the House of Representatives, who has said that he was asked to investigate the problem, to see what was going on at this shelter. I accept that that is a proper thing to do; that it is perfectly reasonable for a member of the House of Representatives to be approached with such a proposition, and that he should therefore investigate it. The member concerned did that. He took the photographs to the Crown Law officer, notified the local Minister for Community Welfare and then, as he always does -

Senator Walters:

– No, he did not.

Senator GRIMES:

– He and his colleague notified the Press; they had their names slapped all over the Press.

Senator Walters:

– No; you have got it all wrong.

Senator GRIMES:

– Another one of his colleagues made the statement that this was a disgusting shelter; that shelters should not be conducted anyhow. That is where the trouble starts. We have a Minister who is willing to investigate and does investigate. We have a Crown Law officer who investigates the problem. We have concerned people who, in a voluntary manner, have been running a shelter, who have in most cases been working day and night for no return. We have complaints about the shelter. Those complaints are taken to the local member of the House of Representatives, but what does he do? He runs and gets as much publicity and scandal out of it as he can. That is the tragedy of this situation at the Hobart shelter.

I hope and I know that the State Minister will investigate this carefully. I hope and I know that he will do whatever should be done to correct any difficulties that have occurred and ensure that such difficulties do not occur in the future. I believe that is as it should be. It would have been just as appropriate for this shelter, having been funded by the Federal Government, to have been under its control. In those circumstances it would have been appropriate for the Federal Minister to conduct an investigation. It is always appropriate for members of the House of Representatives, and for senators, to be approached on difficulties such as this, and to take them to the relevant authorities and have them investigated. I think it is utterly wrong for members of the House of Representatives, or senators, for their own cheap political gain to run to the Press with stories of scandalous photographs, and condemnatory statements about people who, in good faith, have been conducting shelters. This is the first time I have spoken on this subject and I have known about it for weeks. It is the first time that Senator Walters has spoken about it, to my knowledge, other than by way of a minor comment. She too has known about it for some time. Members of both sides of Parliament, Liberal and Labor, Federal and State, have known about it for some time, but only two Federal members have carried on in this way, to obtain publicity. One State member yesterday stacked on a turn in the Parliament to get publicity. Such tactics are cheap. These people are abusing their position as members of Parliament, and when the inquiry is over I hope that their part in it will be fully publicised.

Senator BONNER:
Queensland

– I rise to indicate my support for the Budget that has been brought down by the Treasurer, Mr Howard, in another place. I believe that it is a responsible Budget. Before we came back into government the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the Government were consistent in attacking one of the major causes of our economic problems today- inflation- and they have been consistent in their attacks since then.

Senator Jessop:

– You are speaking on the first reading of the Pig Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill, aren’t you?

Senator BONNER:

– I am indicating my support for the Budget as a whole. As a matter of fact I intend to speak on two other very important issues. I wanted to mention the Budget because it is important.

Senator Webster:

– You are giving it double endorsement.

Senator BONNER:

– Absolutely. I will probably give it triple endorsement because I will be speaking again.

Senator McLaren:

– It is not getting double endorsement in the electorate.

Senator BONNER:

– If the honourable senator wants to have copies of my speech when I am finished, he can distribute them to the electorate on my behalf if he so chooses. I believe that what I have to say today is very important. I wish to bring before this chamber today two matters which I believe are important and about which the Parliament and this Government should be concerned. They affect the lives of many people. I refer, firstly, to a matter that I raised in a question to the Minister for Social Security, Senator Guilfoyle, on 23 August 1978 concerning brain injuries to children. The Minister gave me what I felt was a responsible answer at the time, but I mention it again today because I am pressing for the Government to take more positive action in this matter of brain injured children.

Some weeks ago while visiting Melbourne on another matter I was brought into contact with the Australian Centre for Brain Injured Children. A friend in Frankston, Melbourne, with whom I was staying, took me to see a child who had suffered brain injury. Never in my whole life have I been as affected as I was by seeing the scheme for the treatment of brain injured children which is administered by the Australian Centre for Brain Injured Children in Victoria. I visited the child’s home and saw the devotion, love and affection that emanated from the young couple, who have a boy and a girl who has suffered brain injury. I saw the way that the child was treated under this scheme. It costs so much not only in time, effort and emotion but also in money. At present there is no way that families of brain injured children can get any assistance from the Government. That is why I am raising the matter. I believe that the Government must look at the problem more closely and do something positive.

Senator Webster:

– Is this as a result of an accident that occurred or is it congenital?

Senator BONNER:

– I intended to give the Senate a definition of children who come under this category. A child at the moment of conception is meant to have, as we know, a good brain. But something can happen before, during or after binh to injure the brain. The definition includes children diagnosed as having cerebral palsy or Downs syndrome, spastic children, mentally retarded children, autistic children and so on, and any child who is now functioning below peer level as a result of brain injury, ranging from a severely hurt child to one with learning problems.

Treatment under this scheme can be administered at home. At the home of the child whom I went to see a special room had to be built and special equipment had to be bought. The idea, where brain damage has occurred, is to induce the good parts of the brain to take over the functions of the damaged part. It is a very costly program, as I said, in terms of time and effort. Eight hours a day, six days a week must be devoted to assisting the child. It is certainly best done by parents in the home, but the cost to the parents of setting up the room and buying the equipment and the cost of the treatment through the clinic also has to be taken into consideration. Parents’ love and understanding naturally is helpful to the child. The Australian Centre for Brain Injured Children recognises this fact and tries to encourage it wherever possible. The child I am speaking about had no future whatsoever, but today is walking, talking, reading and writing after only 12 months of treatment. The child at eight years of age could do nothing for itself and had the functions of a child two to three months old. The family had to do everything. There was no future for the child. Today there is a bright and beautiful future for this child.

The payment for this scheme at the moment is about $1,800. Previously parents of children such as the child to whom I have referred had to take their children to America. This would have involved the cost of fares, accommodation and treatment. Thank God the treatment is now available here. So far it is available only in Melbourne. Parents in Brisbane, Townsville, Perth, Adelaide or somewhere else in one of the other States incur on top of the cost of treatment which is $ 1 ,800, the cost of fares for themselves and the child and the cost of accommodation. That expenditure is just not possible for most of the families who have children who need this kind of attention. I suggest that the Government have a look at this matter and under the health scheme or in some other way provide financial assistance for families with children who suffer these problems.

The success level of the program, from what I have seen and been told, is in some cases 100 per cent. Some of the children who have undertaken this scheme have gone right through the education system and have graduated from university with qualifications higher than people who had never suffered brain injury at all. This has come about because of the devotion of parents and because of the new treatment that is now being used in Australia. I believe that one needs to look at this whole question in a more humane fashion. We are dealing with people who unfortunately, through no fault of their own and because of circumstances beyond the control of the parents, are not able to have this treatment. I believe that the Government must do something to assist them so that they can enjoy a full life in the same way as any other person. I believe that it is the responsibility not only of the Government but also of the community to ensure that this is brought about.

The other subject on which I want to touch is the matter of sport. As the Senate will recall, just recently young people and some, of course, not so young had the opportunity of going to Canada for the Commonwealth Games. As has been reported in the Press, the Australian performance at the Edmonton Games was not as good as many people would have liked.

Senator Peter Baume:

– It was very creditable though.

Senator BONNER:

– It was creditable but if the honourable senator will bear with me I think the propositions I have to put forward will ensure that next time we will come home with a lot more gold medals than we did this time. If our performance over there was not as good as expected or as we would have liked, it is not the athletes themselves who are to be blamed. I believe that the men and women who went to Edmonton and all men and women and boys and girls who go into amateur sport not only devote their time but also go to a lot of personal expense. I believe that after events over there Australia’s reputation as a great sporting nation will perhaps be regarded by some people as being in tatters. This myth can be exploded and will be exploded when we as a nation realise that when we expect men and women to go overseas to represent Australia in either the Olympic Games or the Commonwealth Games we have a responsibility to ensure that they are not victimised and that they do not suffer any hardships. I believe that it is not the fault of our athletes. It is not because they have not dedicated themselves to their particular sport. They have dedicated themselves. We have not provided training facilities of international standard and I believe we should provide them. As I said earlier, if we want our athletes to go away to represent this country we must provide them with the wherewithal and also facilities.

The lack of properly qualified coaches is another matter. Coaches, too, suffer from lack of support and an inability to travel and study improved methods and to attend sporting medicine clinics. Even the coaches are not on a salary. They are not being paid for this. They have to put their hands in their own pockets. I believe that as a government we must give financial assistance to all areas of sport. International competition with world class athletes is something that in this country we are not able to have to the extent that we should. Our athletes have that opportunity only when they go to places like Canada to compete in the Commonwealth Games or when they compete in the Olympics. They do not have that opportunity here. I believe that this is due to a lack of adequate Federal and State funding. It is not just a matter for the Federal Government; it is a matter for all governments. These athletes are going away to represent Australia as a whole but by the same token they also represent their own States in interstate sport. Therefore I believe it is the responsibility of both State and Federal governments to ensure that some funding is made available to our amateur sporting bodies.

Mr Deputy President, when honourable senators compare the Canadian figures to the Australian figures they will understand what I am talking about. If we look at Canada’s figures for 1976-77 we see that Canada spent $25m in assisting its sporting bodies. In 1977-78 it spent $32m. What did we in Australia spend in 1976-77? We spent nothing. In 1977-78 we spent Sim and I am told that in 1978-79 we are going to spend $1.33m. When we compare those figures with Canada’s figures we can understand the situation. Everything is provided to Canadian athletes. They are funded or assisted in every way. The Government of Canada was able to allocate $25m towards assisting amateur sporting in that country, compared with Australia’s measley Sim. This is what our athletes in Australia are up against. They are not given a fair go. Yet when they go away and do not do as well as we expect they receive all the criticism. If one reads the papers, if one listens to people around the sticks talking about our athletes not doing as well as we expected them to do one can well understand why they are not doing so well. I believe that they have done the best they can do under the circumstances. If we as an Australian people are not prepared to make the facilities available to them, are not prepared to fund these sporting bodies, why blame the sports men and women? We should not blame them; we should blame ourselves. When they ask for assistance it is not forthcoming.

I believe that the old adage that it is competition and not winning which is important is not good enough. I submit that any athlete who is good enough to represent our country must be able to compete on a par with those from other countries- not just compete in the field but compete in every way. They must be given that assistance here before they go so that they are able to compete with other sporting bodies or other sports men and women in other countries.

I am a very strong supporter of amateur boxing in Australia. I happen to be the Australian patron of amateur boxing; I happen to be the Queensland patron of amateur boxing. I had the opportunity recently of attending the Queensland amateur boxing titles in Rockhampton.

Senator Webster:

– I would not have argued with you as much, Neville, if I had known that.

Senator BONNER:

– I do not think Senator Webster need have any worries. Mr Deputy President, when I attended those titles 62 bouts were run over two nights and two days. Some of these young men came in old broken down motor cars. They had travelled from Mount Isa, from Cairns, from all parts of Queensland; all at their own expense. They had to pay accommodation expenses in Rockhampton. Something like 300 people- boxers, their trainers and their families- had come from everywhere. Not one bit of assistance did they get. That is not good enough. Naturally some of these boys would go to the Olympics, some of them would go to the Commonwalth Games, but they have to put up with hardship because we as a country do not do anything towards assisting them or making facilities available to them. I know that my own amateur boxing union executive in Brisbane is trying desperately to raise funds for a gymnasium for its boxers in Brisbane where for the last three or four weeks before going overseas these boxers can be trained and looked after in a central part of the State. I hope that here as least is an area where governments can lend some support. I have a reasonable knowledge of sport because I played a little sport in my day.

Therefore I have a sympathy with and an understanding of the problems of participants.

Again I refer to Canada. Canada finances its team from a national sports lottery. I do not see any reason, if the Government cannot afford to finance our team, why we could not have a lottery in Australia. It could be run along the same lines as the Golden Casket or Tattersalls or something like that. The proceeds could go into a national fund from which all sporting bodies could draw and be given assistance. The sporting bodies are not asking for all the money. They are prepared to work to raise some of the money themselves. But I believe that Australia as a nation also must do something to assist our sportsmen and sportswomen. Australia is a nation of sport lovers and I suppose one can say also that we like to take a gamble occasionally. We gamble on many things, such as horse races; in New South Wales people gamble on poker machines. Of course we do not have those things in Queensland. We do have greyhound and horse races and things like that. I feel sure that, if we had a lottery, people would support it. It would be one way of raising funds for our sporting bodies instead of having to call on the Treasury coffers.

Senator Peter Baume:

– How do you feel about sporting bodies becoming dependent on cigarette company promotions?

Senator BONNER:

– I am a smoker; so it is unfair to ask me.

Senator Peter Baume:

– It is a separate question. The extent to which a lot of sport is becoming dependent on money from tobacco companies is a serious question.

Senator BONNER:

-They are, but if we had a lottery we could do away with that kind of thing. Sporting bodies receive funds not only from cigarette companies but also from wine and beer companies and all sorts of other things. By setting up a lottery to raise funds for sport, we would not need all this advertising connected with sport. If one is a great cricketer or footballer, naturally the cigarette companies will use one as a drawcard. I am told by my colleague here that smoking is not good for sportsmen or for anyone. That is by the way.

Senator Peter Baume:

– Most top sportsmen do not smoke.

Senator BONNER:

– I suppose that they would be foolish if they did because it has some ill effects on their health. If they want to be in top condition they would prefer not to smoke. A gallup poll some time ago showed that 70 per cent of Australians wanted government to give more money to sport. But still there has been no action in that area. Perhaps there can be an argument that it cannot be done at the moment because of the economic climate. Again I suggest the setting up of a lottery which would enable Australians to do a bit of gambling by taking a ticket in the lottery the proceeds of which would go towards financing sporting activities in Australia. All of our athletes who are fortunate enough to go overseas are overwhelmed by the facilities that are available. When I visited Canada with my colleague, Senator Colston, we saw a tremendous sporting complex there which would have cost in the vicinity of $200m. But we do not see such facilities for general sport in Australia. We see big football and cricket stadiums and things like that but they are money-making projects; they are not for amateur sport. The complex that we saw in Canada was for amateur sport. The facilities there were the best that one would find anywhere in the world.

Senator Jessop:

– Has any country had a lottery for that purpose?

Senator BONNER:

– I have not made any investigations of that. Perhaps Australia could do it first. We could set an example to the rest of the world. We have done that in many areas before; why not as far as our sports are concerned? I cite as a prime example the case of our hockey team which won a silver medal at the Montreal Olympic Games in 1976. 1 believe that this was the result of the players and the hockey association spending thousands of dollars of their own money- I emphasise that- travelling around for a month in Europe to play on synthetic surfaces to get used to the surfaces that they would have to play on in Montreal. That is an example of the kind of opportunities that we should be providing for our sporting teams. We should be making it possible for them to travel to play sport against other countries so that when they go to the Olympic Games or to the Commonwealth Games they have had experience of playing on the kinds of fields or sporting facilities that they can expect at those games.

Perhaps after we have the Commonwealth Games in Australia, we as a nation will wake up to the fact that we have to do more for our sporting teams. Most of our successful athletes are trained overseas at universities. What is lacking in our homeland? It is simply money. Our sportsmen are dedicated but we do not have the money to support them. Even in this time of economic restraint the concept of a lottery for this purpose is most acceptable and such a proposal would not burden any of our taxpayers. As I said earlier, we Australians like to have a bet on the gee gees or take a ticket in the Casket. I believe that even those who are not terribly concerned whether they win would still buy a ticket in a lottery set up specifically for sport because they would know that the money was going to a good cause- raising funds for our sporting teams. I ask the Government to give this question urgent attention and at least to look at it seriously to see whether this can be done.

I return to the matter that I raised at the beginning of my speech. I ask the Minister for Health and the Minister for Social Security to look more closely at the matter that I raised in relation to brain damaged children and to make some investigations of the Australian Centre for Brain Injured Children. Perhaps we can do something to assist financially the families of children who have brain damage and who are seeking treatment. Every child in this country is entitled to the best that Australia can afford. We must look at this question and do something about it. I urge the Government at least to make some investigations and inquiries and then to devise some means whereby the Australian Centre for Brain Injured Children can receive some assistance. I will certainly visit the Centre again. I have a letter from the clinic director who has invited me to come back to the clinic to learn more about what it is doing and to get a better understanding of what it is all about. 1 will do that in the near future. I again urge both the Minister for Health, the Hon. Ralph Hunt, and the Minister for Social Security, the Hon. Margaret Guilfoyle, to have people from their departments look at this Centre to see what the Government can do for it.

Senator COLSTON:
Queensland

-This afternoon we are debating the motion for the first reading of the Pig Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill 1978. 1 think it is worth while occasionally for a speaker to mention why the speeches do not appear to be relevant to the purpose of that Bill. Many people who follow the proceedings of this Senate are sometimes a little bemused to hear or to read the types of comments that are made on certain Bills when we are speaking in a first reading debate. I point out that Standing Order 1 90 states:

In Bills which the Senate may not amend, the Question That this Bill be now read a First’ time may be debated, and in such debate matters both relevant and not relevant to the subject-matter of the Bill may be discussed.

Of course we use that Standing Order so that we may raise matters in the Senate which we think are important and need to be aired in the Parliament. Therefore we use it as a device for the good purpose of debate in the Senate. As my Whip pointed out a couple of days ago, for the first time in his memory he did hear on the first reading of a money Bill debate on the subject matter relevant to the Bill. Of course what I have to say this afternoon will not be relevant to the Bill. I am using the device which is provided to us by Standing Order 190.

I feel compelled to comment on some remarks made by Senator Bonner. I regret that he is not in the chamber. I realise that he had to leave the chamber to attend to important business, but I regret that he is not present because I intend to be somewhat critical of his opening remarks. In his opening remarks he said that he supported the Budget, and he was very plain and clear on this. I thought that Senator Bonner had some compassion for his fellow Australians. Unfortunately, I must have been mistaken, because this is a dishonest Budget, a deceitful Budget and a brutal Budget. Anyone with some compassion for his fellow Australians would not find it possible to endorse it.

I also mention something about the comments Senator Bonner made in regard to sport, not because I disagree with him but because I think there is room for debate on this whole matter of Australian amateur sport. I will not open up the whole debate this afternoon, but I will mention just a couple of matters. Senator Bonner said that our athletes could have come home from Canada with many more gold medals. If they had it would have been quite commendable. I wonder whether this is really of the utmost importance in amateur sport in Australia. Should we be looking for such excellence so that our athletes can go to the Commonwealth Games and come back with gold medals and perhaps some silver and bronze medals and do the same when they go to the Olympic Games in a couple of years time? If our athletes do win medals I think that is fine, but I wonder whether it is not more important to make sure that the bulk of the population of Australia does participate in some formal recreational program. If Australians do this and if they do it extensively it would be inevitable that we would have people with championship qualifications coming forward and going to games like the Commonwealth Games and the Olympic Games and perhaps coming back with medals. It seems to me that we are placing too much emphasis on the very top quality athletes- the excellence part of amateur sport.

I think that in Australia there are probably too many people who, although they are sporting enthusiasts, would participate in the main in spectator sport whereby they can go along and look at the various sports being played without actually participating. Of course it is important that we watch other people participate in sport but it is also important that we ourselves should participate. I wonder how many of us here participate in some regular formal recreation.

Senator Townley:

– I do, do you?

Senator COLSTON:

-Senator Townley is well aware that I do, and I am well aware that he does, of course. I wonder how many people here participate regularly in sport. I wonder how many people in the Australian population actually have a formal recreational program. Senator Bonner mentioned the facilities that we saw at Montreal and some of the facilities that we saw at Edmonton whilst we were in Canada. These facilities are of course very good for the amateur athletes of Canada. I point out, without being parochial, that after 1982 there will be some excellent facilities in Brisbane also and that these facilities will be able to be used not only by Brisbane residents but also by residents of Queensland and visiting athletes from other parts of Australia. This is one of the good things which should come from Brisbane hosting the Commonwealth Games in 1 982.

I will just say something about the comments in regard lotteries. Yes, I do believe that we have to give a greater commitment to sport and recreation in Australia. I wonder whether lotteries are really the answer. There is something of a myth in Queensland that the lottery there, which is called the Golden Casket, did, in preMedibank days, in large part fund the public hospitals in Queensland. If one looks at the public hospital costs and the profits which are made from the lottery in Queensland one can see that there is a vast difference. I am speaking from memory at the moment, but I think that the net profit from the Golden Casket in Queensland last year was about $6m. That is a very small amount of money when one considers the amounts of money which Senator Bonner was speaking of in regard to providing funds for our athletes. This of course was the total profit from the Golden Casket in Queensland.

I wonder whether there might not be another approach in regard to sport which would be worth while. Of course this approach would cost the Commonwealth money, and therefore it would have to be looked at very carefully. Perhaps we could remove or reduce the sales tax on sporting goods in Australia. This would help not only the people who are going to participate for

Australia in internationalgames but also every person who participates in sport in Australia because sales tax is an additional cost on any sporting equipment that a person purchases. It had not been my intention to traverse those two issues. I will now move to the subject matter on which I intended to speak in this debate this afternoon on the first reading motion of this Bill.

Some time ago outside this Parliament I made it plain that there should be an independent inquiry into Australia’s telegram service. I am still convinced that there should be such an independent inquiry. However, as I look further into the operations of Telecom Australia I am starting to become convinced that there should be an independent inquiry into many aspects of Telecom’s charges. Firstly, may I mention just telegrams- the part of Telecom ‘s service which concerns me greatly at the moment. I would like to outline to the Senate some of the new charges that are to be made by Telecom as from 1 October this year. These new telegram charges did not receive much attention in the Press. I say that not as any denigration of the Press but rather as a denigration of Telecom for not publicising the increased charges widely enough. Let us look at some of the new charges. For a registered telegraphic address which will not concern most people in the community but which will concern the business community, the old price was $25. The new price will be $30 a year.

Let us look at the actual charges for a telegram. The delivery charge for a telegram on 1 October will rise from 80c to $ 1 . 50. If a person wants to send a telegram and have it messenger delivered by what is often called a telegram boy but what often is now an Australia Post courier, it will cost $1.50. Previously if a person wanted to have the telegram addressed to a telephone number and Telecom just passed on the contents of the telegram through that telephone number there was no charge at all. As from 1 October the charge will be 50c. If a telegram is passed on through a telephone number and then delivered by mail the next day there will now be an additional 40c charge although there used to be no charge. There are a number of other increases in telegram charges. For instance, if a person wants to charge his telegram to a credit card that will now cost 40c. It once cost nothing. If a person wants to have an acknowledgement of a telegram by post that will now cost $1. It used to cost 25c. There are various minor increases in the charges.

Most people now realise that it will cost 1 5c for every word to send a telegram. This means that if a person wants to lodge a telegram, have it trans mitted and then have it delivered by a telegram boy or by Australia Post the average telegram, which I am informed is about 22 words, will cost about $5. It seems to me that the cost of $5 for an average telegram to be lodged, transmitted and delivered is really outrageous. It is the sort of charge which will make sure that people do not use the telegram service any more. The excuse always being offered by Telecom is that the telegram service is losing money. One could well ask why it would not be. I suppose that we could use the rather exaggerated analogy of a person who wants to sell watermelons for $ 100 each. He would not sell many. At the price we are charging for telegrams it seems to me that people will not use this service very much and, therefore it will lose money. The excuse that is being given by Telecom is perhaps just a convenient excuse. As I said earlier, I wonder whether the aim is really to phase out telegrams. I sometimes suspect that it is.

I shall digress for a moment. I outlined in this place on 29 May how it took a telegram that I sent on that day almost all day, from early morning to late afternoon, to go from Canberra to Brisbane. I thought that that was bad enough on 29 May. On the same night, however, Senator Carrick, who then represented the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Staley), assured me that I would be informed what went wrong on that day with that telegram. It is interesting to know that I am still waiting for a reply. Perhaps the answer was sent to me by telegram. Whenever I try to find out how Telecom arrives at its stated loss on the telegram service I cannot do so. All that Telecom does is state in its annual report how much was lost on the telegram service. I am beginning to believe that some extraneous costs are being charged to the telegram service to boost the loss so that Telecom can say that the loss is so great that it has to increase its charges. We all know that the great money spinners for Telecom at the moment are its telephone and telex services. But I believe that there is a role for telegrams in the Australian community. It is for this reason that I would like to see some sort of independent inquiry into the telegram service to see what we can do to keep the costs low and to see whether the loss stated by Telecom is a loss in the real financial sense of the word. We have a responsibility to provide a telegram service as well as to make profits.

Let me move away a little from the telegram service to some other aspects which I have seen since I became interested in Telecom charges. I was attracted to an advertisement in the Australian Financial Review on Wednesday, 6 September. I read part of the advertisement:

Following reductions in STD and Telex call charges Telecom revises charges for auxiliary services.

There have been reductions in subscriber trunk dialling charges and there have been reductions in telex call charges; so when the advertisement said that Telecom was revising its charges for auxiliary services I jumped to the conclusionwrongfully, I am ashamed to say- that there was also a reduction in some of the charges for auxiliary services. Further, the advertisement stated:

As of September 1st, Telecom advises customers that the charges for a number of auxiliary services have been reviewed and rationalised. This follows on recently announced, significant reductions in the call charges for STD and automatic Telex.

So far, so good. I still thought the charges would be reduced. The advertisement continued:

Tariff changes will take place on a number of categories of services including the following: Miscellaneous telephone calls- for example: particular person, fixed time, reverse charge, credit cards, reminder calls.

The advertisement went on to mention a few other miscellaneous telephone facilities. Later it stated:

In addition, tariffs for private telephone and telegraph lines and Telegrams will also change on October 1st.

I was aware of the increases in the cost of telegrams as of 1 October; so I became suspicious at that stage and thought that I should find out what these revised charges for auxiliary services were. I was dismayed when I did so; because most of them were increases. These increases have not received any great prominence in the media throughout Australia.

I refer to a sample of these increases in telephone charges in Australia as from 1 September. If we make a particular person call there will be an increase in the charge. The cost of a particular person call depends upon the distance called. In the case of the Sydney-Canberra rate, the increase will be from 20c to 40c. That is a 100 per cent increase. If we want to make a fixed time call there will be a 100 per cent increase, from 20c to 40c. If we want to have a charge connect call- not many people would make charge connect calls, but I can recall that in one occupation I had once I made them frequently- there will now be a 40c charge. Until 1 September there was no charge. If we want to have a reminder call- many people use this service when they do not believe that they can rely upon their alarm clock to raise them in the morning- there will be an increase in the charge. As far as I can see, there will be a 10c increase. The call has now been reclassified from a reminder call to a booking call as well as the actual call itself. The total charge will be 50c, as against the original total charge of 40c. There are various increases in annual rental for intercoms, private manual branch exchanges, private automatic branch exchanges, private wire teleprinters and private telephone lines.

All these increases did not receive much publicity. One would hardly expect that they would receive publicity when they appeared in an advertisement such as this, which stated that there were revised charges for auxiliary services underneath a line stating that there were reductions in charges for STD and telex services. I subsequently found, quite by chance, that most of the changes that took place as of 1 September were outlined in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette dated 12 September 1978.I wonder how many members of the public actually read the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette.

It would have been much better if Telecom had been totally honest in this advertisement and, rather than saying ‘Telecom revises charges for auxiliary services’, had said that Telecom increases charges for auxiliary services. We then would have been aware that there were increases in a number of charges. I repeat what I said when I began speaking about Telecom. There should be an investigation into the telegram service. While telegram rates increase and rumours persist throughout Australia that the service is to be phased out, an urgent independent inquiry is necessary. If we have an independent inquiry we will be sure either that what Telecom is saying is correct or that there will have to be some changes to the telegram service as now operating.

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

-I take this opportunity on the motion for the first reading of this money Bill to bring forward a matter which I believe is quite important. I refer to the Government’s present policy on national highways. As honourable senators will know, under this policy, which has been in existence for some years, the Federal Government provides a set sum of money to the States for this purpose and leaves it to the States to allocate their priorities. Although this policy seems to be fair in some respects, I am becoming increasingly concerned about the Stuart Highway in South Australia, a link which is most important to the mutual development of South Australia and the Northern Territory. For a number of years now- it seems like a number of years anyway- we in South Australia have been trying to direct the attention of both the State and Federal governments to the significance of this important road. The road is a killer. It is a horror stretch; one of the most disgraceful sections of road in the Commonwealth. It already has claimed lives. A few days ago a tourist bus overturned and several passengers had to be taken to hospital by the Royal Flying Doctor Service. In recent times flooding in the northern part of South Australia has resulted in road access to the Northern Territory from South Australia being cut.

Since the road to Brisbane has been sealed, the South Australian economy has suffered to the tune of about $80m a year because of loss of business to Queensland. South Australia which is going through a period of depression, certainly cannot afford to lose any business to any State at this time. Through the Minister I have suggested to the Government that the policy on national highways ought to be reviewed. For example, construction of the Stuart Highway is estimated to cost about $65m. The Federal Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) has indicated that he desires the State Government to undertake some work on that highway and would like to see the gravelled section between Port Augusta and Woomera- 50 kilometres in length- constructed this year. He suggested in a Press statement that $1.3m should be spent on that section. If we spend that amount of money a year on the Stuart Highway it will take us about 80 years to construct it.

I recall that late last year there was a deputation of members from both sides of this Parliament to the Minister. State members also were present and the Minister for Roads in South Australia, Mr Virgo, led the State deputation. The group included the Mayor of Alice Springs and representatives of the Australian Road Federation and other interested parties. The deputation was unanimous in its request to the Minister to provide a special allocation of funds to enable this highway to be constructed. After the meeting I drafted a letter, which was approved by honourable senators on both sides of this chamber. It was signed and sent to the Minister requesting that substantial additional funding be made available to enable the construction of the highway to be completed in a matter of six years or so. This means that $10m or so extra a year will be needed for the construction of that highway. The Government should have a very close look at this request with a view to considering a change in policy. It is all very well to have the policy operating generally as it is at the present time but the Federal Minister should be able to make additional funds available for roads of special importance.

Senator Keeffe:

– That would help unemployment too.

Senator JESSOP:

-I believe it will. That is a industry, particularly in South Australia, is in a depressed state. This project will create jobs for 270 people during the construction period. I am glad that Senator Keeffe drew my attention to this very important aspect. Projects of this type, whether they be for roads or railways gauge standardisation, which have a national development significance ought to be considered now at a time when unemployment is a problem and when we can build these facilities perhaps cheaper than we will be able to in a few years’ time. In this way we can increase our national assets and ensure the long-term developmental interest of the States and the nation itself. I hope the Government will look seriously at this suggestion as a way of building national assets. We could construct the Stuart Highway within a reasonable time to the mutual benefit of South Australia and the Northern Territory.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

-I want to refer again to the so-called Iwasaki tourist development on the central coast of Queensland. Mr Acting Deputy President, I probably have got you captive on this occasion. Occupying the chair you will find it difficult to reply to my argument.

Senator Peter Baume:

– Why so-called?

Senator KEEFFE:

– Because the name has not yet been chosen for the project and I will explain that to the honourable senator in a moment. It is time that this Government looked at the possibility of establishing a judicial inquiry or some other type of public inquiry into the establishment of this complex. It appears that both the Federal and Queensland governments approved of the project with very indecent haste at a time when neither Parliament was sitting. I want to recapitulate some of the points that have been set out, though not quite in this order, in previous debates in this Parliament. My remarks are documented so I cannot be accused of dreaming, saying things off the top of my head or speaking on behalf of some emotive group of people who do not know what the subject is all about. Everybody who has contributed to the documentation I have is a responsible member of the community. Quite frankly, these people are very worried about what is occurring in the central coastal area. To take the matter even further, today I intend putting a question on the Notice Paper about a block of land north of Cape Flattery in North Queensland where it appears that the Iwasaki group, either through nominees or directly, may have had some influence.

I shall quote now from the annual report of the Queensland Conservation Council Incorporated.

I will refer to questions posed by this organisation which is made up of the Australia Littoral Society, the Capricorn Conservation Council and its member body the Capricorn Coast Protection Council, and other similar organisations. They have been responsible for a continuing campaign of environmental protection vigilance over the coastal wetland areas of the Corio Bay catchment north of Yeppoon. The report states:

At stake is an interesting and valuable set of near natural ecosystems and the breeding grounds for a multi-million dollar fishing industry. The QCC’s well-tried role of providing scientific information, public service contacts, the means for political* lobbying, a media release and conference service, and assessments of Environmental Impact Studies, et cetera, has been essential for the effectiveness of this conservation campaign.

The Iwasaki issue didn’t feature in the last Annual Report because during 1976-77 Iwasaki was slowly developing the idea by trying out the fit of such weird schemes as ‘bigger than Disneyland ‘ on local politicians.

That is true. At that point in history the Iwasaki advance guard was trying this out in order to capture the local imagination, but in particular it was endeavouring to capture the less than developed imagination of some of the Government Ministers and Government members of the Queensland Parliament. The report goes on to say:

Once the National Party and the Premier decided to support the idea, however, pressure was put on the Livingstone Shire Council to sell their strategic 200 hectare block. An EIS for the state was announced in December 1977.

Nobody has ever seen that environmental impact statement. The report goes on:

The Premier and the Co-ordinator General visited and enthused over the site and project with Iwasaki in late January 1978. On the 12th of March, Cabinet announced that they had reached agreement on the terms of the Franchise Agreement.

The franchise agreement was the second to be instituted in Queensland. I recall at a recent meeting of a public body in Brisbane criticising franchise agreements. A senior public servant jumped to his feet to defend the establishment of franchise agreements. He said that they improved the quality of services provided by local government. Whilst he was saying it, one could be quite sure that he was not saying it with sincerity, but he was scared stiff of other senior public servants who happened to be present at that seminar. The report continues:

On the 30th March, the CCPC and the QCC’s had to release information to the media of the illegal bulldozing of a road through Fish Habitat Reserve mangroves by Iwasaki staff.

I have previously made a very brief reference to that in this chamber. The report continues:

No Government Department had sufficient power to act, however. The Premier visited Iwasaki establishments in

Japan from the period of the 11-1 9th March. Local Government Minister, Mr Hinze, then showed ambiguous plans of the current proposals to Yeppoon residents but refused copies of the map to the QCC.

If there is nothing to hide, why are these documents not made available? Mr Hinze himself is in a lot of trouble over redevelopment in his own area at the moment. He ought to have been fully aware that it would create further suspicion and further opposition unless he was prepared to come clean with a copy of the map and with details in other areas. The report goes on:

The QCC was able to assist the CCPC delegation to Federal Ministers in Canberra on the 13th April by liaising with the Canberra Environment Centre and the ACF Liaison Officer there. We also organised a successful press conference at the airport for Ray Harris and Mal Vanderheidin on their return. The Franchise Agreement was tabled in the State Parliament on the 26th April and eventually passed on the 1 7th May after an absurd pre-dawn debate.

I have previously referred to the debate that took place not only on this Bill but also on two or three other Bills in the early hours of that day. The report also states:

Needless to say, this period was a hectic one for all concerned with Sunday press conferences and releases lobbying with Labor and Liberal politicians, et cetera.

These conservation groups do not confine their activities to members of one party only. This sort of information has been supplied to all interested persons, but obviously members of the Government have taken no notice of it. The report gives the chronological sequence of events as follows: 1 3th January 1978: The Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development (Mr Groom) formally directed that the Iwasaki Sangyo Co. prepare and submit to him an EIS in accordance with the provisions of the Environment Protection Act. 28th April 1978: Iwasaki Sangyo Co. submitted an application to the Foreign Investment Review Board seeking Government approval on foreign investment policy grounds for the proposed tourist resort and related real estate acquisition. ( Under the FIRB Policy, the Government then had 90 days, i.e. until 27th July, to reach a decision on this application). 17th June 1978: Advertisements announcing the releases (on 20th June) of the draft EIS on the Iwasaki project were placed in newspapers.

I think they were available at about only four or five points in Queensland. The report goes on: 20th June 1978: Government Gazette carries formal notification of the public review period; closing date was notified as 18th July.

As will be stated in the chronological record, this was afterwards extended by two or three days. The report goes on: 23rd June 1978: Despite published announcement, copies of the draft EIS were not available for public purchase in Brisbane until the afternoon of this day. 25th June 1978: Copy of the draft EIS finally made available to the Capricorn Coast Protection Council.

This is the environmental body that was most deeply and domestically involved in opposition to the whole program. The report goes on:

On 26th June 1978 -

That is the next day- the Queensland Conservation Council called on the Minister for EH & CD (Mr Groom) to extend the public review period until 22nd July to allow for an adequate review. 10th July 1978 -

That is some days later-

Mr Groom agreed to extend the public review period for the draft EIS until the 20th July. 20th July 1978: Final date for receipt of comments to the Office of Environment Protection in the Department of EH & CD who then forwarded them on to the Consultants, UDPA (Planners) for consideration. 26th July 1978: Acting Minister for EH & CD (Mr Viner) announces he has given an ‘environmental clearance’ to the project based on ‘the public review of the company’s draft EIS and an assessment by the Office of Environment Protection within the Department of EH & CD’.

He further stated that the company had agreed to prepare its final impact statement within one month and to make this available to the public. He advised the Treasurer of his decision and Mr Howard would consider the proposal in relation to the Commonwealth’s foreign investment requirements.

In two areas the Federal Government has broken its own laws. One breach is in relation to foreign investment guidelines that are laid down and the other is in relation to the environmental impact studies under the 1974 legislation which was introduced by the government of the day and accepted by the present Government. The report goes on: 27th July 1978: Foreign Investment Review Board due to make a decision on the project. 30th July 1978: The Treasurer, Mr Howard, announces a Government go-ahead for the project, regardless of the fact that there was no Australian equity.

Shortly I will read the relevant sections from the Press statement that Mr Howard issued at that time. The report indicates that it is pertinent to note that both the Acting Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development and the Treasurer were prepared to give approval for the project based only on a concept plan and a totally inadequate draft environmental impact statement. It then states:

Thus decisions were hastily made on the basis of political expediency rather than a proper assessment of the likely environmental, economic and sociological impacts of the proposal. By making decisions without the production of a final EIS these Ministers were not complying with Act-

That is the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1 974- or its procedures and to this end the Australian Conservation Foundation is considering taking legal action to ensure the Act is complied with.

I will not make any reference again to that latter paragraph because I think that a vast amount of material should go into the record so that it may be seen publicly how both the Federal Government and the Queensland Government have hoodwinked the Australian public in their unseemly haste to get this project off the ground. Of course, none of this is going to be exposed properly unless a public inquiry of some sort is held. I suggest that preferably it should be a judiciary inquiry with wide terms of reference and at all times discussion should be open to the public. Incidentally, I and a member of my staff spent several hours going through the original environmental impact statement line by line. Its cost was a bit less than $40, but we were able to gain access to a copy that was made available for public display. Even the people who drafted the statement were unsure of their ground. I think they made something like 55 or 57 suggestions to the effect that further inquiries ought to be carried out into various areas, some of them very important areas.

Following public outcry at the manner in which the development project was given approval, the people who carried out the EIS compiled a document called Queensland International Tourist Centre and Resort and under a series of headings they attempted to refute some of the criticisms. I want to quote some sections of this document.

Senator Peter Baume:

– What is that document, Senator? Is it the EIS itself?

Senator KEEFFE:

– It is not the EIS it is the comment by the company which carried out the EIS in response to criticisms of the EIS and the project. The honourable senator would have heard me make reference to that a while ago if he had been listening. In the introduction the document states:

The so-called ‘Iwasaki Tourist Development’ north of Yeppoon, Queensland, has been the subject of controversy and debate in Australia for a long time. The development company, Iwasaki Sangyo Co. (Aust.) Pty. Ltd, has, until now, refrained from becoming involved in such controversy and debate, because essentially it believed its proposals would be considered on their merits.

However, there have been many emotive and inaccurate statements in opposition to them. The company feels it is necessary, therefore, to outline the developments in factual terms -

The word ‘factual’ is misplaced in this document, as I shall point out later. The document continues:

  1. . and to try to answer questions that have been raised.

This document seu out the details as concisely as possible what the planned development is, what it means- and to answer, in factual terms -

They have used that awful word again. The document continues:

  1. . the questions raised, no matter how emotive they might have been.

Under the heading ‘Project Name’, the document states:

At this stage, the development proposal is called The Queensland International Tourist Centre and Resort. The actual name of the resort has yet to be finalised. It may be a suitable aboriginal name, if one can be found to describe the entire project.

It will be difficult to find a name in the Aboriginal language which would describe an international project, so undoubtedly a Japanese name will be the final selection. The document continues, under the heading ‘Location’:

Approximately 10 kilometres north of Yeppoon on Queensland’s central coast. Yeppoon has a permanent population of about 6,000.

The planned resort is about 57 kilometres north of Rockhampton airport.

The following is stated under the heading ‘Size of Planned Development’: 8,670 hectares. Length is 20 kilometres. Width is a maximum eight kilometres, on the coastal side of Yeppoon ‘s Byfield Road.

I previously stated in the Parliament that, for the benefit of those honourable senators who have not converted to hectares, some 2 1 ,000 acres are involved. That is freehold land. The statement goes on to state, under the heading ‘Current Status’:

The land is a combination of scrub, swampland, and low quality grazing land which is considered a severe tick area.

The matter of ticks has not been raised emotively by any conservation group or any member of this Parliament or of any other parliament, as far as I know. Why it should be introduced into this document to further down-grade the value of the land I would not know. The document continues:

The beach area is protected by Great Keppel and North Keppel Islands. Hence surf is limited and erosion problems diminished.

Further on in this document we find that in fact one of the reasons that some of the dunes in the area could be wrecked is the alleged protection that is going to be provided by the proximity of the Keppel Islands. The statement continues:

Additionally, a large variation (about 4 m.) occurs with the tide leaving a 400 metre wide beach at low tide.

At the northern end, on the coast, is Corio Bay, a fisheries habitat reserve, under the control of Queensland Government. This cannot be developed, and is under strict control.

Yet we were told in earlier documents that the proposal of this developing company is to fill in some of this so-called useless swampland which in fact will seriously diminish the area in which fish and prawn breeding can be carried out. The document states further, under the heading Local Land Prices’:

Nearby Yeppoon land prices for building blocks of 20-25 perches range from $6,000-$ 10,000. Local residents claim that most of the Iwasaki development land is currently inaccessible, swampy or poor quality grazing land, which could not normally be sold to home builders.

That is not the statement of a lot of the local people but I suppose the few local people who want this land to be developed under these circumstances are prepared to provide that sort of evidence. Under the heading ‘The Proposed Development’ the document states:

Contrary to some claims, there will not be large scale ‘development ‘ in terms of building construction.

When I have moved on a little in my remarks, Mr President. I will be able to tell you about the fact that there are in fact plans for extensive development in the various stages through which this project will be carried. So why that statement should be made in those terms I do not know. As I said at the outset, this pamphlet is a good public relations job but it does not carry the true story at all. The document goes on to state:

The major proportion of ‘development’ will be aimed at enhancing conditions for and the preservation of natural wildlife habitats, development of botanical gardens, provision of open space, and water features.

The concept plan focuses on the creation of a great park - believed to be the largest in Australia -

We are back to the Disneyland syndrome again:

  1. . for tourists and families to visit.

These will be open to everybody- not just paying guests at the resort complex.

A small fee will be charged for entry- but this is in line with most similar undertakings.

It is most likely they will not be open at night. Vandalism, the fear of fire, crime and similar features in such a situation explains the reasons for this.

This is one of the contentions that opponents to the scheme have raised time and time again. Vast areas of the beach will be closed. For many years past this has been a popular area for amateur fishermen in particular to do their late evening and early night fishing, particularly on the season for tailor and other similar types of fish. So quite obviously hidden in that line and a half of print is the fact that these beaches will be closed off at night. Under the sub-heading ‘The areas’, the document goes on to set out how the area will be divided. It states:

The Australian Wildlife and Botanical Park- an area of 607 hectares- currently is thickly wooded with mostly indigenous trees.

It will become a native wildlife reserve and botanical park, through which visitors may stroll.

Except, of course, when it is closed. The document continues:

With the purchase of freehold land in the area, the Iwasaki organisation stopped all tree-felling which was being carried out.

The area had been used for grazing and the previous owner was felling trees to make way for more pasture. The development of the wildlife and botanical park means that large indigenous trees once being felled will be retained.

In addition the company has a 10 acre (4 hectares) nursery established in anticipation of planting 100,000 plants, trees and shrubs. Most of the 250 varieties will be Australian natives.

Under the heading ‘Building Construction’ the following is stated, which gives the lie to the claim that there will be no development:

Building heights will be limited under the provisions of the Queensland Parliament’s Bill.

This means that ‘accommodation units’- apartment houses, flats or home units- will be limited to no more than three storeys.

Hotels will be limited to no more than six storeys.

In other words, ‘skyscrapers ‘ similar to those at Australia ‘s Gold Coast, for example, are banned.

Following is a brief description of buildings:

The foremost structures will be located on the foreshore with an 80-metre setback.

In all there will be nine types of buildings:

Hotels- total 5- one International class hotel of 375 rooms; 4 others each with 350 rooms

Motels- total 10- each with 50 rooms

Flats- total 85 blocks each with 35 two-bedroomed flats.

There will be a total of 1,250 villas. There will be one golf course inn and a total of three beach centres. There will be one international village, representing several cultural regions of the world. Several nations will be represented. The buildings will be in clusters and represent the distinctive architecture, landscaping and lifestyles of Australia, the South Pacific Islands, Japan, South East Asia, the Middle East and Africa, North America, South and Central America, Western Europe and Eastern Europe.

There will also be one transport centre. Additionally, two international standard golf courses will be established. Awhile ago, of course, the group was skiting about the fact that it was not felling trees as the previous grazier had done; that the ring barking and felling had been stopped. If the group is going to build two international-standard golf courses, each of 18 holes, it is unlikely that large amounts of indigenous trees will be left on either. Incidentally, the planning for the two courses will be under the direction of Peter Thomson, the former British Open champion. The State Government has laid down planning stages which extend over 20 years. The first stage must start on or before 1 April 1978. It has been decreed that in stage 1, in the first five years, the company will commence two of the motels, with a combined total of up to 100 rooms; not less than five, nor more than 10, accommodation units, with about 35 apartments, flats or home units per accommodation unit; one golf course and a beach centre. There is much more detail in the pamphlet. All of it is similar and, as far as I am concerned, in spite of the introductory paragraphs, is non-factual. It does not tell the real story of what will happen to this very fine piece of coast.

When we get around to stage 4 of the construction, which is in the latter part- in the 16 to 20-year period- the planned completion of the project is in these terms: The fourth hotel, apart from the first class hotel, is scheduled for completion, with 350 beds, in the sixteenth year; another 100 bedrooms will be added in the twentieth year. Two more motels, each with 50 beds, making a total of 10 motels, are to be completed. Thirty-one more blocks of flats, to contain 2, 170 beds, are scheduled that would make a total of 85 blocks of flats. Five hundred villas, with a total of 1,250 beds, would be completed. This would bring the planned number of villas to 1,250. Additional beds would be added in that period to the international village. When it gets to that stage it will be like Disneyland. I think someone asked the Premier of Queensland, after he had made an extensive tour of America, what had made the greatest impression on him and what had affected him most while he was away. The Premier said: ‘Disneyland’. Maybe that is why this project is getting so much support.

In stage 1 of construction some 460 jobs will be created. At least three-quarters of them will be available to the Australian work force. There is no guarantee of that in writing anywhere. In fact, there are stories circulating that are very strongly to the contrary, that it is more likely to be in reverse, with about 25 per cent of the jobs available to Australians. The statement is made that it is aimed to minimise to necessary proportions the number of jobs filled by overseas experts. We have plenty of unemployed experts in this country, so it is not really necessary to import a work force at all. The work force will increase in subsequent stages, because of the increased volume of various construction. On completion, the resort will provide for a staff of 3,420 people.

It must be remembered that that will be 20 years from 1 April 1979. In other words, on 1 April 1999 the project should employ 3,420 people. A minimum of three-quarters of the staff will be Australian, drawn mainly from the Yeppoon and Rockhampton areas. Then the document goes on to answer some of the criticisms that have been levelled at the project.

The first concerns the following statement:

The agreement gives ‘aliens’ freehold ownership of land rightly belonging to Queenslanders.

The answer, according to this company is:

A similar statement could be made when any person of an ethnic origin, other than Australian, purchases any property in this country.

For example, a person of Greek, Italian, German or any other nationality, should be prohibited from purchasing land or property in Queensland if the logic of this argument were followed through to its conclusion.

That is a diversion from what has been said in criticisms that have been uttered concerning this company. I am not aware that any member of my party, or of any conservation group has criticised land being owned by people not of Australian birth. What we are criticising is its being owned by absentee landlords with no stake in the country at all. The fact that Mr Iwasaki might have created 38 parks in Japan has nothing to do with the argument, and should not be used to vindicate the necessity to have this project established. In order to be factual in the true sense of the word, I will complete the reply. It is as follows:

The Iwasaki organisation cannot ‘roll up the land and take it back to Japan’.

We did not expect the group to turn the land into instant leases that it could take home to Japan. Reference is made in the statement to this criticism of the project:

The State Government has virtually given away 8,670 hectares of beachfront Queensland, including 106 hectares of land at bargain basement prices.

I think the term ‘bargain basement prices’ was used in one of my statements. It has obviously been picked up. The statement continues:

This 106 hectares was ‘repossessed’ and sold to Iwasaki organisation for $400,000, although nearby blocks cost up to $30,000 for less than .1 hectare.

The reply given by the public relations company is as follows:

A huge proportion of the land is scrub, swamp and/or poor grazing land. Much of it is inaccessible except by four wheel drive vehicles.

Locals claim good quality blocks around Yeppoon, with views of the ocean sell for about $ 10,000.

Some claim that until the Iwasaki plan was mooted there was little interest in real estate in the area at all.

I do not necessarily disagree with that. It is amazing how many National Party politicians, in particular, suddenly looked at the possibility of buying land once the Iwasaki project was mooted. The reply continues:

They also say that the area under purchase or lease agreement with the Iwasaki organisation was of such poor quality that ‘you would be laughed at if you tried to sell it’.

That is not the story now, of course, and one of the ambitions of the company or one of the end results of the establishment of the project will be the increase in the value of real estate. The document also quotes the following statement:

The resort will be closed to Australians and will be for the exclusive use of Japanese tourists.

The answer given is that that is untrue. The reply continues:

It is estimated that during stage one alone, most visitors will be from Australia. They will be joined in later stages by tourists from international ports, because of developments such as the international class hotel and international village which will be capable of accommodating more people than previously.

It is expected some of the tourists will be Japanese, of course, but there are expected to be Americans, Europeans and many other tourists as well.

Another statement cited is as follows:

The beaches will be closed to the public.

The answer given is:

Untrue. The public has free and unrestricted use of the beach, at any time, and at any tide. The Premier, Mr BjelkePetersen, incorporated this guarantee in the Queensland parliamentary record.

However, the document itself says that areas will be closed off at night-time, so there is a contradiction between what appears on page 13 and what appears earlier in the pamphlet. The next criticism is as follows:

Delicate environmental areas will be destroyed by the proposed development.

We have only to look at the Gold Coast of Queensland, and at other parts of Australia, to find that development of this nature has destroyed the local environment, it has destroyed the ecological balance. When the Yeppoon development has reached ultimate development it will do the same. I shall not read all the details, but it goes on to point out how Mr Iwasaki stopped the tree felling and now has on his current staff of 10 in Australia, two botanists; how he has built 38 parks in Japan and so on. The final paragraph of the statement is a killer:

The fisheries habitat is not part of the resort and special conditions in the agreement, prohibit any works or activities that would cause any harm or damage to it.

Yet, in an earlier submission from the same company we heard that it would fill in part of the area because it was swamp land. That is the portion to which most of us object. On 7 August 1 978, after the environmental impact statement was produced and accepted by the Federal Government, the Capricorn Coast Protection Council wrote the following letter:

Mr Iwasaki, in the manner of most if not all foreign investors, has played one State against another and, as a result, has obtained concessions from the Queensland and Australian Governments that are not available to Australians nor, as yet, other foreign investors. Some of these are:

Leasehold land converted to freehold to permit the purchase by Iwasaki Sankyo Co. of land that would not normally be owned by a company;

Complete elimination of Beach Protection Authority control from his resort area.

That statement was not made in the pamphlet to which I have referred and which has been put out by the public relations people, the EIS people or however they might like to describe themselves. The letter continues:

  1. Permission to locate his International Village in a Marine Nursery;
  2. Complete Governmental approval solely on a conceptual plan;
  3. Queensland Mining Act, Coal Mining Act, Petroleum Act and Section 19 of the Canals Act rescinded for the area of his resort proposals;

That has all been done quietly. One would have thought that if the company was fair dinkum and if the agents acting on behalf of the company were fair dinkum those matters would have been included in the explanatory booklet. The sixth item ought to concern the Federal Government deeply, as it reads:

Requirements of Australian Equity waived.

The letter goes on:

Mr Iwasaki has made a complete farce of the Australian Environmental Protection Act and the Australian Foreign Investment Act. Australians look to the House of Representatives to protect them from the weaknesses of State Governments but in the case of the Iwasaki Proposals the House of Representatives, in refusing to abide by the Environment Protection Act and the Foreign Investment Act, has abandoned its moral principles in an exercise of expediency. This, however, does not absolve the Senate and Senators from their particular responsibility to the States and the fact that these concessions have been granted is no reason why the Senate should accept them without serious deliberation.

If we were prepared to do that in the Senatehonourable senators on the other side of the House are always saying that they are not directed by their parties and that they are free agents- we might not need the judicial inquiry. I have a great fear- in fact I am very sure- that honourable senators on the other side of the House will back this project to the hilt even if it means the total wreckage of two pieces of Federal Government legislation. The letter goes on to say:

The concessions granted the Iwasaki Sangyo Co. have established a dangerous precendent. In future any alien can use them and the example set by them to pressurise any Australian State into granting equal, perhaps even more widespread, concessions that are not available to Australians and which are, indeed, against the interests of Australians.

The letter then asks for support. Senator Carrick, the present Leader of the Government in the Senate, made a quite responsible statement when the matter was raised in the Parliament on 4 May. He said in reply to me, after I had raised the matter, I think in the adjournment debate one evening:

  1. . the proposal is clearly a complex one that is going to involve the responsibilities of a number of Federal Ministers.

He then said that the matter was important and should be put under the most detailed study. I have read that quotation from a document put out by the Queensland Conservation Council Inc. The document continues:

The Queensland Conservation Council believes Senator Carrick ‘s statement was most responsible and a properly constituted public inquiry is the only way in which ‘the most detailed study’ to which he refers can be satisfactorily carried out.

When Senator Carrick made that statement I also believed that it was a responsible statement on the part of a senior Minister. It may be that he has forgotten about the matter or that he is no longer consulted by his fellow members of Cabinet, because Mr Viner and Mr Howard were both able to repudiate anything that Senator Carrick said.

The next document to which I refer is the famous statement issued by the Treasurer on 30 July 1978, at a time when the Commonwealth Parliament and the State Parliament were not sitting. The statement was issued for immediate release. There was no embargo. It reads:

The Treasurer, Mr Howard, announced today that the Government had taken a decision on the foreign investment policy aspects of the proposal by the Japanese businessman, Mr Iwasaki, and his company, Iwasaki Sangyo Co. (Australia) Pty Ltd, to establish a tourist development project at Yeppoon, Queensland.

Mr Howard said that approval, in terms of the Government’s foreign investment policy, had been given to the proposed $1 00m tourist development and associated land purchases subject to a number of conditions designed to maximise the benefits of the project to Australians, and to provide opportunities for Australians to participate in the equity and the management of the project.

How shallow can one be- if I may make a pertinent comment at this point? It was known that there was no Australian equity in the project and that the so-called policy of the governing party in the Australian Parliament calls for Australian equity and not 100 per cent overseas controlled capital. This sort of” thing is dished up to the members of the Australian public in the hope that they will believe it and fall for it.

We know that the Commonwealth Government runs in fear of the Premier of Queensland and a handful of his Ministers. Every time a confrontation of any sort occurs we hear loud yells from Queensland and small whimpers from Canberra, and then Canberra knuckles under while Mr Bjelke-Petersen continues on his way of tryanny. Honourable senators opposite should have been prepared to stand up to him on a number of great social issues. I refer to Aurukun and Mornington Island and to this sort of thing. Also, testing is going on in the Bloomfield River at the moment for a major tin operation. As far as I know, no EIS has been prepared and no export licence has been granted. But that project will go on and honourable senators opposite will not even know about it. They will close their eyes and hope that it will go away. It may not go away, but the river will. I return to the Press release, which gives the conditions set by Mr Howard, as follows:

  1. As the project develops, the company make all reasonable effort to take on Australian partners and involve Australians in the management of the company and undertake to consult with the Foreign Investment Review Board on progress.

Do honourable senators know what is said in the statement released by the people speaking on behalf of Mr Iwasaki? The statement tells a different story altogether. It does not coincide with what Mr Howard said. The question posed was:

Why can’t other developers become involved in such a resort project?

The answer, on behalf of Mr Iwasaki, reads:

They will be able to become more involved. However, Mr Iwasaki estimates that it will be 10 years, at least, before the project becomes profitable. It is most unlikely that any Australian would want to participate now.

He has given an undertaking to invite Australian participation when it does become profitable.

That is a very interesting statement when it is compared with what Mr Howard said. He used the words ‘as the project develops’. Apparently someone gave him a promise. Condition (ii) in the Press release reads:

The company to invite participation by resident Australians in the businesses to be established within the resort, such participation ranging from preferred independent ownership of these enterprises to partnership with Iwasaki Sangyo (as appropriate).

The people speaking on behalf of Mr Iwasaki said that there would be no Australian participation for a period of 10 years; that is, when Mr Iwasaki expects the company to show a profit. Either somebody is lying or somebody has created a false impression in order to gain popular public support for the project. Condition (iii) referred to by Mr Howard reads:

The land to be acquired by the company to be limited to the boundaries set out in the Franchise Agreement (Schedule F, Appendix 6) submitted to the Foreign Investment Review Board in April 1978.

That condition relates to part of the map that the Queensland Minister for Local Government was not prepared to show to the Capricorn Coast Protection Council. Condition (iv) provides:

Federal Government approval to be obtained before the company acquires, makes any arrangements, signs any contracts, or negotiates to acquire any additional land in any part of Australia.

I wonder why an investigation has been made into the Marina Plains project where the principals involved are reluctant to talk to anybody at all. I understand that some 500 acres of land was freeholded while the other 19,500 acres of land was sold to an adjoining property owner. Condition (v) states:

The extension of the boundaries of the tourist complex north of Corio Bay would be prohibited.

That is a strange sort of thing. After all, the area north of Corio Bay already has been wrecked anyway. Condition (vi) states:

The ownership of the land or any of the assets or facilities established on it to be retained by Iwasaki Sangyo or held by Australian-resident interests- unless prior Federal Government approval is obtained for any proposal to: transfer ownership of; grant rights of user over; or mortgage any part of the land or the assets/ facilities referred to above to other foreign interests.

That would be the weakest set of conditions ever laid down by any so-called responsible government. There is little or no chance of exercising this Government’s rights under such watered down conditions because the company will do as it likes. If the Government in Canberra does whimper it will get a shout from Queensland and the Premier will win again. Condition (vii) is as follows:

The capital contribution by Iwasaki for the tourist resort project to be brought into Australia from overseas sources (consistent with the Government’s policy on capital inflow at the time).

At the moment I think it is uncontrolled. Condition 8 is as follows:

Any proposed variation of the Franchise Agreement submitted to the Foreign Investment Review Board to be notified to the Federal Government for any necessary approval.

The final condition reads:

The company to report annually to the Foreign Investment Review Board.

I wonder how much supervision will be exercised by the Government over the reports that will be brought in; I wonder whether the Treasurer will ever get around to looking at them; and I wonder whether there will be some sort of cover up. We have been talking about problems with land dealings in Victoria. Queensland would leave

Victoria for dead in relation to land scandals and this is one of them. Mr Howard’s press release stated:

The Treasurer noted that the Acting Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development had given an environment clearance for the proposal, on the basis that continuing environment protection measures relating to the proposal would be taken by the Queensland Government under its own legislation. An assurance to this effect had been received from the Premier.

If the Government does not have that in writing, certified on about 17 copies, I do not think it should believe a word that has been said. He continued:

The Foreign Investment Review Board will monitor the development of the project.

The Treasurer indicated that the question of immediate Australian equity participation in the project was given careful consideration. In this connection, the Government had received advice from the Queensland Premier that Australian equity partners had been sought unsuccessfully.

Yet Mr Iwasaki said that he does not want them for 10 years. The Press release continued:

The Treasurer said that all aspects of the proposal and all views concerning it which had been put to the Government had been fully and carefully considered before the decision was taken.

Neither the Treasurer nor the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development (Mr Groom) allowed sufficient time for the public to properly look at the so-called environmental impact statement. A journalist with the Melbourne Age, Mr Tony Walker, came across some interesting documents on or about 1 and 2 September 1978. The statements he made, which were published by the Melbourne Age have not been answered by any Minister of this Government. I wonder why? Tony Walker said:

The Federal Government approved the $100m Iwasaki tourist project despite strong objections by one Government department and reservations by a number of others.

Why were we not told in this Parliament that there were objections by some departments and by some Ministers to the provisions of this particular contract? This is government in secrecy. It was all carried out between the cessation of the autumn session of the Parliament and the beginning of the Budget session. It was carried out without any parliamentary scrutiny at all. There is no provision to discuss this matter during the current sesssion of Parliament. Quite obviously the Government hoped either that the opposition to it would lie down and go away or that Mr Iwasaki would go home. The Age article continued:

Confidential documents leaked to the Age show that apart from serious environmental problems with the Queensland project there was also concern that it could lead to the creation of a ‘Japanese enclave ‘ in Australia.

Under Cabinet Decision No. 6038 of July 5, the multimillion tourist development was given the go ahead without Australian financial involvement.

This runs counter to the spirit, if not the letter, of the Government’s foreign investment guidelines.

The decision to allow the project was taken before an environmental clearance was given.

That was not stated publicly either. It went on:

Conservationists and local residents oppose the Iwasaki development which will eventually bring 22,000 tourists to 7500 acres of prize beach front land at Yeppoon, near Rockhampton.

The department voicing the strongest objection was Foreign Affairs.

A background minute to Cabinet of July 23 said: ‘The department expressed concern about the social consequences of the development, particularly those associated with the establishment of a predominantly Japanese enclave in the Yeppoon area’.

This view was backed up by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet in another document- this one prepared for the Foreign Investment Review Board.

The report to the Board of May 25, said:

Prime Minister and Cabinet considers that the following matters appear to be unresolved: . . .’

That is, on 25 May these points were unresolved. Mr Walker’s article continued:

  1. . environmental aspects, staff needs, the incomplete study of socio-economic aspects, . . .’

I just comment here that far from being incomplete as far as I know there has been no study at all. The article went on:

  1. . Australian equity and business participation, transport development, . . .’

Whilst it has been said on behalf of the Japanese that they propose eventually to land jumbo jets at Rockhampton airport, I do not think any survey has been carried out concerning transport except the minimal reference made to it in the EIS compiled by Iwasaki. The people who compiled the EIS stated that another 57 or 58 alterations were needed or points made sure of. But the Government has accepted that. The newspaper column further reads: . . and the social implications of the possible establishment of a Japanese enclave ‘.

Other departments to express reservations were Defence, . . .

The project is to be right next to one of the major training areas for the Australian Army- . . Industry and Commerce, Transport, Primary Industry and Immigration and Ethnic Affairs.

The latter raised questions about health controls.

The background minute said: ‘Given the anticipated future a real concentration of foreign nationals at the tourist resort with potential for carrying viruses, pathogens and other organisms not normally found in Australia, the concentration of carrier insect pests such as mosquitoes, and the fact that conventional sewage treatment and disposal does not normally eliminate such organisms, blood-borne diseases and pathogens may become a significant public health problem in the vicinity of the site. ‘

The draft environmental impact statement- no final statement has been released- was heavily criticised by a number of authorities.

The Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service listed the shortcomings of the draft in terms of ‘inadequate presentation and information, faulty assumptions, internal inconsistencies, poor interpretation or evaluation of material and lack of consideration of alternatives. ‘

The service suggested reappraisal of the concept plan, further detailed investigations of hydrology, drainage, waste disposal and pest control measures, and expressed concern about the operations of wildlife and marine exhibitions and the introduction of exotic plants into Australia.

The Australian Heritage Commission advised that ‘substantial modification’ to the resort concept would be required if the area nominated was afforded conservation status.

A second article written by the same journalist in the following day’s Melbourne Age carries an enlargement of some of the points that I have made. On 28 July the Leader of the Opposition in the Australian Parliament (Mr Hayden) criticised severely the decision to allow this to go ahead. Mr Hayden said:

The Fraser Goernment’s decision to give environmental approval to the proposed Iwasaki tourist development at Yeppoon in North Queensland has been made with undue and ill-advised haste.

The draft environmental impact statement makes it clear that only broad conceptual plans of the project are so far available.

I might add that that is all that has ever been available. Mr Hayden continued:

As a result, the planners who prepared the statement (UDa Qld) made 57 requests for further information in the draft. In addition 6 1 submissions on the draft statement were made by public interest groups.

A whole lot of other documentation could be added to this contribution to a debate on a Bill that perhaps does not have a great deal of relevance to the Iwasaki project. But as members on both sides of the Senate take advantage of the first reading of money Bills to raise issues that are not likely to be otherwise raised in the Parliament, I am grateful for the opportunity once again of exposing what I believe to be some very weak points in the establishmei of this project. There is a craven fear at the Federal Government level of what Mr Petersen might do if it did not agree immediately to allow the project to go ahead, regardless of the fact that two major pieces of Federal legislation have been trampled under foot in order to give permission for the project to go ahead. I believe that this scandal is not going to be cleaned up until there is a full and open public inquiry. There is a number of ways that this can be done such as by holding an ordinary judicial inquiry or by the establishment of a Senate select committee. If a

Senate select committee were established, we would hear great howls from the Queensland Government- not from the Queensland people. A large number of the people would approve of it. There could be a royal commission, to which I referred earlier, or some other public inquiry with wide terms of reference. Then perhaps we would get to the bottom of the scandal and perhaps we could protect that coast, even if the project goes ahead, with tighter environmental control.

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

– in reply- It is not usual for a Minister to reply in a first reading debate. However one senator, Senator Tate, spoke directly to the Pig Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill. He commented directly on the health of pigs and possible research into certain diseases of pigs. I imagine that he is unlikely to speak in the second reading debate on the Bill so I take the time of the Senate to respond to his comments. I note that the matter that he raised was raised in another place Senator Tate commented that inadequate expenditure from the research fund to which this levy is paid may be directed to a disease known as poly-arthritis.

Information I have been given indicates that the research committee which deals with this fund apparently has never refused an application for a grant for work on poly-arthritis research. Senator Tate also mentioned the level of money that may have been spent in this area. I am advised that grants for this type of research totalled more than $16,000 in 1976-77 and close to $8,000 in the year just passed. Apparently losses to the industry from poly-arthritis are estimated to be much lower than from other causes where research is urgently needed and is being pursued at present. I though that information may help Senator Tate. I attempted to get a message to him that I would be responding to his remarks. However, other matters he raised might be dealt with in the second reading speech.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Pig Slaughter Levy Act 1971 to raise the maximum slaughter levy rates payable by producers. The maximum research levy will be raised from 10c to 20c per head slaughtered and the promotion levy from 5c to 20c per head slaughtered. The increases in the maximum rates of levy have been requested of the Government by pig producers through the Australian Commercial Pig Producers ‘ Federation. The operative rates of levy, within the maximum provided in the Act, are set by regulation. At present they are 8c per head for research and 5c per head for promotion.

Monies raised through the research levy are used to finance a continuing high level of scientific and economic research in the pig industry. This research ensures that a steady stream of information is available to producers to enable them to improve their management practices and make better informed marketing decisions. The Government matches research funds raised from producers on a $ 1 for $ 1 basis. Since 1975 a promotion levy has also been paid by the industry to ensure that the public is made aware of the range and qualities of the goods that the industry has to offer. Conversely the funds are also used to ensure that the industry remains finely attuned to changes in customer requirements and tastes and that public reaction to new ventures can be tested and assessed. The Government does not supplement funds raised through the promotion levy. As honourable senators will appreciate this legislation will allow any proposed changes to the operative rates to be handled by regulation. Proposals for amendments to the levy rates are made by the relevant industry committees, that is, the Pig Industry Research Committee and the Pigmeat Promotion Advisory Committee. Such requests are considered by the Minister before submission to the Governor-General. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– I shall not inconvenience other honourable senators by continuing my speech beyond the suspension of the sittings for dinner. In fact I intend to terminate it before then. The Minister for Science (Senator Webster) has outlined the factual content of the Pig Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill in his second reading speech. The present position is that the legislation allows for the collection of a levy of 10c per head for research and 5c for promotion. But the legislation as it will be amended by this Bill will allow for a levy of 20c for each purpose. There is no obligation for the maximum levy to be imposed. The Opposition does not oppose the Bill. Its provisions have been recommended by the Australian Commercial Pig Producers Federation. The moneys raised from these levies will be paid into a trust account under the Pig Industry Research Act. Funds withdrawn from that account will be matched on a $1 for $1 basis by the Government.

A joke has been passed around Parliament House recently arising from the nickname of a particular senator. The joke is in the form of a question asking whether as a result of events of 7 August the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) would be kicking 40c into the bin under this legislation. I am not sure what is the answer to that. It is not my intention unduly to delay the Senate but for those who have a serious interest in not only this Bill but also the whole subject of the pig industry I wish to draw the attention of honourable senators to, and particularly commend, the detailed and highly competent speech delivered in the House of Representatives on 17 August by my colleague, Mr John Brown, the honourable member for Parramatta. Apart from having had some experience of pig consumption, slaughtering, butchering and the sale of pig meats in the industry for some years, he was a member of the New South Wales Pig Industry Research Committee. In his speech in the second reading debate, he displayed a great depth of knowledge of this industry which I have no doubt surprised the members of the National Country Party and particularly the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) who followed him in the debate and endeavoured to display a breadth and depth of knowledge comparable to that displayed by Mr John Brown- a task which, if I may say so, he failed badly.

There is a curious aspect relevant to the history of this legislation to which my colleague, Mr John Brown, drew attention in the House of Representatives. I think it is important enough to be worth repeating. When similar legislation was before the House in April of 1975, the present Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair), who I think at the time was the Opposition spokesman on primary industry, seemed to be under the impression that the contributions paid into this fund by the industry were not matched by an equal contribution from the Government as is the case with most levies struck in this manner for the purposes of funding research in agricultural matters. He made this rather curious statement:

When we are re-elected to office we, unlike the Government, will sympathetically consider propositions advanced by industry groups and ensure that if they enter into such proposals -

That is, levy proposals to establish research funds-

  1. . they will not be left to carry the burden of the responsibility for research and promotion.

I do not know what led the present Minister to believe at that time that it was not the case that Governments were not making a matching contribution. He continued in carping style, I suppose, to criticise the existing Committee on the grounds that there was a government representative on it. He said:

I personally find it dashed hard to understand why there should be a government representative if the Government is not going to provide money to this Committee. Indeed, the Committee which is being constituted to carry on promotion will be administering funds being provided by the industry. Yet apparently it is to be so constituted that the Government will be in a position, through its exercise of power on the Committee, to direct to a degree where that money is to be spent. If the Government is going to take that sort of stance, I think it has a responsibility to contribute too.

That is quite apart from the fact that it was contributing. I note for the record that the government representation on this Committee will not be changed as a result of this Bill which has been introduced by the present Minister for Primary Industry in spite of his remarks of 2’A years ago. Obviously there are some elements in the attitude of this Government as expressed then and now by the Minister for Primary Industry in common with pre-election commitments to tax cuts and post election tax increases; with preelection promises to provide funds at concessional rates of interest for agriculture; with unequivocal assurances’ given in 1974 again by the present Minister for Primary Industry that the nitrogen bounty would be maintained at $80 a ton although the Government now has legislation before the House to reduce the subsidy from $60, to which it reduced the bounty a couple of years ago, to $40. So the attitude of the Minister on this legislation has been consistent with the inconsistency displayed by this Government on a range of matters. We of the Opposition do not oppose the Bill. I think it would be more accurate to say that we actually support the measure. It has the approval of, and indeed was instigated at the request of, the industry, and we do not intend to delay its passage unduly.

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

– in reply- I thank Senator Walsh for his comments.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

Sitting suspended from 5.59 to 8 p.m.

General Business taking precedence of Government Business after 8 p.m.

page 645

QUESTION

JOINT COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

169th Report

Debate resumed from 3 1 May, on motion by Senator Georges:

That the Senate take note of the report.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– I placed this matter on the Notice Paper with the intention of allowing any other person who wanted to speak on it to do so. I have nothing further to say.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 645

SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL AFFAIRS

Report on Priority of Crown Debts

Debate resumed from 2 June, on motion by Senator Missen:

That the Senate take note of the report.

Senator TATE:
Tasmania

-The Opposition associates itself with the conclusions and the general tone of this report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs on the priority of Crown debts. Honourable senators may know that the preferential treatment which traditionally was accorded the Crown in the recovery of debts had its origins in the common or customary law. It is an aspect of the royal prerogative which need not greatly concern us this evening.

Senator Wheeldon:

– I would be interested to hear about it.

Senator TATE:

– I would prefer to go on to the the modern justification for Crown priority in bankruptcy proceedings, or liquidation proceedings where a company is concerned. That modern justification is that where the assets of a person or firm are insufficient to meet the claims of all creditors the community’s claims should take priority over the claims of individual persons or firms which have provided goods or services, including labour, to the person or company whose financial position has so drastically deteriorated.

Of course, the equating of the community interest with those of government revenue which is implied in the giving of preference to the Crown in the distribution of what assets remain of a bankrupt or liquidated company is a trap into which I hope we will not fall in considering this report. In fact, one must seriously doubt whether the community is advantaged in any way by putting employees who are unable to recover payment for annual leave or even ordinary wages or ordinary unsecured creditors who have provided goods or services at the end of the queue, behind the Commissioner of Taxation who is seeking, for example, to obtain payas.youearn instalments notionally held by the employer or trying to recover one year’s personal income tax in the case of a bankrupt.

As I understand it, the amounts of revenue presently obtained by the insistence on Crown priority are miniscule. The priority might apply to tax debts in the region of $5m to $8m. Even that figure is highly speculative and is offset by the fact that under the scheme proposed in the report the Crown would still rank as an ordinary unsecured creditor and receive probably partial repayment of its debts in most insolvency administrations, alongside other creditors. More than that, the sums returned to the community via other creditors will increase revenue because of the reduction in bad debts. Further, under the scheme proposed in ther report there is an added incentive to proceed with liquidations promptly and for other creditors to pursue their interests very actively and therefore to recover greater sums. This would be a stimulus to other creditors, whereas at present ordinary creditors, once they learn that the Crown is a creditor of a bankrupt or a company in trouble, are dissuaded from pressing their case because they know that the Crown takes priority and probably will absorb any assets that are available from that bankrupt’s meagre funds.

The healthy commercial effect of reducing the Crown to the same status as other unsecured creditors in this respect was commented on by the Commercial Law Committee of the Law Council of Australia, which expressed the view that the reduction of the Crown to the same status as ordinary creditors would improve standards of commercial morality and observance of the law by corporations and their officers and this must flow from more vigilant protection by ordinary creditors of their legal rights. At the moment they are dissuaded from coming into the picture once they know that the Crown will take priority.

This report of the Senate Standing Committee has been welcomed generally by all sides of the commercial and trading life of this nation. Certainly I am confident that it will be supported by employee organisations. I shall take a minute to explain why the latter is particularly so. Time and again on the bankruptcy of a person or the winding-up of an employer company sufficient funds have been found to pay only the group tax, the pay-as-you-earn instalments, due to the Commonwealth Crown. Quite commonly, all funds are absorbed in that payment. Families of employees have been left in extreme hardship because, as I said, that payment to the Crown of group tax has absorbed all available moneys.

I shall give a couple of representative examples that are referred to in the report. It was reported by two very experienced liquidators that in the case of one employer- a large firm called Harry McEvoy Shoes Pty Ltd- employees were not paid the moneys due to them. One employee in particular, who had worked with the company for something like 30 years, lost his job on the winding-up of the company and received nothing; but the Crown got what was due to it. The other company which the liquidators recalled was R. G. Brooks and Sons Pty Ltd. This was a case where the Commissioner of Taxation absorbed all the moneys in hand and none of the employees received moneys due to them. Many of them had long service leave entitlements dating back 17 years. These cases are merely representative of many insolvency administrations. The proposal in the report is that the Crown should not take such priority as to disadvantage employees dependent on such assets as may be available in the winding-up of the firm.

Senator Wriedt:

– Does that apply to State governments’ rights as well?

Senator TATE:

– As I understand it, most State Companies Acts provide for priority for payment of wages up to a certain level to employees and even long service leave and workers compensation entitlements before the State Crown recovers its debts. I think that is generally true. But the Commonwealth Crown has taken the view until now that, in particular, pay-as-you-earn group tax ought to take priority over the commitments of the firm to its employees and certainly to unsecured creditors who have provided goods or services to the firm in question. It is to the Commonwealth Crown that this report is directed. In fact, one may say, and I think it is said in the report, that whilst the States have been reasonably co-operative over the years and tried to reach an amicable agreement with the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth has been remiss. Therefore, the Committee was driven to quite pointedly say to the Commonwealth: ‘Do not hide behind the pretence of needing to engage in further Commonwealth-State dialogue. Good faith virtually has not been shown by the Commonwealth up till now in such dialogue. Do what has to be done ‘.

The beneficial impact on employees is sufficient reason to endorse this report. One could add to the reasons for the adoption of the report the problems of complexity which are revealed in its analysis, the problems of delay, and the inhibiting effect which I already have pointed out of the Crown’s priority over the vigorous action which might be expected otherwise from other creditors. A further problem is that where the Crown through the Commissioner of Taxation forbears from pressing its prior debt it creates an apparent liquidity in an employer which may be very misleading to other creditors. The Commissioner of Taxation is doing what he conceives to be the fair thing in extending credit to the firm or person in difficulty but, this extension, this grace, this forbearance is unknown to the employees and to other ordinary creditors of the person or firm concerned. Thus, an apparent good situation of liquidity is portrayable by that employer or debtor to the public, and that situation can be quite misleading.

Another reason to support the proposal of the Committee is that, as is revealed in its report, receivers are put in quite a dilemma in trying to reconcile conflicting Commonwealth and State legislation in this matter, to which Senator Wriedt alluded, and this problem is so well outlined on page 38 of the report that really I can add nothing to it except to point to a letter forwarded by Mr L. B. Hunter, a very prominent Sydney chartered accountant, who makes a plea to the Committee to take account of the invidious position in which he was placed by the conflicting requirements apparently imposed on him by Commonwealth and State legislation. Such a conflict may or may not be resolved by litigation but litigation in itself involves considerable delay and, what is worse, very considerable expense which further depletes the assets which are available for creditors. My main point is that every employee throughout Australia could rest assured, if this report were acted upon by the Government, that in the event of his employer being unable to meet his debts, the employee’s wages and salaries up to a moderate limit and then his workers compensation and leave entitlement will be met before the Crown comes in with its claims which, under the Committee ‘s proposal, are to rank with those of ordinary creditors.

This is the first report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs which I have had the pleasure of perusing as a senator. It is of a remarkably high standard and my predecessors on the Committee and the officers who serviced it are to be congratulated both on their conclusions, which have found a ready response throughout the community, and for the professional way in which the proposal is argued. It is the Opposition’s hope that the proposal finds favour with the Government in the very near future.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

-As the one who moved that the Senate take note of this report I want to thank Senator Button, who on a previous occasion spoke in this debate, and Senator Tate, who has made an excellent contribution to the discussion of this subject. I agree entirely with what Senator Tate said. The Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, which looked into this matter, found it to be of considerable importance and a subject in which there was a lot of public interest despite the fact, as Senator Button said on a previous occasion, that it appeared to be a very dull subject. It is a matter which raised a great deal of attention because there was, as evidence disclosed- and considerable evidence was called- a great deal of hardship, expense and wastage of public and private money because of the effect of Crown priority over the years. The Committee has come to a unanimous conclusion and the evidence was overwhelming, from the business community and professional persons who came before the Committee, liquidators and receivers who had had the problem of trying to work with the conflicting laws which exist in the areas of bankruptcy and company liquidation. They were unanimous in the view that there was a considerable need for reform. By a very considerable majority the witnesses were of the view that the abolition of Crown priority was called for in all areas, including the major area where there was some governmental or departmental resistance, namely the area of pay-as-you-earn tax- a substantial item.

Our report shows that the cost of eliminating this priority is not great and that the saving of expense to the community is very considerable. In addition, the saving of hardship for individuals is a very important factor. I think it was Senator Wriedt who tonight asked whether State government rights are affected. They are not affected by this report but, as the Committee pointed out, the Commonwealth stands in a predominant position. Its claims over the deductions which it collects at the moment is the very substantial factor which often enables it to override State government claims so that they do not get met. If the Commonwealth were to come to the conclusion that this report and the recommendations in it should be accepted, it would be in a strong position to persuade the States that they also should abandon their rights because they would then stand in equal position with the Commonwealth and no doubt would gain from it. So the Commonwealth is in a powerful position to negotiate with the States if it were prepared to abandon its rights.

I do not propose to say any more than what was said in tabling the statement and what the Committee said in the report. We know of the recent decision of the Government that there will be a fairly early statement by it on its attitude to the Senate Committee report. I believe that this will happen quite soon and that then will be the appropriate time to debate the whole matter at further length. The composition of the Committee has recently changed substantially. There are new and eminent recruits to its ranks such as Senator Tate. This report was the last function of the retiring Committee. We think that it has stood up fairly well to public discussion since then and that there will be a favourable response by the Commonwealth Government to the recommendations contained in it. With those remarks I close the debate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 647

SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL AFFAIRS

Report on Annual Reports Referred to the Committee

Debate resumed from 6 June, on motion by Senator Missen:

That the Senate take note of the report.

Senator WHEELDON:
Western Australia

– I feel that I have nothing whatever to add to what I have said already on this matter. I am merely rising because I appear on the bill of fare so to speak and would not want to disappoint my many admirers who will be waiting to hear me say something. What has been said already on this report by the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, Senator Missen, admirably dealt with the contents of the report. With my benediction I let the matter rest.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– I do not have quite the same confidence as Senator Wheeldon. I am only too sorry that we have not heard further from him in elucidation. The report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs which we are now discussing is not perhaps of the same substance as the one discussed previously tonight. This is a report which the Committee made of its investigation of various annual reports which are now referred to committees to consider. I think that the report deals with eight annual reports. Before the debate closes I just want to add, shall we say, a couple of up-to-date facts on one or two matters raised in the report.

Perhaps the most substantial part of the Committee’s discussion related to the annual report of the Law Reform Commission. The Committee expressed the same concern as the Law Reform Commission expressed in its report about the lack of staff and the effect it had on the Commission and on some of the other organisations with whose annual reports the Committee was concerned. The Commission expressed concern about staff ceilings and the restrictions which these ceilings imposed upon it. I think at the time of the Committee’s investigation the Law Reform Commission had received some eight new references since it had commenced with a staff which had not had any increase. Of course there was an announcement in the Budget, and I regret to say that in the Estimates of the present Budget the expenditure for the Law Reform Commission only increases from $737,000 last financial year to $808,400, an increase of about nine per cent. I think there is a total salaries increase of just over $31,000, and this will enable the appointment of an additional part-time member.

In the view of the Law Reform Commission there appeared to be a need for an extra five staff members. I regret that the work which the Commission can do is somewhat inhibited by the shortage of staff. If we proceed, and rightly proceed, to increase the workload which we give to the Commission- I think it is highly desirable that this be done- we have to provide it with the necessary staff. When formed the Commission had an approved establishment of 28 staff. The 1976-77 staff ceiling was set at nineteen. Of course the Commission does not have a legislative draftsman. It is very desirable that it have such a person on its staff. This is a matter which is of considerable importance. Very often the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission concern amendments of the law requiring consideration of the detail. Therefore the Commission feels the need for a legislative draftsman on its staff. As the report sets out, there are remuneration problems and problems when new commissioners are moved from one State to another and are not provided with the costs of moving. This is one particular area in the report with which we were concerned.

In dealing with the annual report of the Administrative Review Council the Committee made a strong plea for greater simplicity in administrative appeals so that this was a matter in which the Administrative Review Council could be expected to make its considerable contribution. The recommendations of the Trade Commission dealt with the travel industry. I hope that honourable senators have looked at the recommendations. They raise problems which we hope have been brought to the attention of the travel industry and which we hope have since been corrected to some extent.

The report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs deals with the routine work of the Senate committees, as do the reports of Senator Jessop ‘s Committee and others. This is an important part of our work. Not only should annual reports of the various statutory bodies be lodged with the Parliament, but they should be scrutinised by the committees of the Parliament. I think this is appreciated by the organisations themselves, as we learn from correspondence from them. It is also part of the necessary scrutiny which the Senate does and which no one else will do if we do not do it. I do not make very much of this matter but simply say that we feel that in the report we have made some interesting suggestions which we hope honourable senators will have considered.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 648

SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Report on Annual Reports Referred to the Committee

Debate resumed from 7 June, on motion by Senator Jessop:

That the Senate take note of the report.

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

– First of all might I say how interested I was in what my colleague, Senator Missen, said about the determinations of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, of which he is Chairman. I believe he raised some very interesting points, and I hope that the Government will pay regard to them. I would like to say how pleased I was with the reaction of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) to parliamentary reports. I was pleased to receive a letter from him a few weeks ago saying that he had instructed his Ministers to pay regard to parliamentary reports and to inform the chairmen and the committees concerned of the action proposed to be taken by the various Ministers or departments that were referred to. I believe this is a progressive move by the present Government and one which ought to be encouraged. It is a travesty that parliamentary reports should be allowed to gather dust in the libraries of this place without any action being contemplated by the Government. I think the action by the Prime Minister is quite significant.

The report to which I allude now is the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment which it presented in June this year on annual reports referred to it. One significant point made in the report concerns staff ceilings. Whereas I appreciate the need for the Government to keep the public sector expenditure at a reasonable level, nevertheless I am critical of the Government in some areas. In the report, under the heading of the Australian Institute of Marine Science, the Committee noted that the restrictions with respect to staff ceilings appeared to be an inhibition to research in a very important area of activity to Australia. I draw attention to page 1 1 of the report, which states:

The Committee is concerned to see that because of such restrictions the Institute’s staff as at 30 June 1977 totalled 60 instead of the 123 provided for in its development plan. The Institute can not be expected to properly influence national development in the field of marine science until it has at least the staff originally projected for it.

I say that in all sincerity because it is of great consequence to Australia, particularly as we have expanded, and we have approved the extension in legislative form, our off-shore limits to 200 nautical miles. In my view this is a very important area of research and it should be encouraged by the Government, not discouraged by the restriction imposed by staff ceilings. Another point I mention at this stage relates to a statement made on page 1 1 of the report, which reads:

This, no doubt, is in accord with the then Government’s wishes when it set up the Institute in 1972. The Minister for Works at that time, when introducing the Australian Institute of Marine Science Bill in the Senate on 23 May 1972, said: ‘In accordance with the recommendations of the Interim Council it is intended, in the first instance, that the Institute should concentrate initially on problems relating to the Great Barrier Reef, the Coral Sea and the coast and adjacent waters of North Queensland ‘.

I support that concept. But I believe that the expertise associated with this very important Institute ought to be expanded so that the Institute can pay due regard to the totality of the off-shore area of Australia. I commend that idea to the Minister for Science (Senator Webster) and to the Government because I believe that in future this resource- the area that I have describedwill be of tremendous importance to Australia.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– I take the opportunity to say that almost immediately the practice which the Senate has developed of sending these reports to the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment has shown some considerable reward. It means that reports which sometimes, when they come into this place, are passed without scrutiny when perhaps they contain some very important recommendations or point to some errors which have been made and which need to be debated in this place are in fact scrutinised. The report spoken of by Senator Jessop and the report with which I am concerned is the report of the Australian Institute of Marine Science in North Queensland. It is important to me that it has been revealed that a substantial reduction in staff which has been caused by the imposition of staff ceilings is affecting the work of the Institute. One would have thought that a staffing priority should have been given to this Institute, especially in its formative period. The tremendous amount of research which needs to be carried out by this Institute- for many years areas of research have been neglected- makes the work of this Institute one of high priority.

Perhaps in this rather stumbling way I am getting to the point that I have raised before in this Parliament, namely, the need to do the research that will protect one of the finest eco-systems in the world. I refer to the Great Barrier Reef. The need to protect the Reef against a variety of threats has been raised many times in the Senate. The report which has come from the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment again highlights the need for the Government perhaps to review its policy on the Australian Institute of Marine Science to allow it to be staffed at the level that was recommended in the first place. If that were done, the Institute could immediately undertake research which is needed to protect the Great Barrier Reef against, for instance, the Crown of Thorns Starfish. We have not heard very much about that lately, but the threat is still there. The progression of that plague- that is the only word that one can use in connection with the Crown of Thorns starfishcontinues and is spreading to the south.

We in this place have taken it for granted that, after the debates of many years and the establishment of the Institute and of the Great Barrier Reef Authority, something is being done about this threat, if not about many of the other threats. But, having established the Institute, one would have expected that it would have been staffed to the level necessary to carry out research and to investigate the root cause of the problem. But from what Senator Jessop has revealed tonight in the debate on this report, it seems that there is a serious limitation on the ability of the Institute to do the work for which it has been set up to do. Also, we have heard very little from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, other than that a marine park has been established. One of the dangers is that, having forced certain decisions to be made over a period of years, the Senate might be lulled into a sense of false security about these matters and might be led to believe that there is nothing further to be done. Therefore, Senator Jessop ‘s report tonight should be accepted in that light. There is still much to be done by the Institute of Marine Science and I hope that Senator Jessop and members of the Government will press in their party rooms the proposal that the Institute should be staffed at its rightful level.

As always happens on the night when we consider General Business, matters come upon us fairly swiftly. In debates on matters which suddenly we discover to be of interest we contribute in some small way. I will not refer to the rest of the reports which are to be presented because my remarks would then become irrelevant to this debate. But might I say that the short debate we have had tonight gives value to discussions of General Business, even though some of the issues might be dealt with rather scantily.

Senator DAVIDSON:
South Australia

– I enter the debate for two reasons. The first is to endorse what my colleague, Senator Jessop, has said, that is, to welcome the fact that we now have this opportunity to discuss reports that have been presented and to respond to the letter which all chairmen of Senate committees have received from the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in relation to the action which the Government proposes to take on the tabling of reports. Secondly, if a privilege is granted whereby an opportunity is made available for the discussion of reports, I think it becomes essentially the responsibility of those of us who are interested in the development of the committee system to respond to that opportunity. I think that it would be very poor if arrangements were made in our parliamentary and Senate system whereby an opportunity was provided for the discussion of Senate committee reports and we did not avail ourselves of that opportunity. We have said that the Senate committee system and the Senate committee system of reporting is good. I thing that we should show that we believe it is good. So, I respond to this opportunity to show my interest not only in the system but also in the report that is before the Senate at this moment.

I take slight issue with my colleague, Senator Jessop, who made some observation about reports gathering dust in libraries. As someone who has had more than a passing interest in libraries, I think I should say to him that reports do not gather dust in libraries; they might gather dust in other places. Indeed, with their modern development, libraries have become lively, positive, active resource centres- outgoing, rather than dust collecting instrumentalities.

Senator Jessop:

– I was referring in a government action sense.

Senator Peter Baume:

– It depends on which library, too.

Senator DAVIDSON:

– I note with interest, and some pleasure, the response to my observation. I respond, secondly, to the document which Senator Jessop has brought to the Senate and which we are debating tonight, as Senator Georges has done, by referring to one particular item within the report. Senator Jessop has presented a report on behalf of the Standing Committee on Science and the Environment, in particular the report on annual reports referred to the Committee. In that document there are several references covering a wide range of Australian life and activity. I wish to refer to only one, the third annual report of the Darwin Reconstruction Commission.

I have a little personal reluctance to entering this area, as one who is not totally identified with the Darwin situation, since we have in this chamber senators from the Northern Territory who from time to time have presented a great deal of information relative to the Darwin situation, but my response tonight is occasioned by my experience during the last few days. Honourable senators may be very well aware that in recent days there took place in Darwin the opening of the second session of the second Legislative Assembly, in which his Excellency, the Governor-General was involved. The Speaker of the House of Representatives and you, Mr President, with a parliamentary delegation from this Parliament, were in attendance and took part in the presentation of two very handsome despatch boxes. This has led me to refer to this Senate Committee report, especially to the report of the Darwin Reconstruction Commission.

I note in the latter report references to the great amount of progress that has been made since the affliction of Cyclone Tracy. I visited Darwin shortly after the cyclone and have been back there since, but on this occasion I noted with great appreciation the splendid amount of development that had taken place and the total recovery, if I may say so as an observer, from what had been a devastating experience. I think one must extend every word of congratulation to the people who have been engaged in the work of the Reconstruction Commission for the splendid job they have done and for the great amount of hope, enterprise and faith that they have put into the total reconstruction effort. It is very good that such a report should come to the Senate. Indeed, as I think Senator Jessop ‘s committee has observed, it marked the termination of the Darwin Reconstruction Commission and was the Commission’s final report.

The report leads us into the matter of selfgovernment for the Northern Territory, which is a fairly simple and obvious follow-on, leading to the opening of the Legislative Assembly program last weekend by His Excellency the Governor-General. That occasion prompted a splendid series of functions marked by equally splendid organisation and extremely good speeches of which, if I may say so Mr President, yours was one, and in particular the address by His Excellency, Sir Zelman Cowen. I take leave to ask the Senate whether this historic occasion might be recorded in the Senate records by the incorporation of the splendid speech made by His Excellency the Governor-General. A copy of that speech, which I have with me, has been shown to the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick) and the Opposition Whip. As I understand the situation, they approve its incorporation. Therefore, I would seek leave to have the document incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

ADDRESS BY HIS EXCELLENCY SIR ZELMAN COWEN, A.K., G.C.M.G., K.St.J., Q.C., GOVERNOR-GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA, ON THE OCCASION OF THE OPENING OF THE SECOND SESSION OF THE SECOND LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, AT DARWIN, FRIDAY, 8 SEPTEMBER 1978

It is a great thing to take part in historic national occasions. This is certainly one of them. We are assembled in this Chamber to celebrate the establishment of self-government in the Northern Territory, and I am very happy to accept the invitation of the Chief Minister to participate in today’s events, in this Chamber, in which the tasks of selfgovernment will be undertaken.

I am not a stranger to the Territory. Until my last visit, earlier this year, my knowledge of it was confined to the Top End. I first came to Darwin late in 1941 as a very junior naval officer, and I remained here for some months until early 1 942. That meant that I was here when the war with Japan began, and on the night of Pearl Harbour I was duty officer, and as the signals came in, I had to make up my mind whether to wake the Captain to inform him. I must say that there was no man with whom, or for whom, I have worked of whom I was more frightened than Captain E. P. Thomas, but I woke him up, handed him the signals, which he took calmly and meekly enough, and then presumably- for I know what went on in the houses of frightening captains- went back to bed.

I was here when the air raid took place on 1 9 February, 1942. I have vivid but fragmentary recollections of that difficult day on which substantial damage was done to Darwin. I did not come again, except to pass through the airport on a number of occasions, until early 1974, when as ViceChancellor of the University of Queensland, I came to participate in the ceremonies associated with the opening of the Community College. On that occasion I had fruitful discussions with the Council of the College and we planned a relationship between the College and the University of Queensland which might have produced some good results. But the great wind of Cyclone Tracy blew those plans away with much else.

Then, as I have said, we came on a more comprehensive official visit earlier this year. It was a great pleasure to come to the Territory as Governor-General; to meet with His Honour the Administrator, with Mr Everingham and his Ministers; and with many others, office holders and citizens, who will bear their various responsibilities in the time ahead. On that occasion, we came to Darwin and travelled to Elcho Island, to Gove and to Groote Eylandt, and then to Katherine, Tennant Creek, Alice Springs and out to the Docker River and Ayers Rock. We saw some of the great mining ventures of the Territory, very many people, and the great expanse of the Territory. It gave us some understanding of the land, and of its human and material resources and problems. It is good to be back again.

On this occasion it is fitting that I should traverse some of the history, and I shall do so very briefly. The Territory has changed hands more than once: Captain Bremer took possession of the Northern Australian coastline for Great Britain, as part of New South Wales, in 1 824. Almost forty years later, in 1863, the Colonial Office gave control to the then Colony of South Australia. In the years that followed, the Northern Territory was represented in the South Australian legislature, and then in the federal parliament. Following somewhat protracted negotiations between South Australia and the Commonwealth, the Territory was transferred to the Commonwealth under the terms of the Northern Territory Acceptance Act 1910. Then it was, as the Minister for the Northern Territory, Mr Adermann, said in his second reading speech on the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Bill on 1 1 May of this year, that the people of the Territory lost the political rights which they enjoyed in common with other Commonwealth citizens. And as he said:

In a very real sense, the constitutional history of the Northern Territory since that date reflects the endeavours of the people of the Territory to regain the rights which they lost in 1910’.

It would be wearying, and it is not necessary to traverse in detail the events which have led up to the self-government which we celebrate today. The first step to representation in the federal parliament came in 1922; today, and since 1968, Northern Territory members of the House of Representatives have full and unconfined voting rights, and since 1974 there have been two Senators from the Territory.

Within the Territory, a Legislative Council first met in 1948; it has evolved, and the elected strength has progressively grown with steps in 1 959 and 1 968, culminating in the establishment of a fully elected Legislative Assembly of nineteen members in 1974.

Correspondingly, there have been developments in the executive branch of government. In 1910, with the transfer of the Territory to the Commonwealth, legislation provided for an Administrator. There have from time to time been changes in administrative patterns: between 1927-1931, there were two administrative areas of Central and Northern Australia, but the administrative unity of the Territory was restored in 1931. Since that time the relationship of the Administator to the Commonwealth minister has been legislatively prescribed, and as legislative institutions were established as I have related, the Administrator’s place within the constitutional structure changed. In 196S he was replaced as President of the Legislative Council by an elected member. In 1 974, with the coming of the fully elected Legislative Assembly, the Administrator’s Council was reconstituted to comprise the Administrator and five elected members.

Under the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act of this year, the Administrator is charged with administering the Territory in respect of transferred matters, on the advice of his Northern Territory Ministers. The Act establishes a Government of the Northern Territory with Ministers appointed by the Administrator and an Executive Council of the Northern Territory to advise the Administrator on the government of the Territory in relation to matters in respect of which the Ministers of the Territory are vested with executive authority under the Act.

Even though I claim to be a constitutional lawyer, I should, as I said I would, exercise decent restraint in narrating this history. I have recited the bare bones; it is necessary to an understanding of the significance of the events which have led to the establishment of this new constitutional status for the Northern Territory.

There are other things to tell, again very briefly. There were moves to establish settlements in the Top End from 1 824; Palmerston, which became Darwin, was surveyed in 1869, and a Government Resident was appointed in 1870. The population of the Territory has risen and fallen, and risen again: gold brought it to 5,000 in the early 1880s, it declined slightly and was 4,850 in 1933, but it grew rapidly after the war. In 1947 it was almost 11,000, and about 100,000 when Cyclone Tracy hit. It has risen again and now stands at about 105,000.

The Territory has had its tribulations, and Cyclone Tracy was an appalling disaster. We have only to look about Darwin today to see how massive an effort was called for to make good the terrible damage. No doubt, in our rebuilding of Darwin, we have learned from experience.

I think that it was fitting that the Commonwealth Minister in his speech on the second reading of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Bill should have pointed out that successive federal governments of differing complexion have promoted the development and changing constitutional status of the Territory. He also drew attention to the economic development of the Territory:

During the period (he said) there has been a burgeoning of the Territory’s mineral production . . . and an increased realisation of the very great potential of the mineral wealth which, as yet, remains untapped ‘.

This is very important; the Territory’s economic resource is an important factor in giving reality to consitutional development to this point, and for the future. In introducing the Bill, the Minister expressed confidence in the political and economic future of the Territory, and said that he had no doubt that the processes of responsible government set in train would operate for the benefit of the Territory and through it, the Commonwealth. I am sure that we all share that view.

It was my pleasure earlier in the year to meet and to come to know the Chief Minister and his ministerial colleagues. He and they accompanied us on the various sectors of our travel through the Territory. They were warm and generous hosts. We talked of many things; of problems and of aspirations, and these young men- and they are young men- have a great and a complex responsibility for a vast Territory of comparatively small population, and there will be many problems to be faced. It seems to me that they are approaching these with vigour and with a sense of commitment and of proportion, and we wish them well. They, with their continuing burdens, and we, as fellow Australians celebrating today with them, have the rare privilege of being present at the creation, for that is what self-government is in the history of the Territory, and I have no doubt that I speak for all Australians when I express to all of the citizens of the Northern Territory our heartfelt wishes for the peace, the welfare and the good government of the Territory.

I wish all Honourable Members well in their deliberations in this place and in their endeavours on behalf of the people of this Territory.

Senator DAVIDSON:

– I say a few words in conclusion in relation to this report. I was privileged to attend on this occasion in my capacity as representative of the Regional Council of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. As such I was the guest of Mr Speaker MacFarlane of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. This means that the branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in Darwin now takes its place with all of the Australian branches, and indeed all of the branches of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, within the Australasian area. This gives it a link with not only Papua New Guinea and New Zealand but a whole range of Pacific Island states about which from time to time I have spoken in the Senate.

The Australasian region is one of the largest and most unique in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association throughout the world. The branch at Darwin now becomes part of that group of branches that makes its contribution not only to parliamentary matters but also through the interchange of views on governmental and political issues which go to strengthen the community of Commonwealth parliaments within our particular area of the world. I take the opportunity of making these observations in that capacity. Whilst it may not have special relevance to the report of the Darwin Reconstruction Commission, or indeed of the report of the Standing Committee on Science and the Environment, I would note the following words in the conclusion of the Commission’s report: . . a great deal of civic pride has been engendered by the physical rebuilding of the city and, nurtured by a community oriented Legislative Authority, the result will be a very beautiful Northern Gateway to Australia.

For these physical reasons, for economic reasons, for political reasons and indeed for Commonwealth reasons, I am glad to take the opportunity to make these few observations upon the Senate Committee’s report.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 653

SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Report on Herbicides, Pesticides and Human Health

Debate resumed from 8 June, on motion by Senator Jessop:

That the Senate take note of the report.

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

– The report that we have before us, from the Standing Committee on Science and the Environment, resulted in a unofficial way, from Senator Melzer’s drawing to the attention of the Senate a program on, I believe, the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s Four Corners which alerted the population to problems that seemed to be associated with certain pesticides. Members of the Committee felt that as one of its responsibilities was to exert a continuing surveillance of matters associated with the environment, we should take steps to inform ourselves on this matter. We decided to call before the Committee, not in a public forum but privately, members of the community who had some knowledge of the subject. Accordingly, we had discussions with Mr L. R. Kentwell, First Assistant Secretary, Agriculture and Food Services Division, Department of Primary Industry; Mr J. T. Snelson, Pesticides Co-ordinator, Pesticides, Agricultural Chemicals and Veterinary Drugs Section, Department of Agriculture who the day after we had discussions with him went overseas for conferences at The Hague of the world Food and Agricultural Organisation and who is regarded as a world authority on pesticides; Dr W. A. Langsford, First Assistant DirectorGeneral, Public Health Division, Department of Health; Dr E. G. Fitzsimmons, Director of the Toxicology Section, Department of Health and Chairman of the Poisons Schedule (Standing) Committee and Pesticides and Agricultural Chemicals (Standing) Sub-Committee, National Health and Medical Research Council; Mr R. E. M. Wilson, a pharmacist, and Secretary, Australian Drug Evaluation Committee, Department of Health; and Mr B. B. Brett, Executive Director, Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Association of Australia.

The object of this exercise was to bring some facts before the members of the Committee so that they would be in a better position to understand the problems associated with the pesticides 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D. The Committee believes that, as the matter has been the subject of examination by three State committees- one in Victoria, one in Queensland and also I understand, one in

South Australia- we ought to reserve our position until those reports are presented. I understand that the Victorian committee is about to report on this subject. I believe- I think this was the view expressed by the Committee- that we ought to be in a position to examine that report when it is presented and also the other reports that currently are being examined by the Queensland and South Australian governments. I believe that we will then be in a better position to assess the problems associated with this pesticide.

We must bear in mind that these two pesticides have been in use in Australia for some 30 years or so. Little evidence, in my view, has been presented, to associate birth deformities with this form of pest control. The Committee, in its report, drew attention to the fact that insufficient data is collected on birth deformities in Australia. This aspect ought to be made quite clear. The Federal Department of Health and the State health departments ought to recognise the importance of collating information on birth deformities.

Another point that is important with respect to pesticides and herbicides of all characters is that the labelling ought to have due regard to the people who are using the products. Many people in Australia do not fully understand the English language. Many Italians and Greeks involved in horticultural work may not be fully conversant with the English language. I believe that the Government ought to look at the possibility of providing different language interpretations of the instructions for the use of these chemicals. In many rural and agricultural areas people are not altogether familiar with the metric quantities of the pesticides that should be used. Whilst I recognise that the Government has taken the view that the metric system should be the standard of measurement in Australia, I believe in this instance that all labels should bear the imperial equivalents in order to avoid any misunderstanding. I make that point to the Minister for Science (Senator Webster) who is at the table. This is one of the areas of his responsibility. I believe that it is important for the Government to have regard to the people who are not altogether familiar with metric measurements. In this case I think we ought to insist, through the appropriate Commonwealth and State forum, that labels carry the imperial measures as well as the metric measures.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– I would like to say a few words on this report. It is a holding report. The Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment points out that it is taking an interest in and is constantly scrutinising the problems involved. I am glad of that. I feel that some people are only too ready to dismiss the possibility that dangers may arise from the herbicides 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D. It seems to me that some State Ministers are even eager to anticipate reports and to come to the conclusion that there is nothing for the public to be worried about. I have taken a little interest in this matter. I have no real knowledge about it. Certain people in Victoria have been in touch with me and have given me information which makes me somewhat concerned as to whether problems are arising. I am certainly not satisfied, from the knowledge 1 have, that there is not reason for real fears.

Senator Jessop:

– I think you have provided me with some documents on it.

Senator MISSEN:

-Yes, I did supply the honourable senator with some documents. In fact I asked the Minister for Science (Senator Webster), who is at the table, a question on the matter back in May, when the discussion was becoming quite lively.

Senator Webster:

– I gave you a lengthy answer, if I remember correctly.

Senator MISSEN:

– Yes, the Minister gave me a lengthy answer, but I have to be so discourteous as to say that the answer left me less than satisfied.

Senator Wriedt:

– So, what is new?

Senator MISSEN:

– I do not want Senator Wriedt to intervene in this pleasant exchange which we are having on this side of the chamber. When I asked the question I was concerned about two areas. One related to the concern expressed in Victoria as to the reasons for the abnormal number of birth deformities in the Yarram area. Also, I had evidence given to me about a farmer living in the Kyabram district who had suffered considerable ill health for a long time following the spraying of properties in the neighbourhood. I know that medical experts were sent to his property to ascertain whether his illness could be due in any way to the effect of these herbicide sprays. Nothing has been proved, but it seems to me that what is important is that we should not regard the use of the herbicides as satisfactory because a close association has not been proved. The fact is that we ought to be overcautious, if necessary, about these matters.

At the time I was put in possession of materials which related to an action in the United States in respect of which Judge Skopil had made an order restraining the use of one of the two herbicides in the State forests of Oregon. As a result of that decision that herbicide was no longer used in 19 forests in Oregon and Washington. The answer I received from the Minister pointed out that the reason for the judge ‘s decision was that an environmental impact statement had not been presented to the satisfaction of the court. That is true. The reason why such a statement was not made was that it was not ascertained that damage was not being done to crops and to people because of the use of the herbicide on the outskirts of the various forests. Since that time I have remained somewhat unconvinced by what appears to be a dismissal of the dangers associated with these two herbicides. It may well be that nothing is wrong. I recognise that both herbicides are regarded as important to the agricultural community and that they are certainly of considerable value in the removal of insects and other problems. At the same time it seems to me that more than adequate investigation should be carried out.

I welcome, therefore, the fact that this Committee is keeping the matter under review. I hope that, even though we may have some dismissal of the importance of these two dangers by a number of State investigations, we will recognise that other people vehemently maintain that dangers are associated with the products. Therefore, there should be no slackening in the investigation being done by scientific experts throughout the country. We always have at the back of our minds the fact that there was no understanding of thalidomide, and other things of that nature, for some considerable time. Of course one could always show by logical reasoning that there was no proof of danger. Too often we discover rather too late in the event that there is a great deal of danger associated with some products.

Senator Jessop:

– There are hazards associated with all pesticides.

Senator MISSEN:

– I am sure there are. As Senator Jessop says, there are hazards associated with all pesticides. Of course there are possibilities of over-use or concentration of them. Those are certainly problems which, quite independently of what I have said already, should be investigated. Every possible method should be used to ensure that people are not over-using them and are not confused by reason of language. Those are additional issues to which I am not particularly referring but I do not in any way say that they are not of equal importance. I believe that we should look at all the evidence. We should not accept too readily what is perhaps the desire of people to give a clean bill of health to these instruments. I hope that this Committee will continue to keep an open mind on the subject, will look at the material that comes from here and abroad and will continue its investigations into this subject. For those reasons I commend the report of the investigation the Committee has made.

Senator PETER BAUME:
New South Wales

– I am prompted by the remarks made by Senator Missen to rise to speak briefly. I believe, as Senator Missen has acknowledged, that a Senate committee does a service to the Senate by bringing in a holding report in a difficult situation. I notice that Senator McLaren is at present on the other side of the chamber. He will recall a reference which he gave to the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare. That Committee has only gone as far as bringing in a holding statement on the Ralkon Agricultural Co. because that is all that seemed appropriate at that stage. There is nothing wrong with a holding statement when one requires a bit more time to unravel a situation. I think that we would all be in agreement with Senator Missen in applauding this course of action. But the honourable senator has laid stress on the inappropriateness of reaching a premature conclusion that certain chemical substances are harmless. The point I want to make is quite simple. It is equally inappropriate for anyone to make any premature conclusions about substances of any kind. It is inappropriate that we make any premature conclusion that they are harmful.

I was listening to the honourable senator to see whether he would include that in his prescription that people are making premature statements as though there were established facts about these chemicals. I think Senator Jessop by way of interjection established the point that nothing is without hazard. There is no such thing as complete safety. If one looks at some of the modern sciences developing in danger theory, one will see that it is not a question of whether things are safe but of how safe or how unsafe they are. What degree of safety are we willing to accept for certain activities? The drug penicillin is an obvious example. It is not safe.

Senator Georges:

– Smoking.

Senator PETER BAUME:

-The honourable senator draws my attention to the danger of smoking. I am grateful to him. I would not have thought of it had he not mentioned it to me. I hope that my colleague will accept that this holding position should be entirely neutral; that while we await the evidence we should not reach any conclusion as to either the safety or the danger of these substances. That is not to say we should not be wary or careful but we should reach no firm conclusion in advance of the evidence which will be forthcoming from the inquiries.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 655

QUESTION

JOINT COMMITTEE ON PUBLICATIONS

Debate resumed from 8 June, on motion by Senator Missen:

That the Senate take note of the report.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

-in reply- Mr Deputy President, I perhaps might close the debate which has not exactly flourished this evening. This report was debated somewhat on 8 June on a motion that the Senate take note of the report which is the fifth special report of the Joint Committee on Publications. I would not like to see the question put tonight without a reminder of the significance of this report. I hope that we may hear of something that is being done about it. It relates fundamentally to whether the laws which we pass, which are issued by the Government by way of regulation and which are not printed are actually to be brought before the notice of the public. It relates to whether the people will have an opportunity of knowing their laws and being able to read them. The situation which the Joint Committee on Publications investigated at the close of the last session was one we felt was alarming and which we felt ought to be brought carefully to the notice of the Parliament. I propose to read the summary of findings which we made on fact and which I believe require urgent attention by the Government. We took evidence and had submissions placed before us. The Committee found the following facts in its view and reported them in this interim report:

  1. That the present availability of readable up-dated legislation namely, Acts, Statutory Rules and Territorial Ordinances and Regulations, as amended, is in a most unsatisfactory state. This is demonstrated by the following examples- Very few pamphlet reprints of Acts and Statutory Rules, as amended, have been produced since 1973.

The latest issue of the Annual Acts volumes relates to 1974.

I can now update that because we now have the volume for 1975. But we do not yet have the volumes for 1976 or 1977. The summary continues:

The last issue of consolidated volumes of Statutory Rules covers the period 1 90 1 - 1 956.

The latest issue of annual volumes of Statutory Rules relates to 1972.

The latest volumes of consolidated laws of Norfolk Island cover the period 1914-1 964.

One can see the very considerable periods that have elapsed since many of those volumes have been reproduced. The report continued:

The Committee concludes that it is almost impossible for the interested citizen to keep abreast of legislative developments . . .

That the situation with regard to the general inavailability of Commonwealth legislative publications can no longer be tolerated and the Committee believes that unless remedial action is taken immediately, it will further deteriorate . . .

That while the Attorney-General’s Department has a legislative publishing program aimed at producing consolidated volumes of laws of the Australian Capital Territory, consolidated volumes of Statutory Rules and some annual volumes of Acts and Statutory Rules in the near future, -

That is its intention- . . the optimism suggested by the Department’s publishing program is not shared by the Committee. This conclusion is supported by the fact that since consolidated Acts volumes 1901-1973 were issued in 1974-75, only the 1974 annual Acts volume has been released. I have mentioned that the volume for 1975 recently arrived. The report continues:

This volume -

That is, the 1974 volume-

  1. . was made available this month, -

That was in June-

  1. . some six months after the expected date of release announced by the Attorney-General in October 1977 . . .

    1. That there has been a lack of planning for production of readable legislation in the past, and that there is evidence to suggest a lack of future planning for production. This is indicated by the fact that the period covered by consolidated volumes is inconsistent and random and would appear to be selected on a production convenience basis rather than for a consistent, and, therefore, a planned period, e.g., consolidated Statutory Rules volumes 1901-1956 and proposed consolidation 1901-1979 . . .
    2. That few, if any, investigations designed to discover alternative processing methods for legislative publications have been made by the Department either interstate or overseas . . .
    3. That although the Publications Branch of the Legislative Drafting Division of the Attorney-General’s Department has an establishment of twenty-four officers, five positions are currently vacant. Of these, the positions of two senior officers have been vacant for some time. This has seriously affected the production of the Department’s legislative publishing program . . .

I will come back to this matter because the documents tabled with the recent Budget- the Budget Papers- show the present position. The findings continue:

  1. That the Committee is not convinced that an establishment of 24 officers cannot produce more publications than those which have emanated from the Branch over recent years. In order to ensure the adherence by the Department to the Committee’s recommended publishing program, a continuing overview of its operations needs to be undertaken.
  2. That when approval has been sought from the Attorney-General’s Department by the Australian Government Publishing Service to reprint legislation where stocks are low or exhausted, quite frequently a response has not been forthcoming from the Attorney-General ‘s Department and, as a result, further delays occur in the publication of updated legislation.

These were the findings of fact by the Committee. I turn now to what appears in the Estimates for 1978-79 in regard to the Publications Branch of the Legislative Drafting Division of the Attorney-General ‘s Department. The expenditure in 1977-78 was $542,000. The estimate for 1978-79 was $650,000. But we must look at the explanations which are made. They state that although the amount provided for expenditure on this item in 1977-78 was $1,035,000, actual expenditure was only $542,464. In other words, little more than half the amount that was set aside was actually expended. When we take into account the situation that we have disclosed we see that obviously there is a considerable breakdown. The Department stated:

Difficulties were encountered in meeting the planned program for the printing of legislation in 1 977-78. It is hoped that the situation will be remedied in the current year.

We also fervently hope that this will be so. The Committee in its report not only made those findings but also made some 15 recommendations. They are not of great length but for the convenience of people reading Hansard I seek leave for them to be incorporated. They set out briefly the situation and the views which we feel should be carried into effect.

Leave granted.

The recommendations read as follows-

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee makes the following recommendations:

Recommended Publishing Programme

That greater priority be attached to the reprinting in pamphlet form, of Acts, Statutory Rules and legislation of the Territories, as amended, particularly in cases where substantial amendments have been made. (Para. 16)

That the next consolidated Acts volumes cover the period 1901-1980; and that thereafter they be published at 5-year intervals. (Para. 16)

That following the publication of the consolidated volumes of Statutory Rules 1901-1979, the next consolidation published cover the period 1901-1985; and that thereafter they be published at 5-year intervals. (Para. 16)

That following the publication of consolidated volumes of Australian Capital Territory Ordinances and Regulations 191 1-1977, the next consolidation published cover the period 191 1-1985: and that thereafter they be produced at 5-year intervals. (Para. 16)

That consolidated volumes of the legislation of the Island Territories be published in like manner to 2, 3, and 4 above. (Para. 16)

That as a general principle, consolidated volumes of legislation be made available within two years of the period to which they refer. (Para. 16)

That all annual volumes required to be published be undertaken on a regular basis and be available within one year of the year to which they refer. (Para. 16)

That up-dated indexes of all Commonwealth legislation be published on a regular basis and be available within one year of the period to which they refer. (Para. 16)

That the responsibility for publishing the general reprints of Northern Territory Laws be transferred to the Northern Territory as soon as possible after the Territory has gained self-government. (Para. 16)

Production Process

That all necessary assistance be given to the Government Printer to ensure that, as soon as possible, all production stages of all Commonwealth legislation be undertaken by the computerised phototype-setting process. ( Para. 1 9 )

Preparation of Copy Material

That the Public Service Board undertake a thorough investigation into the Publications Branch of the Legislative Drafting Division, Attorney-General’s Department with a view to providing appropriate resources to the Branch which would enable the adherence to the Committee’s recommended publishing timetable referred to in paragraph 1 6 of this Report. [Recommendations 1 to 9]. (Para. 2 1 )

That a task force of officers be established with the responsibility of removing the current legislative publishing backlog of the Publications Branch, Attorney-General ‘s Department. (Para. 21)

That the investigation referred to in paragraph 21(a) of this Report [recommendation 1 1 , above] include appropriate areas of the Australian Government Publishing Service to ensure that copy is prepared for and produced by the Government Printer in the most expeditious manner. (Para. 22)

Availability of Stock

That whenever the Australian Government Publishing Service seeks authority from the Attorney-General’s Department to reprint an Act, Statutory Rule or other legislative publication, the Attorney-General ‘s Department advise the Australian Government Publishing Service of its decision, without delay, with regard to the request. (Para. 24)

A Continuing Review

  1. That within one year of the presentation of this Report to Parliament:

The Attorney-General’s Department provide the Committee with a report which-

states the progress made in connection with its legislative publishing programme;

makes comment on matters of its responsibility referred to in paragraph 27 of this Report; and

makes comment on such other matters which the Department considers relevant.

The Australian Government Publishing Service provide the Committee with a report which-

states the progress made in connection with the programme of putting on-line the computerised production of all Commonwealth legislation;

makes comment on matters of its responsibility referred to in paragraph 27 of this Report; and

makes comment on such other matters which the Australian Government Publishing Service considers relevant.

That the Public Service Board provide the Committee with a report on any review which it may have carried out in accordance with the recommendations contained in paragraphs 21 (a) and 22 of this Report. [Recommendations 1 1 and 13.] (Para. 26).

Senator MISSEN:

-I thank the Senate. The major recommendation is that consolidated Acts volumes hereafter should be published at fiveyearly intervals. It was felt also that the publications of the various volumes of legislation should be made available within two years of any period to which they refer- in other words, while they are still useful. There was also a number of recommendations in regard to the way in which copy is prepared and the work which the Attorney-General’s Department does and a continuing review was suggested. Of course there may be different views in respect to the length of time between the consolidation of statutes. Some might think a seven-year period rather than a five-year period would be preferable. It may be costly for people such as lawyers who have to get consolidations all the time for them to be published so frequently. That is a matter of detail. The important point is that there ought to be regular cycles. It should be known that there will be consolidations and that the publications will be brought up to date. It is obvious that everything cannot be done at the one time. But the various statutory rules, ACT laws, Acts and the laws of Norfolk Island should be consolidated in a regular program so that it is known that they will be published at set periods.

In this debate I emphasise that we believe that we are in a serious situation. It is no good for us in this Parliament and elsewhere to pass laws if they are not known. It is not possible to be critical of the people who are expected to obey the law if they cannot find out what is the law. It is not sufficient merely to be a lawyer. To find out what is the ACT law one has to be a treasure trove seeker as well and search for the legislation and amendments over a considerable period. This is not a satisfactory situation. I know that it sounds as though I am being extremely critical of officers who are working hard and who I am sure are overworked in trying to operate the system. I know that new methods are being employed in the publication of the legislation. This has caused some of the delays which I hope will be eliminated in the near future. I know that there are mitigating circumstances in regard to these matters but this is a matter on which there ought to be serious consideration and a determination to rectify this poor situation at the earliest possible date.

Senator TATE:
Tasmania

– by leave- I enter this debate because I entirely support the remarks made by Senator Missen. We are dealing with the very heart of the democratic process in this respect. No laws are to be made in secret and any reasonable citizen by diligent inquiry ought to be able to ascertain his legal position. Any commercial firm ought to be able to ascertain its legal position in respect of penal legislation or legislation which confers some sort of benefit or opportunity. In a purely professional capacity as an academic lawyer I was continually frustrated by the lack of current annual volumes of Commonwealth statutes and reasonably up to date consolidations with their helpful indexes and so on. It is one thing to say that the Acts are available in separate pamphlet form; it is much more helpful to have them in volumes properly indexed and presented.

I am disturbed that the Joint Committee on Publications should make findings of fact that the publication schedule is as incoherent as the Committee’s conclusions would indicate. It would seem that the administration is inadequate for the task, or- let us put the responsibility where it ought to lie- that ministerial pressure or direction has been inadequate. I hope that the Minister concerned can ensure that the funds which Senator Missen pointed out were allocated to the task are used in order to remedy an intolerable situation in this democratic State.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– by leave- I suppose that until a few weeks ago I would have happily supported Senator Tate and recounted my experiences as a lawyer and the difficulties I suffered in not have available copies of Commonwealth statutes. I find myself now in a position in which I am partly responsible for this state of affairs.

Senator Georges:

– You aren’t prepared to do so now.

Senator CHANEY:

– My admission seems to have enlivened the Senate. I confess to the Senate that my responsibility in this matter is for the Australian Government Publishing Service. I was interested to see that, on page 1 8 of the report of the Joint Committee on Publications, the evidence of the Australian Government Publishing Service is quoted. It appears that the Service expressed dissatisfaction with the state of affairs and was seeking a remedy for it. Therefore, I feel confident that the AGPS will welcome the fact that this report has been promulgated. It may even regard the generous period of 12 months which the Committee has given it to come forward with some suggestions for a remedy as being unnecessarily long.

It is quite clear that the Government welcomes this sort of activity by parliamentary committees. I think it has already been referred to tonight that the Government has committed itself to responding to reports such as this in a formal way in the Parliament within a period of six months. I think that is a substantial step forward for the committee system. It does mean that I, and the Attorney-General (Senator Durack), who I think is the other Minister involved in the matter which is the subject of this report, will have to come back to the Senate as a matter of course and respond to the various recommendations which the Committee has made. As both of us are ex-practising solicitors or barristers, or both, we have experienced the sorts of difficulties which have been referred to by Senator Tate, and I would hope that that means the matter is going to get early and sympathetic consideration.

May I also say that it is good to see a number of the members of the Publications Committee present in the chamber for the purpose of this debate. I see Senator Missen, who has spoken, and Senator Georges who is also a member of the Committee.

Senator Georges:

– Come on! I’ve just been appointed to it.

Senator CHANEY:

– It may give you something more useful to do than whipping for the Opposition, senator. I am delighted that you are involving yourself in some constructive activity: I also note that Mr Wharton, who presumably claims some right of paternity for this report, is also witnessing the debate. I do think it is important that these reports on which people do a lot of work should be taken seriously by the Senate when they are considered because unless that happens it seems to me that it is difficult to expect the Government to take them as seriously as the committees would like.

Senator Cavanagh:

– What does the Government do about them?

Senator CHANEY:

– Unlike any previous government, this Government has undertaken that it will formally respond in the Parliament not later than six months after reports of this sort are put down, and that is something which is unprecedented. Your rather ungenerous and almost churlish response to that I think is really no contribution to this debate or to our getting more value out of parliamentary committees. I think the matters which the Committee has raised are matters which are important. I certainly undertake that the Department for which I am responsible will give the matter careful consideration. I hope that we will be able to meet some of the difficulties which the Committee has raised.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-by leave- Apparently we now follow a new procedure in that the mover of the motion closes the debate and then we all seek leave to continue the debate. In closing the debate Senator Missen did such an excellent job of it that I suddenly realised that what I had considered to be merely a formal matter before the Senate turned out to be an extremely important matter. I am a new member of the Joint Committee on Publications. I was appointed to it the other day. I now realise that what I had considered to be merely a formal activity has become a very vital one indeed if one is to take into consideration the debate tonight. May I say that there was an attempt under the Labor Government to correct the situation which has been revealed. Honourable senators will recall that a considerable amount of additional funds were provided and, as Senator Missen has indicated, there was a shortfall in expenditure of almost $500,000 in the updating of the consolidation.

One must give credit to ex-Senator Murphy at the time he was Attorney-General for realising the importance of consolidating the various Acts. In fact, I have a very impressive array of books at home which began the process of this consolidation- a process which had been neglected in the past, which was considered for a while to be important and now apparently, according to what Senator Missen has said tonight, has again been neglected. Nevertheless, I think the debate tonight will prove that we ought to stimulate those persons who are responsible for this matter. It appears that the person who needs stimulation is Senator Chaney. He has admitted that he has responsibility for this matter. What better stimulation can one give to Senator Chaney, an ex- Whip, that he should now be on the receiving end of some advice, and that is that he should get about the job as quickly as possible and spend the $500,000 that is available- I trust that the money will be brought forwardtogether with the other $600,000, making a total of $ 1 ,100,000, to do the job that Senator Missen indicates is so important. As Senator Chaney referred to me as a member of the Publications Committee newly appointed, I refer to him as the Minister for Administrative Services newly appointed with a very heavy responsibility indeed.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 659

QUESTION

SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

Report on Wiltona Hostel

Debate resumed from 9 June, on motion by Senator Rae:

That the Senate take note of the report.

Senator LEWIS:
Victoria

-Mr Acting Deputy President -

Senator Peter Baume:

– You are not closing the debate, are you?

Senator LEWIS:

– No, I am not. As a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations I am rising to speak to the report. The Wiltona Hostel comprises a group of buildings erected between the Melbourne metropolitan cities of Williamstown and Altona. The complex is built on 5lA hectares of land. It comprises a group of buildings which from the outside appear to be a set of two-storey flats beautifully constructed, if I may say so, in brick and giving all of the external appearance of being very desirable residences. These apparently desirable residences are in fact vacant and have to all intents and purposes been vacant since October 1972 except for a short period of occupancy as a result of the Darwin refugee problem. These vacant buildings are located in an area in which many people are living in conditions which quite frankly are intolerable. One flat was described to the Committee as a flat which had been converted from an aviary.

Senator Messner:

– A chook-house.

Senator LEWIS:

- Senator Messner reminds me that the witness described it as a chookhouse.

Senator Thomas:

– Is that a technical term?

Senator LEWIS:

– It is a technical term- a chook-house.

Senator O’Byrne:

– Strictly for the birds.

Senator LEWIS:

– As the honourable senator sits near Senator McLaren I would have thought that he would have known all about it. As I said, these beautiful buildings which are vacant create among the local populace much concern because many people are living in this area in premises which ought to be condemned. The reality of the situation is that these premises are designed to accommodate altogether about 1,000 people. In fact, each of the units is specifically designed and was so designed originally by the architect with good and deliberate purpose only for temporary accommodation. To ensure that they would be for temporary accommodation only, each unit comprises one bedroom or two bedrooms and a bathroom. In fact there is no living room although one bedroom can be a convertible living room of a sort. There is no kitchen. There are no general facilities which would make it easy for these units to be converted into what we might call a flat. These buildings were constructed at a total cost of about $2.2m. The replacement value has been estimated at about $7m. Clearly, they have one specifically limited use; that is, as a migrant hostel. As I said, to all intents and purposes, apart from a short time when the buildings were used for Darwin refugees, they have been empty since October 1 972.

The problem which was given to my Committee was to investigate and report on their establishment and operation and what should be done in relation to the disposal of the hostel. Firstly, the Committee looked at the first hostel, which existed between 1949 and 1962. Immediately following the Second World War the Federal Government owned this area of land. It originally had been the car park of the Williamstown racecourse. The Commonwealth erected on this area of land an inferior type of accommodation in response to an urgent need to house a large number of migrants. Nissen-type huts were constructed. It was right and proper that that sort of building be constructed as a matter of urgency to accommodate the large number of migrants who were then flooding into Australia.

What was a matter of concern to the Committee, as indicated in the report, was not the initial use of the hostel accommodation but the reconstruction of the hostel on that site. What happened was that in about 1 96 1 a large number of people throughout Australia started to complain about the type of accommodation that migrants were being forced to use. This agitation went on for a number of years. It serves to demonstrate what can happen when people become emotionally involved in lobbying the government to take certain steps to do a particular thing, such as upgrading accommodation. No doubt, the media quite rightly were involved in pointing out the type of accommodation in which migrants were being forced to live. Sympathy was coming forward for migrants to Australia. The result of all that was that in 1963 the then Cabinet agreed to a program for upgrading these hostels. No doubt as a result of departmental recommendations the Cabinet set a series of criteria. Those criteria are set out on page 6 of the report. I would like to refer to them, because they are quite fascinating. They were:

Hostels should be situated on Commonwealth owned land . . .

Hostels should be chosen which already possessed adequate communal facilities (kitchens, dining rooms, stores, etc.) to save the expense of replacing them.

Priority should be given to hostels where existing accommodation was of an inferior standard.

Hostels should be within reach of industry which could provide suitable employment, new housing estates or home building sites, schools, shops and general community services.

One might say that that was not an unreasonable set of criteria to establish in 1963. With hindsight, it is quite clear that Wiltona should never have been developed as a site. In fact, the site was bordered on all sides by a petrochemical and gas complex. Although the complex was not then fully developed, there were indications that it would fairly soon be fully developed. In 1978 it is clear that, although the site fitted the criteria to a T, it was a disastrous site to choose for the Commonwealth Government to spend money on. From there on, $2. 2m was spent in providing 580 rooms to accommodate about 960 people. At the same time- in other words, at the time when these buildings were being constructed- the surrounding petrochemical complex was being developed. The result is that these buildings are situated alongside a series of oil storage tanks. One would have to be quite fearful of what might happen should a fire break out. It is a situation which is clearly undesirable as a residence.

Senator O’Byrne:

– Which came first- the oil storage or the accommodation.

Senator LEWIS:

– It is very difficult to say. The Committee is unable to say, because they both happened at the same time. The petrochemical plant was being developed at the same time as the migrant hostel. The migrant hostel was there in a temporary capacity at the same time as an application was being made for the construction of buildings to develop the petrochemical plant. The petrochemical plant had been approved and the buildings were to be erected when it was decided to convert the temporary hostel into a permanent hostel. The Committee was unable to say which came first- the chicken or the egg. Clearly, they both happened at the same time. Clearly, no one really applied his mind to the question whether this was a suitable area for people to live in.

Senator O’Byrne:

– What about the town planners?

Senator LEWIS:

– We did not have that sort of town planning in those days. I pay respect to the Mayor of Williamstown, who gave evidence that one would have to acknowledge now that in those days there was a desire to get the migrants out of the local area. Some people did not want the migrants living near them. They did not want migrant hostels established in their area. Here was an ideal opportunity. The site was two miles down the road. There were no residents round about. There were open spaces which subsequently were to be developed for industrial sites. We could get rid of the migrants.

Senator O’Byrne:

– We could fumigate them out with oil fumes.

Senator LEWIS:

– We could fumigate them out, yes. That is in effect, what happened. From there on, of course, there has been one blunder after another, until by 1972 a magnificent structure was erected. Once we started to cut back on our migrant intake and we did not need these premises for people in this capacity, the Commonwealth Government found that they were surplus to its requirements. The Committee was confronted with the problem of what to do with them. Quite clearly they are not able to be converted with any degree of economy into residential premises, even if it could be said that it was desirable that they be used for residential purposes. It would not be a sound financial proposition. There is no ready use for them by surrounding industry; there is no ready use for them for office accommodation. The Commonwealth is stuck with these premises.

I would like to refer to the fire hazard problem. The report clearly discloses that there was a conflict of evidence in relation to the use of the premises by people living in them. I do not mean their use by people using the premises throughout the day but their use by people sleeping in them overnight. I admired the courage of the Chairman of the Commonwealth Fire Board, Mr R. G. Smith, who in the face of evidence from the Melbourne Metropolitan Fire Brigade officer, Mr T. H. Williamson, that in no circumstances would he approve of these premises being used for accommodation, gave evidence that in certain circumstances which he detailed and subject to certain steps being taken he felt that they could be used for accommodation. It was pointed out to him that he was putting his neck on the block and he accepted that position. I admire a public servant who is prepared to stand by his recommendations and I think Mr Smith ought to be congratulated. One really would need to read the evidence to appreciate the nature of the step that Mr Smith took.

The Committee believed that overall the consultative process and the criteria used in reaching the decision to rebuild Wiltona were inadequate.

One appreciates that it was not 1978; it was 1 963 when there was not the awareness of environmental factors that there is at present. Despite that, the Committee felt quite strongly that not enough consultation had taken place but also that no-one really had had a good look at it and said to themselves: ‘We own this land; it meets all those requirements but do we really think we ought to spend money on this hostel for people to live in?’ Having considered all the relevant factors the Committee came to the view that the hostel was being used at the moment for no purpose other than as a migrant or refugee hostel of the Commonwealth Government and that there was no other purpose for which the Commonwealth could use it.

The Committee considered that the premises would be acceptable for use in that capacity subject only to three very stringent steps being taken in relation to fire precautions. They are listed on page 12 of the report: That an audible alarm system be installed in the hostel interconnected with the refinery’s watchroom so that in an emergency the residents can be alerted; that procedures be established for the evacuation of the occupants, these procedures to be prepared in consultation with the fire brigade; and, finally, that an assurance be obtained from Petroleum Refineries Australia Pty Ltd that only crude oil or fuels of similar characteristics be held in or passed through tanks 800, 801 and 802 which are the tanks closest to the hostel. The Committee formed the opinion that unless and until those procedures were accepted the hostel be considered unacceptable for use, although the evidence was that the possibility of a fire occurring was very low.

As to the use of the hostel, it would appear that with the current problem of refugees from Asia it may well be that the hostel will have to be used in the near future, but within the foreseeable future that problem will pass and the hostel will have to be disposed of. To that end the Committee made a number of recommendations for the disposal of the hostel. For the purpose of the Commonwealth taking action in accordance with its undertaking referred to during the debate on the previous report, the Committee recommended that in order to overcome delays brought about by protracted negotiations there should be an early meeting of the relevant Commonwealth and State Ministers and the Mayor of Williamstown to negotiate the disposal of both properties and their future use; ‘both properties’ being the hostel and the Williamstown rifle range which adjoins it and which is about to be disposed of by the Commonwealth Government.

That was the penultimate recommendation of the Committee in regard to action to be taken by the Government.

Finally, I want to refer to ways of overcoming the delays caused by protracted negotiations. There have been negotiations off and on for the disposal of the hostel since October 1972 and these negotiations have not yet reached fruition. The Committee formed the opinion that it was not able to lay the blame for the delay on any particular person or organisation. It seemed that a step would be taken and the matter would sit for weeks or months and then another step would be taken, by which time the circumstances had changed so that the negotiations fell by the wayside and had to be commenced again.

Senator Chaney:

– Perhaps they work through solicitors.

Senator LEWIS:

– Yes, perhaps they did work through solicitors. Ultimately the Committee formed the opinion that a major cause of delay had been the involvement of a large number of Commonwealth and State government departments and a local authority resulting in a bureaucratic maze and an excessive waste of time and money. That is the explanation for the delay. One cannot point to any specific department or bureaucracy, only to the conglomeration of Commonwealth, State and local government bodies passing the problem backwards and forwards from one to the other. This ultimately resulted in enormous delays in action being taken. To overcome this problem the Committee has recommended that there be a conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers together with the Mayor of Williamstown to negotiate the disposal of this property and the Williamstown rifle range at the same time.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I make only a short comment because one point should be brought out. I pay a tribute to the former Victorian senator, George Poyser. When some of us came here in the mid-1960s a lot of agitation was being spearheaded by British migrants about a number of hostels that had been constructed as far back as the early postwar years. There was a tremendous clamour and pressure was being applied to modernise hostel accommodation.

The picture that Senator Lewis sketched came about because of slow development and the bad disposition of hostels. Listening to Senator Lewis tonight, I found it rather ironical that when I came into this chamber with George Poyser there was tremendous agitation right across the board in Victoria from the trade union movement and from British migrants about the bad situation in hostels. I suppose because of all the agitation we got the problem to the drawing board, only to have events pass us by. I make that point because of the agitation that was known to a number of honourable senators, including that illustrious former senator from Geelong, George Poyser.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– This is another report which touches on my area of responsibility, as the Department of Administrative Services has responsibility for the Wiltona Hostel. Senator Austin Lewis has taken the Senate very fully through the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations, and I do not think any honourable senator could be left in any doubt as to what were the facts found by the Committee and what were the recommendations of the Committee. I am grateful for Senator Mulvihill ‘s intervention, which explains the circumstances of the rebuilding in 1965.

With this report, as with all other reports, there will be an official considered Government response to the recommendations of the Committee. In some ways this report is quite cheering. Whilst criticising the fact that Wiltona was rebuilt in 1965, the Committee goes on to point out that the procedures which now govern the use of Commonwealth property would ensure that there was no repetition of such a decision. Although the Committee believes that something which was done in 1965 should not have been done, it believes that subsequent changes to procedures will not permit the mistake to recur. It is also of interest to the refugee situation in Western Australia that the Committee has seen fit to say that the temporary use of Wiltona for refugees would be OK provided precautions are taken with respect to fire.

This is a matter which has come before me and which I have had to consider. I must say that the report of the Senate Committee has been part of the material which has been put before me for consideration. Once again it is an illustration of the extreme usefulness of this son of parliamentary activity. I thank the Committee for its work and look forward to responding in a more formal manner to its recommendations.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 662

STATES GRANTS (HOME CARE) AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– I move:

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows-

The purpose of the Bill is to provide for direct matching grants, with the States, for a range of home care services, and for the salaries of approved welfare officers employed at or in association with senior citizens ‘ centres. The Act provides for continuation of subsidy, on a $2 for $1 basis, for the capital cost of senior citizens’ centres. Thus, the Bill gives effect to policies announced at the most recent Premiers Conference which recognise that the State Governments are in the best position to assess the requirements for home care services and to determine their priorities accordingly.

As announced at the Premiers Conference, the new subsidy arrangements are to have effect on and from 1 July 1978 in respect of home care services, and for welfare officer salaries for a salary period commencing on or after 1 July 1978. The States Grants (Home Care) Act was introduced in 1 969 on the basis of a recommendation made at the 1968 Health Ministers Conference. The Act broadly provides three forms of assistance:

Firstly for home care service schemes which provide housekeeping and other domestic assistance to aged people in their own homes; secondly, for the building and equipping of senior citizens’ centres; and thirdly, for the employment of welfare officers employed by, or in association with, senior citizens’ centres.

A later amendment to the Act increased the subsidy from one-half to two-thirds of expenditure through the States. The importance of locally based home care and welfare officer services for aged and infirm people is fully recognised by the Government. Indeed, provision is made for significant overall increases in assistance for domiciliary services in this year’s Budget. For the States grants home care program overall, there is an increase of 12.28 per cent in the estimates for this financial year, over the expenditure for last financial year. For the home care services component of the program, there has been an 83.5 per cent increase in estimated expenditure for this year over that for the financial year 1975-76, when the Government took office. Details of Commonwealth expenditure for the past three years is set out in the following table:

The increased funds made available for the program, together with the changed subsidy basis has enabled new welfare officer positions and home care services to be approved for the first time since October 1975. 1 was recently able to announce that Commonwealth support could be extended to an additional 79 welfare officers and 22 home care services. Overall the Commonwealth will subsidise 191 welfare officer positions and 271 home care services. It will also be possible to consider some additional applications for home care services. This particular legislation is but one avenue of Commonwealth financial assistance for those requiring support services to continue to live independently in their own homes. Other important services include mealsonwheels, subsidised under separate legislation also administered by the Department of Social Security, expenditure on which has increased by nearly 30 per cent in the last three years, to an estimated $2. 3m this financial year, and domiciliary nursing care programs, which involved Commonwealth expenditure last financial year of $ 10.7m. The estimate for the current financial year is $ 12.1m. It has been suggested in some quarters that the Government is suddenly withdrawing from funding home care services, causing large numbers of aged and infirm people to look to nursing homes and other institutions for help. The fact is that the Commonwealth will continue to match every dollar allocated by the States for approved welfare officer and home care services.

As I have already indicated, the new arrangements for the program were announced at the time of the Premiers Conference in June, and of course are fully in line with the Government’s policy of federalism, which recognises that State and local governments are well placed to assume greater responsibility for locally based programs of this nature. Provided that State governments act responsibly within the framework of the federalism policy, there is no reason to believe that there will be any reduction in the level of welfare officer and home care services. Indeed, it could be anticipated that the States will allot a high priority to these services, which make a contribution to maintaining people in their own homes. The main function of a welfare officer is to provide a link between aged persons living in their own homes and domiciliary and other supportive welfare services.

The activities and responsibilities of welfare officers vary according to local needs and priorities, but in general include determination of the needs of the aged population and the development of services and facilities to meet these needs; liaison with committees of senior citizens ‘ centres and service clubs for the purpose of establishing or extending the centres’ services and facilities; supervision of the services provided; fostering co-operation and liaison among various welfare activities for aged persons and encouraging interest in these activities; and providing an education program which will encourage senior citizens’ centres to promote purposeful activities. Home care services which can be subsidised under the legislation include home visiting, laundry and shopping services, home handyman and related home maintenance schemes, housekeeper and other services which complement health or welfare programs designed to enhance the independence of aged and infirm people living at home.

I am sure that all honourable senators will recognise the importance of every encouragement being given to the States to maintain, and as necessary expand, their commitment to the home care program which will encourage independent living of aged and infirm people for as long as possible, and help to reduce the need for people to seek institutional care. As I have shown, it is simply not true that the Commonwealth has in some way absolved itself of responsibility in this field. Rather, the Government is seeking to build on the present partnership with State and local governments in the context of increased overall funding for these services. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned.

page 664

HOMELESS PERSONS ASSISTANCE AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– I move:

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows-

The purpose of the Bill is to extend for a further period of 12 months, those provisions of the Homeless Persons Assistance Act which are due to expire on 13 December 1978. This is to allow for full consultation with the State governments on future arrangements to meet the needs of homeless people in the light of the experience with the program to date. As honourable senators will be aware, the Homeless Persons Assistance Act was introduced in December 1974 on the basis of a report by a working party on homeless men and women. The program has been kept under close review since then, and has been the subject of specific evaluation by the Department of Social Security including careful scrutiny by the homeless persons advisory committees established in each State. A report on the process of evaluation, entitled ‘A Place of Dignity’ was tabled by the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) on 9 June 1 978.

The working party on homeless men and women recommended amongst other things, that capital grants totalling up to $5m a year should be made available over a three-year period to voluntary agencies and local statutory authorities for approved projects- such as night shelters, reception and assessment centres, hostels, flats, day centres, special clinics and detoxification units- in order to upgrade and replace existing inadequate accommodation and to build new facilities for permanently and chronically homeless men and women.

The Act provides for capital grants to be made to eligible organisations, which are defined as non-profit organisations, local governing bodies and charitable or benevolent trusts, towards the full cost of purchasing, constructing or renting buildings, including the purchase of furniture and equipment. It also enables the Commonwealth to pay 50 per cent of the salary of a social welfare worker employed at a homeless persons assistance centre. Approved organisations may also be paid a daily subsidy at prescribed rates for each homeless person to whom both food and accommodation are provided, at a rate of 75c per day, and subsidy of 25c for each meal supplied to non-resident homeless persons.

For the information of honourable senator’s capital grants totalling $9.8m have been approved under the Act to date. Of this amount $3. 5m had actually been expended by 30 June 1978, $3. 6m has been allocated for expenditure in 1 978-79 and the remaining $2. 7m will be carried forward to 1979-80. Expenditure on rental and salary subsidies for the period from 13 December 1974 to 30 June 1978 totalled $646,665. The appropriation for these subsidies in 1978-79 is $285,000. Expenditure under the National Welfare Fund on accommodation and meal subsidies for the period from 13 December 1974 to 30 June 1978 amounted to $2.6m. Estimated expenditure on these subsidies in 1978-79 is $lm. As at 30 June 1978, financial support was being given towards the running costs of 106 homeless persons’ centres, with a total bed capacity of 3,410. Subsidy made available in 1977-78 represents 990,759 people assisted. In addition 847,774 meals were served to non-resident homeless people. Salary subsidies were paid for 37 social welfare workers.

The Government has no doubt about the importance of this program or its effectiveness in helping to upgrade the standard of facilities for homeless men and women in many areas of Australia. Complementary to the assistance that has been provided under this program, 76 women ‘s refuges have been approved for funding, at an estimated cost of some $3m this financial year, through the Community Health Program. Because of the involvement of the State governments in many aspects of services for homeless people, the Government has decided that it is appropriate at this stage to extend the Act for a further year, to allow full consultations with the States on future arrangements. This is in line with the spirit of the report of the working party on homeless men and women, which recognised the need for consultation concerning the continued development of service by all levels of government and voluntary agencies to meet the needs of homeless people.

As honourable senators will recall, the Act was extended for a further period of one year from December last, so as to allow time for further development and review. The Government believes that the program is now sufficiently well established to warrant discussion with State governments on their views about the sharing of responsibilities in this area.

I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned.

page 665

NITROGENOUS FERTILIZERS SUBSIDY AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– I move:

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows-

The purpose of the Bill now before the House is to extend the operation of the Nitrogenous Fertilizers Subsidy Scheme for a further year until 31 December 1979, but at a rate of subsidy reduced from $60 per tonne of nitrogen content to $40 per tonne of such content. Following consideration of the Industries Assistance Commission’s recommendation in Report No. 58 dated 5 September 1975, the Government decided that the subsidy on this fertiliser was to be phased out. The measures effected by the Bill represent a further step in the implementation of this decision.

The Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) outlined in the Budget Speech various Government initiatives in support of rural industry, including the provision of an amount of $ 10m for continuation of this subsidy for a further year. The level of subsidy to apply after 3 1 December 1979 will be considered by the Government in the light of economic circumstances prevailing nearer to that time. The Bill proposes that from 1 January 1979 to 31 December 1979 subsidy will be payable at the reduced rate in respect of locally produced nitrogenous fertilisers which are sold for use in Australia as fertiliser and also in respect of imported nitrogenous fertilisers which are either used in Australia as a fertiliser by the importer or are sold by the importer for such use in Australia. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned.

page 666

SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

Report on the Australian Housing Corporation Annual Report 1974-75

Consideration resumed from 22 August, on motion by Senator Rae:

That the Senate take note of the report. Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 666

SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

Report on Expenditure by Commonwealth Departments on the Hire of Pot Plants

Consideration resumed from 22 August, on motion by Senator Rae:

That the Senate take note of the report. Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 666

SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL RESOURCES

Report on Australia’s Water Resources, the Commonwealth Role

Debate resumed on 24 August, on motion by Senator Thomas:

That the Senate take note of the report.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– When this report was put down on 24 August I made some comments before seeking leave to continue my remarks later. This evening I want to follow on from where I left off. I think it is unfortunate that the Budget has superseded some of the statements made in this report. In my remarks on 24 August I referred to the amount of money which we thought was to be available over a period of five years under the National Water Resources (Financial Assistance) Act. I quote from page 8 of the report, in which it is stated:

The recent National Water Resources (Financial Assistance) Act 1978 has re-introduced direct Commonwealth assistance to the States for development projects and initially $200m will be provided over the next five years encompassing all aspects of water resources management for which Commonwealth assistance is considered appropriate. The areas set out in the Act are conservation and distribution works, water quality management, desalination of agricultural land, flood mitigation, and flood plain management and studies or investigations relating to all aspects of the assessment and utilisation of Australia’s water resources. The Commonwealth has not announced any further details of the operation of this program.

In view of the fact that the national water resources legislation had been passed by the

Parliament in March this year, the Committee was of the opinion that if that $2 00m was to be distributed over five years it would have meant that an amount of $40m would have been provided each year for the implementation of the proposals contained in the National Water Resources (Financial Assistance) Act. But unfortunately this was not to be so. During the course of the hearings and on-site inspections by our Committee, we had brought home to us, I think very forcibly, the very desperate need for money to be expended on Australia ‘s water resources in the States that we visited. I commend the enthusiasm of the people in the Grafton area, the Bundaberg area, the Mackay area around Townsville, in the Riverina district of New South Wales around Deniliquin and Wakool and in the Sunraysia area of Victoria, which encompasses Mildura. I think that the people who accompanied our Committee on our inspections and when we took public evidence brought home to the Committee most forcibly and most enthusiastically the need for a greater amount of money to be expended on water resources in these areas.

As I pointed out on 24 August in my brief remarks on this mater, as a South Australian I was very disappointed that the people who depend solely on the Murray in the Riverland of South Australia had not seen fit to make a submission to our Committee. Of course, as they did not make a submission we did not make any onsite inspections in the Riverland of South Australia where, in my view, we could have gained a lot of knowledge which we could have included in our report and in our recommendations to the Government. I hope that the Government will take note of the recommendations that have been made in the report. I will not refer to all of them because it would take too long. I will refer to the ones which in my view are most pertinent. The recommendations are set out in chapter 1 1 of the report at page 62. Firstly, under the heading ‘The Commonwealth’s role’, we stated in the report:

In order to effectively meet its current and future responsibilities and obligations in the assessment, planning and development of Australia’s water resources the Committee recommends that the Commonwealth should: make a clear statement of the areas and objectives of the National Water Policy Statement that will constitute the Commonwealth’s water policy;

In my view, and I would say in the view of the members of the Committee, that should be done at the earliest opportunity. Another of the most important recommendations was that the Commonwealth should separate its policy and nonpolicy water functions. The Committee recommended that the Department of National Development should have primary responsibility for Commonwealth water resources policy. We explained why on page 56 of the report. I will not go back to that tonight. In the report under the heading ‘Development and funding’, we state that the Commonwealth should: . . develop the National Water Resources (Financial Assistance) Act 1978 as the principal means of providing financial assistance to the States for water resources development and that the $200 million upper limit of the live year rolling program be reviewed annually based on the priorities established by the States;

A lot of confusion exists in the minds of the people whom we saw during our on-site inspections as to the real allocation and the method of allocating this $200 million under this Act. Many of the people to whom we spoke thought that either they or their State governments would have access to that $200m and that the people in the various regional areas could then nominate where the money was to be spent. Of course, this is not so. I think that some of them were very disturbed when we had to explain to them that the $200m was to be spread over five years and was to be shared among all the States involved under the Act. Of course, great surprise was expressed because these people could see that the projects that they had in mind were not going to come to fruition for a great number of years.

Unfortunately, during the debate on the national water resources legislation it was inferred, both in the other place and in this place, that the $200m would be a direct grant to be shared by the States. It took quite a lot of probing on my part during the debate on this legislation in this chamber to elicit from the Minister who was responsible that in fact this was not so. I am pleased that now it has actually been spelled out in the Budget- I am going to quote the appropriate section- that in fact it will not be a direct grant, as many people were led to believe. I turn to page 120 of Budget Paper No. 1, where this amount of $200m is mentioned under the heading ‘Irrigation and Other Pastoral Water Projects’. The following is stated under that heading:

Expenditure under this heading comprises Commonwealth assistance to the States for rural water conservation, irrigation and flood mitigation. Assistance is to be provided to the States for these purposes in 1978-79 under the National Water Resources Program (NWRP) announced in November 1977. This program, which will extend over five years, provides for a Commonwealth contribution of $200 million as grants and/or loans for water related purposes in the States . . .

This has created a lot of confusion in the minds of the people who thought that the Commonwealth in fact was going to fund them by way of direct grant to the extent of $200m. This has proved not to be the case. About 70 per cent of that money will be provided to the various States on loan at the bond rate of interest and approximately 30 per cent will be provided by direct grant to the various States. As I said, this caused quite an amount of dismay among people when we advised them of this.

When we look further in the Budget Paper we see that the amount allocated for water projects is going to cause people, particularly people in the irrigation areas in my view, despite the recommendations in our report, some more heartburning. If we look at page 1 1 5 of Budget Paper No. 1 we see the amount of money that has been expended over the past few years for irrigation and other pastoral water projects. We find that on irrigation the actual expenditure in 1976-77 was $18.6m; in 1977-78 it was $10.3m; and in 1978-79 the estimated expenditure is down to $2. 8m. So the estimated expenditure for 1978-79 for irrigation purposes throughout the Commonwealth, which is partly funded by the Federal Government represents a drop of $7. 5m from the expenditure of the previous year. Of course, last year saw a drop of $8. 3m in expenditure from that of the previous financial year. So the problem appears to be that the Commonwealth is tightening up very severely on money that it is making available for water resources. I think that this will cause great concern.

If we look at page 1 1 1 of that Budget Paper, under the heading ‘Urban Water Supply’ we find that the money made available for this purpose has again been drastically reduced in this Budget. We find from a table on that page that in 1976-77 actual expenditure amounted to $35. 7m and in 1977-78 it amounted to $27. 8m, representing a drop of some $8m in 12 months. Then we find that the estimated expenditure for this financial year, 1978-79, is $12. 3m, representing a drop of $15. 5m. So there we have it: In the Budget itself there are drastic cuts in the provision of money for water resources projects throughout the Commonwealth. I only hope that when the Minister for National Development (Mr Newman) reads this report and transmits our recommendations to the Treasurer (Mr Howard) for the next Budget, the Government will see that there is a desperate requirement that the expenditure on the provision of water resources be upgraded to a great extent. I would hope that that could perhaps be done by way of the supplementary Bills that are brought down in the autumn, or even by way of a mini-Budget, if it is necessary. Such provision is most essential.

I would hope that Senator Thomas, who is the Chairman of the Committee and a Government supporter, would stress as strongly as he can within his party the need for extra finance to be made available for water resources in Australia. I hope that the honourable senator will do that. I will conclude my remarks by expressing that hope.

Senator THOMAS:
Western Australia

– I shall speak only briefly. I firstly thank Senator McLaren not only for his remarks but also for the enthusiasm which he portrayed in the investigation of this important subject. He, together with Senator Robertson and Senator Maunsell, showed special interest in this matter, and I would thank them for their contribution. I personally, in common with other Chairmen of Senate standing committees, appreciate the new policy that has been announced by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) that the relevant Minister will respond to these reports. I assure Senator McLaren that I shall be pushing as hard as possible for the adoption of not only that part of the report but all of its recommendations.

We have a good precedent in that the first inquiry that was carried out by the Committee, upon its establishment in March 1976, was into solar energy, and all of its major recommendations on that subject have been adopted by the Government. I would also mention that currently the Committee is investigating the adequacy of quarantine and other control measures to protect the Australian pastoral industry from the introduction of exotic livestock and plant diseases. There is no doubt in my mind- certainly there is none in the minds of my Committee- that we could not do anywhere near the job that we do without the assistance of the staff. We are all pretty busy and have other duties to perform in the Senate, and the staff renders extremely valuable assistance to us.

The terms of reference of this inquiry into water resources underline a problem that is not shared by other committees: Almost without exception, areas of natural resources come within the purview and /or responsibility of the States. Most of the matters that are looked at by other committees are within the responsibility of the Commonwealth. This fact was strongly underlined in regard to the question of water resources. The two main parts of the terms of reference- apart from the requirement to look at the assessment, planning, development and management of Australia’s water resourceswere to examine in detail the diverse responsibilities of the Commonwealth and the States, and the national water policy statement recently endorsed by the Australian Water Resources Council.

It took us about 18 months to complete the inquiry. We received 80-odd submissions and 40 organisations, represented by 61 persons, presented further evidence to us. The largest single group which gave evidence to the Committee was from the sugar producing area of Queensland. I pointed out to them- not being completely facetious- that when they ran out of water in Queensland the Ord River of Western Australia was a wonderful place to grow sugar. They did not appreciate that very much. The problem in Queensland is quite dramatic. As is well recognised, it is a highly decentralised State and these large sugar-producing areas on the coast of Queensland are becoming extremely short of water. The growth and expansion of the sugar industry when world prices were very high encouraged the rapid development of the industry of those major cities along the coast- so much so that the water table is dramatically lower than it was in earlier years. Many of the aquifers are drying up and sea water is flowing in to take their place. When one thinks of towns such as Townsville, which has a population of almost 100,000, facing a critical water problem, one understands the gravity of the situation.

Another matter which we considered, and which involves quite serious consequences, is the situation of the River Murray. No one is better equipped than is Senator McLaren to appreciate that fact because the State of South Australia, especially its capital city of Adelaide, is so reliant on the water from that river. The salinity problem is of major seriousness and in that regard I should like to quote briefly from the text of the report- not necessarily the recommendation- wherein we set out our concern. We consider that the River Murray Commission, as it is structured now, is totally inadequate to deal with the salinity problems of that river. The report reads:

The Committee considers that the River Murray Commission is not an appropriate body to undertake concerted, long-term action to deal with the problems of salinity, water logging, despoliation of wetlands and saline drainage into the River Murray. The salinity problems associated with irrigation have their origin in the catchments or lands adjacent to the rivers over which the existing River Murray Commission has no control.

The problems of the River Murray are of national significance and the Committee considers that there is an urgent and vital role for the Commonwealth in respect of the development and preservation of the River Murray Basin. The Commonwealth should take the initiative through the Australian Water Resources Council in preparing and implementing a long-term comprehensive program for the management of River Murray salinity problems including regulation of land use as well as water management.

Then the report goes on to make specific recommendations. As I said before, the constitutional responsibility for water matters rests almost entirely with the respective States. The only areas for which the Commonwealth is specifically responsible are those of meteorological observations, in the Commonwealth Territories, and in the field of foreign affairs. It is rather interesting to recall that the Commonwealth has been involved in water matters for only a relatively short time- only since the Australian Water Resources Council was established some 1 3 years ago. The role of the Commonwealth has expanded quite dramatically since then and the financial assistance provided under section 96 grants has been the main vehicle for that assistance. I underline, particularly in regard to Senator McLaren’s remarks, the fact that an important part of the National Water Resources (Financial Assistance) Act is that the Commonwealth will fund certain projects which, however, must be high on a State’s list of priorities. We regard it as very important that the States themselves should support the projects that the Commonwealth wishes to support.

One of the problems in the past- this is a matter of which the Committee was very critical- has been the ad hoc approach of the Commonwealth to major water resources projects. One does not have to look any further than the Burdekin Dam in Queensland to illustrate that point. In fact, it seems that the best way to ensure that a dam will be at least started is to hold an election. I recall one of the better known sayings of my friend Bert Kelly, the recently retired member for Wakefield who is known far and wide in Australia. When he could feel an election approaching he would say: ‘I can feel a dam coming on’.

As Senator McLaren said, the first of our recommendations was that the Commonwealth establish a clearly stated water resources policy. As Senator McLaren also said, we recommended that the policy and non-policy functions of the Commonwealth be separated. We must establish a bureau of water resources to handle the nonpolicy functions of the Commonwealth’s interest in water resources. One of the important functions of the Commonwealth with regard to water resources is in the area of the Bureau of Meteorology. We were quite disappointed with the evidence we received, particularly from the States which, without exception, were quite critical of the role of the Bureau of Meteorology in the area of recording and the other areas for which it is responsible in regard to water. We recognise, of course, that the Bureau has many areas of interest other than water. For the purposes of those functions with regard to water, we recommend that the Bureau be transferred from the Department of Science into the Department of National Development and that its water functions be part of a separate independent statutory authority.

I say again that we were particularly disturbed to find that the Commonwealth seems to lack a clearly stated water policy. This is one of the most important things we found. We made altogether 34 recommendations. There is not time tonight to go through them all. They come under several headings: The Commonwealth’s role, the assessment of water resources, development and funding, research, the Australian Water Resources Council, flood mitigation and drainage and salinity. One of the recommendations was that the Government should avoid impinging on what have been and are regarded as State responsibilities. A great deal of duplication has occurred in the past, particularly in the area of the assessment of major schemes where it is recognised by the Commonwealth and the States that the main expertise rests with the States. The States have experienced people. There should not be any duplication on the part of the Commonwealth in the assessment of these major schemes.

We also had a bit to say about the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation- another Commonwealth responsibility. The CSIRO has nine divisions which have some major or minor interest in water matters. We recommend that the Commonwealth try to concentrate its interests in water matters into fewer departments. In fact, at the moment 22 Commonwealth departments and agencies have some interest in water. The States certainly are showing us the way in this regard. They are concentrating water matters in either one or two departments. This is not happening in the Commonwealth area. It is not happening in the CSIRO or the Bureau of Meteorology. Because water is so important and will be of greater importance in the future and could be a limiting factor in many potential production areas in Australia, we recommended that CSIRO set up a separate division of water resources and, just as importantly, establish a mechanism above the divisional level to co-ordinate the work that is already going on in relation to existing water resources.

It was an interesting inquiry. As Senator McLaren said, we were sorry that we did not receive submissions from the Riverland area in South Australia. That area feels the effects of the salinity in the River Murray and the shortages of water more than any other part of South Australia or any part of New South Wales or Victoria. We were grateful that the relevant Commonwealth departments were so complete in their co-operation with us. In fact, this is probably the only Senate committee inquiry that has had submissions from every State in Australia. The States have a great deal of expertise and interest in water matters. They have a constitutional role. The Committee is of the opinion that the constitutional role should be maintained.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 670

SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL WELFARE

Report on Drug Problems

Debate resumed from 24 August, on motion by Senator Peter Baume:

That the Senate take note of the report.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

-In the short time I have available tonight to continue my remarks on this subject I inform the Senate that the members of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare, like many other people in the community, consider that the report is a very good one. We consider that the report is very important and should be carefully considered by the community and by the Government in particular. For that reason we intend to keep the debate on the Notice Paper for as long as we can. I give fair warning of that.

Senator Peter Baume:

– We think that all honourable senators should have a chance to participate.

Senator GRIMES:

– We think that all honourable senators should have a chance to join in the debate, as the Chairman of the Committee says. We will encourage every member of the chamber to join in the debate in the future.

Senator Guilfoyle:

– You have to conclude some time.

Senator GRIMES:

– I will eventually, but not tonight. I assure the Minister of that.

Senator Peter Baume:

– Perhaps Senator Chipp will speak.

Senator GRIMES:

– We are very anxious to get Senator Chipp into the debate. For many years he has spoken frequently on this subject without as far as we know, giving any definitive views as yet. We think it is important that he and his colleague give some definitive views. So, we will give him the opportunity to do so. When the Chairman of the Committee and I last spoke on this matter we pointed out that this report had been very well received in various quarters. Some people did not appreciate it because some of our recommendations may have threatened some of their interests. It is important that Senate committees bring down reports as a result of evidence and careful and considered thought. Although we must consider the interests of others, we must not let them affect our reports and our thoughts on the effects of various drugs on the community.

Because of the short time available to me and so that I can continue my remarks later, I will inform the Senate of some of the reactions we have received to this report. I refer, firstly, to a letter from Robert L. DuPont, M.D., who is the Director of the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration in the Department of Health, Education and Welfare in the United States. He writes:

Dear Mr Baume:

Thank you for sending me a copy of your very thoughtful report, D rug Problems in Australia- an intoxicated society? I and others on our staff were struck by the willingness of the Committee to thoroughly explore the implications of drug abuse regardless of whether it is abuse of a licit or illicit substance. Moreover, the report does not shrink from making some uncommonly sound recommendations with respect to public policy in terms of discouraging all recreational drug use. Your emphasis on alcohol and tobacco as the drugs of most serious abuse is also a much needed-recognition of the relative importance of the various types of drug use from a public health standpoint.

The letter continues:

Please accept my congratulations for an excellent, wellintegrated picture of the problem of drug abuse. While there are some differences from country to country, I am very much struck by the many similarities in the problems which confront you and us at this difficult time in history.

We have received many other letters of this type. I give everyone warning that I will produce them next time. Having said that, and as the time is now 10.30 p.m., I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 671

ADJOURNMENT

The PRESIDENT:

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

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

page 672

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Aviation: MountIsa toTownsville (Question No. 593)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 15 August 1978:

Does Trans-Australia Airlines have any plans to withdraw any port of call on the Mt Isa to Townsville route.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

No. Trans-Australia Airlines has no plans to withdraw any port of call on the Mt Isa to Townsville route.

Darwin: Vietnamese Refugees (Question No. 595)

Senator Kilgariff:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 15 August 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many boats have arrived in the Darwin harbour carrying Vietnamese refugees.
  2. How many boats have been returned to their owners in Vietnam.
  3. 3 ) How many boats are still in Darwin harbour.
  4. How many are seaworthy, and who are considered to be the legal owners.
  5. Has the Government any claim over these boats; if so, can the boats be used on the Australian coast by the fishing or other appropriate, industry.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Thirty-seven vessels.
  2. One vessel Song Be 12 has been returned to Vietnam.
  3. 3 ) Twenty-nine vessels are currently in Darwin harbour.
  4. and (5) Basic reports on these vessels by my Department indicate that they are generally in poor condition. I understand that 12 vessels are afloat while the remaining vessels have sunk or are visible only at low tide. With reference to the question of ownership the Vietnamese Government has advised that all vessels in Vietnam of sufficient size to undertake the voyage to Australia are the property of the Government of Vietnam or Government owned co-operatives. The Commonwealth Government has sought documentation of this claim.

Unemployment Benefit: Juniors (Question No. 615)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 16 August 1978:

What was (a) the total cost; and (b) the cost per head, of unemployment benefit paid to juniors in each of the financial years 1974-75, 1975-76, and 1976-77.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. and (b) I refer the honourable senator to the information provided in my answer to Question No. 457, page 2811, Senate Hansard of 9 and 10 June 1978.

Printing Orders Executed Overseas (Question No. 617)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 16 August 1978:

What statistics or information are available on the following matters: (a) the incidence of Australian printing requirements being met by export of work, rather than by printing in Australia, over the past five years; (b) the incidence of importation of printed matter, especially textbooks, rather than the printing of such material in Australia, over the past five years; and (c) any protective measures which are available to help the Australian printing industry.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. a ) and ( b ) Imports of books and other printed matter in the last five years have been as follows:

Imports of textbooks are not separately recorded. The statistics quoted do not represent the degree of transference overseas of work which would otherwise be available to Australian printers. For example, in regard to most books of overseas origin, the question of their being printed in Australia does not arise. The Industries Assistance Commission, in its draft Report on Products of the Printing Industry of April 1978, estimated that Australian book manufacturers held a little over 60 per cent of the market for books the printing of which could realistically be considered as potentially available to Australian producers.

  1. The printing of eligible books is currently assisted by a bounty of one-third of the cost of production. Other printed matter is assisted by duties of 25 or 35 per cent while some imported printed matter is accorded duty free entry. Levels of assistance to the printing industry are currently being reviewed by the Government following receipt of the final report from the Industries Assistance Commission.

Social Service Fringe Benefit Payments (Question No. 628)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 1 7 August 1978:

What is the estimated cost to the Commonwealth of providing fringe benefit entitlements to: (a) sickness beneficiaries: (b) special beneficiaries; (c) unemployment beneficiaries; and (d) supporting parents, under the same means test that applies to pensioners.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. to (d) There is insufficient information available on which to base an estimate of the cost of providing all Commonwealth fringe benefits to sickness beneficiaries, special beneficiaries, unemployment beneficiaries, and supporting parents, under the income test that applies to pensioners.

The main fringe benefit provided to pensioners is pharmaceutical benefits. If beneficiaries can be assumed to have the same incidence of pharmaceutical prescriptions as pensioners receiving fringe benefits, then the full year cost of providing pharmaceutical benefits to beneficiaries would be of the order of $ 1 7m in a full year.

Department of Business and Consumer Affairs: Computer (Question No. 676)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 24 August 1978:

  1. 1 ) Is the computer installed in the Minister’s Department used for processing and storing data relating to correspondence of the Prime Minister’s Department at an estimated cost of $30,000 in 1 978-79.
  2. Is this computer used for storing or processing data other than that relating to correspondence of the Prime Minister; if so, what is the nature of any other material stored or processed from time to time by the computer.
  3. What proportion of the $30,000 allocation is to be used for the design of computer programs relating to the Prime Minister’s correspondence and what proportion for computer time.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. Yes. The correspondence control system called SCRIBE processes correspondence for six Departments and uses 3 per cent of online computer capacity and 5 per cent of online data storage on one of the computers of the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs.
  2. Yes. The same computer handles all Department of Business and Consumer Affairs online computer systems including the systems known as INSPECT, COMPILE, SEARCH and PASS which process import transactions and passengers for Customs purposes.
  3. SCRIBE was developed by Customs and Excise in 1974 and subsequently modified for other Departments. These minor modifications were undertaken before the costing system was introduced to charge other Departments for computer services. Of the $30,000 estimated an amount of $2,760 is provided for use of terminals and lines- the remainder is for computer time. 1976 Olympic Games: Financial Support (Question No. 695)
Senator Puplick:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 24 August 1978:

Did the Commonwealth Banking Corporation, or any other body for which the Treasurer is responsible, make any financial contribution towards the costs of the 1976 Olympic Games, either by grant to the Australian Olympic Federation, or any other forms of sponsorship; if so, what were the amounts involved.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

The Commonwealth Banking Corporation has informed me that the Corporation assisted Australia ‘s participation in the 1976 Olympic Games by way of a donation of $3,000 to the 1976 Australian Olympic Team Appeal. I am informed by the Reserve Bank of Australia that it made a donation of $1,500 to the Australian Olympic Team Appeal. No other authority for which I am responsible made any such contribution.

Wildlife Habitats (Question No. 608)

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 16 August 1978:

  1. What grants were given to each State government under the States Grants (Nature Conservation) Act 1974 to acquire wildlife habitat, in the year ending 30 June 1 978.
  2. What were the locations of the various wildlife habitats acquired, and what were their acreages.
Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) Grants were provided to the following States in 1 977-78 for a range of nature conservation purposes under the States Grants (Nature Conservation) Act and the Environment (Financial Assistance) Act.

Queensland-$200,000

Tasmania-$ 152,242.

  1. The wildlife habitats acquired in 1977-78 were the 4,500 hectare ( 10,800 acre) preperty ‘Taunton’ near Dingo, central Queensland, one of the last remaining habitats of the bridled nail-tailed wallaby, and a1/2 acre block of land at Badger Head, Asbestos Range, in Tasmania. 1976 Olympic Games: Financial Support (Question No. 693)
Senator Puplick:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 24 August 1978:

Did the Minister’s Department, or any body for which he is responsible, make any financial or other contribution towards the costs of Australia’s participation in the 1976 Olympic Games; if so, what are the details of these costs.

Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Yes. The Commonwealth Government, through the Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development, provided $250,000 towards the travel costs of the 1976 Olympic team to Montreal and the Winter Olympics team to Innsbruck.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 14 September 1978, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1978/19780914_senate_31_s78/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant