Senate
20 February 1979

31st Parliament · 1st Session



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

page 1

THE PRESIDENT

Senator CARRICK (New South WalesLeader of the Government in the Senate). Mr President, I would like on behalf of the Government parties and I am sure of all honourable senators to record our pleasure and indeed pride at the fact that you were the recipient of a high honour in the recent New Year’s Honours List which, sir, you will wear with both dignity and merit.

Honourable senators- Hear, hear!

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I endorse the remarks of Senator Carrick. The Opposition, too, conveys to you, Mr President, congratulations on the honour bestowed upon you. Of course, as you know, sir, the Australian Labor Party has certain views about titles. We are never quite sure as to what effect a title will have on an individual. However, we feel that in this case because of the standard of propriety which you adopt in the conduct of your high office as President of this Senate it will not make any impact. We believe that your conduct could not be improved upon.

Senator MASON:
New South Wales

-On behalf of the Australian Democrats I endorse the remarks of Senator Carrick. I will not be tedious. I think that you know, sir, that you have our sincere good wishes.

The PRESIDENT:

– Honourable senators, may I say how deeply I appreciate, as will my wife, the very gracious words of congratulations and good wishes. I thank you all.

page 1

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Senator CARRICK:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South WalesLeader of the Government in the Senate · LP

- Mr President, I inform the Senate of the recommendations that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) made to His Excellency the GovernorGeneral involving certain changes in ministerial arrangements on 5 December 1978.I ask leave of the Senate to incorporate in Hansard the full details of the current Ministry.

Leave granted. ( The document read as follows)-

page 2

DEATH OF FORMER SENATOR LAWRIE

The PRESIDENT:

– It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death on 13 December 1978 of Alexander Greig Ellis Lawrie, a senator for the State of Queensland from July 1965 until November 1975.

Senator WEBSTER:
Minister for Science and the Environment · Victoria · NCP/NP

– Ellis Lawrie was not a man to seek acclaim for his successes in public life, though they were very many. He deserves much wider credit for his considerable contribution to the documentation of evidence placed before the inquiry into relieving the community of the burden of estate duty. It was a fight which he pursued doggedly for many years, as we who served with him in the Senate will recall. I also recall that he was one of the signatories to a dissenting report when the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations presented its report on death duties in 1973. He stood firm in his opinion that the Committee’s report did not go far enough towards total abolition. He would have received great satisfaction from the Commonwealth’s decision to end that tax, which was taken after he retired from the Senate in 1975.

Senator Lawrie was involved in the beef industry all his life, and was involved with the affairs of the Rockhampton district. He was a member of the executive of the Central Coast Graziers Association and of the United Graziers Association of Queensland. He served for many years in community life including some 13 years on the Fitzroy Shire Council, six years on the Rockhampton Harbour Board and three years on the Rockhampton Hospital Board. He held most positions of office in the Queensland Country Party, including four years as its State President. During this time he travelled widely throughout his State and became a very familiar figure in even the most remote parts of it. He was familiar with the problems of Queensland and its people and during his time in the Senate he voiced them to very good effect in this Parliament.

He served on the Senate Select Committee on Air Pollution, the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange, the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations and a number of other committees. He was a member of the panel of temporary chairmen of the Senate who support you, Mr President. Ellis Lawrie was a quiet man. He was totally loyal to his friends and to government, but above all he was a stalwart to his State, to his political party and to rural communities. He lived respected and he died regretted.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I associate the Opposition with the remarks of the Minister for Science and the Environment, Senator Webster, in speaking to this condolence motion upon the death of former Senator Lawrie. Those of us who have been here for some years worked with Ellis Lawrie. After his election to the Senate in 1964 he was prominent in the activities of the Senate. For six years I sat with him on the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange and I know the work that he put into that Committee. As Senator Webster said, he was a very gentle man. He was a very big man physically. I often heard it said around the chamber that the only way Ellis Lawrie could hurt anybody would be by sitting on him. I have no doubt that the personality of Ellis Lawrie will be missed, as we have missed him these past three years or so since he was with us. On behalf of the Opposition I indicate our regret at his passing.

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

– The Minister for Science and the Environment, Senator Webster, as the Leader of the National Country Party in this place, very appropriately led the tribute to Ellis Lawrie and, indeed, has said what has to be said. Those of us who have been here for some years and knew Ellis Lawrie knew him to be as he has been described- a gentleman, a friend, a very warm man, a very affectionate man, a man who walked amongst us and added to the graciousness and the enjoyment of life. I join, as do all my colleagues, with Senator Webster and the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Wriedt, in paying tribute to Ellis Lawrie and in extending our sympathy to his widow and family.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

-I join with those honourable senators who have spoken to pay tribute to Ellis Lawrie. After I came into the Senate, in due course I was elected as a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations. I came to know Ellis Lawrie very intimately in the activities of that Committee because one might say that we were handed a hot potato in dealing with the fairly emotional issues that grew up at that time concerning estate duty. I came to appreciate the quality of Ellis Lawrie as Chairman of that Committee. Subsequently, with a change of government, I succeeded him in that position. I think the most important part of the processes of that Committee was the manner in which Ellis Lawrie sought to reach some measure of agreement between members of the Committee. In those circumstances I learned a little about the man and about the way in which he approached his obligations as a member of this Senate.

I think that he possessed a rare quality insofar as, whilst he was a member of a political party, he gave some recognition to the rights of others to present a point of view. He did all in his power to make sure that the Committee considered all aspects of death duties and the other matters that had been referred to it. He was a very tolerant person. He was a very tolerant Chairman and subsequently a very tolerant rank and file member of that Committee. He showed a degree of compassion which so often is lacking in this place. Of course, even in this place he showed a degree of fairness in debate. I think it must be said that he never indulged in personalities. I would have to concede that he was a good party man. Nevertheless he was prepared to debate the issue rather than the personalities and to that degree he will be sadly missed. One thing that I had in common with him was that we were both members of local government. That might have meant that we had a bond that extended across party lines.

I endorse what has been said by the Leader of the National Country Party (Senator Webster), the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Wriedt) and the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick). I think we are poorer when people such as former Senator Lawrie leave this place. Now that he has passed on the least we can do is to pay tribute to his work in this place with regard to his public duties and to express on behalf of each side of the chamber a feeling of deep loss at his passing. I extend to his family my condolences on the loss of a person who faithfully served this chamber, this Parliament and also his party.

Senator BONNER:
Queensland

-I wish to join the other speakers in expressions of condolence on the death of former Senator Ellis Lawrie. As Senator Webster has said already, he was not only a gentleman but also a gentle man. He was a quiet man, a man whose friendship knew no bounds. If one made a friend of Ellis Lawrie one certainly had a friend for life. He was warmhearted and generous in many ways. I served with Ellis here both in government and in opposition and I believe that he contributed very much to the Parliament as well as being a very worthwhile representative of the State of Queensland. I knew both him and his wife, Margaret. To her and her family I wish to express my deepest sympathies and my hope that, whilst they have lost him in this life, his memory will be a great comfort to them and to those who knew and loved him.

Senator COLLARD:
Queensland

-I also join my colleagues in this chamber in expressing condolences on the death of former Senator Lawrie. I took his place here representing Queensland. Senator Lawrie was a big man in every way. He was big in stature and big in heart. That has been adverted to already. He saw Australia as a big country with a big potential. For that potential to be realised Australia needed men with a big vision. Ellis Lawrie was such a man. It also needed men who could husband the earth and manage its herds and flocks. Ellis was a man of the land and, as has been intimated already, he associated himself early in his life with the United Graziers Association of Queensland and the Central Coast Graziers Association. He sensed that the land and the people who worked it- those who farmed it- were going to play an increasing part in the government and development of this country. He was interested in public life not just because country people needed representation- they did then and they do now- but also because he felt that people who were reared in the country had something to offer this nation.

As Senator Webster has said, he involved himself very much in public life, but all the time he found himself drawn inexorably to the world cf politics. In 1 945 he joined the then Australian Country Party He served on many of its councils with distinction. From 1961 to 1964 he was its State President. Then he was a member of the Australian Country Party in the Senate for 10 years. In 1976 he received his party’s highest reward in the form of life membership.

Ellis, with all his humility, mixed well. He could not dissolve easily into a crowd because he stood tall and his broad shoulders made him very easy to pick out in a crowd. He liked people and, more importantly, people felt quite at ease with him whenever they wanted to discuss their problems. He was a quiet man and an unpretentious man, but his quiet and unpretentious manner hid a very sharp and alert mind. He served well on committees of the Parliament. When I first came into this chamber the officers of the Senate ever so gently reminded me of the person in whose footsteps I trod. Honourable senators on both sides of the chamber who served with him on committees also reminded me, not quite as gently, of him in whose footsteps I trod and the part that Senator Lawrie played in his own quiet manner in the Parliament. He was no headline seeker. If headlines came his way, he accepted that and he just got on with the job that he was put in the Parliament to do. I join with the other senators in their expressions of condolence to his wife Margaret and the family.

Senator SHEIL:
Queensland

– As a fellow Queenslander I would like to be associated with this expression of condolence to Mrs Lawrie and her family, as Ellis Lawrie was one of the first Federal politicians I met. As other senators have said, he was a typical country man. He was big and suntanned, he had a rolling gait and a ready laugh, and he ate with gusto, as I am sure all honourable senators would remember. I can remember the way in which he, as President of the Queensland Country Party, as it then was, could in his quiet and persistent way settle disputes with a refined use of just plain horse sense. I was very proud to learn from him. He paid unflagging attention to his electorate; he attended meetings everywhere. He was seen at his best at places such as Dingo, Duaringa and Anakie. I have very many fond recollections of meetings held in those places. Surprisingly in this permissive day and age, Senator Lawrie was a whizz in his dealings with members of the Young Country Party or the Young National Party as it is now. He was ably helped by his wife Margaret who had a great affinity with Aboriginal children and with other children. She made a particular study of the languages of Aborigines and of Islanders. He and his family made a politically active unit in the area. I pay tribute to them for their contribution to public life.

When I first became a member of the Senate with Senator Lawrie we were experiencing stirring times. One double dissolution had just taken place and we were heading for another; we had in power a reforming government and, of course, the numbers on both sides of the Senate were equal. It was unfortunate that during that time the first manifestations of his illness became evident. I pay tribute to him for his courage, his fortitude and his loyalty to the Party during that particularly difficult time for him. He always kept the good of his party in the forefront of his mind. Those honourable senators who remember the circumstances surrounding his retirement will remember that in the end it was once again his plain horse sense that allowed him to find the right answer. He was a life member of the National Country Party. It is a privilege to have known him, a privilege to have worked with him and a privilege to have learned from him. I am proud to share in this expression of condolence to his wife Margaret and the family.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Honourable senators having stood in their places-

The PRESIDENT:

– I thank honourable senators.

page 5

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

– Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:

Abortion: Medical Benefits

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

That the provision of payments for abortion through items of the Medical Benefits Schedule is an unacceptable endorsement of abortion which has now reached the levels of a national tragedy with at least 60,000 unborn babies being killed in 1977.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will so amend the Medical Benefits Schedule as to preclude the payment of any benefit for abortion.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Jessop and Senator Guilfoyle.

Petitions received.

Detention of Mr Igor Ogurtsov in the USSR

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

That the Federal Government exert Diplomatic pressure on the Soviet Authorities to secure release from detention of a Soviet citizen Mr Igor Ogurtsov. a Graduate of the University of Leningrad, who was sentenced to seven years gaol, eight years hard labour and five years internal exile- a total of twenty years, in accordance with Articles 64a and 72 of the USSR Criminal Code.

Mr Ogurtsov, now age 40, has already served eleven years of his sentence and is currently held in Concentration Camp No VS 389.35- Permskaya Oblast, Stanitsa Vsehsviatskaya.

His health has deteriorated to the extent that he is not expected to live long enough to see his release from detention.

Mr Ogurtsov’s only ‘crime’ is, that he is a Christian, and has participated in a discussion group on the future of a Christian-Democratic System in Russia.

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

Petition received.

Pensions

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth that those who have retired and those who are about to retire, are being severely and adversely affected by inflation and Australian economic circumstances.

The continuance of the income test on pensions causes undue hardship to them, we call upon the Government to immediately abolish the income test on all age pensions.

To ensure a pension for all on retirement, and a guarantee that all Australian citizens will retire with dignity. Acknowledge that a pension is a right and not a charity.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Jessop and Senator Guilfoyle.

Petitions received.

Abortion: Medical Benefits

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

That item 6469 of the standard Medical Benefits Table is the means by which payment is made for the slaughter of thousands of unborn babies every year.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government should ensure that Item 6469 is removed from the standard Medical Benefits Table.

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

Petition received.

Taxation Reform

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

That in spite of numerous measures taken by various governments, unemployment in the country has not significantly declined.

As a result, supplies of both goods and services have declined: human resources are wasted, capital resources are not used and natural resources are left under-developed.

Both local and overseas experience shows that prosperity is encouraged when taxes which penalise production are replaced by taxes which provide incentives for productivity.

These also provide disincentives to idle speculation such as that which results in so called ‘windfall profits’ from land price increases.

The reduction of Income-tax, Sales-tax and Payroll tax is known to reduce the costs of production and to stimulate demand.

It is also known that when Land Tax or Council Rates are raised on the Unimproved Site Value of land, then the development of vacant land and under-developed slum areas is stimulated.

It follows then, that the gradual replacement of taxes on production with taxes on non-production will create new employment, reduces the costs of production, reduces the rate of interest, the cost of housing and stimulates all industries.

We wish to point out that the replacement of production penalising taxes is a very practical proposal. According to official Municipal Valuations, it is estimated that unimproved Site Values have increased from $37,000m in 1973-74 to $67,000m by 1976-77. This represents $30,000m so called ‘windfall profits’ which was completely unrelated to productive improvements.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should act to relieve unemployment by a Taxation Reform to replace taxes on production with taxes which provide incentives for the increased supply of both goods and services.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Webster, MacGibbon, Sheil, Martin, Maunsell, Colston, Georges and Guilfoyle.

Petitions received.

Red Army Choir

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

That although artistically the Red Army Choir may be a great choir, it is nonetheless a propaganda unit of the Red Army, the army which is the instrument of the Communist dictatorship, bent on world domination along with the destruction of the Christian faith.

Your petitioners humbly pray that entry into Australia shall be denied to the Red Army Choir.

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

Petition received.

Indexation of Pensions

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia by this our humble Petition respectfully showeth:

That the decision of the Australian Government to depart from its 1 975 election promise, a promise re-affirmed during the 1977 election campaign, that pensions would be increased twice-yearly in line with increases in the CPI will seriously add to the economic burdens now borne by those citizens who are wholly or mainly dependent on their pensions.

Your petitioners are impelled by this fact to call upon the Australian Government as a matter of urgency to review the abovementioned decision, and to determine-

That pensions will be increased twice yearly in line with rises in the CPI as promised by the prime minister in his 1 975 policy speech.

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

Petition received.

Senate Elections: Compulsory Voting

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

That on the 10 December 1948, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which declares that, ‘Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in the Declaration . . . ‘(Article2)that’Everyonehastheright to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives . . . The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or equivalent free voting procedures.’ (Article21(l)and(3).)

Elections for Senators meet all requirements except one. Senators are elected periodically, by secret ballot, with universal franchise, and the quota-preferential method of proportional representation ensures that the vote values within states are equal as nearly as can be.

However the provision of the Electoral Act that compels voters to show preferences for all candidates on the ballot paper interferes with the free expression of the will of the voters, and is unjust.

Australia, as a Member State of the United Nations, is pledged to achieve observance of Human Rights and Freedoms.

We, the undersigned citizens of Australia, therefore humbly pray that the Senate will fulfill the pledge of a Member State of the United Nations and take steps to remove the compulsion from the Electoral Act in order to allow freedom of expression for everyone who has the right to vote for Senators.

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

Petition received.

South Australian Country RailwayServices

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

  1. That any downgrading or closures of Country Rail Services in South Australia would have grave consequences for the railway Industry, Primary Industry, Individual Country Communities and the State as a whole and calls on the Parliament to ensure that the Federal Minister for Transport takes the necessary action to maintain all existing services.
  2. That continued and increased Public Subsidy is fully justified in the long term National Interest.

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

Petition received.

Education Funding

The Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the Victorian Federation of State School Parents’ Clubs respectfully showeth:

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

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

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

  1. Withdrawal of the Guidelines to the Schools Commission for 1979 and acceptance of its recommendations for Government schools.
  2. An increase of a minimum of 5% in real terms on base level programmes for 1979.
  3. Restoration of the $8 million cut from the Capital Grants for Government Schools.
  4. Increased recurrent and capital funding to Government schools.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Primmer and Senator Guilfoyle.

Petitions received.

Indirect Taxation

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

That we the undersigned members of the Elsternwick Chamber of Commerce, Victoria, have the strongest objections to the introduction of a Retail Turnover Tax or any similar form of consumption tax as we believe that such a tax would be inflationary and increase costs to the community, aggravate unemployment and impose an excessive burden on commerce and industry, particularly the small business sector.

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

Petition received.

Australian Broadcasting Commission

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

That the parlous state of the Australian Broadcasting Commission is a matter of grave public concern, and because of the important role of the Australian Broadcasting Commission in the culture and well-being of Australia, we urge the Government to institute an immediate Royal Commission into all aspects of the Australian Broadcasting Commission to allow for a full and open public inquiry.

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

Petition received.

Government Economic Policy

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia by this our humble Petition respectfully showeth:

That the economic policies of the Australian Government represented by the 1978-79 Budget are economically disastrous and socially reprehensible. Your Petitioners call on the Australian Government as a matter of urgency to reverse its economic policies which are causing irreparable damage to the Australian economy and unnecessary economic and social hardship.

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

Petition received.

Indirect Taxation

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

That we believe the introduction of a Retail Turnover Tax, or Value Added Tax to Australia will impose a tremendous burden on small businesses, increase costs, and add to the inflationary spiral. The slight advantage that may be gained by a few will be more than offset by the losses of the majority of businesses and of the people.

We believe our present system of wholesale sales tax. whilst in urgent need of reviewing and updating, remains the most suitable form of indirect consumption tax for this country.

The signatories appearing below are members of the Lilydale Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

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

Petition received.

Proposed Teacher Training Course

To the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. We the parents, teachers and friends of young children in Australia, by this, our humble petition, respectfully showeth the case:

  1. that we believe it our democratic right to have freedom of choice in the education of our children.
  2. that we request the assistance of the government to fund a one-year, post-graduate Montessori Teacher Training Course so that our children may be educated by this method in Montessori Kindergartens and Schools staffed by locally trained, professional people.

Therefore your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, take the action to fund a one year Post-Graduate Montessori Teacher Training Course.

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

Petition received.

page 7

FOREIGN ANTI-TRUST JUDGMENTS (RESTRICTION OF ENFORCEMENT) BILL 1979

Notice of Motion

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

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to make provision for restricting the recognition and enforcement in Australia of certain foreign judgments obtained in anti-trust proceedings.

page 8

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 8

QUESTION

CONFLICT IN SOUTH EAST ASIA

Senator WRIEDT:

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I ask him: Does the Government propose putting down a statement in the Parliament of its views of the current dispute in South East Asia? If so, will the statement include a detailed account of all actions and initiatives taken by the Government especially to reduce tension in the area? Will the statement also include the Government’s view as to the causes of the present conflict in Indochina and its future policy in respect of the area?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-Senator Wriedt very properly at the outset touches upon the issue of our immediate time, and that is the conflict which has arisen in Vietnam. My understanding is that the Government proposes within the coming days or week to make a detailed statement on the matter. I will draw the attention of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister to the points that Senator Wriedt asks might be incorporated, and see whether we can accommodate him and the Senate in this regard. I think all honourable senators would want to see Australia as working for one common objective, and that is the lessening of the tensions and a movement towards a just and dignified peace. I will certainly take this to the Prime Minister.

page 8

QUESTION

SOCIAL WELFARE BENEFITS

Senator PETER BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-My question, which is directed to the Minister for Social Security, concerns matters aired in the 3 February issue of the National Times. Whilst anxious to avoid any mention of matters which might be sub judice, I ask the Minister: First, was her Director-General quoted substantially correctly in relation to reasons he advanced for placing the word ‘Greece’ on placards included in certain photographs and also in relation to the view attributed to him- and I quote the newspaper article- that ‘the criminal law is stacked to give the defendent the benefit of the doubt- even if someone is found innocent they could be guilty ‘? Secondly, if he was correctly quoted, can the Minister advise the Senate whether these statements are consistent with her previous assurances to the Senate on 3 May and with the policies and practices of her Department? Thirdly, can she specifically assure the Senate, in spite of anything that her Director-General might say, that those found not guilty of any offence will be so regarded by her Department? Fourthly, and finally, can the Minister comment on assertions in that article that some former beneficiaries living in Greece have had to wait nine months or more for appeals against benefit cancellations to be heard?

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

– A very long and detailed question has been asked by the Government Whip. I hope that the Senate will bear with me as I deal with the matters raised. The first matter raised by the Government Whip related to an article in the National Times which quoted an interview with the Director-General of Social Services. I believe that this matter related to the placing of the word ‘Greece’ on placards. I take this opportunity to refer to a discussion that we had in this place at the end of the last session during which Senator Grimes mentioned the matter of the placement of the word ‘Greek’ on placards used by police. At that time I advised him and the Senate that it had been alleged that some people were photographed holding placards bearing the word ‘Greek’ and I said that the Commonwealth police advised that the word Greek’ did not appear at all. The Commonwealth Police brief stated the allegation in these terms:

Some of those charged were photographed holding placards bearing the word ‘Greek’.

The response in the brief read:

Prior to being charged the offenders were photographed holding a sign board nearing their name. (Section 353a of the New South Wales Crimes Act, in conjunction with Section 6 of the Commonwealth Police Act, provides the requisite authority.)

The police went on to say in the brief provided to me that the word ‘Greek’ did not appear at all. This is the case. The word ‘Greek’ did not appear and this was the matter I referred to. I have subsequently found that I was misadvised to the extent that the word ‘Greece ‘ was used in respect of five people to indicate the country of origin. The police have so advised and I believe that that was referred to by the Director-General in the article in the National Times. As far as the comment of the Director-General is concerned, I think it ought to be understood that it was not the Director-General who authorised the use of the placard by the police and I certainly say that the Government does not justify the action. The explanation given by the police was that it was to indicate the country of birth of the person and the date of birth. As far as I am concerned it is not appropriate in a multi-cultural society such as ours to place that indicator on any sort of placard and I certainly do not believe that it would be condoned. The Government is of the view that this should not have happened and action is being taken to ensure that it does not happen again.

Senator Baume also asked me whether the Director-General was correctly quoted with regard to the comment he made concerning the policies and practices of the Department to the effect that even if a person is found innocent that person could be guilty. I understand from the Director-General that he had a very long interview with the journalist concerned and that he explained in detail the application of the law. He has the impression that the quote that was attributed to him was a travesty of the very careful explanation that he gave, both orally and in writing, during that particular interview. That is probably a matter for judgment by someone else, but if I am asked whether that comment is consistent with my assurances about the activities of my Department I assert that it is not the role of the Department of Social Security to determine guilt. It is the role of the Department of Social Security to determine eligibility for pensions and benefits and to ensure that they are paid to all those who are eligible to receive them.

I think I was asked also whether I could assure the Senate, despite anything that might have been said in the article, that those found not guilty would be so regarded by my Department. I certainly am able to assure the Senate that if people do not have charges sustained against them, through the processes of the courts, it is not the role of my Department to have any different view. As far as my personal view is concerned, I have consistently asserted in this place that in the present instance it is the role of the courts to determine the facts and to bring down a judgment on the matter.

With regard to the last part of the question, which I think related to the length of time for the hearing of appeals in Greece, may I say that this is something that is of concern to me. It has been a long time since the original allegations of ineligibility were made and it is now known that medical advisers went to Greece to give an opportunity for appeals to be heard. I may say that this was the first instance in which the Commonwealth had taken steps to allow people to have an appeal heard in another country with regard to a pension which had been taken to that country under the portability arrangements. It did take some time for appeals to come through. They filtered through into the Department over a matter of months and when it was determined that a team should go to Greece it took even longer than I had hoped to make the necessary arrangements. The doctors have now returned from Greece and determinations are being made. I hope that the whole matter will be concluded without further delay.

page 9

QUESTION

SOCIAL WELFARE BENEFITS

Senator GRIMES:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question, which is also directed to the Minister for Social Security, follows upon the question just asked by Senator Baume. The Minister has said that she remembers my making an allegation in this place towards the end of last year that some people charged in connection with the alleged frauds had claimed that they had been photographed by the police with the word ‘Greece ‘ written on a placard underneath them. The Minister will remember, no doubt, that she said at the time that she had been advised that this was not so. The word ‘Greek’ was the word I used but the Minister now admits that they were photographed with the word ‘Greece’ written on a placard. I ask: When the Minister answered me at that time was she aware that these people had been photographed with the word ‘Greece’ written on a placard? If she was aware of this, why did she indulge in such matters of semantics in denying the fact that they had any name written on a placard underneath them? With regard to other allegations which I made at the time and which were also denied with equal vehemence by her, has she checked to see whether they were true, particularly those involving phone tapping, those involving the entering of premises without warrants and those involving the use of only Commonwealth Police interpreters instead of independent interpreters, which allegations I believe were also denied by her at the time on advice from her Department and the Commonwealth Police?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– As I said earlier, I recall that at the end of the last session Senator Grimes raised in the Senate the matter of certain people who had received pensions or benefits being photographed with the word ‘Greek’ on a placard. At that time I read from a Commonwealth Police brief which told me that the word Greek ‘ did not appear at all. I had no further information from the Commonwealth Police at that time. I was not indulging in an exercise in semantics about the word ‘Greece’ and the word Greek’. I accepted the police brief that I held. I accepted it to be the only information which was known about this matter. As I said at that time, I was advised that the word ‘Greek’ did not appear. I have since been advised that in, I think, five cases a placard bearing the date of birth with the word ‘Greece’ following it was used when the police were taking photographs. Senator

Grimes has also asked about other allegations relating to phone tapping, warrants and police procedures. These matters are not within my ministerial responsibility. I suggest that they be referred to the appropriate Minister.

Senator GRIMES:

-I ask the Minister for Social Security a supplementary question. Will she, in conjunction with the Minister responsible for the Commonwealth Police, who I believe is Senator Chaney, take action to see that the misleading behaviour of the Commonwealth Police who prepared for her the brief telling her that the word ‘Greek’ did not appear, knowing that the word ‘Greece’ did appear, does not occur in the future?

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I accept the basis of the question from Senator Grimes. In fact I said earlier that, now having knowledge that the word ‘Greece’ did appear in this context, the Government does not justify this action. It is inappropriate in our society to wish to record the place of birth under these circumstances. I also said that the Government is of the view that this should not have happened and that action is being taken to ensure that it does not happen again. That is the considered view of the Government, now having knowledge of the fact that this word indicating the place of birth was used by the police when photographing those who were charged under the Act.

page 10

QUESTION

SOCIAL WELFARE BENEFITS

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. I refer to the serious criticisms made by Mr Bruce Brown, a stipendiary magistrate, on 31 January 1979 at the committal hearings in Sydney relating to 179 migrants who were charged with conspiring to defraud the Commonwealth. I ask the AttorneyGeneral whether his attention has been drawn to Mr Brown’s statement that the manner in which the Crown had conducted its case represented a fundamental denial of the defendants’ rights and, in particular, his contention that the defendants ‘stood in the same uninformed position’ regarding charges against them as they had 10 months ago, when first charged. Whilst in no way seeking any comment from the AttorneyGeneral on the truth or otherwise of the charges, or on any matter at issue in these prosecutions, I ask the Attorney-General whether he can say why the defendants in these cases were not provided with reasonable particulars of the charges laid against them and indicate what steps have been taken to remedy the situation.

Senator DURACK:
Attorney-General · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

-I am glad that Senator Missen has expressed awareness of the sensitivity of a matter which is, of course, sub judice. He asked about the request for particulars of charges which have been laid against a large number of defendants in what has become known as the social security frauds matter. The position is that the Crown case is being conducted by the Deputy Crown Solicitor, who has briefed a team of counsel in Sydney, led by a Queen’s Counsel. The task of preparing the case, marshalling the evidence and so on, is a very large one indeed. When the case came on for mention before the magistrate in September last year he indicated that committal proceedings would commence in March of this year but that the matter would be mentioned again at the end of January.

At that time counsel also indicated that particulars would be delivered by 15 January, if possible, and that if that was not possible advice to that effect would be given by 1 5 January. It is a matter of concern that particulars were not delivered- I hesitate to say ‘as undertaken’ because, as I interpret it, counsel had indicated that they would use their best endeavours to provide particulars by that day. They did advise just prior to that day that it was not possible to meet the promise that had been made. Particulars were provided subsequently in a large number of cases- I am not quite sure whether they were provided in all cases- and the issue has now arisen as to whether or not those particulars are sufficient. On 3 1 January the magistrate declined to order any further and better particulars and some defendants have now taken proceedings in the Supreme Court of New South Wales seeking further and better particulars. That matter is before the Supreme Court of New South Wales, and I do not think it would be appropriate for me to make any comment on a matter which clearly is sub judice. I am sure that Senator Missen would not expect me to do so.

page 10

QUESTION

CROATIAN EMBASSY

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– I preface my question to the Attorney-General by pointing out that it has been reported that the office of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs issued a circular within the Department stating: . . Australia enjoys normal diplomatic relations with Yugoslavia, of which Croatia is one of the constituent republics, and that the self-styled Croatian Embassy has no status.

The circular continued:

It is therefore necessary to refrain from having any semblance of official contact with, or showing any official recognition of, a Croatian Embassy. A serious view will be taken of any action which is not in strict adherence of this requirement.

The circular was issued over the signature of Mr Norman Fisher, Acting Deputy Secretary. Is the

Attorney-General aware that the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs is posting its literature to this illegal office? When does the Government intend to enforce the Diplomatic and Consular Missions Act as it relates to the socalled ‘Croatian embassy’? Is the Government being less than honest when it places legislation on the statute books with one hand and aids and abets the breaking of its own laws with the other? When will the Government bring down a statement clarifying its position on this matter?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I am not aware of literature being sent to the ‘Croatian embassy’ by the Department mentioned by Senator 0 ‘Byrne, or indeed by any department. As far as action under the Act passed last year is concerned, that matter has been under consideration by my Department and by me. When a decision is made it will be announced, depending upon the action that is pursued.

page 11

QUESTION

HOBART AIRPORT

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

-The Minister representing the Minister for Transport will no doubt remember that on several occasions I have asked questions relating to the upgrading of Hobart Airport in such a manner that it would be suitable for international nights from Tasmania to New Zealand. Irrespective of the outcome of discussions to be held on 27 February with the New Zealand Government concerning a bilateral air agreement relating to flights from Tasmania to New Zealand, will the Government urgently consider the upgrading of the runway at Hobart not only for additional safety at Hobart but also so that when wide bodied aircraft are introduced into Australia- which should be soon if we are to have low internal air fares- it will be possible for those aircraft to land and take off again with a full payload? Will the Minister ask the Minister for Transport to examine whether the present runway should be extended or whether another runway should be built running approximately east-west which would avoid the hills in the area of Hobart?

Senator CHANEY:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– The honourable senator has asked a detailed question about Hobart Airport which follows a series of questions that he asked in the last session about related matters. I will refer the question, as I have done with a number of other questions that he has asked, to the Minister for Transport and seek a detailed reply.

page 11

QUESTION

DESTRUCTION OF RHODESIAN AIRCRAFT

Senator WHEELDON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-Has the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs noticed that Mr Joshua Nkomo has claimed that his organisation was responsible for the shooting down of a Rhodesian airliner and the subsequent killing of some 59 people who were on board that plane? Has this exploit reinforced the Government’s view that negotiations should be pursued with the Rhodesian Patriotic Front rather than with the parties to the internal settlement? Does the Government feel any concern or regret about this event? If so, has it expressed any concern or regret to Mr Nkomo or to anyone else?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I have seen a report in which Mr Joshua Nkomo is stated to be claiming responsibility for the destruction of the aircraft. Of course, like all honourable senators, I would deplore that. As to the third section of the question, of course the Government has the gravest concern about the events and their impact. Details were requested in the second part of the question to which I think I should get a more explicit and detailed reply from the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I will do so and let Senator Wheeldon know the result.

page 11

QUESTION

TEACHER EDUCATION

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Education. It relates to recent statements made by the Minister in a radio program in which he made some observations upon the relevance of teacher training to the world of commerce and industry. I ask: Does the Minister recall the recommendations pf the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts in its report on the Commonwealth’s role in teacher education? I have no doubt that the Minister will recall that he was a member of that Committee. Is the Minister aware that some of these recommendations called for the integration of course subjects, education subjects and practical teaching and called upon the Australian Universities Commission and the Australian Commission on Advanced Education to encourage the establishment of integrated courses? Have some of these recommendations been neglected? Will the Minister examine the report in relation to his own statements and endeavour to .recover the ground which seems to have been lost through an apparent neglect of the Senate Committee ‘s report?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I recall the report very well. I was very happy to have some part in its preparation. The comments which I made on this matter are part of an overall concern on the part of all persons connected with education in Australia about the problems of transition from school to work. It was part of the concern that the students in the school should be given on the one hand a balanced education and on the other hand proper vocational equipment and, just as importantly, the capacity for advice from teachers in the form of vocational counselling. My remarks, which in no way reflected on teachers themselves, were directed at the fact that in the nature of the evolution of a student to a teacher and beyond most had little or no opportunity to understand or interpret the outside world and therefore did not have, in many cases, the capacity for vocational guidance. The Australian Education Council has been interested to pursue this matter of developing vocational guidance. The Council and I, as the Commonwealth Minister for Education, are looking at ways in which we can perhaps provide inservice training for existing teachers as well as pre-service training in the teacher training colleges so that teachers concerned shall have a detailed overview of the nature of commerce, industry and tertiary industries themselves. I believe this is of great significance indeed. Equally I remind Senator Davidson that recently we set up the Auchmuty Committee to conduct a national inquiry into all aspects of teacher education. That Committee will be looking at these matters and so that there cannot be any question of oversight I will refer the report of the committee chaired by Senator Davidson to the Auchmuty Committee for study.

page 12

QUESTION

ENVIRONMENT

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Science and the Environment. I refer the Minister to the Prime Minister’s undertaking, given in 1976, that the Government would observe the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act ‘in letter and in spirit’. I further refer the Minister to the Liberal and National Country Party policy in the 1975 and 1977 elections which states that ‘the cost of safeguarding the environment from damaging intrusions by man is a cost, properly incurred in producing goods and services, which must ultimately be met by the producers of those goods and services and reflected in the price’. I ask the Minister how, having regard to those statements, he reconciles his own recent announcement as the Minister for Science and the Environment that he was sympathetic to the view that Government decisions on environmental questions are often inappropriate intervention and that business has lost out in the bargain.

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I acknowledge the question from Senator Button relating to the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act which has been a matter of discussion over a number of years in this place. I also acknowledge the excellent way in which he expressed the policy of the joint Government parties. It is certainly a policy on environmental matters that could be followed by many political groups in the community. He refers to two reports in the daily papers of last Thursday and Friday and takes those comments to be accurate. The words that he used in his question to me were not used by me. They were in actual fact the thoughts of the person who wrote the article.

page 12

QUESTION

TASMANIAN POPPY GROWING INDUSTRY

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Is the Minister aware that the Tasmanian rural economy, hard hit over the years by the effects of the New Zealand-Australia Free Trade Agreement, has received a major compensation from the development of the poppy growing industry for legal drug production? Is it a fact that the Australian Government has now succumbed to pressures from the United States to curtail the already relatively small- in world production terms- Tasmanian industry? If so, what percentage cut in the Tasmanian production is to be agreed to? Is this attack on this important Tasmanian industry really likely to have any effect on the control of illicit drugs around the world? Did the Tasmanian Government concur in the course apparently now agreed upon?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I am not aware of all of the details on poppy growing required by Senator Rae but I have some knowledge of Press reports on it. I will seek the information from the Minister for Health and if I have it before the end of Question Time I will ensure that the honourable senator is advised.

page 12

QUESTION

FISHERIES

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. In the event of the Australian Government providing a licensing system for foreign trawlers to operate in our 200-mile offshore fishing zone, will the Minister insist that there be an Australian observer on every vessel to see that those vessels do not plunder our mammals? Secondly, will he insist also that the new super apron net invented by the United States will be used? I understand that when trawling with this net occurs dolphins can escape and not be caught along with the haul of fish.

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-I believe that the question raised by Senator Mulvihill is derived from an article which appeared in Newsweek in January and which I noted. It has implications in relation to Australian fishing limits. My understanding is that the destruction of marine mammals is not a problem in waters off Australia as they do not aggregate within the target tuna species and that it is not necessary to require the use of the super apron nets developed by the United States National Marine Fisheries Service. Whilst it is most unlikely that marine mammals will be taken by foreign fishing vessels operating in the 200-mile Australian fishing zone, the matter which the honourable senator has raised will be kept under review and, wherever possible, government observers will be placed on foreign fishing vessels. If necessary, conditionsincluding restrictions on the type of fishing gear to be used- will be applied.

page 13

QUESTION

APPRENTICESHIPS

Senator MESSNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs. In the light of the continuing economic recovery and the already evident long term shortages in the supply of skilled labour in Australia, has the Government noted a recent statement by a prominent member of the National Training Council that firms taking on apprentices should receive preferential treatment in the awarding of government contracts. Will the Government consider the merits of such a scheme with a view to providing a report to Parliament?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I had not noted the statement by a member of the National Training Council to which Senator Messner referred. I will refer the matter raised in the question to the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs.

page 13

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL AIR FARES

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and refers to the recently negotiated excursion air fares for people travelling between Australia and the United Kingdom and between Australia and the United States of America. I think that the Minister will be aware that a number of representations have been made to the Minister for Transport, Mr Nixon, about the discrimination against South Australia in respect of travel to and from South Australia because presently Qantas Airways Ltd has to apply the ruling domestic fare for such travel. As Senator

Chaney knows, these arguments have been put to the Minister for Transport and have been supported by petitions and representations made as recently as January and, before that, by correspondence in October and December of last year with the responsible State Minister. Although the Minister for Transport has been sympathetic, the matter which is the subject of those representations is unresolved. Can the Minister give any indication as to whether the matter will be determined favourably?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

- Senator Bishop has raised a matter which is of great interest to people not only in South Australia but also in Western Australia, Queensland and other places which are not served by the direct point-to-point fares which have already been negotiated for international travel. On 24 January the Minister for Transport made a statement pointing out that he was committed to the principle of lower add-on fares than are currently available in Australia for people who want to connect with those flights. The Government remains committed to that principle and at the moment negotiations with the airlines are pressing on as a matter of urgency. It is hoped that there will be some finalisation of the arrangements in the near future. I cannot give the honourable senator a precise date, which from his question I think he wanted, but I can assure him that around Australia the interest that he has expressed is felt in regard to the negotiation of these fares.

page 13

QUESTION

PERTH AIRPORT

Senator THOMAS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. An inquiry into the future development of Perth Airport has been going on for some years. Because of current overcrowding at the airport and the projected rapid increase in traffic, can the Minister indicate when the inquiry will be concluded? Will the Minister indicate also how soon after the conclusion of the inquiry the Government will be in a position to announce its decision as to the future development of Perth Airport?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– My answer to Senator Thomas’s question must be in very similar terms to the answer I just gave to Senator Bishop. He has raised a matter which is of considerable importance to his constituents because of the very obvious overcrowding during large parts of the day at Perth Airport. As he said, there is a committee at the moment working on this matter. It is a Commonwealth-State committee and it is at the moment considering the final draft of its report. The best I can say to Senator Thomas is that it is expected to report very soon to the Government. This is a situation where the problem is not so much the runways as the facilities for passengers and baggage handling. These areas are not really adequate to meet the current needs. It is likely, therefore, that some early action will be taken on the report, even if for the time being that is merely a re-arrangement of some of the facilities.

page 14

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT’S PURCHASING POLICY

Senator GIETZELT:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, but it may well relate to the period when he was in fact the Minister for Administrative Services. I refer to a statement made by the Prime Minister on 1 October 1976 which sets out the present Government’s purchasing policy and I specifically draw the Minister’s attention to the direction given by the Prime Minister that Australian firms be given every opportunity to do business with the Federal Government. Did the Government take this stand in the interests of employment opportunities in Australia? Has the Government’s policy on these matters changed in recent times? If it has not, can the Minister advise the Senate why the official Senate diary for 1979 was printed in Hong Kong, whether Australian firms were given the opportunity to print the diary, whether the Government’s own printing service was given the opportunity to quote and what were the circumstances that led to the decision to print official government publications in a foreign country? Further, is it contemplated that other government publications similarly will be printed in cheap labour countries?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– As far as I am aware, there has been no recent change in the purchasing policy which was announced by the Government in 1976, but there certainly was some public announcement about a change in the emphasis of that policy at some time between 1976 and 1978. I cannot tell the honourable senator precisely when that was, but it was some time ago. That is a matter about which I can find out and let the honourable senator have additional information. I have no familiarity with the circumstances that he has raised in respect of the Senate diary, and the fact that it was printed in Hong Kong. I do not know who was responsible for placing that order, but again I will make inquiries and let the honourable senator know. I would suggest that it is very likely, however, that the contract was let there for reasons of price.

page 14

QUESTION

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE

Senator LEWIS:
VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. I refer to a report that the term of office of the Secretary to the Department of Defence, Sir Arthur Tange, has been extended under section 86 of the Public Service Act for a further 12 months after he reaches the mandatory retiring age of 65 years. Firstly, is there no one in the Public Service able to replace this officer? Secondly, does not his failure to have trained a successor justify some criticism of him? In view of current staff ceilings, does not the Government recognise that it would be better to encourage early retirement from the Public Service rather than delay retirement by this means?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– As to the newspaper reports, I will get for Senator Lewis and for the Senate precise details of any action which the Government may have taken so that we can all be on common ground. Those who know Sir Arthur Tange will know that he has been a very distiguished public servant of all governments and has acquired special skills over a period of time. It would be natural, therefore, whatever may be the quality of others coming forward, that his services, particularly in these difficult times, would be sought. I do not think it reflects at this moment a paucity of people coming forward to be trained. I think that the promotions to the top ranks of the Public Service in recent years have shown that there is a very high degree of skill and particularly of dedication amongst public servants. Nevertheless, I will take the question in terms of the philosophy it puts forward. I could not argue against the idea that we should be encouraging talent to come to the top. Of course, where there may be some stringencies, they should not get in the way of such promotion. I will refer the question to the Prime Minister and to the Minister for Defence.

page 14

QUESTION

RANGER URANIUM LTD

Senator ROBERTSON:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

-Is the Minister for Science and the Environment aware that Ranger Uranium Ltd is to be served with a conservation order because of unnecessary damage at Jabiru? Will the Minister assure the Senate that the Government, as a partner in the venture, will ensure that in future strict environmental protection measures will be adopted at Jabiru?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I have no knowledge of the facts given in the first part of Senator Robertson’s question. I take it that the matters mentioned are current. If that is the situation I will seek advice from my Department immediately and will respond to Senator Robertson’s question.

page 15

QUESTION

PRE-SCHOOL FUNDING, TASMANIA

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. It has four parts and results from my concern about insufficient State Government funding for the pre-school component of the Lady Gowrie Child Centre in my State. Can the Minister tell the Senate the amount of the Federal Government’s allocations to Tasmania in block grant funding for pre-schools in 1978-79? What was the amount allocated to Tasmania by the Commonwealth under the new federalism, as a percentage of personal income tax revenue for 1978-79? Is it true that the Tasmanian Government is entitled to make a special application for funds to the Commonwealth Grants Commission if it can demonstrate hardship in funding pre-schools in the State? If so, has the Tasmanian Government made an approach to the Commonwealth Grants Commission?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

- Senator Walters has asked me a question in several parts. Those parts which dealt with the share of income tax and with Grants Commission applications are not within my departmental responsibility, and I suggest that they be directed to the Treasurer or placed on notice for his attention. With regard to the pre-school block grant that is made to the States, and in particular to Tasmania, for the year 1978-79 the total Commonwealth block grant for pre-schools is $32.75m, which is divided among the States in proportion to the number of four and five year-old children attending pre-schools in each State. Based on information which is presently available, Tasmania’s allocation has been provisionally determined as $1,054,000. This amount is subject to review when information is received from all of the States, but it is not expected to vary greatly. The Tasmanian Government may distribute these funds to the individual pre-school services according to its assessment of priorities. As would be understood, State governments also fund pre-schools, and the Commonwealth grant is a contribution to pre-school education. I think that in one instance we are still awaiting details of the number of children attending pre-school so that we can make the final grant. As I said, the figure for Tasmania is more than $ 1 m.

page 15

QUESTION

PRE-SCHOOL FUNDING, TASMANIA

Senator WRIEDT:

– My question is also directed to Senator Guilfoyle and follows from the one just asked. I refer to the assessment that she has just given, namely, that this year- to date anyway- the Tasmanian grant for pre-schools and child care will be $1,054,000, and to the Budget allocation as shown in Budget Paper No. 7, at page 187 of the Budget Papers, which was $1,665,000 and represented a fall of $400,000 on last year’s allocation to Tasmania for pre-schools and child care. Are we to assume now that Tasmania is to receive this financial year $lm less than last year’s allocation for pre-schools and child care, which in effect will mean a 50 per cent cut in the allocation to Tasmania?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I have not in front of me the figure that was cited by Senator Wriedt.

Senator Wriedt:

– You should have it. When you answer questions like this one you should get your figures sorted out.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– The figure about which I am speaking is the pre-school block grant to Tasmania. It is not one that includes any grant made via the State for child care, so I am unaware whether the figure Senator Wriedt cited includes a child care component. The figure I mentioned, $1,054,000, is the provisionally determined grant. It is subject to review when information is received from all States of the children in the four years and five years age groups who are actually attending pre-schools in each State. I think only one State is holding up that final distribution. When that figure is in we will then be able to give the final figure for the year. In regard to the Budget, if what Senator Wriedt is reading from shows a figure of $32.75m as the total, then that is the pre-school figure. If it shows a total higher than that then there is an inclusion of some child care components.

page 15

QUESTION

UNALIENATED CROWN LAND IN THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I direct a question to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. A media report in Darwin states that unalienated Crown land in the Northern Territory subject to Aboriginal land claims, such as a recent claim on the island Dum-im-mime in the vicinity of Darwin, is owned by the Northern Territory community. The Northern Territory Attorney-General has said that there is a positive duty to examine each claim to determine whether and to what extent the public interest will be thereby affected. This would then be a guide for future action, either opposition or support. It was also reported that claim books had not been lodged by applicants to indicate on what facts their claims rest. Is the Minister in a position to clarify this situation?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

-I saw a report in Northern Territory newspapers outlining the facts which have been put before the Senate in that question. I can advise the Senate that there is no question that unalienated Crown land in the Northern Territory is Crown land held in right of the Northern Territory; in other words, that it is no longer Commonwealth Crown land. The exception to that is in respect of land in the Alligator Rivers region which is still Crown land held in right of the Commonwealth. However, provisions of the Aboriginal land rights Acts, particularly section 3 sub-section 6, apply to Crown land which is held in the right of the Northern Territory, so claims can be made by Aboriginal traditional owners in respect of unalienated Crown land held in the right of the Northern Territory. The Commonwealth Government supports the view whch has been put forward by the Northern Territory Government that the latter Government has a responsibility to ensure that matters of public interest are represented before the Aboriginal land commissioner.

With respect to the claim books which were referred to in Senator Kilgariff’s question as not having been lodged, in effect these are statements of evidence which are produced by land councils in support of claims which are made. These books are not required to be lodged at the time of application but, in fact, the Aboriginal land commissioner issued practice directions last year which make it clear that where practicable they should be lodged before the hearing of an application so that they are available to those who are appearing at the application. The hearing dates of the various claims which have been lodged have yet to be determined as the land councils are continuing to compile the necessary evidence in relation to these claims. That is a matter which, on my information, is being actively pursued by the land councils.

page 16

QUESTION

NAVAL PATROL BOATS

Senator MASON:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. It relates to the armament said to be proposed for the Royal Australian Navy’s 15 new patrol boats now under construction. According to a Press report in the Sydney Daily Mirror of last week- on 1 5 February, to be precise- each boat will carry a range of small arms, machine guns and one small cannon. Since the vessels will be much larger and faster than the Attack class boats they will replace- they might well be, at a cost of $7m each-I ask the Minister whether that report was a correct account of the total armament to be provided in these ships? If so, in view of the fact that in the past there have been successful missile attacks by fast patrol craft against more heavily armed naval craft, why are our patrol boats not being equipped with some form of ship-to-ship missile? Will the Government, as a matter of policy, urgently consider adaptation of these ships to missile capability so that they can play a role which is more commensurate with their cost in Australia ‘s future defence?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I am advised that no missile capacity is intended for the particular patrol boats mentioned. My understanding is that they were designed to augment and later to replace the ‘Attack’ class patrol boats as a general purpose low contingency surveillance vessel with good sea-keeping and endurance capabilities. I am advised that the fitting of missiles entails complex fire control systems, radars and a number of additional features such as the desirability for higher speed, all of which would change the concept of the vessels’ intended operations.

page 16

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL AIR FARES

Senator PUPLICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Transport aware of the scale and nature of criticisms made about Australia’s current international air fare policies by members of the Association of South East Asian Nations? Has the Minister seen consistent criticisms by the Foreign Minister of Singapore about the way in which the Australian Government and Qantas Airways Ltd have behaved in this matter? Is it true, as is claimed in the cover story of the respected magazine Asia Week of 16 February this year, that Singapore could lose some 250,000 tourists and $US43m annually due to these new arrangements? Does the Australian Government view with any concern the fact that its attitude in this matter is severely prejudicing our good relations with our South East Asian neighbours at a time of great crisis in the region and all for what may well turn out to be quite illusory gains for the vast majority of potential Australian travellers?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I am aware that Australia’s international civil aviation policy has been discussed individually with each of the five members of the Association of South East Asian Nations and also at a joint meeting held in Canberra earlier this year. The countries have expressed concern on some aspects of the policy and Australia has indicated a desire for early negotiations with them, either individually or collectively as they wish, in the hope that we can develop mutually satisfactory solutions.

The economic Ministers of ASEAN countries are understood to be planning a meeting in Kuala Lumpur on 22 February to consider further their joint position. It is the Government’s hope that their talks will clear the way for negotiations with Australia to proceed. It is true that the Foreign Minister of Singapore has voiced criticisms of the aviation policy but it is the Government’s view that any disagreements or misunderstandings over the effects of our aviation policy would be best resolved at the negotiating table.

The estimate that Singapore could lose a quarter of a million tourists a year as a result of the policy is understood by the Government to rest on assumptions that in its view are not valid. Proposals put to Singapore and the other ASEAN countries include provision for retention of the facilities for Australian travellers to make stop-overs in ASEAN capitals or in ASEAN countries. In addition, reductions in fares for travel to ASEAN countries themselves on a point to point basis should result in substantial growth of Australian tourism to the ASEAN region. The Government has been at pains to explain its new international aviation policy to the ASEAN countries and it is hopeful that with some goodwill on both sides the matters concerning those countries will be resolved speedily.

page 17

QUESTION

SOCIAL WELFARE BENEFITS

Senator RYAN:
ACT

– My question to the Minister for Social Security is one of principle which relates to the recent withdrawal of benefits from some invalid pensioners living in Greece. I ask the Minister: Where an invalid pensioner whose pension was cancelled in Greece has returned to Australia to appeal against that decision and has had the pension restored, will the Department of Social Security reimburse the pensioner for expenses undertaken to return to Australia to prove that the pension was wrongly terminated?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– That is a question that would need consideration. I will see that consideration is given and provide a response.

page 17

QUESTION

ROADS AND RAILWAYS

Senator MacGIBBON:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Defence whether the Federal Government, through the Department of Defence, consults with State governments and local authorities when roads and railways are being built or upgraded to ensure that what is being done is optimised for defence needs.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– There is obviously a need for the closest possible co-ordination not only between the Federal and State governments but also between various departments in regard to such matters. My understanding is that changes in ministerial portfolios over the years have resulted in the consolidation of functions and new alignments with Commonwealth governments. Previous planning in a number of areas associated with transport is now out of date and is being reviewed in the light of current concepts and organisational changes. There is a body called the Defence Movements Coordination Committee- the DMCC- which has initiated discussions in committee with representatives of the various departments and, of course, it has in mind relationships between the States and the Commonwealth in terms of coordination. Past concepts and other historical data are being studied for background. Meetings are now being held on a regular basis to discuss developments and possible action. Defence representation on some existing national transport planning committees is being actively sought.

page 17

QUESTION

SIR CECIL LOOKER

Senator WALSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Assuming that the Sir Cecil Looker whom the Prime Minister appointed to the inquiry concerning public duty and private interest is the Sir Cecil Looker who demonstrably failed to protect the interests of Associated Securities Ltd depositors, what steps will be taken to ensure that Sir Cecil will not again put private interests before public duty? In view of Sir Cecil ‘s record, does the Prime Minister consider him a fit person to serve on such a sensitive inquiry?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I would suggest that before one attempts to use the protection of this. . - chamber to cast discredit upon somebody who has been a notable and very distinguished Australian figure one would need to get the facts. The facts in terms of the company concerned are being unwoven at this moment. I would deprecate the tendency simply to attempt to use this chamber in that regard. Let us have the facts on Associated Securities Ltd. After all, private industries have failed in times of all governments. That is in the very nature of things. It is sad that that should be so and that some should suffer. Therefore, in times of all governments the people in charge of those industries have had to suffer the difficulties that arise. I suggest that we should all stand at ease and see what are the facts as they emerge.

page 18

QUESTION

CANBERRA: JOLIMONT SITE

Senator KNIGHT:
ACT

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for the Capital Territory. Can the Minister indicate what progress has been made with proposals for a major tourist industry development in the area known as the Jolimont site in Canberra? In particular, can the Minister say whether this matter will be affected in any way by advice from the Minister for Post and Telecommunications that significant funds are not likely to be committed to the new post office in the same area of Civic before 1980-81? Can the Minister say when a start might be made on the proposed tourist complex?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-The vacant site at the Northbourne Avenue-Alinga Street intersection has been allocated for the development of a new post office and a tourist centre. The proposed tourist centre will incorporate terminals for tourist and airline buses and other tourist oriented facilities. My understanding is that discussions have taken place with potential users to determine the design requirements for the tourist centre, that the National Capital Development Commission has developed conditions and that at this stage they are almost finalised. Expressions of interest in the development of the centre are expected to be invited by the Department of the Capital Territory very shortly. It is understood that Australia Post is ready to proceed with the design of a new post office on the site but the actual timing of the construction and the availability of funds are matters for the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. The post office can be build separately or as an integral part of the tourist facility. These options apparently are presently being discussed.

page 18

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL HOUSING

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Perhaps he can clear up another matter for me. I direct the Minister’s attention to a reply given on 8 November 1978 by the then Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to a question from Mr Kerin in the House of Representatives. Mr Viner stated that all the contracts entered into by Stawell Timber Industries with Aboriginal housing associations had been entered into in accordance with the financial directives issued by his Department and within the ministerial guidelines issued by him. There is a conflict between that reply and the reply given by the present Minister in his letter to me dated 1 5 December 1 978. 1 asked whether he would table ministerial guidelines? His reply stated:.

No ministerial guidelines have been issued by a Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in relation to the granting of contracts for Aboriginal housing.

The reply of 8 November and the reply of 15 December are blatantly contradictory. Which Minister do we believe? Was the Minister in the other place shifted because he misinformed the House?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I can very confidently respond to the last part of the question with a no. I do not remember the detail of the matter that the senator has raised. In particular, I have no recollection of having seen the reply to Mr Kerin that the senator has raised with me. I would have to check that. There is, of course, a ministerial directive which covers the general program of the Department. It is a public document and is contained in the annual report. Whether there are any guidelines of the sort referred to in the answer to the questions is a matter of which I have no knowledge. I will seek further information and let the senator have a reply.

page 18

SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

The PRESIDENT:

– Pursuant to the resolution of the Senate of 22 November 1978 I lay on the table the First Report of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations on Statutory Authorities of the Commonwealth. In accordance with the terms of the resolution, I have directed the printing and circulation of the report.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– by leave- I move:

It is fair to say that there is a definite feeling among the Australian people today that the machinery of government may have become too large and unmanageable. This phenomenon can be summarised in the oft used term ‘big government’. In fact this concern about ‘big government’ is widespread throughout the Western democracies. In particular the proliferation of statutory authorities in these countries and Australia has raised the question of governmental activity becoming excessive in the economy and in the lives of ordinary citizens. For some years Australian parliamentarians have viewed this proliferation of authorities with growing interest and some concern. Many questions arose as to the number, identity, role and significance of these instruments of government. Consequently, in October 1977, the Senate referred the matter to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations for investigation and report.

The Committee found that as Commonwealth statutory authorities have proliferated, they have acquired an extraordinarily diverse set of characteristics. They are often outside the standard departmental structure with its safeguards of ministerial responsibility and accountability. Little or no attempt has been made to achieve uniformity in the justification for their initial creation, in the degree of operating independence granted to them or in the strictness and form of their accountability requirements. This situation has created considerable problems, both for the Executive Government in effectively managing Australia’s economy and administration, and for the Parliament in ensuring that the authorities’ ultimate accountability to the people is maintained. An important example of the difficulties which have arisen concerns authorities’ financial activities. Some are financed wholly from the Budget and are required to pay all other income into Consolidated Revenue. Others are able to both raise and keep moneys free from the supervision of ministers and the Parliament. Many others fall between these two extremes. As a consequence, the total impact which authorities have on the economy is hard to measure. Moreover, the ability of the Government to effectively manage the economy is reduced by not having complete control over finances which are obtained and employed by organisations essentially owned by the taxpayer. The Parliament, according to constitutional theory, is solely responsible for appropriating public moneys prior to expenditure. Nevertheless, some authorities are able to generate and apply finances independently, free from complete parliamentary oversight. Another anomaly is that the Public Service Board has only incomplete control over authorities’ staffing. For example, the Board’s power to impose staff ceilings on some authorities is uncertain. Moreover, some authorities are able to buy and sell property outside of the control of the Department of Administrative Services.

As we see it, therefore, the major problem which we face in an inquiry is to strike a proper balance between, on the one hand, the appropriate operating independence of authorities and, on the other hand, their satisfactory responsibility and accountability to the Parliament and the people. When the extensive scope of the subject became apparent to the Committee, we decided to approach the subject in a selective way, and to publish a series of reports on a continuing basis, extending if necessary over several years, with each report commenting on different aspects of the inquiry.

The first report, which has been presented today, examines authorities primarily from the viewpoint of the Parliament and concentrates on measures to improve their accountability. We regard this report as introductory in establishing and outlining some of the background facts in relation to these authorities. As the first step, the Committee set out to identify those Commonwealth statutory authorities which are actually in existence. Surprisingly, no comprehensive list was available, and the Committee compiled its own by examining each piece of Commonwealth legislation and taking various other and, I might add, somewhat tedious steps. The list, comprising 241 authorities plus a large number of subsidiary authorities, is included in the report. We consider that the absence of a list is indicative of the haphazard ways in which authorities have been created, and of the attitude towards their proliferation. The Committee intends to update its own list annually so as to keep the Parliament and the people fully informed.

An examination of existing authorities showed that similar governmental functions are being performed by different types of organisations, for example, by statutory authorities and by government-owned companies. This results in variations in the degrees of operating independence and accountability standards. This Committee suggests that these anomalies could be overcome in the future by adopting the standard practice of creating an authority by separate statute if it varies from the departmental structure in a significant way. The lack of attention which has been paid to statutory authorities is further evidenced by the dearth of official statistics on them. The Committee commissioned a consultant to undertake a preliminary study into the impact of authorities on the Australian economy. The results of this study, which are included in the report, indicated that their impact is both significant and underestimated. The Committee is therefore carrying out a survey of authorities to ascertain the full extent of their financial activity and economic influence. We consider this aspect of their behaviour to be most important, because authorities directly or indirectly owned by the taxpayer constitute a significant economic force and yet are often outside the accountability safeguards of a department and remote from the Government’s economic management guidelines. The full results of the survey will be published in 1979.

The Committee considers that the direct link which exists between the Parliament and the statutory authorities it creates requires that the

Parliament should institute satisfactory procedures to ensure that authorities are properly accountable for their actions. If these procedures do not operate, then the authorities may well, in effect, be accountable to no one- neither to the Minister nor to the Parliament. We consider that the taxpayer is the universal guarantor of authorities and that authorities should therefore be accountable to the taxpayer, through the Parliament, in at least the same way as a company is accountable to its shareholders. A primary method of ensuring this accountability is the presentation to Parliament of a comprehensive annual report. There are many anomalies in the reporting standards of authorities. For example, of the 194 authorities created by the Commonwealth in its capacity as the national government, 67 have the standard reporting requirement, 29 have no reporting requirement and the remaining 98 have a wide variety of other requirements. Auditing arrangements also vary considerably. The Committee considers that, to remove these anomalies, an annual reports Act should be enacted to introduce a standard reporting requirement for authorities whereby they would report annually to the Parliament through a Minister. We also suggest that the Act provide for interim reports to be tabled when final reports are delayed. The Act could also specify the basic contents of reports, in relation to both financial and general information, and should render the accounts of all authorities subject to audit by the Auditor-General. Annual reports should continue to be examined by the relevant Senate legislative and general purpose standing committees. If implemented, these proposals will continue the movement towards increased parliamentary oversight of authorities. A prime example of this movement is the new arrangement regarding the failure to meet reporting requirements announced last year by you, Mr President, as a result of a report of the Joint Committee on Publications.

Because statutory authorities are often created to fill a need at a particular time it is possible that some have continued to operate after the reason for their creation has ceased to exist, or at least their need to continue as a separate entity. One method of overcoming this problem is ‘sunset’ legislation, now widely used in the United States of America, whereby the enabling Act for an authority imposes a time limit at the end of which the authority automatically disbands unless specifically authorised to continue by new legislation. In this way, authorities have to justify their continuation rather than having an automatic right to an indefinite existence. The Committee believes that the ‘sunset’ principle should be considered for inclusion in the enabling legislation for future authorities, and we intend to consider its possible application to authorities already in existence.

In future reports, as well as discussing the economic impact of authorities the Committee will attempt to answer the following important questions: Firstly, when should a statutory authority be established to perform a particular governmental function? The system of conducting government through departments which operate under Ministers who are responsible and accountable to the people through the Parliament has served Australia well. It should not be departed from without good reason and the Committee will attempt to specify what those reasons should be. Secondly, what degree of operating independence should be granted to authorities once established, especially in relation to their financial activities, their staffing arrangements and their dealings in property and other assets?

The answers to these questions can be established only in close consultation with those Public Service departments which have responsibility for these matters. The Committee will naturally be seeking these departments’ views, as well as those of others concerned with the inquiry, including, of course, the authorities themselves. The Committee will also proceed with inquiries into the operation of specific authorities. The depth of these inquiries will vary but in some instances will involve considerable examination.

At the time we published the list we believed that it was as complete as we could make it but we did not guarantee its accuracy. In fact, it has now been drawn to my attention that we did omit at least one name. I wish it to be noted that to that list should be added the Receiver of Scalps for the Australian Capital Territory. I feel confident that this office is not intended to provide some form of sinecure for retired political operators and in fact I have been assured that it has been in existence since prior to August last year. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 21

SIMULTANEOUS DISSOLUTION OF SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Senator CARRICK:
Minister for Education · New South Wales · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present documents relating to the simultaneous dissolution of the Senate and the House of Representatives on 11 November 1975.

page 21

DISSOLUTION OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Senator CARRICK:
Minister for Education · New South Wales · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present documents relating to the dissolution of the House of Representatives on 10 November 1977.

page 21

WHALES AND WHALING

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present volume 1 , the Report of the Independent Inquiry into Whales and Whaling, and Volume 2, papers commissioned by the Inquiry. Volume 1 was distributed to honourable senators during the recess. Volume 2 will be distributed today.

page 21

AUTHORITY PURSUANT TO ATOMIC ENERGY ACT

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) For the information of honourable senators I present an authority made pursuant to section 41 of the Atomic Energy Act 1953 and issued to Australian Atomic Energy Commission, Peko-Wallsend Operations Ltd and Electrolytic Zinc Company of Australasia Limited.

page 21

RANGER URANIUM PROJECT MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) For the information of honourable senators I present a document entitled ‘Ranger Uranium Project Management Agreement Between Peko-Wallsend Operations Ltd, Electrolytic Zinc Company of Australasia Limited, Australian Atomic Energy Commission and Ranger Uranium Mines Proprietry Limited ‘.

page 21

RANGER URANIUM PROJECT-GOVERNMENT AGREEMENT

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) For the information of honourable senators I present a document entitled ‘Ranger Uranium Project- Government Agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia, Peko-Wallsend Operations Ltd, Electrolytic Zinc Company of Australasia Limited and Australian Atomic Energy Commission ‘.

page 21

AUSTRALIAN CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION COMMISSION

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) Pursuant to section 70 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 I present the annual report of the President of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission for the year ended 13 August 1978.

page 21

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION REPORTS

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) For the information of honourable senators I present reports of the Industries Assistance Commission on commercial ship repair; fisheries and fish processing industry; jewellery and other precious metalware et cetera; timber and timber products and plywood and veneer; umbrellas, sunshades, et cetera and parts therefor; certain paper and paperboard; injection or puncture needles; and inks. I also present an interim report on certain engines not exceeding 7.46 kilowatts; rotary cultivators; and tractors having a power of less than 1 5 kilowatts. The last four reports were distributed to honourable senators during the adjournment. The remaining reports will be distributed today.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– by leave- I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 22

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY POLICE

Senator WEBSTER:
Minister for Science and the Environment · Victoria · NCP/NP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the annual report of the Australian Capital Territory Police for the year ended 30 June 1978. This report was distributed to honourable senators during the adjournment.

page 22

AUSTRALIAN HONEY BOARD

Senator WEBSTER:
Minister for Science and the Environment · Victoria · NCP/NP

– Pursuant to section 30 of the Honey Industry Act 1962 I present the annual report of the Australian Honey Board for the year ended 30 June 1978.

Senator McLAREN (South Australia-by leave- I move:

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

page 22

AUSTRALIAN AGRICULTURAL COUNCIL

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria · NCP/NP

-Minister for Science and the Environment)- For the information of honourable senators I present the resolutions of the 105th meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council held in Sydney during August 1978.

This report was distributed to honourable senators during the adjournment.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– by leave- I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 22

ABORIGINAL LAND FUND COMMISSION

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Education · LP

– Pursuant to section 29 of the Aboriginal Land Fund Act 1 974 I present the annual report of the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission for the year ended 30 June 1978. This report was distributed to honourable members during the adjournment.

page 22

ABORIGINAL LOANS COMMISSION

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Education · LP

– Pursuant to section 36 of the Aboriginal Loans Commission Act 1976 I present the report of the Aboriginal Loans Commission for the year ended 30 June 1978. This report was distributed to honourable senators during the adjournment.

page 22

APPLIED ECOLOGY PTY LTD

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Education · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the annual report of Applied Ecology Pty Ltd for the year ended 30 June 1978. This report was distributed to honourable senators during the adjournment.

page 22

AUSTRALIAN MANUFACTURING COUNCIL

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Education · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the annual report of the Australian Manufacturing Council for the year ended 30 June 1 978. This report was distributed to honourable senators during the adjournment.

page 22

DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Education · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the annual report on the activities of the Department of Industry and Commerce for the year ended 30 June 1978. The report also includes some subsequent developments. This report was distributed to honourable senators during the adjournment.

page 22

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Education · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present a report on the working and administration of the Department of Transport including those matters on which the Minister is required to report pursuant to section 29 of the Air Navigation Act 1920 for the year ended 30 June 1978.

page 23

CERTIFICATE OF CHIEF AUSTRALIAN ELECTORAL OFFICER

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Education · LP

– As required by section 7 of the Representation Act I present a copy of the Certificate of the Chief Australian Electoral Officer setting forth the numbers of the people of the Commonwealth and of the several States in accordance with the latest statistics of the Commonwealth.

page 23

NOTIFICATION OF CHIEF AUSTRALIAN ELECTORAL OFFICER

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Education · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present a copy of the notification made by the Chief Australian Electoral Officer under section 1 1 of the Representation Act setting forth the number of members of the House of Representatives to be chosen in the several States. As determined there has been no change in the representation entitlement of any State except Western Australia. It has been determined that Western Australia, which is represented by ten members of the House of Representatives, is now entitled to a representation of eleven members. Section 25 (2) (a) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act provides therfore that a redistribution in Western Australia is mandatory.

page 23

ABORIGINAL LAND FUND COMMISSION

page 23

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL LOANS COMMISSION

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

-by leave- I move:

I regret that I must speak now about the two reports of which I am asking the Senate to take note rather than adjourn the debate to another day. It is very important to see what is being done to the Aboriginal community and to see the deprivation which this Government and the Department of Aboriginal Affairs is causing that community. There has never been a stronger condemnation of the activities of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs or his Department than one would find in reading the annual report of the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission. This Commission is not anti-government, anti-Liberal or anti-Country Party. The members are: Dr C. D.

Rowley, Director of the Academy of Social Sciences in Australia; Mr Ernest Bridge, Shire President, Halls Creek, Western Australia; Mr S. Martin Jambaiimba, Community Adviser, Willowra Station, Northern Territory; Mr Thomas Williams, O.B.E., Director of Field Operations, New South Wales Aboriginal Lands Trust, and a member of the Aboriginal Relics Advisory Committee; and Mr Neville Amy, Senior Rural Officer, Commonwealth Development Bank of Australia. It is a quite dignified and respected commission. The Commission points out on page 4 of the report:

The Commission sees its purpose as to supplement other measures to provide landed property for groups which have been dispossessed, which have not had access to a share of the Australian national estate by inheritance, and which have little if any chance to acquire property by participation in the western economy. The whole implication of a land rights policy is compensatory. The purpose is in the wider sense political, to do away with the situation of a helpless and dependant minority.

So the Commission set about trying to do its duty, as it sees its role, to compensate the Aboriginals for their dispossession and lack of inheritance of land. It was appointed when the then Federal Government made a promise to provide $4m for ten years- a total of about $50m- for the purchase of land other than land that is acquired under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. The Commission has complained that there has been nothing but a reduction in capital, frustration and a lack of attention by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and the Department of Aboriginal Affairs to permit the Commission to carry out its policies. When we get a report like the one that has been presented today, is it any wonder that the Minister has decided to abolish the Land Fund and merge it with the Aboriginal Loans Commission, whose report was also presented today. This move will ensure that those who would dare to make such a condemning report of the Government will not remain in a position in which they can continue the work of the protection of Aboriginals and the condemnation of those who are not out to assist Aboriginals. The introduction to the report reads:

For reasons outside the Commission’s control several proposals could not be concluded during the year.

For instance agreement had been reached to purchase a large station in Queensland, Glenore, for an Aboriginal group located on the reserve at Normanton. Transfer of the lease was refused by the Queensland Minister for Lands. Forestry, National Parks and Wildlife Service. Subsequently when the property was offered at public auction the Commission, through its legal representative, proved to be the only bidder and a contract was arranged for purchase. Once again the transfer of the lease was refused without any reason being given. Queensland Ministers in their public attacks on the ‘immorality’ of purchasing at auction through an intermediary showed a lack of knowledge of common commercial practice; and more significantly, a sensitivity about any move which might tend to undermine the Queensland Government’s control of its Aboriginal communities.

There was direct intervention by the Queensland Government in the work of this Commission, which was set up by the Federal Parliament to purchase land. The Commission engaged in a normal transaction by bidding at auction and arranging for a transfer of the lease but it was not allowed to acquire the land. According to the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs the Federal Government has the power to acquire the land, but it has done nothing about it, even though the Commission was prepared to make the highest bid for the property. The introduction to the report continues:

On 10 February 1978 the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs issued the Instruction attached -

I will deal later with the instruction. The introduction continues:

Conformity with this instruction made the process of purchase very difficult and time consuming. The effect was to give to officials handling Commission business in the Department of Aboriginal Affairs a means of delay in any case of a purchase which they considered to be controversial. The Commission’s view was that the instruction disregards the proper standing and duties of the Commission as a statutory authority. The Commission also questioned the legality of the instruction on the ground (which it put to the AttorneyGeneral) that the Minister’s memorandum amounted to a series of particular instructions on procedures rather than a general instruction’ within the terms of the Act. The Attorney General’s opinion had not been received at the end of the report year.

I believe that the period involved was about 6 months. The important question is whether the Minister was acting illegally in delaying or impeding the activities of the Commission. In the Commission’s mind he was acting outside his powers. The Commission applied to the Government’s interpreting authority- the AttorneyGeneral for advice on whether the Minister was acting within the area of his responsibility but it could not get a reply. This is why when land becomes available daily the opportunity to purchase is lost. Is it any wonder that the Commission regrets its inability to operate under the terms of its establishment. The introduction to the report continues:

As indicated in previous reports, the Attorney-General had already defined ‘land’ as exclusive of stock and movable property. This has made it necessary for the Commission, from its inception, to seek matching funds from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs where a ‘walk-in walk-out’ purchase (which is the standard transaction in the pastoral industry in some States) is involved. Through this dependence on departmental funding, the Commission has always been to some extent subject to departmental decisions and delays in reaching them.

Some properties cannot be bought because the Department is not prepared to finance the purchase of buildings and livestock on the property. The introduction continues:

One extraordinary circumstance became clear with the sale to a mining company with substantial overseas capital of Bing Bong Station, an area of first rate importance to some Aboriginal people in the Borroloola area which the Commission had resolved to attempt to purchase. The Foreign Investments Review Board passed on the information of the intended purchase to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, but that information did not reach the Commission. The explanation later given was that this was because of the need for ‘commercial confidentiality’. As the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission is the only Commonwealth purchasing body which could conceivably have been interested, the explanation appeared somewhat inadequate.

I believe that there was even a claim that the land was traditional Aboriginal land but as the land sought by the Aboriginals was not alienated land a land council could not deal with it. The Commission was prepared to buy that land. It was sought by the Aboriginal community but the information that it was available for sale was not passed on to the Commission by the Department until after it was sold to a mining company. That illustrates the lack of co-operation and liaison between these organisations which have the responsibility of looking after and improving the lot of the Aboriginal people. The introduction to the report continues:

During the year the Commission’s operations were hindered by opposition to purchase for Aboriginal groups expressed by the Minister for Lands in Western Australia. Such opposition may have the effect of slowing down or even diverting requests for purchase by the Commission. Western Australian Government concern was stated to be with alleged inefficiency of Aboriginal management of pastoral properties. Yet in many Western Australian pastoral areas landowners have been allowed to neglect management or to rely on caretakers only. The Commission remains confident that in spite of the fact that most pastoral properties after purchase become residential locations for Aboriginal families not involved directly in the pastoral enterprise, Aboriginal management requires only guidance and assistance, management training and some help in book-keeping. After all, these workers have carried the northern pastoral industry for generations.

We can see from this report that there is opposition from the Queensland Government, the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and the Western Australian Government to the ownership of land by Aboriginal people. The report continues:

Opposition to land purchase reflects a common prejudice and comes also from those who continue to profit economically, or in other ways, from the depressed condition of Aboriginals. Only through purchase can the majority of Aboriginal communities in remote areas be vested in a minimum of community property. Where such a minimum is lacking, efforts at ‘development’ and improved health will probably come to little.

Yet, at the table on page 13 shows, the Commission’s budget allocations have never been more than a minor part of the annual expenditure on Aboriginal affairs. It is much easier administratively to pay officials to ‘look after’ the poor and people of low status than to give to such groups those basic resources which they need for safe living, health and economic development.

So we take the easy way out of the problem. I want to say a few words about the ministerial directions. Ministerial directions were given at the time I was Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. They were directions to enable the Commission to operate normally, as an independent commission. Let us look at the directions since we have had the Fraser Government in office. The Commission states in its report:

In addition to these original directives, the present Minister for Aboriginal Affairs issued further directions to the Commission; in a letter of 1 2 March 1976 directions under section 5 (2) required the Commission to refer to the Minister before entering into any new commitment to buy properties in the period from March to the end of the financial year rather than direct the Commission not to spend $ 1 million of the money in the Fund.

Therefore, the Commission had been allocated $1 million which the Minister could have directed it not to spend but it was decided instead that before any purchase was made the Commission was to seek the Minister’s permission for such a purchase and the Minister could ensure that no purchase was made. The report continues:

At the same time, in relation to purchases in the Northern Territory, the Minister directed that: The purchases already made are likely to entail administrative and financial responsibilities for my Department for some time, and I think that it is desirable, in the light of the recommendations of the Aboriginal Land Rights Commission, that for the future purchases in the Northern Territory should be made as a general rule only on the basis of an examination of needs and claims by the Interim Land Commissioner, or the Land Commissioner if and when appointed. I would feel that where the Commission desires to take advantage of opportunities for the purchase of land in the Northern Territory which has not been recommended by the Interim Land Commissioner or Land Commissioner, your Commmission should, for the time being at least, seek my concurrence in the purchase.

That constitutes the complete destruction of the independent role of the Commission. It has become purely a ministerial body. The report stated further:

On 16 July 1976 the Minister issued the following directions:

As you know the new financial year is to be one of consolidation and review for Aboriginal Affairs in accordance with government policy. In such an environment I am sure you will agree that the tight funding position for government departments and instrumentalities generally makes it essential that maximum benefit be achieved from every project funded and this must, of course, have inevitable implications for your own Commission.

The Minister concluded his direction by stating:

It therefore appears most desirable that whatever decision your Commission finally takes should be in the light of the Department’s capacity, if any, to offer complementary funding support. Naturally, should you feel at any time that the

Department’s inability to provide essential supplementary funds warrants further consideration, I would appreciate the opportunity to discuss the proposal with you . . .

I refer honourable senators also to the direction about which the Commission complained in the introduction to its report. The report states:

On 10 February 1978 the Minister issued further directions to the Commission under section 5 (2) of the Act. As required by the Act, the pertinent part of this new Ministerial directive is here recorded:

I have decided to direct, pursuant to the powers vested in me by section 5(2) of the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission Act, that:

the Commission inform the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs of its intention to enter into any negotiations for a property before an initial approach is made to a vendor;

Therefore, the Commission had to negotiate with the Minister before it approached a vendor. The complaint of the Commission is that this held up negotiations until the property concerned was sold. Effectively the Minister has clamped down on the Commission to such an extent that it is unable to function properly. The Ministerial directive continues: and, in conjunction with this advice,

  1. the Commission provide the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs with a statement outlining the reasons in support of the purchase (including the social and economic objectives), and the financial implications for the Commission and the Department.

The statement should also contain information about the Aboriginal corporation involved, in sufficient detail to enable the Minister to satisfy himself as to whether the members are members of a community of Aboriginals:

  1. The Commission be in receipt of the views of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, before taking a decision to purchase a property.

That leaves the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission able to buy only properties that are not readily snapped up, properties that no one wants. I wish to say just a few words on funding. On this matter the report states:

In April 1977 it was understood that one million dollars would be available for the 1977-78 financial year. However because the Commission had to carry over $756,194 from 1976-77 (against which there were legal commitments of $644,478) the Government appropriated $750,000 for the year.

In the first part of the financial year the Commission reached agreement and /or settlement on eight properties with a value of some $688,000, but it then experienced considerable difficulties in the latter half of the year in reaching purchase stage. Although proposals with a value in excess of $ 1 m were under active consideration/negotiation, no further purchases were made because of administrative difficulties which arose from the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs’ directive of 10 February 1978;

Do honourable senators note the cry? The Commission had the money, they were negotiating for the property, but negotiations fell down because of the Minister’s directive. The report continued: a change in regional responsibility affecting two proposals in NSW; and inability, for various reasons, to reach agreement with vendors. All these factors contributed to the Commission having to carry over $507,699 this year (against which there is only some $61,000 in legal commitments).

This carry-over of funds will likely result in the Commission being appropriated less than the budget bid which is understood to be $ 1 . 5m. As commented on in past reports, the uncertainty of the funding allocations to the Aboriginal Land Fund, since its inception, has made it difficult for the Commission to develop and pursue a purchasing program. Uncertainty is further exacerbated by the very nature of purchasing land on the open market.

There we see the very destruction of the Commission’s independence. The Commission has had the courage to come out and criticise the Government, the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and the responsible State Ministers who will not let it operate. Because of this criticism, we are told that the Commission is going to be wound up. The other report we are considering is that of the Aboriginal Loans Commission, from which I wish to to quote three short extracts to show the impossible situation created by the lack of interest in Aboriginal affairs by the Government. In the introduction to the Aboriginal Loans Commission’s report it states:

The Commission also continued to assist Aboriginals to establish themselves in viable business enterprises. Assistance in this area has been limited to some extent by a lack of opportunities for new projects at a time of economic consolidation and increasingly by the Commission’s limited ability to adequately investigate and monitor enterprise projects because of field staffing difficulties. Nevertheless, demand for enterprise finance has continued to be evident.

Under the side heading ‘Renovations and Extensions’, which deals mostly with the housing area, we see that the Commission reports:

The Commission is not at present empowered to make loans for the purpose of renovating or extending homes. It is felt that legislative amendments to permit loans of this nature would enable the Commission to extend the range of its benefits to Aboriginals considerably without a marked increase in the Commission’s funds requirements. The Commission has made representations to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs seeking appropriate amendments to the legislation, and it is understood that the Department currently has the matter under investigation.

I pertinently ask the Minister: What is the Department doing about it? Does it intend to bring down the amendments? If so, when can we get them and when can the Commission function as it thinks it can and should function? The Commission reports on its lack of ability with regard to new initiatives as follows:

However, as loans for renovations and extensions are beyond the scope of the Commission’s enabling legislation, amendments to the Act were sought in 1976 . . .

So they were not sought yesterday. Amendments to the Act were sought in 1 976 to enable the new initiative to be introduced. The report continues:

It is understood that the Department of Aboriginal Affairs is currently taking steps to introduce the required amendment.

The amendments were sought three years ago and now the Department is getting to the stage where it is currently taking steps. We do not know how long it will be before the steps reach fruition and come here in the form of legislation. 1 urge the Minister to hurry the steps because we get more alarming reports like this:

As at 30 June 1978, 2,042 names were on the housing loan waiting list.

We can see the demand of people to get a loan to acquire their own houses- 2,040-odd people. All the time the results of the reduction in Aboriginal welfare ends up in the Department of Health which pointed out in its last report that infant mortality in the Northern Territory had decreased in Labor’s years and is increasing continually year by year under this Government. The Department of Health’s report says that it jumped 44 per cent in 1977-78. These are human lives that we are dealing with and here the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission says that the Department finds it more convenient to appoint administrative officers to run around and try to remedy the position of Aboriginal people in Australia. This is the sort of thing that government-appointed reports bring out and show clearly. I can say definitely that if ever there was a failure to assist Aboriginals it was shown by the previous Minister. He cut down and cut down and disregarded the health, welfare and lives of babies in the north and got away with it. He was so successful that he was given responsibility for unemployment and the introduction of a voluntary labour scheme. I hope that there has been a change of front and of attitude by the present Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and that he will study these reports and do something about them.

Debate (on motion by Senator Chaney) adjourned.

page 26

SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND DEFENCE

Senator SIM:
Western Australia

– I present the report and the transcript of evidence from the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on Australian representation overseas- the Department of Foreign Affairs.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator SIM:

– by leave- I move:

Throughout the last decade Australia has pursued a more vigorous and independent foreign policy than during the prior years. This development has come about through a combination of our efforts as an outward looking nation and the impact of international events on Australia. International affairs do not remain constant and changes occur rapidly, often with great significance to Australia, as current events in Iran and South East Asia demonstrate.

Australia is no longer isolated or immune from international issues and just as our domestic and foreign policies are becoming more interdependent there is a growing interdependence between nations. No other country can serve Australia’s interests overseas as well as we can ourselves, and to do so we must have resident Australian representation in the countries with which Australia has dealings.

The Department of Foreign Affairs is responsible for providing the majority of Australia’s representatives overseas. When the Committee was given this reference it was aware that the Department had been the subject or part of numerous inquiries during the past five years. However the Committee felt that it was important to examine how the Department is functioning and its ability to continue to do so under the staff ceilings and financial restraints that now exist.

Briefly, I propose to example some of the Committee’s findings which are of concern and which the Committee feels require attention: Staff ceilings were imposed on the Department and required the Department to redeploy staff resources. It has continued to carry out its functions but as responsibilities increase and staff resources are not available the Department will be forced to let some functional areas run down to meet urgent demands. Evidence of this occurring exists already. I draw the Senate’s attention to the summary of conclusions and recommendations on page 3 where the Committee states:

The Committee is dissatisfied with the arbitrary manner in which staff ceilings have been imposed on the Department. There appears to have been little consultation or examination of what repercussions these rulings have on staff and the organisation’s ability to continue operating effectively. Staff reductions, financial restraints and a slowdown in promotion prospects have affected morale among officers of the Public Service generally and the Department of Foreign Affairs has not remained immune from the slump in morale.

Other adverse features have developed in the Department (retrenchments in overseas locally engaged staff ranks) and as a consequence Australia’s image, particularly as an employer overseas, has suffered. Functional areas suffer from staff shortages, the implementation of Australia’s development assistance program is impaired, training, particularly in languages, is restricted and the dissemination of Australian publicity and information material is affected. The maintenance of existing residential and office properties overseas and the acquisition of additional properties has been neglected, the introduction of security precautions is too slow and there are aspects of conditions of service in need of review. These are examples of deficiencies which are beyond the control of the Department of Foreign Affairs alone to remedy. They require recognition and corrective action by the Government in co-operation with the appropriate regulatory authorities, and the Committee strongly emphasises that the Government should acknowledge this obligation.

The Committee draws particular attention to the following:

The resources of the Policy Planning Section in the Department have been depleted to cover commitments in newer areas such as the Nuclear Division. This relocation of staff has serious implications for the Department’s capacity to define and plan future foreign policy initiatives and priorities and consequently for its policy planning advice to the Government. Demands on the Department’s services are growing in complexity and scope and if the forward planning capacity of the organisation cannot function fully, its capability to respond is impaired. New organisations such as the Office of National Assessments require particular reporting from posts and its requirements for a specialised service will grow as it becomes fully operational, adding additional strains on the Department’s resources.

Recruitment to the Foreign Affairs Office category, ceased for some two years. It has now resumed but the gap could have repercussions in future years. Recruitment should be undertaken annually, as continuity and stability in a career service is vital to the Department. The incorporation of the Australian Development Assistance Bureau into the Department has created some problems, and there are issues between the Department and the Bureau which must be resolved to ensure that the effective implementation of the development assistance program is not impaired.

The consular and administrative career structure in the Department requires review. This is an increasingly important aspect of the Departments work, and careers in this field should be such as to retain experienced staff and to attract talented people. The Committee notes that the predicted growth in the number of Australians travelling abroad will produce greater demands for Australian consular services and, as a consequence, the Committee recommends that the Department should give a high priority to developing consular training courses and training consular officers to improve the capability to meet forecast demands. I refer to locally engaged staff overseas. They were used through wastage and retrenchment to meet departmental staff ceilings. The Committee reports that this action caused hardship and damage to Australia’s image as an employer overseas. Attention must be given to correcting this unfortunate situation.

Commonwealth owned property overseas has been neglected for the sake of short term economies. Construction has declined, acquisitions stopped for two years, and maintenance of existing properties has been limited through a shortage of funds. Urgent attention must be given to these matters to avoid an accumulation of expense in the near future and a declining standard of living for representatives overseas. Again I draw attention to the Committee’s comments on page 65 of its report, where it states: lt is apparent that in the past three years there are aspects of Australian overseas property management which have been neglected. The Committee is not critical of the work of the Overseas Operations Branch. It operates under severe financial limitations and as an organisation has undergone five transfers between departments as well as three physical relocations. The Committee believes that Governments have not acted responsibly by adopting a shortsighted attitude to the funding of overseas property maintenance and the acquisition of new properties.

The result has been spiralling leasing costs . . . delays in future works programs, higher market prices for the reintroduced but modest acquisition plans, deteriorating property, added expenses for essential maintenance and a decline in living standards for officers and dependants occupying the affected properties.

The security of Australian offices and residences is not receiving the priority and resources it deserves. Security cannot be absolute but sufficient resources must be made available to protect staff and their dependants as effectively as possible. Conditions of service must be kept under constant review to ensure that staff serving overseas are not disadvantaged. The response to rapidly changing conditions overseas has to be quicker and the regulatory authorities concerned will need to give priority to adapting to these changes.

It became evident during the inquiry that Australia has an effective overseas service which also has the respect of diplomatic representatives from other countries. Its professional skills and integrity have been noted. The service can be improved, and the Committees received evidence that steps are being taken to improve it. Australia’s growing international involvement will place greater demands on the Department of Foreign Affairs, and the Committee considers it important that the Government acknowledges this and ensures that the Department has the resources necessary to perform its functions efficiently and effectively. I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator PRIMMER:
Victoria

-by leave-I should like to take a few moments to touch on one or two items on which the Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, Senator Sim, has not touched.

Firstly, I congratulate Senator Sim on his chairmanship of the Committee throughout its consideration of the matter of Australian representation overseas and also congratulate the staff of the Committee on the excellent job they have done, although it always seemed to me that they required too many meetings when the Senate was in recess and imposed a work load on honourable senators that they wished they did not have. Be that as it may.

I turn to the Committee’s report. I believe it is obvious that the morale in the Department of Foreign Affairs has slumped rather dramatically over the last three years. If anything came through to me during the Committee’s hearings, it was the effect that the present Government has had on the Department of Foreign Affairs. As has been mentioned, the imposition of arbitrary staff ceilings had a great deal to do with the drop in morale. In my estimation, from evidence given it would appear that the Department will take a long time to overcome the position that has prevailed over the three years with staff ceilings and drops in recruitment. It seems to me that there will be large gaps in areas of the Department for perhaps even a decade, given that the Government reverses the trend and goes ahead with normal recruitment over the next few years. I can quite envisage and quite believe what I suppose I would describe as the despair that has been suffered by people in the Department because of this lack of younger people coming up through the Service in a continuous stream. I believe that, while this system prevails and while this Government adopts that sort of attitude in relation to a department as important as this one, Australia’s image, particularly abroad, could well be jeopardised.

The only other comment I wish to make is in relation to the Australian Development Assistance Bureau, or ADAB as it is known. I think the Department could well come in for some criticism as being at times a department which shows a form of elitism. I have said previously- I have struck this situation now and again in foreign posts- that the Department, having recruited a certain class or type of person, then thrusts that recruit on to people of a culture different from our own where there is a requirement for perhaps greater sensitivity than is the norm. I am referring to the recruit who all too often comes from the Geelong Grammar School or one of the other, in my opinion, upstart schools. Some of these people never quite adapt to living in an environment which to them would perhaps appear to be hostile, an environment where people do not cross all their t’s and dot all their i’s. They are loath to mix with working class people. I believe that such people would be better left out of the Department, and particularly overseas postings.

This problem has arisen, I believe, where there has been a refusal or a disinclination by the Department to give proper status to ADAB personnel, located both in Canberra and abroad. The Committee received quite an amount of evidence on this matter. It is referred to in several paragraphs in the recommendations section of the Committee’s report. One of the matters that is of some concern to me is reported by the Committee thus:

The Committee is not satisfied with the imposition of the inflexible policy that a foreign affairs position overseas may not be reclassified to an ADAB position unless 100 per cent of the duties are development assistance matters. The Committee recommends that urgent attention be given to changing the rules to allow specialist ADAB officers to fill positions overseas where development assistance duties predominate. Due recognition must be given to the importance of the function and not the application of a rule.

That is one area in which I believe the Committee is 100 per cent correct, and the inflexibility in the Department thus far should be altered so that ADAB personnel are in a position to oversee what is going on. Furthermore all too often they are not in a position to travel to those areas to oversee the duties required of them. Perhaps this applies particularly in the Pacific area at the present time where millions of dollars of Australian aid is sought to be spent. After having listened to ADAB personnel give evidence to the Committee, I sometimes wonder whether they or anybody else are confident that the money is being spent wisely.

In paragraph 13 of the Committee’s report it makes a specific recommendation in regard to overseas travel by ADAB personnel. In paragraph 14, in relation to the same matter, the very unnecessary problem is raised that in Canberra we have the unsatisfactory situation where some 310 ADAB staff are located in five separate buildings. To me it seems stupid for that situation to remain. If this country is to spend its foreign aid wisely I believe at least those personnel should all be brought together under the one roof.

page 29

NAMIBIA PEACEKEEPING FORCE

Ministerial Statement

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– by leave- The problem of Namibia is ohe of long standing It dates from South Africa’s refusal, at the end of World War II, to enter into a trusteeship agreement over the old mandated territory of South West Africa and its claim to sovereignty over that territory. South Africa has continued to administer Namibia despite the United Nations’ decision in 1966, that South Africa’s mandate should be withdrawn. Concerted United Nations’ efforts towards achieving self-determination and independence for Namibia began in 1972. These efforts were unsuccessful and, in 1974, the United Nations adopted measures seeking immediate and unconditional South African withdrawal.

In 1975, South Africa officially recognised the international status of the territory and decided to initiate its own discussions in Namibia towards a constitutional settlement. The five Western members of the Security Council (the United Kingdom, the United States of America, France, West Germany, Canada) in 1977 advised South Africa that its constitutional proposals arising out of these consultations would not gain international approval. Following this advice discussions were initiated between the Five’ and South Africa on how to achieve early and peaceful independence for Namibia through an internationally acceptable settlement. Discussions were also held with SWAPO- the South West African People’s Organisation. These talks led, early in 1978, to the formulation of the present plan now agreed to by both the South African Government and SWAPO. The plan envisaged, in essence, free elections for Namibia, under United Nations supervision and control for the purpose of electing a constituent assembly to draw up and adopt a constitution for an independent Namibia. The plan, and proposals by the United Nations Secretary-General for its implementation, were later accepted by the United Nations Security Council as a basis for an internationally acceptable settlement that would give Namibia independence.

The establishment of UNTAG-the United Nations Transitional Assistance Group- is part of the plan. Elections are scheduled to be held some seven months after UNTAG ‘s deployment, and independence following about five months later.

Since 1977, Australia has received a number of informal soundings about a contribution to a peacekeeping force in Namibia. Representations were made to us, at different times, by the UN, the Commonwealth Secretariat, and by representatives of the British and American governments. In July last year, the UN Secretariat made an approach enquiring whether Australia could provide elements for the UNTAG logistics force. In the light of recent indications that the UN would be seeking to establish UNTAG very shortly, the Government has been actively considering a contribution that would be consistent with Australia’s international obligations, its support for an early settlement of the Namibia problem and support for the Western and UN proposals for achieving it.

Southern Africa is a region of considerable strategic importance to Australia, indeed to the entire free world. In the Government’s view we ought to do what we reasonably can to promote conditions there which will bring about stability and so contribute to security in the widest sense. The Western initiative on Namibia offers the opportunity for this and it is thus vital that it should be successful. There has been in the past great turmoil in Africa. Many African problems have been seen to be intractable. Now we have an opportunity to settle one of those problems peacefully and in a manner which will deal justly with all conflicting interests. We must not let this opportunity slip by.

It has been no easy task for the United Nations to put together a peacekeeping force for Namibia acceptable to all concerned. Not all of its components have yet been settled. But it has been made entirely clear to us that an Australian contribution would be widely welcomed and, in particular, would be acceptable both to the South African Government and to SWAPO. It has also been put to us that an Australian component would contribute significantly to the effectiveness of the force.

The Government has considered this question on a number of occasions in the past. It has weighed carefully all the issues which are relevant to it. In coming to the judgment that Australia should offer to make a contribution to United Nations peacekeeping in Namibia we have regarded as paramount the importance of having this Western initiative succeed, the political significance of the area in which the force will operate and the firm belief that a successful outcome in Namibia will bring new hope for stability and progress in what has been a sorely troubled continent. A successful conclusion to the problem of Namibia should give renewed hope that other African problems can be resolved by reasonable means.

The Government has carefully weighed the international circumstances in which Australia finds itself at this time. It has especially taken into account present conflicts in South East Asia. It has concluded above all that now is a time for Australia fully to assume its international responsibilities. It is not a time for us to stand back and refuse to be involved because the problem to be settled lies in a distant continent and may appear to be of no immediate concern to us. We are fully aware that the conflict in Indochina involves grave risks to the region and to the world as a whole. We have made this clear by our recent actions. Some would argue that at a time of danger and difficulty in Asia we should not participate in this international initiative. The Government argues to the contrary- we are part of the wider world.

We have a real capacity to contribute to the success of this United Nations initiative. We believe that this is above all a time when our sense of responsibility in international affairs and our commitment to the settlement of disputes by peaceful means needs to be firmly underlined. This is a time not for withdrawal but for participation, for the acceptance of a commitment which is within our capacity.

If we are not prepared to participate in an initiative sponsored, amongst others, by the United States and Great Britain, adopted by the United Nations and accepted by the conflicting parties, how can we expect others to fulfil their obligations to act responsibly and co-operatively in efforts to settle disputes and restore stability in areas of conflict? The composition of the UN force in Namibia has not yet as I said before, been finally determined. The United Kingdom has already announced its proposed participation in UNTAG and it is expected that contributors will include a number of other western countries; there will also be African, Asian, Latin American and possibly east European contributions.

The element which we will offer to the United Nations for inclusion in the force is an engineer contingent of 250 officers and men, together with a national headquarters and support element of 50. If accepted, this unit will have the responsibility of providing a variety of engineering services in support of the operational battalions. This role will be vital to the success of the force. It is planned that the United Nations operation in Namibia will be for a period of 12 months. It is intended that the deployment of the Australian contingent will be for that length of time. Our defence forces have been given instructions to pay the fullest regard to the safety of Australian personnel who may be deployed to Namibia. We cannot say they will not face any dangers. There are risks involved in any peacekeeping operation. But all aspects of the situation in which the force will operate have been given the most careful consideration and the risks our men will face are assessed by the National Assessments Board as low.

Australia has played a part in a number of United Nations peacekeeping operations in the past. It is at present contributing to them in the Middle East in Cyprus, and in Kashmir. We cannot be expected, nor will we be asked, to contribute to all future United Nations operations. But we believe our decision to offer a contribution to the Namibia force is fully consistent with the policy adopted in the past by this and earlier governments. It is a contribution well within our capacity. It is the right decision. It has been taken in a conscious awareness of our international responsibilities at a time when such awareness, by ourselves and by others, is needed more than ever.

I move:

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The Opposition normally supports the decisions of the United Nations. The platform of the Australian Labor Party clearly spells out its firm support for United Nations resolutions. For that reason the Australian Labor Party is sympathetic to any request for assistance that is made by the United Nations. But the question of support for the United Nations is not the matter at issue. No government can give a commitment to provide components of a peacekeeping force without knowing the implications for this country. Few of these details have been provided in this case by the Government. Indeed, it would not be unfair to say that there is an element of uncertainty about the statement which has just been put down.

The statement makes no reference to the events at the end of 1978. The Government would have us believe that the plan which is the subject of the statement is unchanged from the plan that was agreed to during the middle of 1978. Yet in a remarkable omission the statement makes no reference to the fact that the South African Government rejected the United Nations proposal and went ahead with an election in Namibia in December of last year. It makes no reference to the fact that there is now a newly-elected assembly in Namibia. It makes no reference to the matters put before the Security Council in August and September of last year and the Security Council’s resolution as a result of that information. On top of that- and this is of great concern- the statement makes it perfectly clear that the Australian Government has not as yet received a request to contribute to the United

Nations Transitional Assistance Group. The reason why that request has not been received is fairly apparent. The size and composition of the United Nations force has not yet been determined. No doubt its role will be affected by the matters raised by the South African Government in its response to the Secretary-General of the United Nations in relation to the terms of Resolution 435.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs ( Mr Peacock ) made a statement in the Parliament on 23 August of last year. On that occasion he pointed out that the force for Namibia would be set up pursuant to a resolution of the United Nations Security Council which would provide it with a specific mandate spelling out its role and charter of operations. Where is the reference to that resolution in the statement that has just been put down? Where is the reference in the statement to the role and charter of the United Nations peacekeeping force? On these questions we are not told anything. There is no reference to Resolution 435, which was adopted by the Security Council on 29 September. There is no reference to the Secretary-General’s report and his explanatory statement referred to in that resolution. On these important issues the statement is silent. On 23 August of last year the Minister for Foreign Affairs pointed out that there was an investigation which would reveal the nature of the tasks the United Nations peacekeeping force would have to perform, the extent and the type of units likely to be required, the command arrangements which would apply and the difficulties which would be likely to be met in carrying out the mandate. Again, the details of these matters have not been given to us.

The statement tells us nothing about the role of the force even though the situation in Namibia has changed quite dramatically since the Minister’s statement of August of last year. Once again I remind the Government that elections have since been held in Namibia and that there has been a newly-elected assembly in that country since that resolution was dealt with. We are entitled to ask the Government why it is now ignoring the very serious issues that it raised itself only six months ago. Is the Government saying that the position in Namibia has changed so dramatically that these issues are no longer important, as they apparently were six months ago?

There is a fundamental difference in the statement last August of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the statement which has now been put down. The Opposition wants to know why the Government has taken this course, why it has changed its mind in the last six months, and why it has decided that issues which were important six months ago apparently are no longer relevant in reaching a decision. On behalf of the Australian public and those men who apparently will be sent to Namibia, the Opposition calls on the Government to tell the Parliament the precise nature of the request it has received and the conditions which will apply to that force. No government should ever take a decision of this nature lightly. Last August the Minister made it quite clear in his statement- and I quote the exact extract- when he said:

I see it as most important that the Parliament and the public have the fullest possible comprehension of this matter . . .

How can the Minister or the Government claim now that we have the fullest comprehension of this most important matter involving the commitment of Australian troops overseas, even under United Nations auspices, when in fact so many of the details of what has occurred in Namibia since the Minister’s last statement are not referred to in the statement put down today?

I have indicated the Opposition’s very great concern about this matter. I reiterate that in principle we most certainly support efforts by the United Nations of this nature. However, the Opposition takes the view that commitments ought not to be made unless they are fully spelt out in detail in the Parliament, especially when the Minister for Foreign Affairs gave an undertaking last August that he would in fact do that.

Debate (on motion by Senator Carrick) adjourned.

page 32

CRIMES AT SEA BILL 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 22 August, on motion by Senator Durack:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

– I have read this legislation, which the Opposition does not oppose. I intend to make only some very brief remarks about it. In a sense the legislation is quite complex and the complexities are not mat- .ters which I should think would be of the utmost interest to members of the Senate. However, perhaps I should outline the main purpose of the Bill and give some of the background, which may be worthwhile in an effort to keep the Senate’s business going if for no other reason.

The purpose of the Bill is to apply State and territorial criminal law to offences on Australian ships or on ships on overseas voyages, to Australian ships in foreign pons, to some offences which may be committed on foreign ships in

Australian territorial waters and to offences in offshore areas beyond territorial waters. For the purposes of that objective the expressions ‘Australian ships’, ‘foreign ships’ and so on are denned in the legislation. I suppose it is a somewhat complex relationship.

It is intended that not only should there be legislation of the Australian Government which applies the criminal law in the circumstances to which I have referred but also there should be legislation of the State governments and of the Northern Territory parliament. I myself am not familiar with how far that complementary legislation has been implemented except that I am aware that the state of Victoria has passed legislation of a complementary nature. I am indebted to my Tasmanian colleague, Senator Tate, for providing me with a copy of the Victorian legislation.

Senator Durack:

– He is indebted to me for supplying it.

Senator BUTTON:

– Yes, Senator. If I may say so, I am indebted to you by a process, the name of which I forget. It is a sort of vicarious indebtedness. I will express it now and perhaps forget it for the remainder of the parliamentary session. As I understand the background of the matter, for some time the imperial law of the British Parliament has applied in the circumstances for which this legislation seeks to provide in relation to Australian ships and Australian territorial waters. In 1968, for example, in the case involving circumstances 22 miles off the coast of Western Australia it was found that the imperial law applied in relation to a theft of crayfish pots and as a consequence the relevant court had to apply the imperial law. I assume that that law will still apply in spite of this legislation but that in most circumstances jurisdiction will be exercised under the law of the relevant State Parliament or, where appropriate, the law of the Federal Parliament.

Having pointed out what seem to me to be the main provisions of the Bill, I really do not wish to add any more to my comments about it. Importantly it has relevance to acts committed in the Australian fishing zone outside the territorial waters of Australia and to that extent is relevant to recent events in relation to the declaration of that zone. I suppose that to that extent it can be described as a piece of contemporary legislation whereas in all other respects it might have been legislation which could have been considered by this Parliament many years ago in relation to the fact that the imperial law applied. The Opposition does not oppose this Bill. It is a matter of some technical complexity but the complexities are designed to achieve the purpose to which I have referred. We commend the Bill to the Senate.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– I likewise support the Bill. I do not perhaps have Senator Button’s vast knowledge of international law and I did not have the opportunity to read the Victorian Act which I see has arrived hot-foot on our desks while we have been speaking. I was glad to know that there was such unanimity of support from the Attorney-General (Senator Durack), Senator Tate and Senator Button and at least they were all well advised on this particular subject. It is, of course, a complicated Bill in many respects and I must confess that I do not entirely understand all aspects of it because there is following it other complementary legislation which we have not yet seen. I think it is highly desirable that we in this country should now be applying our own laws and the appropriate State laws which are made applicable by this Bill. Not so very long ago, in 1977, this was stated by the Privy Council in these terms:

It may at first sight seem surprising that despite the passing of the Statute of Westminster, 1931, and the creation of separate Australian citizenship by the British Nationality Act 1948 . . . Parliament in the United Kingdom when it passes a statute which creates a new criminal offence in English law is also legislating for those Australian passengers who cross the Bass Strait by ship from Melbourne to Launceston.

I should have thought that that would strike a note which would be immediately apparent to those who do cross those particular rough waters. I feel, therefore, that it is high time that we went ahead with legislation such as this and made it applicable. As has been pointed out in the second reading speech of the Attorney-General, it is an example of co-operative federalism between the Federal and State governments that we are applying the appropriate State laws to crimes which may be committed at sea. This is complicated because of the fact that the Bill goes to some lengths to show a connection between ships and a particular State because there may be many States with some association with a particular ship that is plying in Australian waters. Although the area of registration is the first, there are a number of other ways in which that connection is shown under the terms of the Bill. The Bill also deals with some actions on foreign ships, particularly in relation to ships coming to Australia on journeys and I think therefore that there will be a greater coverage of the law when crimes are in fact committed on such ships.

I would appreciate some information from the Attorney-General in his reply as to the relationship this may have to some of the complementary and further legislation which is to come in relation to such areas as the Great Barrier Reef. At the moment considerable concern is felt by Australian citizens that in that area crimes may be committed on ships, very often foreign ships, where damage is done to that area and where things are being taken that are part of the national and international heritage of the world in relation to that particular area. I would appreciate some information as to the interrelations between this Bill and the situation in that area where, of course, there is existing legislation which is not at the moment being implemented. There is no marine authority in operation covering the various areas of the Great Barrier Reef. None of those areas has yet been proclaimed. I wonder whether activities could also be applied under this Bill and if so I am somewhat concerned in relation to the area where State laws might be applicable. We have got away. We have taken steps to bring the Federal law into this area. It may well be therefore that the Federal law would prevail but I would appreciate some information as to the relationship it might have to that particular vexed question. I believe that there is a problem in that there will need to be some co-operation between the joint authorities, who, I think, would have a joint operation in this area, particularly in regard to the clauses relating to offshore mining. Likewise I trust that that will not be a matter in which lack of cooperation will lead to the legislation being ineffective. Basically I suggest that this is a useful, if complicated, experiment in the law and that it certainly brings us up to date and into the twentieth century in respect of the operation of our laws concerning crimes that take place at sea. In this respect I welcome the Bill.

Senator TATE:
Tasmania

– Four or so years ago it was alleged that Santo and Gaetano Oteri some time between 20 and 24 January 1 974 stole crayfish pots and tackle while on the vessel Providence on the high seas about 22 miles off the Western Australian coast. The Privy Council eventually decided that because they were naturalised Australian citizens and British subjects and owners of the vessel, the vessel was a British ship within the meaning of an imperial statute of, I think, 1799 and that the criminal law of England- in this case the Theft Act- applied. In other words, in relation to an offence committed off the Western Australian coast by naturalised Australian citizens on board a fishing vessel normally operating out of Fremantle and licensed to do so under Western Australian law the ordinary jurisdiction of the Western Australian courts was not applicable and Western Australian criminal law could not be applied. The case fell to be determined within ancient admiralty criminal jurisdiction. I believe that that situation is intolerable to any Australian, but particularly to those of us who believe that our national status demands that Australian citizens be subject only to legal rules devised by Australian courts or by Australian parliaments and not by bodies in the United Kingdom, in particular.

This Bill seeks to deal with that situation which would, I believe, if left unremedied by any action of our Australian parliaments, amount to a very serious derogation from our national sovereignty; and, more than that, I believe it would be an affront to ordinary commonsense. It would be contrary to the expectations of ordinary people, as Senator Missen pointed out, if I, when returning to Tasmania, to that efficient and beautiful port of Devonport across Bass Strait, were subjected to assault by somebody with a deadly weapon and, rather than bring that culprit to justice under Victorian or Tasmanian law, had to seek to bring him to justice under United Kingdom statutes. The Bill proposes to fulfil ordinary, normal, commonsense expectations that Tasmania or Victorian State law would apply.

I am also particularly pleased to see that in clause 7 it is proposed that the provisions, for example, of the Tasmanian Criminal Code would be applicable to an Act of a person who commits on board a foreign vessel an offence such as murder whilst in the course of a voyage, say, from Auckland to Bell Bay, or whilst on board a fishing vessel fishing for squid off the east coast of Tasmania. I believe that as joint fishing ventures become more common the use of this legislation will also become more common and very helpful.

I do note the defence available in clause 7- that a person may not come within the terms of the Act if the offence with which he is charged is not an offence in the country of his nationality. I assume that this would not happen often. Most countries have laws relating to ordinary crimes such as murder, theft, robbery and assault. I am wondering whether laws relating to the possession and use of drugs are the most likely ones to fall within this defence. I am wondering whether the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) might give some indication of the type or scope of actions to which this defence might be thought to be applicable.

It was indicated by Senator Button that the Opposition supports and commends this legislation as the fruit of collaboration between the Attorneys-General. It is a good example of federalism at work. We have had the complementary State legislation brought to our attention- at least, that enacted by Victoria. It appears that it will, for example, cover purely intrastate voyages.

Senator Missen:

– Victoria co-operates very quickly.

Senator TATE:

– Apparently it leads the way in this matter. Of course, in four months Victoria will lead the way on a whole range of matters. It needs to be emphasised, however, that this legislation in no way detracts from the total sovereignty of this Parliament over the waters, seabed, et cetera, adjacent to the Australian coast from the low water mark outwards. That was the effect of the High Court decision in the Seas and Submerged Lands Act case. This legislation in no way retreats from that position- nor could it, of course. It is on that basis that the Opposition supports the Bill wholeheartedly. We maintain that resources in the seabed and waters adjacent to Australia are properly thought of and properly to be exploited as Australian national resources, belonging to the whole of the Australian people without regard to State boundaries or claimed State interests.

These former colonial boundaries, now State boundaries, should be ignored in regard to matters beyond the low water mark. What cannot be ignored is the absolute need to ensure that where breaches of the normal rules relating to the protection of life, liberty or property are concerned, some law be certain and available to deal with them. Having to resort to the ancient admiralty jurisdiction in order to discover what law is applicable would be intolerable. It has proved intolerable. It is most convenient then that the criminal laws of the States and the jurisdiction of State courts be able to fasten on to the alleged offender and allow for the matter to be tried. This cannot be done directly. For example, State criminal law could not constitutionally apply to Oteri ‘s case with the crayfish pots.

Commonwealth law cannot do the unconstitutional. Therefore I do not think that the Attorney-General is quite correct. Elaboration at least is needed when he said in his second reading speech that the effect of the Bill is to apply the criminal laws of an appropriate State or Territory to offences on or from Australian ships on overseas, interstate and Territory voyages. Rather the Bill takes, as I understand it, the State law as denned, whether written or unwritten, and adopts its terms as the terms of the Federal law applicable to the situation. It is simply that this Parliament, rather than take the time to enact an ordinary criminal code to deal with all matters beyond a low water mark, as it could within its power- it is entitled to do so- is proposing in relation to offshore offences, connected with Tasmania for example, to take and adopt the provisions of the Tasmanian Criminal Code and transmute them into the provisions of a notional Federal statute to deal with offences at sea, off the coast or related to Tasmania.

I seek the Attorney-General’s comment on this way of putting the legal situation created by the Act. I do not do so for any narrow, legalistic or pedantic purpose but because I consider it crucial to policy, and in any case constitutional, to make it clear that the Federal Parliament is not abandoning its total ability to determine what shall or shall not be offences beyond the low water mark and the manner in which they are to be determined and disposed of. It is simply that in this case, on the whole, the Parliament thinks it convenient and suitable to cause the least disruption to ordinary expectations by adopting convenient State legal systems as its own. On that basis the Opposition commends the Attorney-General and his counterparts from the States and the Northern Territory and their various officers for devising a very neat scheme which claims for this nation its rightful jurisdiction over criminal offences, admittedly beyond its low water mark, which are its proper concern.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– in reply- I thank the Senate for the support given to this measure. Although it is regarded, I suppose, as a technical, legal measure, nevertheless, it deals with the application of criminal laws in the offshore areas around Australia. This is a matter of very great concern, as honourable senators have recognised, to virtually all Australians. At some time or other most Australians will have some occasion to go beyond the low water mark around the Australian coastline, even if it is only to swim. It certainly is an important measure. Any measure dealing with the application of criminal laws is important, even though, as 1 said, this one seems to be somewhat technical.

The other important point to be made- I do appreciate that honourable senators who have spoken recognised this- is that this measure is the first in what I hope will be a series of Bills to be considered and passed by this Parliament over the next 12 months or more to give effect to the constitutional settlement reached at the last two Premiers conferences regarding the control of the offshore areas of Australia as a result of the decision of the High Court in the Seas and Submerged Lands Case. Whatever debate there may be here today, there will certainly be debate on the other legislation as to the notion of sovereignty- what it is, who has it and so on. The fact is that the basis of that constitutional settlement is that the Commonwealth is recognising the traditional exercise of jurisdiction by the States in the territorial sea adjacent to their coasts. The High Court decision, of course, ascribed to the Commonwealth Parliament the full power to legislate in respect of this area but in that decision it did not take away in terms the very considerable powers that the States themselves have, in relation not only to the three-mile limit but also probably even further, provided there is a connection between the off-shore activity and the State whose laws are sought to be applied. Under the terms of the High Court decision, the Commonwealth could always come in and, by virtue of section 109 of the Constitution, pass its own laws and thereby override State laws. The exercise in which we have been engaged with the States, and in which we will continue discussions with them because a very complicated series of measures is involved in respect of the territorial sea, relates to our withdrawal as a Commonwealth Parliament from that area, although not from areas of traditional Commonwealth power, and our leaving it to legislation by the States. There are many other matters dealing with off-shore areas, in relation to mining and so on, which will all be the subject of special legislation and I do not want to go into them now. However, because Senator Tate raised the matter I wanted to emphasise that this is the first of a series of measures to give effect to that constitutional settlement.

The Bill before the Senate simply deals with the Commonwealth part of the arrangement with the States in relation to crimes at sea, that is, beyond low water mark. Complementary State legislation will be enacted. I regret that I was not in the Senate when the Bill was called on, because I intended before the debate began to circulate the Victorian Bill, which is the State counterpart of this legislation. These two Bills have been developed as a result of discussions by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General.

Senator Button:

– It is about the only Bill they have passed in two years.

Senator DURACK:

– I am sorry; I did not hear Senator Button.

Senator Missen:

– He said that it was the only State that had passed a Bill.

Senator DURACK:

-Victoria is the only State as yet that has passed a Bill. The Northern Territory Assembly has passed it. I understand that the New South Wales Government is likely to introduce legislation quite shortly for consideration. We have no reason to doubt that all the States will proceed to implement their own complementary part of this legislation. Certain specific questions have been raised. One raised by Senator Missen relates to the effect of this Bill on activities on the Great Barrier Reef. As a result of complementary Queensland legislation, this Bill will deal with the application of Queensland laws to the territorial sea, which will include an area around all the islands of the Barrier Reef. Clauses 9 and 10 of the Bill will also apply Queensland’s criminal laws to actions on the continental shelf and, by regulations under clause 10, in any economic zone when that is declared.

Senator Missen:

– Would that stop the Marine Park Authority?

Senator DURACK:

– I will come to that point. These two clauses merely apply State laws. They are not themselves legislating in respect of particular problems that may arise in relation to the Barrier Reef. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority has been established by an Act of this Parliament. I imagine that some of the activities Senator Missen may have in mind would be in breach of existing laws, but I think he is probably concerned that there should be special laws in relation to this area. The question of what special laws should be applied in relation to marine parks is under discussion with the States and is one on which the Premiers have not yet made a decision. I expect that it will be included, together with other matters, for consideration at the next Premiers Conference.

Senator Tate raised the question of the application of clause 7 of the Bill, which relates to acts committed on foreign ships, particularly in regard to drugs, before they enter Australian territorial waters. I imagine that the control of drugs in this situation would be covered almost entirely under the Customs Act, the existing Federal law, which of course continues to apply. This Bill does not derogate in any way from the application of ordinary Federal laws under our ordinary powers as a Commonwealth Parliament. As Senator Tate observed, clause 7 of the Bill preserves the laws applicable to the offender. In the case of a foreigner, the laws applicable to him would be the laws of the country of which he is a national. Sub-clause (6) provides that proceedings will not be instituted unless the government of that country consents, and they will not be brought unless the Attorney-General consents. Really, clause 7 is not expected to apply very often. It is designed to deal with a situation which may arise if on a foreign ship an act is committed to which seemingly no law is going to apply and no country is interested in enforcing any law. So, in relation to the specific question raised by Senator Tate, I think we would be interested in applying only our own Federal laws to that situation, by and large.

This Bill was introduced some months ago and has been lying on the table since August last year for comment. Comments have been made by the States, and I have received some from interested persons. I thank those who have taken an interest in it and made such valuable comments. As a result of those comments, we propose to make some technical amendments to the Bill. Those amendments have been circulated, although they are really a matter for the Committee stage. As far as the principle of the legislation is concerned, I am very pleased that the Bill is going to have a speedy passage through the Senate and, hopefully, through the Parliament.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– As I indicated in my reply to the second reading debate, I have circulated a number of amendments and an explanatory memorandum about those amendments. I do not propose to add anything further. I shall simply move the amendments en bloc. The amendments refer to clauses 3, 4, 5 and 13, which read in part:

Clause 3.

  1. 1 ) In this Act, unless the contrary appears- authority’, in relation to a State, means-

    1. the Governor, a Minister or a member of the Executive Council of the State;
    2. a court of the State;
    3. a person who holds office as a member of a court of the State;
    4. ) a body created by or under the law of the State; and
    5. an officer or employee of the State or of a body referred to in paragraph (d);

Clause 4.

  1. The Governor-General may make an arrangement with the Governor of a State for or in relation to the exercise or performance in or in relation to that State of a power, duty or function (not being a power, duty or function involving the exercise of judicial power) by an authority of the State under the provisions of the criminal laws in force in any State or Territory as applying by virtue of this Act and, where such an arrangement is in force, the power, duty or function may or shall, as the case may be, be exercised or performed in or in relation to the first-mentioned State accordingly.
  2. An arrangement under this section may contain such incidental or supplementary provisions as the GovernorGeneral and the Governor of the State think necessary.
  3. The Governor-General may arrange with the Governor of a State with whom an arrangement is in force under this section for the variation or revocation of the arrangement.

Clause 5.

  1. Where there is in force an arrangement with the Governor of a State under section 4, then-

    1. sections 8a, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 18a, 19, 19a, 19b, 20, 20a, 20b, 20c, 21, 21a, 21b and 21c of the Crimes Act 1914; and
    2. sections 69, 70, 71 and 71 a of the Judiciary Act 1903, do not apply to or in relation to matters arising in or in relation to that State under the provisions of the criminal laws in force in a State or Territory as applying by virtue of this Act.

Clause 13.

  1. Sub-section ( 1 ) does not prevent-

    1. the institution or conduct in a State, in accordance with a law of the Commonwealth other than this Act, of proceedings under any part of the provisions of the criminal laws in force in a State or Territory as applying by virtue of this Act if there is not in force an arrangement with the Governor of the first-mentioned State under section 4; or
    2. the institution or conduct in a Territory, in accordance with a law of the Commonwealth other than this Act, of proceedings under any part of the provisions of the criminal laws in force in a State or Territory as applying by virtue of this Act.

I move:

  1. 1) In clause 3(1) leave out the definition of ‘authority’, substitute the following definition: “authority” means-

    1. in relation to a State-
    2. the Governor, a Minister or a member of the Executive Council of the State;
    1. a court of the State; (iti) a person who holds office as a member of a court of the State;
    2. a body created by or under the law of the State; and
    3. an officer or employee of the State or of a body referred to in sub-paragraph (iv); and

    4. b) in relation to the Northern Territory-
    1. the Administrator or a Minister of the Territory;
    2. a court of the Territory;
    3. a person who holds office as a member of a court of the Territory;
    4. a body created by or under the law of the Territory; and
    5. an officer or employee of the Territory or of a body referred to in sub-paragraph (iv); “. ‘
  2. In clause 4, leave out sub-clauses ( 1 ), (2) and (3), substitute the following sub-clauses: “(1) The Governor-General may make an arrangement with the Governor of a State or with the Administrator of the Northern Territory for or in relation to the exercise or performance in or in relation to that State or that Territory, as the case may be, of a power, duty or function (not being a power, duty or function involving the exercise of judicial power) by an authority of the State or Territory under the provisions of the criminal laws in force in any State or Territory as applying by virtue of this Act and, where such an arrangement is in force, the power, duty or function may or shall, as the case may be, be exercised or performed in or in relation to the first-mentioned State or Territory accordingly.
  3. An arrangement under this section may contain such incidental or supplementary provisions as-

    1. in the case of an arrangement made by the GovernorGeneral with the Governor of a State- the GovernorGeneral and the Governor of the State think necessary; or
    2. in the case of an arrangement made by the GovernorGeneral with the Administrator of the Northern Territory- the Governor-General and the Administrator of the Territory think necessary.
  4. Where an arrangement is in force under this section, the Governor-General may-

    1. in the case of an arrangement made by the GovernorGeneral with the Governor of a State- arrange with the Governor of the State; or
    2. in the case of an arrangement made by the GovernorGeneral with the Administrator of the Northern Territory- arrange with the Administrator of the Territory, for the variation or revocation of the arrangement. ‘.
  5. In clause 5 (4), after “State” (first occurring), insert “or with the Administrator of the Northern Territory”.
  6. In clause 5 (4), after “State” (second occurring), insert” or Territory”.
  7. In clause 13, leave out sub-clause (2), substitute the following sub-clause: “(2) Sub-section ( 1 ) does not prevent-

    1. the institution or conduct in a State, in accordance with a law of the Commonwealth other than this Act, of proceedings under any part of the provisions of the criminal laws in force in a State or Territory as applying by virtue of this Act if there is not in force an arrangement with the Governor of the first-mentioned State under section 4;
    2. the institution or conduct in the Northern Territory, in accordance with a law of the Commonwealth other than this Act, of proceedings under any part of the criminal laws in force in a State or Territory as applying by virtue of this Act if there is not in force an arrangement with the Administrator of the Northern Territory under section 4; or
    3. the institution or conduct in a Territory other than the Northern Territory, in accordance with a law of the Commonwealth other than this Act, of proceedings under any part of the provisions of the criminal laws in force in a State or Territory as applying by virtue of this Act.”.

Amendments agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report- by leave- adopted.

Third Reading

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

Sitting suspended from 5.52 to 8 p.m.

page 38

QUARANTINE AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 21 November, on motion by Senator Chaney:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

-The Quarantine Amendment Bill 1978 increases considerably, but not in the view of the Opposition excessively, the penalties for offences under the Quarantine Act 1908. It is worth noting, I believe, that it is the first time that these penalties have been increased in some ten years and that these increases bring the penalties somewhere into line with the inflation rate that has occurred in that time. One may in passing I believe wonder why there has been such a delay. I am conscious that during those ten years there have been in office governments of different persuasions but it seems to me that in a parliament in which frequently there are complaints that there is too much legislation, an important piece of legislation like this should not have avoided attention for such a long time. Quarantine and quarantine provisions are of vital importance to this country. It is necessary that there be an appropriate level of penalties in our attempts to defeat those people who for financial gain, from a misplaced desire to resist authority or because of some foolish attachment to an animal, flout our quarantine laws. However, just as it is important to have stringent penalties the most stringent penalties alone will not necessarily reduce the incidence of these breaches of the Act. Some certainty of detection is also needed and the greater the likelihood of detection of people breaching the Act the more likelihood there is of preventing people from attempting to avoid our quarantine regulations. I believe that this aspect of our quarantine procedures deserves some attention because we rarely get the opportunity to debate this matter in the Parliament.

We live, as I am sure we all know, in a very lucky country. We live in a very lucky country when we consider some of the world’s great scourges and the manner in which we avoid them. Australia is almost free from some of the greatest menaces in the way of infectious diseases of both animal and man. Plague, cholera, malaria, lassa fever, typhus, rabies, foot and mouth disease, Newcastle disease and many others do not afflict or very rarely afflict anyone in this country. This is due certainly to our geographical isolation, to our high standards of public health and equally as certainly to the efficiency of our quarantine service and procedures. Many of the world’s most devastating insects have not invaded this continent as yet but it is disturbing to note, although it is unavoidable, that in the last 20 or 30 years many insect pests and diseases which affect plants have arrived in this country and have not been and will not be eradicated despite any measures which we may attempt. In my own State of Tasmania the syrex wasp still inflicts damage on pine plantations and every year in Estimates Committee discussions the Minister representing the Minister for Health, I and others have an interesting discussion on the efforts to eliminate the oriental fruit fly. We have managed to confine that pest in this country at a cost of many thousands of dollars. The giant African snail has recently reached the country. We hope that it has been controlled. The spotted alfalfa aphid unfortunately is consuming large quantities of lucerne in this country. The oak leaf miner and many other insects have invaded us and are causing trouble.

It is worth while noting that in the last 20 years the European wasp has spread to all sections of Tasmania following its introduction. The world record size for European wasp nests is now held not in Europe but in Tasmania because of the favourable breeding grounds. This wasp is inflicting damage in Tasmania much to the discomfort of some of the inhabitants and certainly to the great distress of many of the apiarists in our State.

Australia has not always been as lucky as far as human diseases are concerned. Cholera and plague were once regular visitors to this country and smallpox intermittently affected people. But this combination of our geographical isolation and our stringent precautions has managed to protect us. However, our isolation no longer exists due to modern air travel, with the vast size of modern airliners, and the decreases in air fares with brings international air travel into the reach of more and more people. Our isolation will continue to decline. In recent years cholera has slipped in occasionally. Fortunately it has been quickly contained and it can be quickly contained in a country like this. Smallpox, because of a worldwide campaign, we hope, has been eliminated. In so doing I believe that mankind has achieved one of the greatest medical, social and political achievements because the war against smallpox involved the overcoming of considerable social, political, economic and medical difficulties. In removing what was one of the captains of kings of death on the earth, and one hopes that we have done so, quarantine procedures played an important part.

I suppose that if any disease illustrates the importance of our quarantine procedures and at the same time demonstrates the fragility of our quarantine facilities and potential dangers to this country the one which should personally come home to us all is the disease of rabies, although one can use many examples such as foot and mouth disease or bluetongue. Rabies is a worldwide scourge. In fact, Australia and the British Isles, Japan, Papua New Guinea, New Zealand, Ireland and possibly Denmark are about the only countries that are in fact free of this disease. It is spreading across Europe rapidly and experts readily predict that it will inevitably reach the British Isles. Once it is established in Britain or in Australia the chances of eradication are nil and the chances of control are very difficult in a country like this which has a large wild dog population, a large domestic dog population and many potential hosts for this disease.

It is worthwhile mentioning that according to the records only three human beings who have actually developed the symptoms of rabies have survived. The disease does not affect a vast number of people but its prevention is unpleasant, its treatment is very difficult and its mortality rate horrifying. Although the methods of protection are improving the thought of this disease reaching our continent is a considerable worry and enough to give any health authority nightmares. Yet people in this country and people in the United Kingdom persist in trying to defeat the quarantine regulations in their attempts to bring in domestic pets which can be potential carriers of this disease. Misguided individuals still try to smuggle in foodstuffs. Many tons of foodstuffs and meat products are intercepted at our international ports every year. People, as a hobby or for gain, still smuggle in and attempt to smuggle in birds and birds’ eggs, thus bringing in Newcastle disease. Honourable senators who are interested in this matter would know about the outbreak of Newcastle disease from this source last year. Seeds and plants are still smuggled in and health regulations are still ignored, quite often merely to save time at medical checks and customs checks at international airports.

We have an enormous problem in trying to educate our citizens and visitors that we are serious about our quarantine measures. We have an enormous problem which could be assisted by bringing in stringent regulations and by bringing in methods and procedures of detection of breaches of the Quarantine Act which would make detection more likely. At the same time, we are now at the stage where more than 1,000 people can arrive at Sydney Airport or Melbourne Airport in one day, thus making a complete detection method impossible. So education becomes important and detection methods become . very important in trying to keep our country free of these diseases.

We have further problems arising because of difficulties in our near north and difficulties in the Middle East- difficulties which might occur anywhere. The possibility of this country having to take large numbers of refugees increases the need to upgrade and to assist our quarantine services, both in the Department of Health and in the Bureau of Customs. Increased fishing activities and increased air travel create problems. I hope that the Government can proceed with the new quarantine station at Cocos Island so that we can avoid some of the animal diseases. I hope that we will continue to find it simple enough to increase and improve the number of laboratories and mainland quarantine facilities in Australia to avoid these very real problems which face us. Very little publicity is given inside or outside this Parliament to certain expenditure which is of vital importance and which too often we tend to ignore. Expenditure on quarantine services and disease prevention services is one such expenditure. I hope that in the future we can continue to upgrade these services; that it will not be another 10 years before the penalties provided in the Act are looked at and careful consideration is given to the satisfactory nature or otherwise of the penalties. The Opposition supports the legislation and has no desire to hold it up.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– The Government appreciates the Opposition’s support of the Quarantine Amendment Bill. We are indebted to Senator Grimes for his thoughtful and constructive speech. As he said, the purpose of the Bill is to increase the level of quarantine penalties. Senator Grimes drew attention to the importance of the Quarantine Act and the role that it plays in providing a framework for the exclusion from Australia of exotic diseases of humans, animals and plants. Our capacity to keep Australia free from those diseases depends upon the effective administration of quarantine legislation and general awareness of the implications of quarantine breaches and the sanctions which can be exercised.

As was said, the penalties have not been increased for some years and they are no longer commensurate with the gravity of the offences, nor are they sufficient to act as effective deterrents. This Bill provides for increased penalties which should discourage illegal action under the Quarantine Act. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 40

COMMONWEALTH AUTHORITIES (NORTHERN TERRITORY PAY-ROLL TAX) BILL 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 9 November, on motion by Senator Carrick:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator ROBERTSON:
Northern Territory

– We are debating the Commonwealth Authorities (Northern Territory Pay-roll Tax) Bill 1978. The purpose of this Bill is to bring the Northern Territory into line with the rest of Australia with respect to payroll tax. Because of that we do not oppose the Bill. We see that it is necessary to provide for the same levels of payroll tax to apply in the Northern Territory as apply in the States and in the Australian Capital Territory, and for the same sort of coverage of Commonwealth authorities subject to payroll tax to apply in the Northern Territory as applies in the States and in the Australian Capital Territory. But it is fair to say that the Australian Labor Party is opposed in principle to payroll tax, just as it is opposed in principle to the investment allowance. The ALP platform seeks the removal of payroll tax and the investment allowance, mainly because they are taxes on activity. They seek to encourage the elimination of jobs and they encourage the replacement of men by machines.

The ALP favours the removal of payroll tax because the ALP seeks to encourage employment and activity and, through that activity, the generation of profits which can be taxed. But because payroll tax applies all over Australia and because this Bill will bring the Northern Territory into line with the States and with the Australian Capital Territory, we do not oppose it. It is a part of self-government that we have got used to in the last 12 months. It is one of the Bills which has been brought forward to facilitate self-government in the Northern Territory. I have made the point in this place before that, with the creation of a new government and with the creation of new departments, there are many opportunities to find novel ways to look at things- new ways to organise a public service, new ways to organise departments and perhaps even new ways of government. But I believe that this is not one such opportunity and I do not intend to press the issue here.

The discouragement of employment to which I referred is particularly important in the Northern Territory. Unemployment is a vital issue for us in the Territory. The January figures showed that there were 4,995 unemployed- 9. 1 8 per cent of the work force. As I have mentioned before in this place, a high proportion of young people are involved. There is little doubt that the percentage of young people will increase with the February school leavers and that the figures for February in the Northern Territory will be quite disastrous. There is little doubt also that the percentage of the total work force which is unemployed will increase when the wet season ends and the dry season comes upon us. This is traditional in the Northern Territory. Each year, at the onset of the dry, we have people from the south moving north and causing more unemployment.

The situation is made worse this year by what one might call the lure of uranium. A number of politicians, both Federal and Territorial, have made some fairly ridiculous statements about the number of people who will be employed when uranium is mined. I seem to recall that the Minister for Trade and Resources, Mr Anthony, used a figure of something like 100,000 people. Nevertheless, we all know that the number that will be employed is nowhere near this figure, or even the somewhat lower figures quoted by other politicians. The people who will be employed in the Northern Territory will be specially recruited for their jobs, but the unemployed from the south will increase our unemployment. The unemployed in the southern States will not heed the advice of the Commonwealth Employment Service and will come to the Territory seeking work. We saw this sort of thing happening after Cyclone Tracy when many people, despite warnings in the Press and advice from the CES, came north looking for the work that they thought would follow the cyclone.

I put it to the Northern Territory Government that it must take steps to increase employment opportunities in the Northern Territory. It is quite obvious that the Federal Government has not been prepared to do this. It has demonstrated its indifference to the Northern Territory in the last three Budgets. We have had no incentives, no stimulation of the economy and virtually no spending in the public sector, unlike the situation which has existed in the Australian Capital Territory when definite steps have been taken to make sure that building firms did not go to the wall and that employment was created for those people. We have not had this situation in the Northern Territory and so we have great problems with unemployment.

If we are to have payroll tax, I hope that the Northern Territory will use this money as revenue for worthwhile purposes. It should use exemptions from the tax as incentives. There is nothing new in this. This sort of thing has been done already by the New South Wales Government at Albury to assist the paper manufacturers. It has been done in many States. In fact I can recall suggesting this and other incentives to industry when I made my maiden speech in this place. There is no argument about the fact that the Northern Territory needs more secondary industry and there is no argument either about the fact that businesses are reluctant to move into an area unless they get some sort of incentive to move in. I see exemption from payroll tax as one form of incentive that can be offered. The Northern Territory Government can use it as an incentive to encourage business to move in. Of course, there are others and they have been canvassed in this place previously. Perhaps this is not the appropriate time to go through them. But it is fair to say that little has been done up to the present in the Northern Territory by either the Federal Government or the Northern Territory Government.

I am pleased to see that the Northern Territory Government has announced proposals along the lines that I am suggesting. I refer to a recent announcement by an executive member- the Treasurer, Mr Perron. It is not much but it is a start. Unfortunately- and I use the word ‘unfortunately’ wisely here- the people in the Northern Territory have come not to trust their Government. This is a most unfortunate situation. I have already indicated to the leader of the Government in the Northern Territory, both publicly and privately by letter, that he has a great honour to lead the first Northern Territory Government. I have tried to remind him of his need to establish and maintain credibility, not only for himself but also for the Government as a whole- our Government in the Northern Territory. Unfortunately he has not done this, either with the people of the Northern Territory or with his colleagues here in Canberra. At least one Federal Minister in this place has had a recent experience of this.

Perhaps I could cite the establishment of a government insurance office as one example of what I am talking about. The establishment of a insurance office very much along the lines of the sort of thing we see in the States with the State government insurance offices was suggested by the Australian Labor Party during the last election campaign. As is fairly common during election campaigns, the concept was attacked by the Country-Liberal Party, but this is to be expected. This year the Chief Minister moved to establish a government insurance office. Naturally he could not have an office which was the same as that suggested by the ALP. This would, unfortunately, represent some sort of loss of face. So he introduced a concept of his own. He disregarded the Caffin report, which is a report produced by a group set up to make recommendations about a government insurance office. This report actually suggested a proposition very much along the lines of the ALP proposal.

The announcement which he made has sparked off a controversy in the Northern Territory. Insurance offices came out and opposed the suggestion. They criticised the conditions, terms, benefits and areas of insurance, and after that there was not much left. The Chairman of the Nominal Defendants Committee, who is a leading member of the CLP, resigned in protest at the announcement and he made the following statement in the local newspaper:

It is a complete reversal of an undertaking given by Mr Everingham to the insurance industry last year.

Branches of the Chief Minister’s party, including his own, came out with their objections to it. The unions opposed it, suggesting that the Chief Minister was inviting a total industrial stoppage. So there was a complete turnaround by the Chief Minister. The beautiful brochures with his portrait on the back, which unfortunately had not been issued, were all thrown away and a new committee was established. We were given promises of new conditions remarkably similar to the ALP’s proposals and it was suggested that there would be discussion by the public. I certainly welcome this. I welcome the establishment of the committee, the fact that there will be new conditions and certainly the discussion by the public. I hope that the discussion occurs.

Unfortunately the present Northern Territory Government is notorious for not consulting the people. We had the first case of the referendum on statehood which went back into the previous Chief Minister’s time and the more recent issue of casinos which the Government refuses to put to the people at a referendum. I welcome the step that has been made. I welcome the acceptance that a mistake has been made, although, of course, in true political terms this was not made explicit. But I regret another example of inadequate investigation before presentation. I regret also the lack of consultation with the industry, with the Territory Opposition and with the people of the Territory and I regret the reversal of the undertaking made by the Chief Minister. A situation which we all understand is that if one party or one politician errs the public become suspicious of all politicians and our standing in the community drops even lower. I do not mind its losing favour with the people. This will mean that we will have a Labor government next time. This is all part of the political will. But I do mind our Territory- it belongs to all of us, not just the governing group- being held up to ridicule and I object to our Territory starting on the wrong foot on its path to constitutional development.

We on this side do not oppose the Bill for the reasons I have outlined. I hope and trust that the Northern Territory Government will not let us down and will use its powers for the betterment of the Northern Territory, firstly, to develop those industries which are already established in the Territory and, secondly, to compensate the small businesses which have been crippled by excessive charges. One example I cite here is the imposition of higher charges for electricity which, we understand, are to go up an additional 1 4 per cent. This is a particular problem for small firms such as quick food firms. I had one example of this cited to me last week where a firm had to put off one staff member so that it could meet its additional bill. When it gets a bill for the additional 14 per cent it is going to be in further trouble. I hope that the Northern Territory Government will use the device of exemption from payroll tax to encourage the setting up of the new industries that are so essential to our growth as a self-governing territory.

Senator KILGARIFF:
Northern Territory

– I rise to speak on a brighter note than the previous speaker. As I have often said in the Senate, I think that in the north of Australia there is a challenge ahead for Australia and that challenge is being met by people who are active and have faith in the future. Whilst there may be one or two small problems, they are part of life. The Northern Territory is developing now and accepting responsibilities. After all, when one looks back one sees that it was only last year that the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Bill was passed by the Senate. This has been an enormous task because it is the first time in the history of Australia that a territory has grown to something like the proportions of a State. The Northern Territory is not yet a State, but I can assure not only you, Mr President, and other honourable senators but also the people of Australia that the north is moving. The people of the north have confidence in themselves and the work that is being carried out now will be seen for decades ahead as a firm, good and stable foundation for their future.

This Bill is a machinery Bill, as the Government has indicated. It is legislation that is necessary to cover certain aspects of Commonwealth authorities paying payroll tax to the Northern Territory Government. As speakers on both sides of the chamber have indicated, there is little to be said on this particular aspect, because the revenue from payroll tax instead of going into the Federal coffers will, under arrangements similar to those applicable to the States, now go to the Northern Territory Government. What has happened in the intervening period in relation to payroll tax which has been gathered within the Northern Territory? The Northern Territory Government has made certain moves. In the few brief months since the legislation was introduced it has made an adjustment which will be of benefit to people engaged in small businesses. What has occurred is that the level at which payroll tax is payable has risen. This will have the effect of helping small business people. It will give them more incentive and make assistance in becoming part of the new Northern Territory scene. When one looks at the turnover of small business one realises that the amount of payroll tax involved under this measure is not inconsiderable.

I could speak at length about this subject, but perhaps I should refer to the debate which took place in the House of Representatives when this legislation was passed by that House. In that debate the Opposition spokesman on the Northern Territory, the honourable member for Capricornia (Dr Everingham), said, as Senator Robertson said on behalf of honourable senators on the other side of the Senate, that he was not opposed to the Bill. But he went on to say that it would be far more equitable, to leave the payroll tax abolished. That is the first point. I suppose it would be true to say that everyone in Australia would like to see payroll tax abolished. I suppose it would be true to say that they would like to see most forms of taxation abolished. Who would not? If it were, we would be living in a dream time and a dream country; but unfortunately the fact of the matter is that, while the country requires these vast resources to be spent in the fields of education, health and social security, someone has to pay.

Everyone, whether he be in the Government, the Opposition, or living in the country, realises that the demand covering these three aspects of expenditure in Australia is enormous in its implications- so enormous, as I have said, that to some degree I find it frightening. The implications of this situation are so enormous in regard to cost that it will have the effect of reducing government expenditure in some areas in which many Australians would like to see it maintained. I refer, for instance, to defence. But that is another matter. What I am saying is that, because of the Government’s requirements to make these outlays throughout Australia, there is a necessity to raise money. Unfortunately, payroll tax is part of the revenue gathering process, and payroll tax is part of the situation in the Northern Territory too.

Senator Messner:

– But the Labor Party believes that it can spend money and not have to tax people.

Senator KILGARIFF:

– That is quite right. When the Labor Party made these arrangements and promises it suddenly found in 1975 that the country ran out of money. I can well remember that in May 1975 it could not pay the accounts of the small business people, the contractors, and so on.

I turn to unemployment. In this respect the Labor Government did extreme damage to the Aboriginal people of Australia generally, but particularly of the Northern Territory. At that time, a training allowance was payable to the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory for their labour, but the training allowance was discontinued.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Under-award wages; slave labour.

Senator KILGARIFF:

– I feel sorry for the honourable senator. In view of the way in which he sees things, it is no wonder that the Government of which he was a member brought the country to financial ruin. The training allowance was removed and then the Aboriginal people received no financial assistance whatsoever. They were then paid the unemployment benefit.

Let me turn to the situation which Senator Robertson mentioned a few minutes ago when he was speaking to the Bill, namely, the unemployment situation in the Northern Territory.

The figures that I extracted today show that in the Northern Territory 4995 people are unemployed. That is a large number. It represents 9. 1 8 per cent of the work force. But the point 1 am making is that because the Labor Party discontinued the payment of training allowances to Aboriginal people they then had to apply for the unemployment benefit. At the present time 38.4 per cent of the total number of people who receive the unemployment benefit in the Northern Territory are Aboriginal.

It is most interesting to look at the figures. Let us start with the situation in Darwin. There are 2,745 people unemployed in Darwin, and Aboriginal people comprise 12Vi per cent of that figure. But the figure in relation to those unemployed in Darwin is rather different from those for the rest of the Territory. Many of the people included in this figure, other than Aboriginal people, are people who have come to the Top End of the Northern Territory for various reasons. They are swelling the ranks of the unemployed. In Katherine there are 622 people unemployed, of whom the Aboriginal component is 405. That means that 65 per cent of those unemployed in the Katherine area are Aboriginal people.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Under the Fraser Government again. You cannot blame the Labor Government for it. We have had four years of Fraser.

Senator KILGARIFF:

– Prior to that they worked on the settlements under the training allowance scheme. The Labor Government introduced the present situation which has brought them to extremely poor circumstances. In Alice Springs there are 1628 unemployed, and the Aboriginal component is 1168, or 71 per cent.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Under Fraser again.

Senator KILGARIFF:

– No, I am afraid not. The Government of which Senator Cavanagh was a member is accountable. This is the sorry story of youth unemployment in the Northern Territory. I deplore the unemployment figures that I am about to give to the Senate. But the fact is that we have this sorry story of youth unemployment in the Northern Territory. Bearing in mind that the total unemployment figure for the Northern Territory is 4,995, we find that the total youth unemployment figure is 184. In Darwin there are 144 unemployed youth, in Katherine there are 16 and in Alice Springs there are 24.

One should look at the magnificent job that is being done, through the Commonwealth Employment Service, at the youth job centre at

Edmond Street in Darwin. That centre provides a particular service for youth unemployed. Much is being done there. I go further and make a comment regarding the spokesman for the Opposition on the Northern Territory. The Commonwealth Authorities (Northern Territory Pay-roll Tax) Bill was introduced on 24 August. The Opposition spokesman when discussing the Bill stated: . . the Whitlam Government had abolished, certain investment allowances which have been and are an encouragement to industry to speed up the elimination of jobs- the replacement of labour by machines . . .

What absolute rot. The investment allowance applied in Australia gave encouragement to the search for oil and gas in the outback of Australia. It brought about immense returns to the communities and tremendous employment. But at the stroke of a pen the Labor Party Government cut out the investment allowance and therefore in the outback it brought development to a standstill and unemployment mounted rapidly. He continued:

  1. . had imposed a resources tax rather than the impost that has been placed on consumers of petrol in this country.

That statement is absolute rot. Let us look at the cost of petrol to consumers in the outback. I refer to the Review of the Continuing Expenditure Policies of the previous Government. The document is dated June 1973. In it is a copy of a letter that the Prime Minister at the time, Mr Whitlam, wrote to Dr Coombs stating:

Action be set in train to apply a close scrutiny to continuing policies of the previous Government so that room may be found for our own higher priority programs.

Of course, the time I am referring to here is that period when the previous Government- that is the Liberal-National Country Party Government- was in power and introduced the petrol subsidy scheme. But what happened then? I refer to this matter only because the Opposition spokesman in the other place referred to it. The Prime Minister of the day, Mr Whitlam, then had Dr Coombs review the petroleum products subsidy scheme.

Senator Cavanagh:

– What was the price, retail?

Senator KILGARIFF:

– The price then, of course, was 3.3c per gallon dearer in the outback than in any other centre. In regard to this situation, Dr Coombs stated:

Moreover, there is little economic logic in providing a subsidy which encourages people to remain in remote locations such that the greatest encouragement goes to those most remote. Distance involves a real cost to the community and any subsidy considered necessary would be better paid directly rather than in the blanket fashion involved in a price equalisation scheme.

He was saying: ‘Let us wipe the petroleum subsidy scheme for those few people in the outback because they do not count’. One of the possibilities he gave to Mr Whitlam was to discontinue the existing program. For those who are interested, I refer them to this particular document in which there are four choices. But what did the Labor Government do? In this particular instance it discontinued the existing program which meant that, as far as the people of the outback were concerned, they went into a period when fuel costs and living costs went up. Ever since then we have heard whining from the other side of the Senate. In reality, the commencement of this downturn, this infliction on the people of the outback, came from the direction of Mr Whitlam to Dr Coombs. The fuel subsidy scheme was removed, and the Opposition spokesman in the other place had the hide to speak about the cost of petrol in the outback as if it were their own problem.

Now, of course, the Government has reintroduced the fuel subsidy scheme and at least the people in the outback are getting a better go. Another point is that when this scheme was removed from the people of the outback certain things happened. I shall take honourable senators into the Top End of the Northern Territory, where at that time there existed the North Australia Railway which ran from Darwin to Larrimah, the Frances Creek mining company and so on. When the fuel equalisation scheme was removed fuel costs went up dramatically and, as the North Australia Railway was using liquid fuel and not coal, its freight rates went up. The North Australia Railway then put pressure on Frances Creek, which was then the iron ore town in the Northern Territory. Pressure was put on to such an extent that the Frances Creek iron ore company found that it could not trade economically. At that particular time its freight bill to the North Australia Railway increased and, because of the freight rate, its operation was uneconomic. It could not pay the North Australia Railway freight bill.

As the Frances Creek company was the main customer of the North Australia Railway and as it could not pay the bills that then made the North Australia Railway uneconomic. Then what did we have? We had the collapse of the Frances Creek company and we had the collapse of the North Australia Railway. It has been said so many times in this place that that was the responsibility and the fault of this Government. However, the fault goes back to that day when Mr Whitlam, the Prime Minister, told Dr Coombs to look at ways that the various schemes and expenditures of the previous Government could be removed so that the Labor Party Government could bring in its own ideas. It wiped and destroyed many aspects of the life of the people in the outback.

I could go on at length in regard to this particular matter. When one loks at the rather ridiculous charges and criticisms that have been made one finds that they can all be answered. I shall answer them some other time.

Let me go back briefly to the time in the affairs of the Northern Territory when there has been despondency, criticism and pessimism about the future of the north and of the Northern Territory Government. As I have said before, the transfer of power occurred less than one year ago. If one took close note of the situation in the Northern Territory, one would find that there was a new spirit abroad in industry and in the people of the north. Industries are being developed and roads are being put in. For once in their lives the people of the north feel that they are part of government. There is no room for pessimism and there is no room for despondency because the Northern Territory, like its fellow states of Western Australia and Queensland, will play a large part in the future of Australia.

The Government Insurance Office is a bold venture which has been embarked upon by the Northern Territory Government which believes it will be for the benefit of the Northern Territory people. Of course there are problems. When one introduces a scheme like this amendments and adjustments have to be made. Has anyone seen a scheme which has not needed some adjustment or amendment? I discount the criticism that has been made in regard to the Northern Territory Government and the Chief Minister. There is liaison and communication today as there has been liaison and communication on other days. People are putting their viewpoint as to what should and should not be done. I believe that this ability of the people and industries of the Territory to communicate with and speak to each other will result in what everyone wishes and desires.

I support the Bill. As I have said before, it is a machinery Bill, it is necessary, it is part of life, it is part of the adjustment that is needed as a result of the transference of Federal Government powers to the Northern Territory. However, the legislation has given some people the opportunity to air their pessimism, to knock and so on. But thank goodness that knockers and pessimists in the north express a minority viewpoint. The future of the north and the people of the Territory will be determined not by knocking but rather by confidence and looking ahead to achievement.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– The Government welcomes the support for the Bill. As has been said by both senators from the Northern Territory, it is a machinery Bill to enable the pay-roll tax of the Northern Territory to take effect. I think the objective of the Bill was clearly stated in the second reading speech and it has been referred to by both senators. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 45

SALES TAX (EXEMPTIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS) AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 15 November 1978 on motion by Senator Carrick:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator ROBERTSON:
Northern Territory

– We are debating the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1978. This Bill is similar to the Commonwealth Authorities (Northern Territory Pay-Roil Tax) Bill 1978. It is a machinery Bill to facilitate exemption from sales tax for departments and authorities under the control of the Northern Territory Government. The Opposition does not oppose the legislation. We note that the exemption is for departments and authorities and we hope that the Government will look at exemptions for groups associated with departmentsfor example, school committees, parent groups and so on. I appreciate that exemption is available at the present time and I trust that this will continue. However, I raise the point because I feel there is some need for clarification first in respect of groups associated with departments and authorities and secondly, in respect of items which attract exemption. Certainly, while we are looking at that, there is a need to look at exemption for other groups which are non-profit making- for example, youth groups, service organisations, church groups and so on.

I accept that certainly care needs to be exercised but it should not be beyond the wit of this Government to establish reasonable criteria. Perhaps we could look at groups such as women’s refuges which receive government financial assistance or groups such as Apex which are non-profit making and purely service organisations. But I do not have to continue. The Australian Council of Social Service and similar organisations could make suggestions if the Government is interested in this area. Perhaps I am moving beyond the scope of the Bill. I make the point that the Opposition does not oppose the Bill.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– in reply- I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 46

ADJOURNMENT

Interest Rates

Motion (by Senator Carrick) proposed:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– The matter which I wish to raise tonight is the address to the nation by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) on 12 November last year. The answers to questions I have asked will prove conclusively that not only is the Prime Minister deceitful but he dishonestly misled the nation.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! You must not use that expression in respect of a member of Parliament.

Senator McLAREN:

- Mr President, now that you have raised this matter again, I draw your attention to a speech which was made in this House during the time that the Labor Government was in office. I will refer to the Hansard of two different occasions. First I want to refer to the Senate Hansard of 23 October 1975 which contains an amendment moved to Appropriation Bills (Nos. 1 and 2). The amendment contained these words:

  1. the continuing incompetence, evasion, deceit and duplicity of the Prime Minister and his Ministers . . .

That was a substantive motion which was no doubt discussed in the Liberal Party rooms before it was moved in the Senate. Mr President, when the vote was taken in the Senate- and I have a copy of the Hansard with me- you were one of the senators who voted for that motion.

The PRESIDENT:

– I must point out to the honourable senator that I was not in the Chair at that time. I insist that parliamentary language be used.

Senator McLAREN:

- Mr President, I do not want to canvass your ruling, but you are placing an imposition upon me despite the fact on 23 October 1 975 you agreed with a motion put forward by your party which castigated the

Whitlam Government. I think that is most unfair.

The PRESIDENT:

– I must point out to the honourable senator that, as he will know, when I am in the Chair I always object to any reference which is disparaging or not in accord with Standing Order 418. The fact is the words referred to by the honourable senator were contained in a substantive motion. Under those circumstances the motion went through in that way. I ask the honourable senator to continue.

Senator McLAREN:

- Mr President, I accept your ruling that those words were in the form of a substantive motion. I want now to refer to the Senate Hansard of 22 October when the present Leader of the Government (Senator Carrick) was speaking to the appropriation Bills. It cannot be claimed that these words were spoken when the Leader of the Government was speaking to a substantive motion. When speaking to the appropriation Bills Senator Carrick referred to a State receipts tax. At page 1343 of Senate Hansard of 22 October 1975 Senator Carrick is reported as having said:

Now we are talking about corruption, dishonesty and disastrous inefficiency.

Senator Carrick was referring to the Prime Minister of the time and his Ministers. I maintain that he was not speaking to a substantive motion. Senator Carrick used those words in this chamber against the then Whitlam Government. He had no conclusive proof. He does not have it today because the findings of the Queanbeyan Court of just a few days ago in connection with the Sankey case proved conclusively that the words that were used in this Parliament and outside it by the then Opposition, which was led by the present Prime Minister, were completely wrong and without foundation. The magistrate in the Queanbeyan Court handed down a ruling that there is no case to be answered by Mr Whitlam, Mr Justice Murphy, Dr Cairns and our ex-colleague the late Mr Connor. There is conclusive proof that what members of the present Government accused the Whitlam Government of was completely without foundation.

I am going to prove to the Senate tonight that the words I uttered about the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) do have foundation. I have an answer from Senator Durack which will prove that and I intend to read it to the Senate. I will not repeat the words because they are on record and I do not back away from them. On 15 November, after that–

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I must point out to you, Senator McLaren, that I will not allow unparliamentary language to be used. I have pointed out to you the incorrectness in certain situations of certain words being used in this place other than when speaking to substantive motions. I insist at all times that words that are offensive to other members of Parliament of either side in either House be not used. Please continue your remarks.

Senator McLAREN:

– Well, Mr President, those words were offensive to me at the time. I said that I accepted your ruling in regard to the substantive motion but I then quoted words used by the present Leader of the Government in a speech which was not dealing with a substantive motion and they are the words to which I shall refer. They apply equally to the present Prime Minister, in the same way that Senator Carrick thought they applied at the time to Mr Whitlam.

Senator Carrick:

– I raise a point of order, Mr President. What is happening is that Senator McLaren is continuing to defy your ruling from the Chair.

Senator Cavanagh:

- Mr President, I rise on a point of order in respect of Standing Order 418.1 think that you owe us more clarity in respect of what can be said in this place. Members of opposition parties do not hand bouquets to other parties. Therefore it must be expected that some things will be said to opposing politicians that would not be used under the best social conditions at normal functions. Standing Order 418 states:

No Senator shall use offensive words . . .

That is the point. Mr President, you are the interpreter of what are considered to be offensive words. If I am of the belief, politically, that the Prime Minister or Senator Carrick or anyone else is a scoundrel, I cannot see why I do not have the right to say it. It is a belief I hold and I think that I should have the right to say it. We will be restricted very narrowly to doing nothing else but exchanging niceties with each other if we are to be restricted by the definition of offensive words or if we cannot say anything disparaging about our opposition. I think that we should have some indication of what are offensive words. I do not know. I forget the exact words that Senator McLaren used but I take it that he considers the Prime Minister to be a man of very low repute. If he considers that I do not see why he should not have the opportunity to say it in the ordinary course of parliamentary debate.

The PRESIDENT:

– The fact is that nobody in this place wants to inhibit the forthright cut and thrust of debate. That is part of our system and cautious hearts in this place must be prepared for very hard thrusts. But I do think that in the process we can use words to convey certain feelings that we may have without becoming what I regard as quite offensive. Senator McLaren, in respect of the point raised by Senator Carrick, was going very close to the wind. I indicated to him, by way of general background explanation, what was permissible when speaking to substantive motions. I hope not to be too rigid in my interpretation of parliamentary language. At the same time I believe that there is no better time than in the heat of debate to couch words in such a way as many members here can do. We can do it in ways that will convey the expressions of the individual without being hurtful or offensive to a person, such as by charging that person with lack of character, dishonesty and that sort of thing. That is all. I ask Senator McLaren to continue his remarks.

Senator McLAREN:

- Mr President, I think that it will be shown in the Hansard report tomorrow that I did accept your ruling in regard to substantive motions. I then went on to quote words used in a debate by Senator Carrick. He then raised a point of order and claimed that I was canvassing your ruling. I do not think that I was but in my view Senator Carrick should have been the last person to rise on the matter in view of the fact that he used the words I was quoting.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Please carry on without speaking further to that matter.

Senator McLAREN:

– If the Leader of the Government would like me to use other words I should say that in my view- I am setting out to prove that view tonight- the present Prime Minister misled the nation in that address to the nation of 12 October. I intend to prove it. I never get up in this chamber and make accusations about people unless I have conclusive proof and the proof I have tonight is in a document which was sent to me by Senator Durack ‘s office in answer to questions I had asked. On 15 November I asked Senator Durack a question. I will read it now to get things into their proper perspective. It appears at page 2009 of Senate Hansard of 15 November 1978 under the heading ‘Australian Exports’. The report states:

Senator McLAREN:

-I direct to the Minister representing the Minister for Special Trade Representations a question which arises from statements made by the Prime Minister in his nation-wide address on Sunday, 12 November, when he said:

How many of you know that Australian companies are exporting furniture to Sweden and colour TV sets are being exported to the toughest market in the world- to Hong Kong- against Japanese competition?

I ask the Minister Firstly, how many companies are exporting furniture to Sweden; what is the volume and value of the exports; and how many Australian workers are engaged in the manufacture of this furniture? Secondly, how many companies are exporting colour television sets to Hong Kong; what is the number of the sets and the value of the exports; how many Australian workers are employed in the manufacture of these sets; and are all of the component parts for the sets manufactured in Australia or are they imported from Japan or from some other country?

In reply Senator Durack stated:

Mr President, the question really should be directed to the Minister for Trade and Resources, whom I represent, so I will direct it to him. The tone of Senator McLaren’s question somewhat surprised me because he did not seem to be aware of, or to understand, or even to be in favour of the really remarkable amount of export initiatives that there are in Australia, to which the Prime Minister referred. In fact, Senator McLaren seemed to be a bit disappointed that Australians really are successful in many of these activities. I think it was most commendable that the Prime Minister should have -

Then, my colleague Senator Button rose on a point of order. He said:

On a point of order, Mr President, the function of Question Time is for a Minister to answer a question directed to him. He cannot import tone, as the Minister calls it, into a question. He must either answer a question or not answer it.

In reply, Mr President, you said:

The point of order is not sustained.

Senator Durack continued:

If Senator Button does not like the word ‘tone’ I will change it to ‘implication’. Certainly a number of details about these matters should be publicised as widely as possible. I hope that detailed answers can be provided for Senator McLaren as soon as possible so that even he will understand the successes that are obtained.

Then, at the end of Question Time, I rose to make an explanation because I felt that I had been misrepresented by Senator Durack. Mr President, when you asked me whether I claimed to be misrepresented, I said:

Yes. I claim to have been misrepresented by Senator Durack in Question Time today.I asked him a question in relation to the export of furniture and television sets. In reply the Minister said that the tone of my question gave the impression that I was opposed to exports of any manufactured goods from Australia. I want to explain that I am not opposed to exports of goods. I was seeking from the Minister some facts about how many television sets and how much furniture had been exported. They are the facts I seek. If a good quantity of these goods were exported I would fully support such export.

During the recess I received an answer to that question. I think that it sustains my claim that the Prime Minister misled the nation on 12 November in that nationwide television address. In answer to my question without notice Senator Durack stated:

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

1 ) The volume and values of furniture exported to Sweden were-

I refer firstly to exports of metal chairs. I was given the details for the period from 1975-76 to July-August 1978.I am going to cite the figures for the last year of office of the Labor Government. In 1975-76, 391 metal chairs were exported to Sweden at a total value of $7,572. In 1976- 77 - the first year of the Fraser Government- the figure slipped down to 288 metal chairs at a value of $7,290. In 1977-78, the financial year about which the Prime Minister spoke, it slipped down further. Ten fewer chairs were exported to Sweden- namely, 278-at a total value of $6,170. So it can be seen that what I am saying is perfectly true. The Prime Minister did mislead the nation. He told the television audience that there was a massive export of furniture when in fact the number of metal chairs exported to Sweden had dropped away from 391 to 278 during his term of office and the total value had dropped from $7,572 to $6,170, a drop of $1,402.

Let us have a look at the figures concerning the export of tables. In 1975-76 we exported 79 tables to Sweden at a total value of $3,857. The next year- the first year of the Fraser Government- we exported 49 tables, which was a drop of 30 tables, at a total value of $3,366. In 1977- 78 there was an increase in the number of units exported. There were 74 tables exported at a total value of $2,866. So all told there has been a drop of nearly $ 1 , 000. Taking the inflation rate into consideration, it is a diabolical exercise for the Prime Minister to try to hoodwink the people into believing that there was an export market for furniture in Sweden.

Senator Durack also spoke about other furniture exports. No figures are shown in Senator Durack ‘s reply of the number of units exported in 1975-76, which was the last year of the Whitlam Government, but other furniture to the value of $5,458 was exported to Sweden. For the next year, 1976-77 no figure was provided for the number of units exported other than furniture to the value of $5. That occurred in the first year of office of the Fraser Government. Let us look at the details for 1977-78. Again no figures are available of the number of units exported but there was an increase from $5 to $390 in the value of such exports that year. What a marvellous achievement! The Prime Minister has misled the nation into believing that we are developing great export markets in which we employ hundreds of thousands of people and that the economy of this country is improving greatly under the Fraser Ministry.

Let us look at the answer to the question that I asked about colour television sets. It is very intriguing. I was a member of the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources, which had before it a reference about solar energy. During the course of our inquiry we paid a visit to a colour television set factory in Sydney. We were told by the management that no component parts for television sets are manufactured in Australia, that they are all imported from Japan. What the Prime Minister is saying is that we are now in a situation where we can import all the component parts from Japan, convert them to television sets, ship them to Hong Kong and compete with the Japanese in the market. That is what he said in his address to the nation. He said:

  1. . colour television sets are being exported into the toughest market in the world- to Hong Kong- against Japanese competition.

Either the management of the colour television set factory in Sydney was wrong when talking to the members of the Senate Standing Committee or the Prime Minister was wrong. Senator Durack gave me a very evasive answer to the question I asked. He said:

One company is known to have won an order for 5,000 coloured TV sets worth approximately $2m for export to Hong Kong. 50 to 55 per cent of the content is Australian sourced.

I dispute that in view of the fact that the management of the factory in Sydney told the Committee that no component parts are manufactured in Australia. Senator Durack then went on to say:

Details of firms and numbers, of workers are not available from the Australian Bureau of Statistics as the information is confidential under the Census and Statistics Act 1 905- 1 977.

We have a situation where the Prime Minister of this country, in an effort to bolster up the flagging stocks of his Government, has gone on a nationwide television program and told the people something he cannot back up with figures. It was the best Christmas present I ever received when this answer lobbed in my office just a few days prior to Christmas. I will bet that the Prime Minister does not know that Senator Durack sent the information to me, because I am sure that otherwise I would be still waiting for an answer when this Government went out of office.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Durack could be looking for a job.

Senator McLAREN:

-He may be. I think the Attorney-General must accept some of the blame for this because he could not have looked at the answer that was provided. I think it is a terrible state of affairs when, with the economy of this country flagging and unemployment at the highest level since the last Depression, we find the Prime Minister making a nationwide television broadcast that misleads the electors, misleads the people of this nation as to what this Government has achieved, in order to bolster the stocks of his Government. Senator Durack, in writing to me, has completely disproved what the Prime Minister said.

To get back to the words I first uttered when I rose to speak, I said that I wanted to draw the attention of the Senate and the Australian people to how the Prime Minister is quite prepared to mislead the electors and to try to hoodwink them into believing that he is the head of an honest government and he is doing all he can to better the living standards of the people who live here. I think that the figures I have cited tonight completely disprove that. If I am wrong it can only be said that I have been given an incorrect answer because I have quoted exactly the answer I have been given. I seek leave to have the question I asked and the answer provided to me by Senator Durack incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

Senator McLaren:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources a question without notice on 15 November 1978 arising from statements made by the Prime Minister in his nationwide address on Sunday 12 November in which he said:

How many of you know that Australian companies are exporting furniture to Sweden and colour TV sets are being exported into the toughest market in the world- to Hong Kong- against Japanese competition?

Senator McLaren:

asked:

  1. 1 ) How many companies are exporting furniture to Sweden; what is the volume and value of the exports; and how many Australian workers are engaged in the manufacture of this furniture?
  2. How many companies are exporting colour television sets to Hong Kong; what is the number of the sets and the value of the exports; how many Australian workers are employed in the manufacture of these sets; and are all of the component parts for the sets manufactured in Australia or are they imported from Japan or from some other country?
Senator Durack:

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

  1. 1 ) The volume and values of furniture exported to Sweden were:
  1. One company is known to have won an order for 5,000 coloured TV sets worth approximately $2m for export to Hong Kong. 50 to 55% of the content is Australian sourced.

Details of firms and number of workers are not available from the Australian Bureau of Statistics as the information is confidential under the Census and Statistics Act 1905-1977.

Senator McLAREN:

– I do not think I need to say any more about that at this stage.

Government senators- Hear, hear!

Senator McLAREN:

– I heard some Government supporters say ‘hear, hear’. That always occurs when we on this side of the chamber are able to bring to the notice of the public some of the things that they say to the public that are not correct. We are told daily- the Prime Minister even said it in this address to the nation- that interest rates are coming down. Of course, that is another misleading statement. He must have known at the time- 15 November- that interest rates would increase. He must have been considering with Mr Howard the possibility of interest rates increasing. Of course, today he was taken to task about that in the other place by my leader and he could not come up with a satisfactory answer. He was like Daisy in the petunia patch. He stepped around for five minutes trying to get an answer and he could not find one. My leader nailed him to the wall on the question of interest rates, just as I feel that I have nailed him to the wall on this issue.

There are many other things to which I could refer tonight but I am not going to do so because this is only the opening night of the autumn session. I am sure that my colleagues and I will have plenty to criticise the Government for in the coming months ahead and that we will be able to sustain and substantiate the claims we make. They will not be claims like the claims that were made in that substantive motion that was put before the Senate when we were in government. I refer to the claims which were made by Senator Carrick and which he could not back up. As I have said, they were proved in the Queanbeyan court the other day to be completely wrong, yet the then Opposition hiked them all over the nation and convinced the people that they had in power in Canberra a corrupt and dishonest government. That court proved just the other day that what they were saying was a complete misnomer, that they were misleading the people. I am sure that the more the people of Australia are acquainted with what honourable senators opposite are doing the less the likelihood is of their staying on the other side for very much longer.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– Unfortunately I did not hear all of Senator McLaren’s comments. No doubt I will have an opportunity to read them in Hansard tomorrow. But I must record my own pleasure at the fact that he received his best Christmas present in the form of an answer by Senator Durack to a question. I am sure that Senator Durack would be similarly pleased that he has brought so much pleasure to the honourable senator and it has lasted for two full months since Christmas. In any event, I have had an opportunity to look at the paragraph in the address to the nation by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) which has been the main focus of those comments I have heard. I should have thought that the Prime Minister’s comments were unexceptionable. He said:

Actions that we have already taken are enabling Australian manufacturing industry to get back into export markets.

That statement, of course, has been well and truly borne out by the report issued the other day by the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. The Prime Minister went on, and these are the areas that were most criticised by the honourable senator:

How many of you know that Australian companies are exporting furniture to Sweden, and colour television sets are being exported into the toughest market in the world- to Hong Kong- against Japanese competition? Australianbuilt, Australian-designed fishing vessels are being exported to a number of countries in South East Asia. At least one major motor manufacturer is re-building its export organisation.

I did not hear the honourable senator opposite deny that those exports are taking place. He simply said that there are fewer exports than there have been in the past. In any event, I am not cast down into two months of distress by the news that the honourable senator has delivered to the Senate tonight in the way that he has been given two months of obvious positive pleasure. I will direct closer attention to his remarks when they are available tomorrow in Hansard, to see whether there is any other matter to which I should respond.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 9.21 p.m.

page 51

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Employment: Textile, Clothing and Footwear Industries (Question No. 228)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 8 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many firms engaged in the textile, clothing and footwear industries employ: (a) 0-10 employees; (b) 11-25 employees; (c) 26-50 employees; (d) 51-75 employees; (e) 76-100 employees; (0 101-200 employees; (g) 201-300 employees and (h) 301 employees and over.
  2. What has been the change in the number of each category listed above for each year since 1 970-7 1 .
  3. How many persons were employed in the textile industry, the clothing industry and the footwear industry for each year since 1970-71.
Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: ( 1 ), (2 ) and ( 3 ) The Australian Statistician has provided the following available information:

Last Chance Gold Mine (Question No. 522)

Senator Keeffe:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 3 1 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) Are Mr John Woolcott Forbes, Mr Frank West, Mr Charles Kean, Dr Alfred Gasser, Mr Joseph Jones, Mr Bernard Amstuty. and the mining entrepreneur, Senator Ian Wood, board members and/or promoters of the Last Chance Gold Mine at Kanowna.
  2. 2 ) Have any of these persons been associated with United Nickel Limited, Inter Copper Limited, or Kerdos Properties and the Minaso Trust.
  3. Was the Kanowna field, which produced approximately 400,000 ounces of gold, abandoned more than fifty years ago.
  4. Will the Minister, in accordance with the provisions of the Trade Practices Act 1974, examine the background of the company involved in the current development of the Kanowna field, in order to protect small speculators.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The information sought by the honourable senator can be obtained from the public file of the New South Wales Corporate Affairs Commission. There is, however, no record of a company registered in the name of Kerdos Properties in Australia.
  2. The information sought is available from the Western Australian Department of Mines.
  3. There is nothing in the question asked by the honourable senator which would suggest that any of the companies mentioned are or have been in breach of the Trade Practices Act 1974. If the honourable senator has information which suggests a possible breach of the Act, I would be happy to have that information examined.

Murray Bridge: Telecom Equipment on Road Traffic Bridge (Question No. 658)

Senator McLaren:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 22 August 1978:

Does Telecom have any plans to remove the overhead telephone lines and associated poles from the road traffic bridge over the Murray River at Murray Bridge; if so, will this work be completed prior to the centenary of the bridge’s opening, in March 1979: if not, will Telecom give consideration to the removal of poles and lines to improve the general appearance of the bridge.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

Telecom has plans to remove the aerial pole route from the road bridge crossing the River Murray at Murray Bridge, but it is not expected that the work will be undertaken before March 1979.

Telecom has advised me that it has considered the priority of this project and, on present plans, it would expect that the work will not be completed before the 1980-81 financial year.

Members’ Electorate and Legislative Assistants (Question No. 668)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service matters, upon notice, on 23 August 1978:

  1. 1 ) What proportion of employees employed under the Public Service Act 1922 is paid solely according to length of service, with no weight being given to qualifications on entry.
  2. Did the Public Service Board recommend to the Department of Administrative Services that Electorate Assistants and Legislative Assistants be remunerated according to their length of service alone and that their qualifications should not be taken into account.
  3. Is this contrary to Determination 1978/9:9.6 (b) of the Remuneration Tribunal.
  4. Why was Determination 1978/9:9.6 (b) not implemented.
  5. 5 ) Will the Minister request that the Public Service Board makes public its reasons for recommending against the implementation of 1978/9:9.6; and, in particular, why it has opted for length of service as the sole criterion.
  6. Does the Public Service Board plan to abandon academic qualifications as a factor in determining salary rates for any other public service employees.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Public Service Board has advised that:

    1. for many designations there are entry qualifications specified
    2. even where specific entry qualifications are normally required, salaries may be varied depending on particular qualifications, which may be prescribed as necessary for the satisfactory performance of work at various levels. Without undertaking extensive work, it would not be possible to establish the proportion of such cases. No qualifications are prescribed in relation to Electorate Assistants.
    3. where there are qualifications specifications, these have always been an important factor taken into account when fixing rates of pay.
  2. Terms and conditions of employment of staff of senators and members are determined by the Public Service Board in pursuance of the Public Service Act 1922, under which they are employed.

Such staff are under the direct control of senators and members who determine the types of work that each staff member is required to do. Qualifications had not been, and are not now, specified for these positions. In these circumstances, the Board has decided that it is not appropriate to specify a particular salary rate to be received by individuals possessing particular qualifications.

  1. and (4)1 refer the honourable senator to the answer by the Minister for Administrative Services on 14 November 1978 (Hansard, page 1997).
  2. ) See my answers above.
  3. No. The Public Service Board has advised that it will continue to have regard to prescribed qualifications in determining appropriate rates of pay.

University of Queensland: Vice-Regal Appointment (Question No. 678)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 23 August 1978:

  1. 1 ) Why was it necessary for the Federal Government to reimburse the University of Queensland the sum of $19,424 for the period between the announcement on 12 August 1977 of Sir Zelman Cowen ‘s appointment as GovernorGeneral and his assumption of that office on 8 December 1977- as revealed in the Estimates Explanations for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, page 39, Salaries and Salary Related Matters, Regarding the Governor-General.
  2. Who authorised and negotiated the payment.
  3. 3 ) What precedents arc there for such a payment with regard to Vice-Regal appointments.
  4. What was the nature of the contract in force between Sir Zelman Cowen and his employers, the University of Queensland, at the time of the announcement of his appointment as Governor-General Designate.
  5. 5 ) When did Sir Zelman Cowen resign as Vice Chancellor of the University of Queensland and when did he actually terminate his employment there.
  6. Did any of the $19,424 paid to the University pass directly or indirectly to the then Vice-Chancellor in the way of salary or wages during the period from 13 August 1977 to 7 December 1977; if so, why.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. and (2) Following his appointment as GovernorGeneral Designate Sir Zelman Cowen took the view that he should disengage as Vice-Chancellor of the University of Queensland and disengage also from the various other positions that he had held, including that of Chairman of the Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee. As a consequence he was granted leave of absence by the Senate of the University of Queensland from the close of business on 12 August 1977 until his resignation became effective on being sworn in as Governor-General. In the circumstances the Government considered it appropriate to reimburse the University of Queensland on a pro rata basis for payments in the nature of salary et cetera which it continued to make to or on behalf of Sir Zelman until he was sworn-in as Governor-General.
  2. There has been no previous occasion on which the need for such arrangements with the employer of a Governor-General designate has arisen.
  3. I am not privy to the information sought.
  4. and (6) See my answer to ( 1 ) and (2).

Science: Statutory Corporations (Question No. 740)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister for Science and the Environment the following question, upon notice, on 1 3 September 1 978:

  1. 1 ) What statutory corporations have a responsibility to report through the Minister to Parliament.
  2. What are the statutory requirements for those corporations to present annual audited accounts and reports to the Parliament.
  3. When were the audited accounts of the annual report presented to the Minister for tabling.
  4. When were the audited accounts and annual report tabled in the Parliament.
  5. What are the names of the corporations the reports of which were not tabled within four months of the closing of accounts for the 1976-77 financial year or within four months of the date at which the annual accounts were finalised.
  6. What reasons were given by each corporation which did not present an annual report and audited accounts within four months of 1976-77.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows; 1. (a) National Standards Commission.

  1. Metric Conversion Board.
  2. Anglo-Australian Telescope Board.
  3. Council of the Australian Institute of Marine Science.
  4. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization. 2. (a) National Standards Commission- There is no statutory requirement for the National Standards Commission to present annual audited accounts and reports to the Parliament.
  5. Metric Conversion Board- In accordance with the requirements of Section 24 of the Metric Conversion Act 1970, the Minister is furnished with such reports as he requires relating to the Board ‘s operations. He is also furnished with an annual report, as required under Section 24.

The Minister is required to cause the Board ‘s report to be laid before each House of Parliament.

  1. Anglo-Australian Telescope Board- In accordance with Article 8 of the Agreement between the Australian Government and the Government of the United Kingdom, the Australian and United Kingdom Governments are furnished with an annual report on the Board’s operations, together with financial statements for that year. Statements of estimated expenditure for future years are also provided in accordance with Article 16.

The Minister is required by Section 19 of the AngloAustralian Telescope Agreement Act 1970-1971 to cause the reports and financial statements to be laid before each House of Parliament.

  1. Council of the Australian Institute of Marine Science- In accordance with the requirements of Section 44 of the Australian Institute of Marine Science Act 1972, the Minister is furnished with annual reports and financial statements for that year, together with the Auditor-General ‘s report on the financial statements.

The Minister is required to cause the reports and financial statements to be laid before each House of Parliament.

  1. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation- In accordance with the requirements of Section 30 of the Science and Industry Research Act 1 949- 1 968, the Minister is furnished with an annual report and financial statements for that year, together with the Auditor-General ‘s report on these financial statements.

The Minister is required to cause the reports and financial statements to be laid before each House of Parliament. 3. (a) National Standards Commission- Not applicable.

  1. Metric Conversion Board- No statutory requirement to present audited accounts to the Minister.
  2. Anglo-Australian Telescope Board-The Annual Report for 1977-78, including audited accounts, was presented to the Minister on 21 November 1978.
  3. d ) Council of the Australian Institute of Marine ScienceThe Council’s Annual Report for 1977-78, including audited accounts, was presented to the Minister on 18 September 1978.
  4. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation- The Organisation’s Annual Report for 1977-78, including audited accounts, was presented to the Minister on 19 September 1978. 4. (a) National Standards Commission- Not applicable.
  5. Metric Conversion Board- The Board’s Annual Report for 1977-78 was tabled in Parliament on 7 November 1978.
  6. Anglo-Australian Telescope Board- The Board’s Annual Report for 1977-78 is expected to be tabled in Parliament on 23 November 1978.
  7. Council of the Australian Institute of Marine ScienceThe Council’s Annual Report for 1977-78 was tabled in Parliament on 26 October 1 978.
  8. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation- The Organisation’s Annual Report for 1977-78 was tabled in Parliament on 20 September 1978.

    1. The Anglo-Australian Telescope Board report for 1 976-77 was tabled in Parliament on 7 November 1978.
    2. The Anglo-Australian Telescope Board’s financial statements for 1976-77 could not be put into final form until a number of issues relating to the form of financial statements were settled. These issues involved, inter alia, the seeking of legal opinion from the Commonwealth Crown Solicitor.

Post and Telecommunications: Statutory Corporations (Question No. 741)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 12 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) What statutory corporations have a responsibility to report through the Minister to Parliament.
  2. What are the statutory requirements for those corporations to present annual audited accounts and reports to the Parliament.
  3. When were the audited accounts of the annual report presented to the Minister for tabling.
  4. When were the audited accounts and annual report tabled in the Parliament.
  5. What are the names of the corporations the reports of which were not tabled within four months of the closing of accounts for the 1976-77 financial year or within four months of the date at which the annual accounts were finalised.
  6. What reasons were given by each corporation which did not present an annual report and audited accounts within four months of 1976-77.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Australian Broadcasting Commission, the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, the Special Broadcasting Service, the Australian Telecommunications Commission, the

Australian Postal Commission and the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia) so report.

  1. The Australian Broadcasting Commission is required under section 78 of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 to furnish to the Minister an audited Report, with financial statement audited by the Auditor-General, as soon as practicable after 30 June each year.

In addition the Commission will include in the report particulars of:

  1. a) each transmission arranged at the written direction of the Minister in pursuance of section 64;
  2. each case in which the Minister has exercised the powers conferred on him by the last preceding section; and
  3. any case in which the Minister has, otherwise than in pursuance of the provisions of this Act, issued directions concerning the broadcasting and televising by the Commission of any matter or prohibited the broadcasting or televising by the Commission of any matter.

The Australian Broadcating Tribunal is required under section 28 (1) of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 to furnish to the Minister an audited report, with financial statements audited by the Auditor-General, as soon as practicable after 30 June each year.

The Special Broadcasting Service is required under section 79ZH of the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Act (1977) to furnish to the Minister an audited report, with financial statements audited by the Auditor-General, as soon as practicable after 30 June each year.

The Australian Telecommunications Commission is required, under Section 99 of the Telecommunications Act 1975, as soon as practicable after each 30 June, to prepare and furnish to the Minister a report of its operations together with a Balance Sheet and other financial statements for that financial year. The Act directs that before furnishing financial statements to the Minister, the Commission shall submit them to the Auditor-General who shall report to the Minister on whether they are in order. The Act also directs that the Minister shall lay these documents before Parliament within fifteen sitting days after receipt by the Minister.

Australian Postal Commission is required, under Section 102 of the Postal Services Act 1975, as soon as practicable after each 30 June, to prepare and furnish to the Minister a report of its operations together with a Balance Sheet and other financial statements for that financial year. The Act directs that before furnishing financial statements to the Minister, the Commission shall submit them to the AuditorGeneral who shall report to the Minister on whether they are in order. The Act also directs that the Minister shall lay these documents before Parliament within fifteen sitting days after receipt by the Minister.

The Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia) is required, under Section 53 of the Overseas Telecommunication Act 1946, as soon as practicable after each 3 1 March, to prepare and furnish to the Minister a report of its operations together with financial statements for the year ended 31 March. The Act directs that before furnishing financial statements to the Minister, the Commission shall submit them to the Auditor-General who shall report to the Minister on whether they are in order. The Act also directs that the Minister shall lay these documents before Parliament within fifteen sitting days after receipt by the Minister.

  1. The 1977-78 annual reports and audited financial statements were presented to the Minister on the following dates:

The Australian Broadcasting Commisison: 23 October 1978

The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (1976-77 Annual Report): 28 April 1978

The Special Broadcasting Service began operations on I January 1978. Audited accounts Ibr 1977-78 have not yet been presented to the Minister for tabling.

Australian Telecommunications Commission: 20 October 1978

Australian Postal Commission: 10 November 1978

Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia): 15 November 1978.

  1. The Minister tabled the 1977-78 annual reports and audited financial statements in Parliament on the following dates:

The Australian Broadcasting Commission: 24 October 1978

The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (1976-77 Annual Report): 2 May 1978

The Special Broadcasting Service began operations on 1 January 1978. Audited accounts for 1977-78 have not yet been presented to the Minister for tabling.

Australian Telecommunications Commission: 24 October 1978

Australian Postal Commission: 14 November 1978

Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia): 21 November 1978.

  1. 5 ) The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal.
  2. The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal did not furnish its first annual report within four months of 30 June 1977 mainly due to staff shortages pending the realisation of the Tribunal’s starling structure, resulting from the Tribunal’s establishment on 1 January 1977.

Business and Consumer Affairs: Statutory Corporations (Question No. 743)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 13 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) What statutory corporations have a responsibility to report through the Minister to Parliament.
  2. What are the statutory requirements for those corporations to present annual audited accounts and reports to the Parliament.
  3. When were the audited accounts of the annual report presented to the Minister for tabling.
  4. When were the audited accounts and annual report tabled in the Parliament.
  5. What are the names of the corporations the reports of which were not tabled within four months of the closing of accounts for the 1976-77 financial year or within four months of the date at which the annual accounts were finalised.
  6. What reasons were given by each corporation which did not present an annual report and audited accounts within four months of 1976-77.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Trade Practices Commission.
  2. Under section 171 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 the Trade Practices Commission is required within 60 days after each year ending on 30 June, to furnish a report to the Minister for presentation to the Parliament. There is no statutory requirement for the Commission to present annual audited accounts.
  3. Not applicable.
  4. The Trade Practices Commission’s annual report for 1977-78 was tabled in the Parliament on 19 September 1978.
  5. and (6) The Trade Practices Commission’s annual report for 1976-77 was tabled in the Parliament on 2 November 1977. lt was furnished to the Minister on 10 August 1977.

Post Offices in Queensland (Question No. 760)

Senator Colston:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 12 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) Which post offices have opened in Queensland since 1 January 1 970, and on what date did each office commence operations.
  2. Which post offices have permanently closed in Queensland since 1 January 1970, and when did each closure occur.
  3. Which post offices in Queensland have been renamed since 1 January 1970; what was the original name of each office; when was each office renamed; and what is its new name.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. Thirty-three post offices have been opened in Queensland since 1 January 1970. Details have been provided separately to Senator Colston.
  2. Three hundred and forty-six post offices have been closed permanently in Queensland since 1 January 1970. Details have been provided separately to Senator Colston.
  3. Eleven post offices in Queensland have been renamed since 1 January 1970. Details have been provided separately to Senator Colston.

Post Offices in Western Australia (Question No. 761)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 12 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) Which post offices have opened in Western Australia since I January 1970, and on what date did each office commence operations.
  2. Which post offices have permanently closed in Western Australia since 1 January 1970, and when did each closure occur.
  3. Which post offices in Western Australia have been renamed since 1 January 1970; what was the original name of each office; when was each office renamed; and what is its new name.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Thirty-four post offices have been opened in Western Australia since 1 January 1970. Details have been provided separately to Senator Colston.
  2. One hundred and four post offices have been closed permanently in Western Australia since 1 January 1970. Details have been provided separately to Senator Colston.
  3. Seven post offices in Western Australia have been renamed since 1 January 1 970. Details have been provided separately to Senator Colston.

Post Offices in the Australian Capital Territory (Question No. 762)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 12 September 1978:

  1. Which post offices have opened in the Australian Capital Territory since 1 January 1970, and on what date did each office commence operations.
  2. Which post offices have permanently closed in the Australian Capital Territory since 1 January 1970, and when did each closure occur.
  3. Which post offices in the Australian Capital Territory have been renamed since I January 1970; what was the original name of each office; when was each office renamed; and what is its new name.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Sixteen post offices have been opened in the Australian Capital Territory since 1 January 1970. Details have been provided separately to Senator Colston.
  2. Four post offices have been closed permanently in the Australian Capital Territory since 1 January 1970. Details have been provided separately to Senator Colston.
  3. No post offices in the Australian Capital Territory have been renamed since 1 January 1970.

Post Offices in New South Wales (Question No. 763)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 12 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) Which post offices have opened in New South Wales since 1 January 1 970, and on what date did each office commence operations.
  2. Which post offices have permanently closed in New South Wales since 1 January 1970, and when did each closure occur.
  3. Which post offices in New South Wales have been renamed since 1 January 1970; what was the original name of each office; when was each office renamed; and what is its new name.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Twenty-four post offices have been opened in New South Wales since 1 January 1970. Details have been provided separately to Senator Colston.
  2. Four hundred and sixty-two post offices have been closed permanently in New South Wales since 1 January 1970. Details have been provided separately to Senator Colston.
  3. Twelve post offices in New South Wales have been renamed since 1 January 1970. Details have been provided separately to Senator Colston.

Post Offices in South Australia (Question No. 764)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 12 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) Which post offices have opened in South Australia since 1 January 1970, and on what date did each office commence operations.
  2. Which post offices have permanently closed in South Australia since 1 January 1970, and when did each closure occur.
  3. Which post offices in South Australia have been renamed since 1 January 1970; what was the original name of each office; when was each office renamed; and what is its new name.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Four post offices have been opened in South Australia since 1 January 1970. Details have been provided separately to Senator Colston.
  2. One hundred and seventy-nine post offices have been closed permanently in South Australia since 1 January 1 970. Details have been provided separately to Senator Colston.
  3. Six post offices in South Australia have been renamed since 1 January 1970. Details have been provided separately to Senator Colston.

Post Offices in Victoria (Question No. 765)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 12 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) Which post offices have opened in Victoria since I January 1970, and on what date did each office commence operations.
  2. Which post offices have permanently closed in Victoria since I January 1970, and when did each closure occur.
  3. Which post offices in Victoria have been renamed since I January 1970; what was the original name of each office; when was each office renamed; and what is its new name.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Seventeen post offices have been opened in Victoria since I January 1970. Details have been provided separately to Senator Colston.
  2. Five hundred and twenty-three post offices have been closed permanently in Victoria since 1 January 1 970. Details have been provided separately to Senator Colston.
  3. Five post offices in Victoria have been renamed since I January 1970. Details have been provided separately to Senator Colston.

Post Offices in Tasmania (Question No. 766)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 12 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) Which post offices have opened in Tasmania since 1 January 1970, and on what date did each office commence operations.
  2. Which post offices have permanently closed in Tasmania since 1 January 1970, and when did each closure occur.
  3. Which post offices in Tasmania have been renamed since I January 1970; what was the original name of each office; when was each office renamed; and what is its new name.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Two post offices have been opened in Tasmania since 1 January 1970. Details have been provided separately to Senator Colston.
  2. One hundred and thirty-one Post offices have been closed permanently in Tasmania since 1 January 1 970. Details have been provided separately to Senator Colston.
  3. Three post offices in Tasmania have been renamed since 1 January 1 970. Details have been provided separately to Senator Colston.

Post Offices in the Northern Territory (Question No. 767)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 12 September 1 978:

  1. 1 ) Which post offices have opened in the Northern Territory since 1 January 1970, and on what date did each office commence operations.
  2. Which post offices have permanently closed in the Northern Territory since 1 January 1970 and when did each closure occur.
  3. Which post offices in the Northen Territory have been renamed since 1 January 1970; what was the original name of each office; when was each office renamed; and what is its new name.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Seven post offices have been opened in the Northen Territory since I January 1 970. Details have been provided separately to Senator Colston.
  2. Six post offices have been closed permanently in the Northern Territory since 1 January 1970. Details have been provided separately to Senator Colston.
  3. Two post offices in the Northern Territory have been renamed since 1 January 1970. Details have been provided separately to Senator Colston.

Retrenchment of Telephonists (Question No. 768)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 12 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many Telephonists in each Australian State and Territory will be retrenched in each year from 1978 to 1987 as a result of Telecom Australia’s Manual Conversion Programme and Manual Assistance Centre Closure Programme.
  2. How many Telephonists employed by Telecom Australia in each State arid Territory nave been retrenched in each year from 1973 to 1977 as a result of a Telecom Australia’s Manual Conversion Programme and Manual Assistance Closure Progamme.
  3. How many alternative jobs has Telecom Australia found in (a) Telecom Australia; (b) Australia Post; (c) other Government departments, statutory authorities and agencies; and (d ) private industry, for retrenched Telephonists, in each year from 1973 to 1977, in accordance with the 1974 Guidelines on Redundancy in Australian Government Employment.
  4. What is the nature of the alternative jobs found by Telecom Australia for retrenched Telephonists.
  5. What steps and procedures are followed by Telecom Australia in finding alternative employment for retrenched Telephonists in fulfilment of point 1 of the 1974 Guidelines for Redundancy in Australian Government Employment which states that ‘Every effort should be made to ensure that, as far as possible, redundant employees are re-absorbed into employment without financial loss to them and with full protection of the rights they have obtained as a result of their previous employment ‘.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Telecom Australia has detailed manpower planning forecasts indicating the effects of its Manual Exchange Closure Programme and Manual Assistance Centre Closure for the years 1 978-79 and 1 979-80 only. On present plans the numbers of staff involved in each State are indicated in Table 1.

It should be noted that these figures indicate the total number of staff involved as a result of Manual Exchange of Manual Assistance Centre closures and do not show actual retrenchments. Retrenchments can only be assessed at the time Exchanges or Assistance Centres are actually closed, as some staff accept redeployment or transfer.

The question of manual assistance centres is currently under review in particular as to the capability of modern technology to permit the operation of manual assistance centres on a decentralised basis, thus improving employment opportunities in country areas. The figures in Table 1 in respect of manual assistance centre closures could vary depending on the outcome of the review.

  1. Numbers of full-time (Permanent and Temporary) Telephonists staff surplus to needs at particular locations as a result of Manual Exchange conversions and Manual Assistance Centre closures are as follows:

In respect of the tables in questions ( 1 ) and (2), the figures include fixed term temporary employees who were informed upon engagement that the duration of their employment would be for a specified period only because of the proposed conversion to automatic working. Wherever exchanges are programmed for conversion it is Telecom’s policy to recruit fixed term temporary staff only, at those locations.

  1. Records have not been kept of the subsequent employment of Telephonists where their services have been terminated as a result of closures of Country Exchanges. It has therefore not been possible to obtain information concerning either the number of staff obtaining alternative jobs or the nature of such employment. Standard personnel practice is to offer surplus Telephonists employment elsewhere within Telecom. However, owing to the limited employment opportunities which exist in the same locality as the closed exchange, these employment offers may be in other localities or districts. Telephonist staff unable to accept such offers for family or other reasons are referred to the local District Employment Office for assistance. The table shows the numbers of staff who accepted alternate jobs with Telecom. In addition to these, a small number were also able to be placed with Australia Post.
  1. Nearly all the alternate jobs found in Telecom Australia were Telephonist or Telephone Supervisor. The remaining positions included Clerical Assistant, Phonogram Operator and Teleprinter Operator.
  2. 5 ) Telephonists who are retrenched as a result of the closure of Manual Telephone Exchanges or Manual Assistance Centres are located in country centres where alternative employment with Telecom is generally not available. Offers of transfer to a vacancy, usually at another centre where there is a permanent Manual Assistance Centre (including the capital city), are made to the staff involved. Where a transfer to a position of another designation can be offered, any necessary retraining is given.

Telecom Australia is a respondent to the Australian Telecommunications Commission Employees’ (Conditions of Redundancy) Award 1978. This Award (made in the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission with effect from 8 July 1977) prescribes that Telecom Australia shall make every endeavour to place the officer or employee in other suitable employment or arrange for such alternative employment’. In addition, the Award prescribes income maintenance payments for periods ranging from six to twelve months payable to persons who are unable to be reemployed or whose employment is continued at a lower salary’ The Award formalises arrangements observed by Telecom Australia since it commenced and by the then Postmaster-General’s Department since 1974. The provisions of the Award are identical to those operating in the Australian Public Service.

Telecom Australia has recently taken other initiatives to enhance job opportunities and career prospects, including offers of permanent employment to temporary employees. Telecom Australia, in conjunction with the Australian Telephone and Phonogram Officers ‘ Association also agreed recently to the introduction of a reduced working week for country exchange staff and extended opportunities for parttime employment.

In all cases, the assistance of the Commonwealth Employment Service is sought to place redundant staff (temporary or permanent staff who are unable to accept offers of employment in Telecom Australia ) in alternative employment.

Portrait of Sir John Kerr (Question No. 773)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 14 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) Does a portrait of Sir John Kerr, the former GovernorGeneral of Australia, currently grace the walls of the office of the President of the Senate.
  2. 2 ) For how long has Sir John ‘s portrait hung in the President ‘s office.
  3. Is it customary for official portraits of GovernorsGeneral of Australia to be hung in the office of the President before going on public display; if so, how many other portraits of Australian Governors-General have been so hung.
  4. When will honourable senators, members of the House of Representatives, visitors to Parliament House and other art lovers be privileged to view Sir John ‘s portrait in King’s Hall.
  5. ) If the portrait of Sir John Kerr is put on public display in the normal way in King’s Hall, will special security arrangements be requested to safeguard the painting from the attentions of those whose artistic views might tend to be more influenced by the Laszlo Toth School of Criticism than by more balanced, restrained and responsible authorities.
  6. Will the Minister take steps to ensure that, while not exposing Sir John’s portrait to any potential danger from vandals or over-emotional art enthusiasts, the Senate is informed of the cost of any additional security officers, devices or other arrangements which might be deemed necessary to protect the painting, other than those security measures which already apply in King’s Hall.
  7. Will the Minister make every effort to ensure that any public funds set aside for such a purpose will not be drawn from budgets in areas of real need, such as the provision of more adequate accommodation and facilities for senators, members and their staff.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) No.
  2. The portrait of Sir John Kerr by Mr Sam Fullbrook was delivered to Parliament House on 17 August 1978 and placed in the office of the President of the Senate the following day. It was removed from Parliament House on 12 December 1978.
  3. As has been the practice for a number of years in relation to new portraits the portrait of Sir John Kerr was placed in the office of the President of the Senate for inspection by the members of the Historic Memorials Committee. This Committee is responsible for acquiring or commissioning portraits of Governors-General, Prime Ministers, Presidents of the Senate, Speakers of the House of Representatives and other distinguished Australians.
  4. , (5), (6) and (7) The Fullbrook portrait of Sir John Kerr has been rejected by the Committee for inclusion in the Historic Memorials Collection. The portrait, therefore, will not be hung in King’s Hall in Parliament House.

Tennyson Holdings Pty Ltd: Dredging of Bloomfield River (Question No. 798)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 19 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) Is the company known as Tennyson Holdings Pty Ltd planning to dredge the Bloomfield River in far north Queensland for tin, and did the drilling start on 18 August 1978.
  2. Has an export licence been granted if the mining project goes ahead.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) If Tennyson Holdings Pty Ltd (Tennyson Minerals NL) wishes to dredge the Bloomfield River for tin it would require a mining permit from the Queensland Department of Mines. The Department of Trade and Resources has been informed by the Queensland Department of Mines that Tennyson Minerals NL only holds an authority to prospect in the Bloomfield River area. An authority to prospect does not include rights to mine. The Queensland Department of Mines has further advised that an initial exploration reconnaissance was carried out in 1977, followed by a drilling program in August 1978, which took only one week to complete.
  2. Tennyson Minerals have not approached the Department of Trade and Resources to seek approval to export tin.

Cape Flattery Silica Sand Mining Company (Question No. 800)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 19 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) What royalty is being paid by the Cape Flattery Silica Sand Mining Company (a) to the Queensland Government: and (b) to the Federal Government.
  2. Is a check on the amount of sand extracted being carried out by the Queensland Government or is this check carried out under the terms of an export licence by the Federal Government.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) (a) The Department of Trade and Resources has been informed by the Queensland Department of Mines that

Cape Flattery Silica Sand Mines Pty Ltd pays royalty of 25 cents per tonne to the Queensland Government. (b)Nil.

  1. The Queensland Department of Mines informed the Department of Trade and Resources that the company’s books are inspected to determine the amount of sand extracted for royalty purposes.

Jabiru Uranium Mining Project: Environmental Impact Statements (Question No. 807)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science and the Environment, upon notice, on 1 9 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) What Environmental Impact Statements have been prepared relating to the Jabiru uranium mining project in the Northern Territory.
  2. 2 ) Is water being pumped from the Jabiru mining site.
  3. What is the radio-active contamination level of this water as compared with the permissible level.
  4. Is the water being pumped from the site being reticulated into the South Alligator river system.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) A draft EIS relating to the Jabiru uranium project, and dated February 1974, was prepared by Ranger Cranium Mines Pty Ltd. Two supplementary environmental impact statements, dated May 1975 were also prepared by Ranger Uranium Mines Pty Ltd. All of these statements were made available to the public in May 1 975 when the commissioning of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry was announced.
  2. Yes. Water is pumped from 2 bores near the Jabiru Camp for domestic use.
  3. Levels of Uranium, radium (226Ra) and radon (222Rn) have been measured in these waters and are below the maximum permissible concentrations applicable to members of the public set down in the Code of Practice on Radiation Protection in the Mining and Milling of Radioactive Ores (Commonwealth Department of Health, 1975).
  4. No.

Television: Bunbury Area (Question No. 816)

Senator Walsh:

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

  1. 1 ) Has either television Channel 9 or Channel 7 in Perth made an application to establish a relay transmitter in the Bunbury area.
  2. Does the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 allow these Channels to operate a relay transmitter.
  3. Are there two currently unused channels, on the coaxial cable from Perth to Bunbury, which could carry the television relay.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) No.
  2. Section 105b (2) of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 states that ‘ … the Tribunal shall not grant or renew a licence for a television translator station if, in the opinion of the Tribunal, satisfactory reception of television programs from a commercial television station is being obtained in the area in which the signals from that television translator station are designed to be satisfactorily received ‘.

Should the Tribunal be of the opinion that satisfactory reception of the Bunbury station is not being received in the Bunbury area, section 105b (2b) requires the tribunal to have regard to the principle that, subject to ensuring that the needs of the people in the area concerned are adequately served (see also s. 105b (2a)), it is desirable that a television translator licence for the purpose of the re-transmission of programs for reception in an area that is not within a metropolitan television area should be granted or renewed for the purpose of the re-transmission of the programs of a station that is not a metropolitan station in preference to a television translator station licence for the purpose of the retransmission of the programs of a metropolitan television station.

  1. No. The coaxial cable system from Perth to Bunbury comprises four tubes which are all currently occupied and carry national television signals plus telephony. This system has no existing capability to carry additional television signals from Perth to Bunbury.

Post Office at the Monument, Queensland: Christmas 1976 Stamps (Question No. 855)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 26 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) When was the post office at the Monument, Queensland opened.
  2. Was this date the first day of issue of the Christmas 1976 stamps; if so, were any Christmas stamps specially cancelled on that date with a postmark designated ‘The Monument’.
  3. If so, how many were cancelled on the following types of envelopes: (a) ‘General Purpose’ Australian Post Office Philatelic Covers; (b) ‘Official Post Office Cover’-First Day of Issue; (c) ‘Australia Post Cover’- Christmas 1976; and (d ) any other type of cover.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 November 1976.
  2. The 1976 Christmas stamps were issued onI November 1976. Christmas stamps were postmarked on that date with the normal post office date stamp used at The Monument.
  3. (a) Approximately 200. (b), (c) and (d) Not recorded.

Departure Tax (Question No. 876)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minsiter representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 1 1 October 1978:

  1. What is the expected revenue from the new $10 per capita departure tax to be levied on all travellers travelling overseas from Australia for

    1. the remainder of the year 1978-79.
    2. the year 1979-80.
  2. In what countries does a similar tax operate.
  3. What is the per capita tax on travellers departing from each of those countries.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. Not all travellers leaving Australia have to pay departure tax. Section 5 ( 1 ) of the Departure Tax Collection Act (1978) defines those persons exempt from liability, for example, children under 18 years of age. Estimated revenue from departure tax during-

    1. 1978-79 is $9m.
    2. 1 979-80 is $ 13m.
  2. and (3) Similar types of general revenue taxes exist in several overseas countries, often in the form of u sales tax. Details are provided in the international Tourist Information Manual (TIM), Official Airline Guide and ABC World Airways Guide.

Overseas Borrowings (Question No. 879)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 11 October 1978:

What was the total amount of overseas borrowing by the Commonwealth Government in: (a) 1976-77, and (b) 1977-78.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

Applying exchange rates relevant at the time of receipt of proceeds for each loan, the approximate Australian dollar equivalents of overseas borrowings by the Commonwealth in 1976-77 and 1977-78 were $458m and $l,764m respectively.

Vietnamese Refugees (Question No. 882)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 10 October 1978:

  1. 1 ) Did a ship travelling to Australia from Indo-China arrive on the Australian coast in late March 1 978.
  2. Was the ship carrying 120 Vietnamese, 30 of whom had been previously rejected by Australian officers in Thailand.
  3. Were all or any of the 30 returned to Indo-China or were they allowed to remain in Australia.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (I also refer the honourable senator to the answer to a similar question without notice in the Hansard of 16 November 1978, page 2 175):

  1. The VNSG 1028 arrived in Darwin on 26 March 1978 with 108 Vietnamese on board.
  2. Some of those who arrived aboard the boat in March had previously been interviewed by officers of my Department in Malaysia but they had not been rejected for admission to Australia. Priorities are allotted to the refugees based on the presence of close relatives here or the existence of former ties with Australia and those outside the top priorities have sometimes been tempted- as in this case- to reembark and sail for Australia.
  3. The present position with these boat people is that their applications for refugee status are still under examination by the Determination of Refugee Status Committee. In the meantime they have authority to remain in Australia temporarily pending final resolution of their status.

Telephone Accounts (Question No. 883)

Senator Townley:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 10 October 1978:

How many complaints regarding suspected telephone account overcharging have been made in each State during each three month period from October 1976 to September 1978, and how many of the accounts in question were adjusted in each State in each period.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

Each year Telecom Australia issues to subscribers approximately 10 million telephone accounts and, of these, less than 1 per cent are queried in respect of the charge made for metered calls.

Statistics in respect of such queries are maintained on a quarterly basis for capital city areas only and these are tabulated below.

Community Relations (Question No. 900)

Senator Colston:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 1 1 October 1978:

Has the Office of the Commissioner for Community Relations taken any action in relation to a report in the ‘Sunday Sun ‘ of 8 October 1 978, headed ‘ Hinze Blasts Pom Stirrers ‘; if so, what action has been taken.

Senator Durack:
LP

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

The Commissioner for Community Relations informs me that he received a number of complaints concerning remarks alleged to have been made by the Honourable R. Hinze, M.L.A., that were the subject of the newspaper report. The Commissioner took the view that the information available to him did not disclose an unlawful act. The Commissioner forwarded details of the complaints to Mr Hinze.

Public Ethnic Broadcasters (Question No. 915)

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 17 October 1978:

  1. 1 ) What information is available to the Government to indicate that the Special Broadcasting Service is the most effective way to meet the demand of ethnic communities for radio and television services.
  2. Has the Minister considered support and development of Public Ethnic Broadcasters as an alternative to a State regulated and directed service.
  3. 3 ) Is support of Public Ethnic Broadcasters by the Special Broadcasting Service contingent on their acceptance of programming guidelines; if so, what programming guidelines have been set by the Special Broadcasting Service for Public Ethnic Broadcasters.
  4. Does the Government intend to introduce elections for representatives of each ethnic community on State Ethnic Broadcasting Advisory Councils.
  5. What procedures has the Government adopted for monitoring the response of ethnic communities to programming by the Special Broadcasting Service.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) In 1976 the Government received detailed advice on the establishment of a permanent ethnic broadcasting service from the Ministers for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Post and Telecommunications. This was based upon the work of a committee of officials called the Consultative Committee on Ethnic Broadcasting, appointed by the two Ministers, which consulted ethnic communities and other interested parties over a period of several months.

As one result, the Government appointed the National Ethnic Broadcasting Advisory Council, composed of representatives of ethnic communities, to advise it upon all policy matters concerning ethnic radio and television. The Government’s recent decision to involve the SBS in the provision of an ethnic television service was based upon advice from NEBAC, the Report of the Review of Post Arrival Programs and Services to Migrants (Galbally Report), and the report of an Interdepartmental Committee of Officials from the Departments of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Prime Minister and Cabinet, Postal and Telecommunications, and Finance.

  1. Yes. The Galbally Report commended the provision of ethnic broadcasting services through public broadcasting stations as a cost-effective alternative to providing services through full SBS stations. The Government provided limited funds to the SBS for subsidising ethnic broadcasting through public stations in areas where there was no SBS service during the last financial year. This financial year an amount of $75,000 has been provided.
  2. Support of ethnic public broadcasters by the Special Broadcasting Service is contingent of their acceptance of the Government’s ‘code of Principles’ which are contained in the Regulations under the Act.
  3. No. My colleague the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has informed me that persons appointed to the State Ethnic Broadcasting Advisory Committees (SEBAC) are appointed as individuals, not as representatives of particular communities. This does not preclude nominations being made to the Minister by the community. Indeed, my colleague the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has informed me that, before making the initial appointments, he invited nominations from the community.
  4. The Terms of Reference of both the National EthnicBroadcasting Advisory Council and the State Ethnic Broadcasting Advisory Committees, NSW and Vic, call for them to advise the Government, as well as the Special Broadcasting Service, on the policy and programming needs of the ethnic communities. In addition, the SBS undertakes regular surveys on its listeners in the various languages with the purpose of obtaining information on the needs and preferences of its listeners.

Television Service: Northern Territory (Question No. 927)

Senator Robertson:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 19 October 1978:

  1. Have the extension of services and the provision of more local content on Australian Broadcasting Commission television in the Northern Territory been delayed due to the introduction of colour: if so, when are Territorians likely to have these services provided now that the change has been made.
  2. Will the Northern Territory Regional Office make more news and local content coverage available to southern outlets now that the change to colour transmission has been made.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) No. The conversion to colour of television facilities in Darwin involved the replacement of existing monochrome equipment with colour equipment. An expansion of local content in the Northern Territory is dependent on the provision of additional funds and staff. Plans to improve the ABC news service and local public affairs programs in the Northern Territory, with existing staff, are being developed.
  2. The installation of colour equipment in the Northern Territory will mean that southern outlets will almost certainly feature more news and program material than they did before colourisation. It will not mean the ABC’s Darwin Office will necessarily have more material to make available, merely that, as the material supplied will be in colour, it will be more acceptable for inclusion in news bulletins and other ABC programs where the regular service is in colour.

Entry Requirements for Seychellois (Question No. 930)

Senator Mason:

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

  1. Are several thousand persons of Seychellois origin now resident in Australia.
  2. What are the present entry requirements for Seychellois wishing to migrate to Australia.
  3. 3 ) Will the Government, on compassionate grounds, consider making entry to Australia easier for relatives of Seychellois now living in Australia, in view of the recent change of the government in the Seychelles.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Census data relating to people born in the Seychelles or with Seychelles citizenship are not recorded separately. It is not possible therefore to establish the numbers of Seychellois resident in Australia.

Migration of Seychellois to Australia is small, as the following settler arrival statistics indicate:

1974*- 35; 1975-40; 1976-23; 1977-25.

Earlier figures not available.

  1. Australian immigration policy is non-discriminatory, and is applied on a global basis. The entry requirements for Seychellois wishing to migrate to Australia are identical with those applying to prospective migrants from all other countries.
  2. No reports have been received by the Government which would suggest that special consideration should be given to Seychellois wishing to migrate to Australia.

Medibank Report (Question No. 936)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 24 October 1978:

Was a ‘secret’ report submitted by a senior Medibank executive to the Federal Government in 1978, as claimed in The Sunday Mail, 22 October 1 978; if so, will the Minister table the report.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

No, but it is assumed that the ‘secret’ report refers to a long report written to the General Manager of the Health Insurance Commission by an employee, who was certainly not a senior executive, whose duties involved investigation of possible cases of fraud or oversupply of services. The report was considered by the General Manager and I am satisfied that any appropriate action warranted by the report has been taken.

Subsequently, after leaving the employment of the Commission, the individual concerned made a threat to ‘get even ‘ during the course of a telephone conversation with the Brisbane Office of the Commission.

Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation (Question No. 938)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 25 October 1 978:

  1. 1 ) Were the services of Mr Leonard Warner as a representative in Washington of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation terminated on 30 June 1 978.
  2. For how long had Mr Warner been engaged by the Australian Meat Board and the Meat and Livestock Corporation as a representative in Washington.
  3. When was any other person or organisation appointed to replace Mr Warner.
  4. What is the business address in the United States of such person or organisation.
  5. Who represented the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation in Washington between the time of the termination of Mr Warner’s services and the appointment of his successor.
  6. When did it first become known to the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation that certain Bills proposing further restrictions on beef imports would be presented to the United States Congress.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Since 1 January 1970. On 2 December 1977, the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation advised Mr Warner that his appointment was being continued on a month by month basis pending review.
  3. No person or organisation has been appointed to replace Mr Warner.
  4. See (3).
  5. 5 ) While no successor to Mr Warner has been appointed, the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation continues to be represented in Washington by a firm of attorneys, Clifford, Glass, Mcllwain and Finney. This firm has represented the Australian Meat Board and subsequently the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation since 1969.
  6. Over SO Bills have been presented to the US Congress at various times over the past two years designed to place further restrictions of one form or another on US imports of beef. Most of these were private Members’ Bills and the first to attract detailed consideration by Congress was the Bentsen Bill (S289S). This embodied the so called countercyclical concept of regulating the volume of imports to counter fluctuations in the level of US beef production. This Bill was approved by the Senate Finance Committee on 19 April 1978 and was passed by the US Senate on 5 May 1978. When considered by the House Ways and Means Committee some of the restrictive provisions of the Bentsen Bill were modified and an alternative, the Poage Bill (HR 1 1545) was presented to the House of Representatives. The Poage Bill, with minor amendments, was passed by the House and the Senate late in the second week of October 1978 and subsequently vetoed by President Carter.

Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation (Question No. 939)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 25 October 1978:

  1. 1 ) Does the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation contribute in any way to the Meat Importers’ Council of America; if so, what are the form and the cost of the contribution?
  2. Which other organisations are members of the Meat Importers’ Council of America?
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) The Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation has not made any financial contribution to the Meat Importers’ Council of America (MICA). The MICA is a trade association concerned with the importing of meat into the United States. The Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation is not a member of the MICA.

In the past, the MICA has requested contributions from time to time from both foreign and domestic sources for its general financial support. The Australian Meat Board, predecessor body to the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation and likewise not a member of the MICA, responded to such requests by providing funds in varying amounts to the Australian Meat Exporters’ Federal Council toward an industry contribution.

Toowong Post Office (Question No. 976)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 26 October 1978:

  1. 1 ) Does Toowong Post Office in Queensland issue service covers and/or first day covers.
  2. Is Toowong Post Office regarded as a Philatelic Post Office.
  3. Why were some customers not able to purchase the imperforate minisheet of the Famous Australian Aviators stamps at Toowong Post Office on the morning of the first day of issue.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. Toowong Post Office sells unserviced first day covers before the issue dates of stamps and serviced first day covers on and after issue dates.
  2. 2 ) Toowong Post Office is a ‘ first day cover’ office offering first day of issue facilities, but it is not a philatelic sales centre with a full range of Australia Post’s philatelic services available.
  3. In the production of the Aviators series, the printer experienced considerable problems which resulted in the stamps and minisheets being distributed to post offices later than is usual in relation to the date of release. Special efforts were made to have the stamps and minisheets available by the issue date of 1 9 April 1978 and, in Queensland, Australia Post staff worked overtime on 1 7 and 1 8 April to hand-count the stamps and minisheets allocated to that State. Post Office staff members at Toowong are unable to recall whether the Aviators minisheet was available at that office at 9.00 a.m. on 19 April. As far as can be determined, however, the minisheet was available at the office by later in the day on 1 9 April 1978.

Loan to Computer Services Pty Ltd (Question No. 986)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 8 November 1978:

  1. 1 ) Did the Decentralisation Advisory Board recommend that a loan of $115,000 repayable over 7 years be made to Computer Services Pty Ltd of” Albany, Western Australia; if so:

    1. What rate of interest is to be charged on the loan;
    2. b ) Was this rate of interest recommended by the Decentralisation Advisory Board; and
    3. Who are the directors of Computer and Management Services Pty Ltd
  2. 2 ) Has any similar type of assistance been recommended by the Decentralisation Advisory Board.
  3. 3 ) Are applications for loans of this type advertised.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Decentralisation Advisory Board recommended a loan to Computer and Management Services of $ 1 1 5,000 for a period of 7 years.

    1. The interest rate for loans under the Commonwealth Decentralised Development Program is normally the long term bond rate prevailing at the time of the loan
    2. The interest rate approved for the loan was that recommended by the Decentralisation Advisory Board
    3. The principals are Mr G. W. Berry, Mr K.. W. G. Gunton.
  2. No.
  3. The availability of assistance under the Commonwealth Decentralised Development Program has been widely publicised through the media, business, professional and regional organisations and State and Commonwealth Departments with responsibilities in the area of regional development. Brief details of successful applications are announced.

Retrenchments in Clothing Trade (Question No. 995)

Senator Archer:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 8 November 1978:

Did the Federal Government study group on structural adjustment engage the Australian Council of Social Services to carry out a pilot study on workers retrenched in the clothing trade: if so: (a) when was the survey commissioned; (b) what were the terms laid down; (c) when was the result received: (d) what was the cost of the survey; (e) was the survey satisfactory to the study group; (f) who conducted the survey, and what were the surveyor’s qualifications; (g) what surveys have previously been carried out by the surveyor: (h) for how long has the surveyor been employed by the Australian Council of Social Services; (i) what was the degree of supervision provided; and (i) what was the extent of the circulation of the survey.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

The Study Group on Structural Adjustment did engage the Australian Council of Social Services (ACOSS) to undertake a pilot study of persons affected by structural change:

ACOSS agreed to undertake the study on 23 May 1978;

The aim of the pilot study was to examine aspects of structural adjustment from the perspective of the unemployed by examining the experiences of persons who had been retrenched. The survey was not intended to be representative of the clothing industry;

28 July 1978;

$10,000;

Yes; (f), (g), (h)and (i) The study was conducted by staff of ACOSS assisted by Australian National Opinion Polls;

) The report has not yet been printed but is available in roneoed form on request and a few copies have been distributed in this way.

Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation: Residential Allotments (Question No. 996)

Senator Archer:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 8 November 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many residential allotments were developed by the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation in each year since its inception.
  2. How many such allotments have been:

    1. sold each year;
    2. b ) leased each year; and
    3. leased with houses each year.
  3. 3 ) How many allotments were there on which:

    1. houses were built and sold; and
    2. b ) houses have been built and not yet sold.
  4. How many factory units of the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation in each year since its inception were:

    1. built and sold;
    2. built and leased;
    3. built and made available for sale; and
    4. built and made available for lease.
  5. How many industries were serviced directly by the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation in each year since its inception.
  6. What was the population of the Albury-Wodonga region as at 30 June 1 978.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) 1974-75 - nil: 1975-76-179: 1976-77-330: 1977-78-419.
  2. (a) 1974-75- nil: 1975-76-22: 1976-77-16: 1977-78-58.

    1. The Corporation does not lease residential land.
    2. 1 974-75 - nil; 1 975-76 - nil: 1976-77-38: 1977-78-172.
  3. (a) and (b) The Corporation does not build houses for sale.
  4. ( a) The Corporation does not sell factory units.

    1. 1974-75- nil; 1975-76- nil; 1976-77-8; 1977-78-6.
    2. as per (a).
    3. 1974-75 - nil; 1 975-76- nil; 1976-77-14; 1977-78-14.
  5. Since its establishment in 1974 the Corporation has assisted in various ways many hundreds of individual firms. The numbers of firms established on Corporation and other land are set out below:

1974-130; 1975-144; 1976-155; 1977-150.

  1. Population estimates for local government areas at 30 June 1978 have not been published. The Corporation has estimated that the population of the Albury-Wodonga Statistical District at 30 June 1978 was in the order of 69,200.

Australian Capital Territory: Retail

Commercial Property (Question No. 997)

Senator Archer:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Capital Territory, on notice, on 8 November 1978:

  1. 1 ) How much retail commercial property was constructed in the Australian Capital Territory in each year from 1 973 to 1977 by: (a) the private sector; and (b) the National Capital Development Commission.
  2. How much retail commercial property was approved for construction by: (a) the private sector; and (b) the National Capital Development Commission, but has not yet been constructed.
  3. Are the rentals of properties owned by the National Capital Development Commission based on: (a) the profitability of the business; (b) the value of the property; or (c) market forces.
  4. Are there any population standards by which the National Capital Development Commission approves or constructs retail property.
  5. Is the effect on existing retail business taken into account when considering applications for approval.
  6. Has the construction of major retailing complexes had any effect on trading in Civic and/or suburban centres; if so: (a) what proposals does the National Capital Development Commission have for the rehabilitation of Civic; (b) will new suburban shopping centres still be provided; and (c) will any shopping areas be closed or allowed to remain closed; if so, which.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

I am informed by the National Capital Development Commission as follows:

  1. (a) (i) Approval was given in 1976 for the redevelopment of the Capital Cinema site in Manuka including an amount of commercial floorspace.

    1. Approval was given in 1978 for the redevelopment of the Manuka Village site for 1250 m2 of retail floorspace. As the amount of retail floorspace and purpose of the development remained the same, no change to the lease purpose was required. The project is under construction and expected to be completed in September 1979.
  2. The National Capital Development Commission does not own retail commercial property.
  3. Sites are serviced by the National Capital Development Commission for disposal by the Department of the Capital Territory for the construction of retail and commercial premises by private enterprise. The current standard for the provision of retail floorspace is 1.20 m2 per head of population. There is a surplus of retail space at the present time caused principally by the slower rate of population growth than was projected when sites were serviced and released at Belconnen, Woden and Tuggeranong.
  4. Yes.
  5. Yes.

    1. In the case of Civic current developments include the construction of the School of Arts, Family Law Courts and the extension of the City Walk Pedestrian Plaza. Sites are being examined for a tourist complex, a city bus station and a new city post office. Private enterprise development includes a new office building at City West which commenced in November 1978.
    2. No sites are being released for retail purposes in town centres or existing suburban areas until further notice.
    3. No shopping areas are to be closed. The new Centrepoint development in City was opened in November on the site of the retail outlet closed earlier in 1 978.

Radio Service on Thursday Island (Question No. 1003)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 7 November 1978:

  1. 1 ) What work remains to be carried out before a radio service is available to residents of Thursday Island.
  2. When is it anticipated that a radio service will be available on Thursday Island.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The following work in relation to the Thursday Island broadcasting station remains to be carried out:

    1. Installation of transportable equipment shelter, with transmitters pre-installed, which will be shipped to site in January.
    2. Construction of combining system, which is about to commence, and modifications to radiator scheduled for January.
  2. Completion of works mentioned in (1) should allow radio broadcasts to commence by the end of April 1979.

Television Reception in North-West Tasmania (Question No. 1007)

Senator Tate:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 7 November 1978:

  1. 1 ) Is the television reception available to residents of the East Devonport and Spreyton areas of North-West Tasmania sub-standard.
  2. Will the Minister approve the erection of commercial and national television translators on Kelsey Tier.
  3. Will he grant his approval fora translator to be erected and used by TNT9 if the national translator cannot be provided immediately.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The East Devonport and Spreyton areas of Northern Tasmania suffer from poor national and commercial television reception due to the fairly close-in rolling hills surrounding the area which obstruct transmissions.
  2. Provision for improved national television reception in these areas has been included in a three-year Capital Works Program for the extension of the national broadcasting and television service recently approved in principle by the Government.

My Department is currently preparing a planning proposal for my consideration on the establishment of a commercial television translator in the area. On approval of that proposal, I will invite applications for the grant of a licence for a translator. These applications would be received by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal who would arrange the necessary public inquiry in the event of more than one application being received, or any objection made, in relation to the proposal. The foregoing procedure is in accordance with the provisions of the Broadcasting and Television Act.

  1. The honourable senator will appreciate that it is not within my power to grant approval for a translator to bc erected and used by TNT9. The responsibility for the grant of licences for the commercial service rests with the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, as does the determination of the date on which the holder of a licence shall commence the service in pursuance of the licence.

National Health and Medical Research Council Grants (Question No. 1008)

Senator Peter Baume:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 7 November 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many applications were received for National Health and Medical Research Council grants from 1 November 1 977 to 3 1 October 1 978.
  2. ) How many of these were granted in full.
  3. How many applicants were refused grants of money.
  4. How many received grants of only part of the amounts sought.
  5. How many grants were discontinued for projects which had been running 3 years or more.
  6. What loss of employment has occurred due to dismissal of scientists from funded programs.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

NH and MRC project grant support is on a calendar year basis only, and the period for which information is sought is not within the normal pattern of granting.

If the honourable senator is seeking information on trends in NH and MRC granting operations, this would best be related to a calendar year for the statistics to be meaningful.

1 ) There were 640 project grant applications received by NH and MRC for support in the calendar year 1979. In addition the Council confirmed support for 1979 for 208 ongoing projects in line with the principle outlined in ( 5 ) below.

279 initial applicants were awarded grants and of these 21 applicants received the exact amounts requested. 193 applicants received 90 per cent or more of their requests and 65 applicants received substantially lower amounts than requested.

3 ) There were 36 1 unsuccessful applicants.

See (2) above.

It is Council’s policy that the duration of support for research projects should not normally exceed three years; a single clearly defined project may be expected to have been completed- or to have failed- in this time. A further question leading to a new project may, of course, arise as a result of the successful completion of the preceding one and support for such a new project may be requested.

Accordingly, in line with the above practice, about one third of all projects supported could be expected to be completed each year and no further funding would be provided unless support for a new project is requested.

The NH and MRC has no information on whether displaced staff have been transferred to new projects or projects from other granting bodies. NH and MRC grants are designed to assist- not control or direct- the prosecution of the investigations they support. Many NH and MRC supported projects also receive financial assistance from university, industry, or philanthropic sources. The discontinuance of NH and MRC support for a project does not necessarily therefore involve loss of employment.

Failure to Vote (Question No. 1011)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 8 November 1978:

  1. What circumstances led the Australian Electoral Officer for Queensland to direct the Divisional Returning Officer for Fisher not to institute proceedings against Dr Fowles because of his failure to vote (see answer to Question 894, Senate Hansard, 25 October 1978, page 1639).
  2. Did Dr Fowles state, as reported in the Sunday Sun. 5 November 1978, that ‘the Government has said no Australian is to vote if he doesn’t want to vote’ and ‘I wish to thank Senator Chaney. As he has condoned my stand he will now have to condone any other Australian who decides not to vote’: if so. is Dr Fowles’ statement an accurate representation of the Government’s attitude.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) I have been informed that the decision by the Australian Electoral Officer for Queensland to direct the Divisional Returning Officer for Fisher not to institute proceedings against Dr Fowles was made by the Australian Electoral Officer in the exercise of an independent statutory discretion, a discretion vested in him under Regulation 80 of the Electoral and Referendum Regulation, lt is not the practice to give detailed reasons relating to the exercise of that discretion. Dr Fowles’ statement is not an accurate representation of the Government’s attitude. Cases of electors failing to vote will continue to be judged on their merits.

Karawarra Defence Service Homes Village (Question No. 1013)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 8 November 1 978:

  1. How many tenders have been received for the purchase of 22 houses at the Karawarra Defence Service Home Village, Western Australia.
  2. What was the range of prices tendered for these houses.
  3. 3 ) At what prices were the same house previously offered for direct sale to ex-servicemen.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) 88 tenders were received for the 10 houses available for sale.
  2. ) Tenders ranged from $28,000 to $49, 1 50.
  3. Applicants were notified that the houses, then in the course of construction, would be available at prices between $39,000 and $49,205.

Aborigines: Employment at Mining Centres (Question No. 1025)

Senator McLaren:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 14 November 1978:

  1. I ) How many Aborigines are permanently employed at each of the following main mining centres in the Northern

Territory: (a) Groote Eylandt; (b) Nhulunbuy; and (c) Tennant Creek.

  1. What percentage of Aborigines has been employed, in the work force at each of the above mining projects in each year from 1971 to 1978.
  2. What guidelines have been drawn up by the Government to ensure that there will be guaranteed employment for Aborigines at the Ranger Uranium site should the mining of uranium proceed.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) (a) 57 (Gemco Mines).

    1. Yirrkala Business Enterprises at present employs 14 Aboriginals and another 2 are employed by the Northern Territory Police. Approximately 6 others are permanently employed by other employers.
    2. Peko Mines at present employs 7 Aboriginals and Geo Peko 2. Approximately 40 others are employed by several other employers, including my Department (2), Northern Territory Police ( 1 ), hospital (4) and school (2 ).
  2. 2 ) This information is not available.
  3. Employment for Aboriginals on the Ranger Uranium Project is specifically provided for in the Ranger Agreement between the Commonwealth and the Northern Land Council dated 3 November 1978.

Clause 1 2 of the agreement provides, inter alia, that:

The Commonwealth shall require the Joint Venturers to ensure that-

  1. as many local Aboriginals as is practicable are employed where those Aboriginals are capable of carrying out in a satisfactory manner the particular work required,
  2. an ‘Operator Training Scheme’ based on the employment needs of the Manager is established so that Aboriginals may learn to drive vehicles, including road graders, buses and conventional vehicles, and to operate plant used in mining operations with a view to the employment of trained Aboriginals by the Manager,
  3. by agreement with the Council, further employment training schemes are sponsored, and
  4. all practicable steps are taken to adjust working hours and conditions to suit the needs and culture of Aboriginal employees by way of joint consultation between the Joint Venturers, the Council and trade unions.

Northern Land Council (Question No. 1028)

Senator Robertson:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 14 November 1978:

Did Mr Stephen Zorn claim, on the program AM, Wednesday, 8 November 1978, that ‘unbearable pressure’ had been brought to bear on Aboriginal people by the Prime Minister, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and the Deputy Prime Minister; if so, will the Minister issue a statement denying that pressure was brought to bear and indicating the nature of the discussions held in Darwin between the three Ministers and the Chairman of the Northern Land Council, Mr Yunupingu.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. No, as an examination of the transcript shows. But in any event no such pressure was at any time brought to bear.
  2. The discussions with the Chairman and an executive member of the NLC, Mr Harry Wilson of Peppimenarti. were held at the Chairman’s request concerning extensions to the Arnhem Highway. Mr Zorn was not present. A Joint Statement was issued after the meeting as follows:

The Chairman of the Northern Land Council, Mr Galarrwuy Yunupingu will recommend that the agreement initialled by negotiators be accepted by the NLC at its meeting next week.

The Chairman of the NLC, Mr Yunupingu, gave this undertaking provided that the Commonwealth Government ensures that unless the NLC agrees, no construction on the Arnhem Highway beyond the existing bitumen will take place before a final decision is made by the Government on whether or not the Pancontinental deposit at Jabiluka can be mined.

The Prime Minister reiterated to the Chairman that the Government has not made a decision to allow Pancontinental to mine and the Government will not be making a decision until the required processes of the law regarding the environment and Aboriginal land claims have been completed ‘.

Excise on Potable Spirits (Question No. 1031)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 15 November 1978:

  1. How much of the $132,000,000 estimate of receipts from the Excise of Potable Spirits for 1978-79 is expected from sales of: (a) whisky; (b) brandy; (c) rum; (d) vodka; (e) gin; (f) and other spirits.
  2. What was the amount of revenue from this Excise on each of these spirits for 1977-78. ,
  3. 3 ) What quantity of each of these spirits wascleared from bond in: (a) September 1977; (b) October 1977; (c) September 1978; and (d) October 1978.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) In view of the necessarily broad nature of the estimates for 1978-79,I do not consider that it would be appropriate to go beyond what is said in the Budget documents.
  2. and (3) The figures are set out in the table below.

Terminations of Pregnancy (Question No. 1040)

Senator Peter Baume:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 15 November 1978:

  1. 1 ) Under what guidelines does the Terminations Committee set up in Canberra hospitals operate when examining applications for terminations of pregnancy.
  2. Are these guidelines set down formally; if so, (a) when were they so set down and (b) what are the circumstances under which these guidelines can be varied or altered.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. The Termination Committee is an informal Committee set up originally by the Canberra Hospital Management Board and is operated as a means of providing impartial and objective advice to the Clinical Superintendents of the Commission ‘s large public hospitals.

Procedural Guidelines

The current procedure is:

  1. when the question of possible termination of pregnancy arises the Committee requires medical certificates from two medical practitioners indicating that continuation of pregnancy is likely to seriously endanger the life or health, including mental health, of the mother. One of the certificates should be from the doctor who is willing to perform the operation;
  2. the Committee considers the reports and clinical notes and may on occasions wish to interview the medical practitioners;
  3. the Committee recommends to the Hospital Clinical Superintendent whether or not the proposed termination should proceed.

Policy Guidelines

In deciding upon its recommendation the Committee considers (in accordance with the Law relating to terminations in the ACT) whether the proposed termination is:

  1. necessary to preserve the woman from a serious danger to her life or her physical or mental health (not being merely the normal dangers of pregnancy and childbirth) which the continuance of the pregnancy would entail; and
  2. in the circumstances, not out of proportion to the danger to be averted.

    1. The Commission itself has not formally proposed procedural guidelines nor has it in any way attempted to impose any policy guidelines on the Committee.

The policy guidelines which do apply may be said to be formally contained in the prevailing law in the ACT relating to terminations. In this respect,

  1. the prevailing law is that stated by Mr Justice Menhennitt in the Victorian Supreme Court in 1 969 and by Judge Levine in the New South Wales District Court in October 1971;
  2. the prevailing law can only be varied or altered by the Courts or by new legislation.

Broadcasting: Australian Music Quota (Question No 1042)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 16 November 1 978:

  1. 1 ) Will a 30 per cent quota for Australian music on Australian Radio come into effect next May.
  2. Does the Government intend to increase further the 30 per cent quota; if so, by how much, and over what time period, will the quota be increased.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Broadcasting and Television Act 1 942 provides for encouragement of Australian artists in the production and presentation of programs and for the broadcasting ofa minimum percentage of works by Australian composers.

In referring the Report of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal into Self-regulation back to the Tribunal, the Government noted that some specific requirements and standards are necessary in areas such as Australian content, and asked the Tribunal to take into account the desirability of continuing to foster programs which are Australian in character and provide continuity of work opportunity for Australian creative talent.

The Tribunal, rather than the Government, is the body which makes detailed decisions on program standards and related matters.

  1. Refer to (1) above.

Motor Vehicles: Import Quotas (Question No. 1047)

Senator Chipp:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 17 November 1978:

  1. 1 ) Has the Government any evidence of quota profit in respect of small to medium family cars?
  2. Have the holders of quotas for such vehicles denied the existence of such quota profit?
  3. If quota profit does not exist in respect of these vehicles, will the Government review the additional12’/i per cent impost on goods under quota?
  4. Has the Minister received representations which would indicate that import volumes are likely to fall significantly in 1979 because of the additional 12½ percent impost included in the Budget?
  5. What action will the Government take to ensure that importers are able to utilise their quota entitlement and hence supply the 20 per cent of the market that the Government has announced will be reserved for them?
  6. Will any fall in imports as a result of the 12½ per cent impost take place mainly in respect of small to medium family sized cars and hence remove the only source of competition to local manufacturers?
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) No specific evidence is held. Quotas are generally not issued for particular makes or sizes of cars. They may be used to import any car and transfer to other importers can be arranged.
  2. Some quota holders have denied the existence of profit through the sale of quotas.
  3. The Government’s overall economic policy objectives require that revenue targets set in the Budget be closely adhered to. Accordingly, the Government has decided that the application of the 12W per cent special duty surcharge will continue.
  4. Yes.
  5. 5 ) The Government has not stated that 20 per cent of the market will be reserved for imports. Its policy is to guarantee the local industry access to about 80 per cent of the local market.
  6. There are indications that import clearances of some small to medium sized vehicles are currently at levels below quota entitlements. A number of factors can, however, influence sales including market acceptance of the products offered and international currency alignments.

Slaven-Mazda Pty Ltd (Question No. 1050)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice, on 17 November 1978:

  1. 1 ) Is the allotment at 3 Botany Street, Phillip, Australian Capital Territory, occupied by a car sales firm known as Slaven-Mazda
  2. Was this allotment given to a previous owner, Mr J. Palmer, and sold by him to the current occupants.
  3. Does this company have a financial ‘tie-in’ with another well known car company, operating in the Canberra area, which has a franchise for a different make of vehicle.
  4. Is Crown Land adjoining the property occupied by Messrs Slaven-Mazda and currently used as a car park, to be re-zoned and made available to the car sales company mentioned.
  5. Will the appropriate gazettal take place during the Christmas recess when the Australian Parliament is not in Session.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

I am informed by my Department that:

1 ) Yes, the land is occupied by Slaven-Mazda Pty Ltd. The lessee is Canberra Credits Pty Ltd, a major shareholder in Slaven-Mazda Pty Ltd.

The land was leased on normal commercial terms to J. P. Motors (A.CT.) Pty Ltd in July 1977 in accordance with policies which have applied since 1975 to the grant of leases to franchisee! motor companies. Four months later and prior to execution of the lease J. P. Motors (A.CT.) Pty Ltd advised that the business was being sold and asked that the lease issue in the name of Canberra Credits Pty Ltd. This was agreed.

Yes.

In December 1977 the lessee applied for the lease of abutting land on which a little used service road and traffic island stand. The National Capital Development Commission agreed that the section of road was unnecessary and created some confusion to traffic.

Subject to statutory requirements being satisfied it was agreed that the land should be available for lease.

In accordance with usual practice the proposal to vary the city plan by removing the access road from the Statutory Plan of Layout of Canberra was publicly advertised and was among the items considered by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory at its hearings on 2 1 and 23 August 1978. No objection was raised to the proposal and the Committee’s report was subsequently tabled in both Houses of the Parliament. It laid in the House for the statutory six sitting days, no motion of disallowance of any item was moved and the formal variation action was taken and gazetted on 2 November 1978. Lease negotiations will now proceed with Canberra Credits Pty Ltd on current market terms. The applicant will in addition be required to meet any costs arising from the relocation of enginerring and other services.

No.

Price of Oil (Question No. 1052)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 17 November 1978:

What is the definition of ‘official selling price’ when applied to Arabian light crude oil in calculating the import parity price of indigenous crude oil.

Senator Durack:
LP

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

The price nominated by the Saudi Arabian Government for the sale of 34° API gravity crude on the basis of 60 days credit to customers other than the consortium companies that comprise the Arabian American Oil Company.

Quarantine Regulations (Question No. 1054)

Senator McLaren:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 22 November 1978:

  1. 1 ) Has the Minister ever made any representations to either the Bureau of Animal Health or the Department of Health, seeking a relaxation of quarantine regulations as they apply to the importation of livestock; if so what was the nature of the representations.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) In my capacity as Minister for Primary Industry, Chairman of the Australian Agricultural Council and the Australian Fisheries Council and in representing a rural electorate I receive from time to time representations or proposals concerning variations to present Australian quarantine requirements.

The scope of such inquiries is quite wide ranging over all species of livestock and many countries. There has been, for example greater interest shown in the possibility of importing various classes of livestock since the Government decisions to proceed with the off-shore animal Quarantine Station at Cocos Islands and the Australian National Animal Health Laboratories at Geelong.

Where appropriate, representations concerning quarantine issues are referred to my colleague, the Minister for Health, for consideration and decision or advice. I do not make direct representations to the Depanment of Health. The Bureau of Animal Health in my Department provides me with advice on the complete range of animal health matters required from dme to time.

I have made no representations to either the Bureau of Animal Health or the Department of Health that could in any way be regarded as seeking a relaxation of quarantine regulations.

Work Visas (Question No. 1060)

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 23 November 1978:

  1. 1 ) Why was any reference to work visas omitted from the comprehensive outline of current immigration policy criteria at pages 1 1-13 of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs ‘Review ‘78’.
  2. What criteria govern the granting of work visas for entry to Australia.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The comprehensive outline of current immigration policy at pages 1 1-13 of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs’ ‘Review ‘78’ deals with entry for settlement. Under the heading ‘General Eligibility Category’ mention is made of provision for the entry of independent applicants and employment nominees who are recruited where the required workers are not available locally.

Applicants within this general category will be eligible only if they possess skills or qualifications which represent a gain to Australia and are conducive to successful settlement.

  1. No work visas are issued as such for entry as settlers but within the scope of temporary entry policy as outlined on pages 30 and 31 of ‘Review ‘78’ people with expertise not readily available in Australia may be admitted as temporary residents. This facility reflects the principle that employment opportunities in Australia should as a matter of first priority be available to members of the Australian work-force settled here, supplemented by permanent migration. To this end the prospective employer has to establish that he or she is unable to satisfy a specialised labour need from the existing work-force.

National Women’s Advisory Council (Question No. 1061)

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 22 November 1978:

Who are the members of the National Women’s Advisory Council, referred to on page 2 of the pamphlet For the Ethnic Media, dated 22 November 1978, and what are the details of their experience in community affairs.

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

The first appointments to the National Women’s Advisory Council, which was established to advise the Government on matters of concern to women, were announced by me on 14 July 1978.

Details of the membership of the Council and their experience in community affairs are as follows:

Convenor

Beryl Beaurepaire (Victoria)- Voluntary community and charity worker; Citizens’ Welfare Service of Victoria (VicePresident), United Nations Association of Australia, Status of Women Committee; Member, Women’s Advisory Body Working Party.

Members

Dee Boss- Walker (Tasmania)- Home duties with 3 young children; very involved with community child care activities; Secretary Australian Pre-School Association, Tasmania; immediate past president, Southern Tasmania Playgroups Association. President, Lindisfarne Child Health Association. Delgate to the I.Y.C. Committee, Tasmania; delegate to Tasmanian Children’s Week Committee.

Sue Broad (Western Australia)-Federal Vice-President of the Isolated Children’s Parents’ Association: has undertaken an overseas study tour on a Western Australian Women’s Fellowship to look further at problems of isolated parents and children; President Yalgoo Museum; member Country Women’s Association; local correspondent for the ABC; contributor to ‘The West Australian’ newspaper.

Quentin Bryce (Queensland)- B.A. (Political Science) and LL.B; Lecturer in administrative and criminal law at University of Queensland; currently enrolled as LL.M. student and researching the child and law in Queensland; has published and presented papers on rights of the child, emotional needs of young children and care of sick children; President, Association for the Welfare of Children in Hospital, Queensland; member, sub-committee on co-ordination of Pediatric Services, Queensland Pediatric Advisory Committee; member, sub-committee revising legislation in Queensland for handicapped children, Queensland Special Education Department; member, Women Lawyers’ Association, U.N. Association Human Rights Committee, Federation of University Women.

Connie Bush (Northern Territory)- Aboriginal; Welfare Officer, Groote Eyelandt. Born McArthur River. Lived at Roper River for many years and at Groote Eylandt. Widow. 10 children. Wide experience in relation to issues affecting Aboriginal women.

Valerie Fisher (Victoria)- Involved in various community activities in farming district where she lives, including work with mentally ill patients, Mayday Hills Hospital, Beechworth; member, Country Women’s Association (Victorian State President 1973-75; National President 1975-77); member, United Nations Association of Australia, Status of Women Committee; has attended two world conferences of Associated Country Women of the World.

Lena Gustin (New South Wales)- Italian migrated 1956: radio announcer (manager of the Italian program on Radio 2KY); President, NSW Branch of National Association of Families of Migrants; honorary member, Apia Club; President, Sorella Radio Welfare Fund; member, Australian Institute of Welfare Officers, State Ethnic Broadcasting Committee, N.S.W.; has been editor of and contributor to several Italian language newspapers; involvement with ItaloAustralian community includes welfare work and interpreting.

Jan Marsh (Victoria)- Research Officer with ACTU since 1970; B.Ec. (Monash); Member N.L.C.C. Committee on Manpower Service Policy Matters.

Wendy McCarthy (New South Wales)- Director, New South Wales Family Planning Association and home duties; previously a teacher, including teaching women re-entering the workforce; member of the Education Committee of the NSW Women’s Advisory Board; has also worked as a media consultant; Family Life Movement, Women’s Electoral Lobby and Childbirth Education Association.

Joyce McConnell (Australian Capital Territory)- Home duties; active in women’s affairs; immediate past President National Council of Women; delegate to Mexico IWY Conference; member, Association of University Women, Australian Pre-Schools’ Association.

Judith Roberts (South Australia)- Trained nurse; associate member of National Council of Women of SA; member of number of local community organisations (in the fields of health, welfare and education) including Unley Mothers and Babies Health Association ( former President, Secretary and Treasurer), Unley Royal Institution for the Blind, Unley Auxiliary of Crippled Children’s Association, Royal District Nursing Society, Red Cross, Good Neighbour Council of SA, State Committees of Schools’ Commission, Council of Governors of Walford CEGGS, Federation of Parents and Friends Association of Independent Schools in SA.

Margaret Rosenthal (New South Wales)- Trained nurse; Ph.D. (Agricultural Science); Head of Department of Nursing Studies, Sydney Teachers’ College; NSW State Commissioner of Girl Guides.

Use of Animals in Scientific Experiments (Question No. 1062)

Senator Mason:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 22 November 1978:

Does the Australian Bureau of Statistics collate statistics on a national basis concerning the use of animals in scientific experiments, or for the types of experiments they are used in; if so, what are the statistical elements; if not why not.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

The Australian Statistician has informed me that he does not compile statistics on the use of animals in scientific experiments nor on the types of experiments in which animals are used. In his opinion, the demand for such statistics would not justify the resources required to produce them.

Aboriginal Legal Service (Question No. 1064)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 23 November 1978:

  1. 1 ) Has the Aboriginal Legal Service become a less efficient organisation since 1975, because of Departmental directions to cut back on services previously available and because funding in real terms has been progressively reduced by the Government.
  2. Will the Aboriginal and Islander Legal Service in Queensland be obliged to reduce further its services and/or staff unless funding is increased.
  3. Will the Minister approach the Prime Minister in order to have the Queensland situation reviewed and corrected as soon as possible.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Commonwealth Government has maintained its support of Aboriginal Legal Services, as the following figures show:

To use available resources to best effect, the Aboriginal Legal Services have been urged to observe a system of priorities in their service delivery, and to give priority in particular to criminal matters and juveniles.

  1. In recent correspendence with the Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders Legal Service (Queensland) Ltd concerning its financial difficulties, I have suggested that the Service should give serious consideration to reviewing the nature of its operations and priorities in order to allow it to function within current financial restraints.
  2. 3 ) I do not envisage approaching the Prime Minister on this matter.

Prices Justification Tribunal (Question No. 1065)

Senator Gietzelt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 23 November 1978:

Has the Government given any consideration to the recent recommendation by the Prices Justification Tribunal that it be given the power to establish facilities for monitoring commercial prices in the private sector, and commercial prices charged by statutory bodies; if so, will the Government also take into account the need for the examination of activities which cause higher prices to the consumers, and the value of objective reporting on costs, productivity, prices, sales and profits by such a Government Agency.

Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s questions:

The PJT already has power under the Prices Justification Act to inquire and report on prices charged by companies for goods and services. Its jurisdiction does not extend to prices charged by unincorporated enterprises for goods and services because of the Constitutional basis on which the Act rests.

With regard to statutory authorities, these bodies by their nature are ultimately subject to control by the Commonwealth or relevant State Government. Generally, such bodies are required to report to the responsible Minister on their operations and their reports are required to be tabled in Parliament. Their charges, and other aspects of their operations, are therefore subject to Parliamentary scrutiny through the responsible Minister.

The Government has recently given detailed consideration to the role and functions of the PJT. Amendments to be made to the Prices Justification Act which I announced in Parliament on 18 October 1978 will provide for the Minister to initiate wide ranging inquiries, as necessary, into pricing matters. They would enable such price examinations as the PJT is presently conducting into beef marketing and processing, and processed foods, to be held as public inquiries.

The amendments to the Act will also enable the PJT to require companies that have been subject to a public inquiry to notify their price increases for up to 12 months following the inquiry, where it considers this desirable, or for a longer period should the Minister so approve.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 20 February 1979, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1979/19790220_senate_31_s80/>.