Senate
20 March 1979

31st Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 31st Parliament
  3. 1979

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator D. B. Scott) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 721

DEATH OF FORMER SENATOR BESSELL

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death on 10 March 1979 of Eric James Bessell, who was elected a senator for the State of Tasmania in May 1974 and served in the Senate till November 1975.

Senator BONNER:
Queensland

-by leave- I wish to say a few words today on behalf of my friend, the late former Senator Eric Bessell. When Eric was elected to this place and I first met him, after talking to him for a short time I realised that I had met a man who was capable of great warmth and who would be capable of giving of himself not only to those with whom he worked but also to this Parliament. He loved his State of Tasmania and worked very hard for it. He also loved this great nation in a way that one could always admire. Over the short period that he was a senator he and I became very, very close friends, as did my wife, with both Eric and his wife, Rita. I was a guest in his home in Tasmania and he showed me around his State with a great sense of pride. The friendship that developed between us will remain with me for the rest of my life as something of which I can be very proud.

I believe that he contributed well to the debates in this Parliament. He fought consistently for the things that were important to his State, to himself and to the people of Tasmania and I believe that the State of Tasmania benefited from his contributions in this chamber. So, I am moved at this time to repeat the words of Leon J. Richardson:

My friend,

Although the world should grudge thee its acclaim, Thou an for me, and ever shalt be, Great.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– by leave- I join Senator Bonner in paying a tribute to Eric Bessell. He was a Vice-President of the Liberal Party in the Braddon electorate from 1961 to 1 966, State President of the Liberal Party in Tasmania from 1966 to 1973; National VicePresident of the Liberal Party from 1970 to 1973; and then, for an all too short period, in 1974 and 1975 a member of this Senate. I would like to remind people of what is involved, particularly for somebody who is resident on the far side of Wynyard in Tasmania, in being a State president of the Liberal Party. It involves travelling time, family dislocation, cost and other things which amount to a total family contribution to politics and the Liberal Party. Eric almost became known as the low flying aeroplane because of the trips he took over that period to Hobart and Launceston in connection with the affairs of the Liberal Party. His contribution was substantial by any standard. He was supported by his wife, Rita. Whilst not wishing to take a great deal of time on an occasion such as this reminiscing about people who have gone to the next phase of existence, or otherwise, I simply say that Eric Bessell made a contribution to politics in Australia which, I believe, was significant.

Senator ARCHER:
Tasmania

-by leave-I also knew Eric Bessell for many years. Whereas other honourable senators knew him mainly from his political involvement I knew him far more in many other ways. Because of one of the vagaries of our system I entered the Senate following the election at which he left. Eric has left a great mark in the district in which he spent all his life. He was very much a man of the community. He was involved in every local issue. In all cases he was prepared to permit himself to be used in any capacity in which he was required and to make a genuine contribution. It is in ways such as this that I certainly and I think most other Tasmanians will remember Eric Bessell. I had great regard for Eric, as I still have for his widow and his family.

Senator COLEMAN:
Western Australia

-by leave- I join with previous speakers in making a few remarks about Eric Bessell. I was Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Industry and Trade when Eric became a member of this Parliament and that Committee. I think we would all agree that party politics do not interfere with the workings of Senate standing and select committees. We find all too often that in our desire to bring down a comprehensive report to the Parliament and to ensure that we are taking into consideration the matters under review we are generally on the same side of the fence while not on the same side of politics. I think I speak for all members of that Committee when I say that Eric Bessell was a courteous man. He was diligent in his application to the job in hand. Most of all, on that Committee, he became a friend to most of us. That is the way I would like to remember him.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– by leave- I join with other speakers in paying a tribute to Eric Bessell who left us some years ago. I regret that he has died at an early age. I knew him when he was a member of the organisation of the Liberal Party and know of the very devoted work he gave to the Party over many years, not only in Tasmania but also in the Australia-wide organisation. Many people are in his debt for that work. I knew him particularly in the short period in which he was a member of the Senate. I entered the Senate with him and sat with him. We shared neighbouring desks during that period. I, therefore, had the opportunity to getting to know Eric Bessell for the man that he was. He was a very sincere and honest man. He was very thoughtful and kind to those with whom he was associated. He had a very deep knowledge of rural matters and was intensely interested in all the wide areas of that experience.

As I said, he was a most sincere man. He left the Senate after a very short period. He performed in the Senate most creditably and honourably. He had a narrow loss in the end. It does not matter how long a person is in the Senate. If his record is a good one, if he leaves the Senate with his head held high, he leaves behind him the memories of friends and associates and people who realise that he is a worthy Australian citizen. Eric Bessell was that and I pay a great tribute to him for the life and service which he gave to the country and to the Senate.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

-by leave- I, too, join with previous speakers in paying tribute to Eric Bessell. I was fortunate, as a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Industry and Trade, to have made his acquaintance and I found him to be one of nature’s gentlemen. He and I were politically opposed but, as our work on the Committee brought us together, I developed great respect for his credibility and his integrity. I am sure that Tasmania has suffered a great loss through the passing at an early age of Eric Bessell.

Senator TOWNLEY:
Tasmania

-by leave- I associate myself with the remarks that have been made so far concerning the death at a very early age of Eric Bessell. I knew Eric for many years. I believe that the Liberal Party in Tasmania owes him a great debt of gratitude. Remarks have been made regarding his political contributions and his contributions to the community. I always had the highest regard for Eric and for any of the political decisions that he made. I pass on my condolences to his wife, Rita, and to his relatives.

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– by leaveLast week, I had the opportunity to travel to Tasmania to pay personally my respects to Eric Bessell ‘s widow and family. I rise in the Senate to say a few words briefly about Eric Bessell. I was one of those along with Eric Bessell who were elected in 1974 for the first time to this place. We came here as new senators and we learnt a lot together. I think that I had a particular association with Eric in that for the last several months of his time here in 1975 I was Deputy Whip for my Party. As Deputy Whip, of course, one comes to know one’s colleagues and their problems a little more closely and a little better. I never knew Eric Bessell as an organisation man because that was not my level of involvement in the days before we were both in the Senate. But in the Senate I have to say that, apart from being a good friend, he was a good senator and a good man. He was honest and he was genuine in the view that he put. He was not a man who was over temperamental or self seeking in the way that he behaved as a senator. I say that from my experience as Deputy Whip.

He, of course, spoke frequently on issues related to primary industry. He spoke with great knowledge and with a genuine feeling for those whom he represented. In our days in Opposition he carried a particular burden in certain areas. He was a willing and helpful worker. I say to his wife, Rita, and to his six children of whom he was so proud and with such good reason that I, amongst many others- certainly those of the class of ‘74- extend our most sincere condolences. I think we feel a particular grief in the passing of the first member of that group. We feel a very personal grief at the passing of Eric Bessell- a young man, at 55, with a comparatively young family of six children, of each of whom he was enormously proud, and deserved to be. I extend my sincere sympathy to his wife and to his family.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

-by leave- I wish to be associated with the remarks that have been made by honourable senators about the sudden death of a former senator. I must say that, until I read the business paper today, I was not aware of the fact that Eric Bessell had passed away. I, like many of us, was shocked at the fact that a man of his stature, principle and age could be taken so suddenly. It is proper that the Opposition should associate itself with the fine tributes that have been paid to former Senator Eric James Bessell by the rank and file members of the Government parties. In the brief time that was available the Labor Party did not have the opportunity to know him in the intimate way in which honourable senators have spoken of him; nevertheless, we on this side were impressed by his approach to the work of the Senate and his approach to the institution of Parliament in what can be described as very difficult days. The few brief discussions that I had with him were important from the point of view of getting to know an honourable senator on the other side.

One thing that comes to mind is his adherence to the basic principles of democracy and to the right of the Senate to act in a proper and conscientious manner in respect of its responsibilities. It is true that he was taken out of the Senate in the double dissolution of 1975 and consequently did not have the opportunity to serve as much more than an apprentice in this place. Party political considerations being what they are, one can only say that we were robbed of views, guidance and attitudes that would otherwise have been with the Senate for a considerable period. Although I knew him only briefly I can say that he was a man who was committed to democratic principles and a man who regarded principles perhaps as more important than his party. In that sense he will be long remembered when the history of the Senate is written. It is in that context that I believe we are paying tribute to a man who, whilst he was here for only a very short time, indicated to the Senate and to the Australian community generally that he was prepared to act in defence of principles rather than of party, and that is a virtue which is all too often in short supply in party politics in Australia. I extend my personal condolences to his wife and family and to the party to which he once belonged.

Senator WALTERS:
Tasmania

-by leave-I would like to be associated with the previous speakers in expressing condolences to the wife and family of Eric Bessell. I did not know Eric very well but he had a large and obviously very loving family. I believe that he was one of the few politicians able to acomplish the best of both worlds by being a good family man as well as a good politician. The number of people who attended his funeral underlined how well the North Coast of Tasmania in particular but Tasmania as a whole respected him. It must have been a great comfort to Rita, his wife. I express my condolences to Rita and his family.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I invite honourable senators to stand in silence as a mark of respect to the memory of the late former Senator Bessell.

Honourable senators having stood in their places-

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I thank the Senate.

page 723

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

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

– I inform the Senate that the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) and the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) are currently attending a meeting of the Association of South East Asian Nations in Indonesia. They are expected to return on 22 March. During their absence the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) is acting as Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) is acting as Minister for Transport.

page 723

PETITIONS

Telephone Accounts

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I present the following petition from 146 citizens of Australia:

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

That: Many Australian citizens suffer considerable distress and financial hardship as a result of inaccurate charges and accounts for the use of telephone, telegraph and other related services.

That: Telecom Australia does not provide adequate information in relation to the subscriber’s number called, duration, and distance of telephone calls and telegraphic services made or used by their subscribers.

Your petitioners do humbly pray that the Senate will initiate moves to ensure that:

. Telecom Australia eliminates all abuses of the account system to ensure the details of all customer accounts are accurate, and that

On request from the customer, Telecom Australia provide details of date, subscriber’s number called, duration and distance of all services for which the customer is charged.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Compensation: Commonwealth Government Employees

Senator COLEMAN:

– I present the following petition from 473 citizens of Australia:

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

That compensation benefits payable to injured Australian Government employees and Defence Forces personnel under the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971 should be increased as a matter of urgency in view of the financial plight of recipients, particularly those suffering long term incapacity and because of the significant increase in the cost of living which has occurred since compensation payments were last adjusted; and

That statutory provision should be made for the automatic adjustment of compensation benefits.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Indexation of Pensions

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

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

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

That restoration of provisions of the Social Security Act that applied prior to the 1978-79 Budget is of vital concern to offset the rising cost of goods and services.

The reason advanced by the Government for yearly payments ‘that the lower level of inflation made twice-yearly payments inappropriate ‘ is not valid.

Great injury will be caused to 920,000 aged, invalid, widows and supporting parents, who rely solely on the pension or whose income, other than the pension, is $6 or less per week. Once-a-year payments strike a cruel blow to their expectation and make a mockery of a solemn election pledge.

Accordingly, your petitioners call upon their legislators to:

Restore twice-yearly pension adjustments in the Autumn session.

Raise pensions and unemployed benefits above the poverty level to 30 per cent of average weekly earnings.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. Petition received and read.

Democratic and Parliamentary Processes

Senator MELZER:

– I present the following petition from 22 citizens of Australia:

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 the credibility of the Westminster Parliamentary system is weakened by the resignation in protest of Ministers of the Crown without adequate explanation of the reason or reasons for the resignations being given to the electorate and that the situation is further exacerbated by the reappointment of the recently resigned Minister within a very brief period, again without any meaningful explanation to the people of Australia.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, take note of the need for the electorate at large to be fully informed so that the confidence of the people is not diminished in the democratic process in general and the Parliamentary process in particular.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. Petition received and read.

Abortion: Medical Benefits

Senator LEWIS:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 78 citizens of Australia:

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

That the 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.

Petition received and read.

Indexation of Pensions

Senator MISSEN:

– I present the following petition from 1 8 1 citizens of Australia:

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

That restoration of provisions of the Social Security Act that applied prior to the 1978-79 Budget is of vital concern to offset the rising cost of goods and services.

The reason advanced by the Government for yearly payments ‘that the lower level of inflation made twice-yearly payments inappropriate’ is not valid.

Great injury will be caused to 920,000 aged, invalid, widows and supporting parents, who rely solely on the pension or whose income, other than the pension, is $6 or less per week. Once-a-year payments strike a cruel blow to their expectation and make a mockery of a solemn election pledge.

Accordingly, your petitioners call upon their legislators to:

Restore twice-yearly pension payments in the Autumn session.

Raise pensions and unemployed benefits above the poverty level to 30 per cent of A. W.E.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

The Acting Clerk- Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:

Montessori 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.

Indexation of Pensions

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

That restoration of provisions of the Social Security Act that applied prior to the 1978-79 Budget is of vital concern to offset the rising cost of goods and services.

The reason advanced by the Government for yearly payments ‘that the lower level of inflation made twice-yearly payments inappropriate’ is not valid.

Great injury will be caused to 920,000 aged, invalid, widows and supporting parents, who rely solely on the pension or whose income, other than the pension, is $6 or less per week. Once-a-year payments strike a cruel blow to their expectation and make a mockery of a solemn election pledge.

Accordingly, your petitioners call upon their legislators to:

  1. . Restore twice-yearly pension payments in the Autumn session.
  2. Raise pensions and unemployed benefits above the poverty level to 30 per cent of average weekly earnings.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Peter Baume, Chipp, Carrick and Mulvihill.

Petitions received.

Radio Station 3CR, Melbourne

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

That radio 3CR Melbourne, be made to adhere to the required standards of broadcasting, as laid down for all other radio stations.

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

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

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 schools be of the highest possible standard.

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

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

  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 per cent in real terms on base level programmes for 1979.
  3. Restoration of the$8m 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 Hamer.

Petition received.

Democratic and Parliamentary Processes

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 the credibility of the Westminster Parliamentary system is weakened by the resignation in protest of Ministers of the Crown without adequate explanation of the reason or reasons for the resignations being given to the electorate and that the situation is further exacerbated by the reappointment of the recently resigned Minister within a very brief period, again without any meaningful explanation to the people of Australia.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, take note of the need for the electorate at large to be fully informed so that the confidence of the people is not diminished in the democratic process in general and the Parliamentary process in particular.

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

Petition received.

Compensation: Commonwealth Government Employees

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

That compensation benefits payable to injured Australian Government employees and Defence Forces personnel under the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1 97 1 should be increased as a matter of urgency in view of the financial plight of recipients, particularly those suffering long term incapacity and because of the significant increase in the cost of living which has occurred since compensation payments were last adjusted; and

That statutory provision should be made for the automatic adjustment of compensation benefits.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Senator Grimes and Senator Georges.

Petitions received.

page 725

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 725

QUESTION

WHITE PAPER ON ANTARCTICA

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

-Does the Minister for

Science and the Environment recall making reference on 1 1 May last year to a White Paper on Antarctic policy and programs which at that time he believed would be before Cabinet within some weeks? What has happened to that White Paper?

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

– I was correct in assuming at that stage that a White Paper would be before Cabinet. As the Leader of the Opposition would know, a variety of submissions relating to various activities have been made. For instance, this Government took the decision to build a headquarters for the Antarctic Division at Kingston, Tasmania. Since that time there have been discussions relating to the types of operations that would be conducted at that headquarters.

As the honourable senator would know, work in such fields as glaciology, biology, upper atmosphere physics and geology had been carried out in concert with some universities. It was necessary for Cabinet to review those activities at the time. Those considerations are basically still continuing while the headquarters are being built. Indeed, the laboratories and the way that they will be fitted out will be matters of consideration during the coming months. A decision has been taken by Cabinet in relation to the very important matter of glaciology. The University of Melbourne has been the main assistant in this work with the Antarctic division. There will be forward discussions with the University of Melbourne so that its Division of Earth Sciences may continue to conduct that type of work. From my comment the honourable senator will see that a great deal of important scientific research work is conducted on the continent, and senators in -

Senator Wriedt:

– I take a point of order. It is quite obvious that the Minister is not even attempting to answer the question. I simply asked him what has happened to the White Paper. That is all.

Senator WEBSTER:

– The honourable senator asked what had happened to the White Paper before the Cabinet. As a former Minister he would know that papers before Cabinet are not the subject of discussion in the Senate.

page 726

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE FORCE

Senator PETER BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services. Did the Commonwealth Police Officers Association meet with the Minister for Administrative Services on or about 24 January 1979 and with the former Minister in October 1978, on both occasions to discuss the creation of the Australian Federal Police Force? Was the major issue under discussion the structure of the force and the functions of officers? Did the former Minister and the present Minister each give certain assurances to the Association and, if so, what were these assurances?

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

- Senator Baume has asked four questions. The answer to the first question is yes, the present Minister for Administrative Services met with the executive of the Commonwealth Police Officers Association on 24 January 1979. When I was Minister for Administrative Services I met the executive on 22 November 1978 and addressed the annual general meeting of the Association on 27 October 1978. These meetings were in accord with the policy of consultation with the parties involved in the development of the Australian Federal Police, a policy which has been pursued by me, the present Minister and our other predecessors in office.

As far as the second question is concerned, at the Association’s meeting with me on 22 November 1978, the subjects discussed included the possible constitution of the Force, including the creation of a protective service component. The concept of this latter subject had evolved from consultative working groups in which the Association was represented. The views expressed by the Association at this meeting were subsequently taken into consideration during the Government’s deliberations which led to the final decision to create the Australian Federal Police Force as announced on 13 December 1978. The present Minister met with the Association on 24 January 1979 and, I am advised, discussed with it broad matters relating to the development of the Australian Federal Police Force. The detailed organisational structure and allocation of functions of officers is not a matter for the legislation. No decisions have been made on these matters pending the appointment of the competent authority to make such decision, that is, the Commissioner of the new force.

The broad principles proposed for the legislation were circulated on 24 January 1979 to all members of both police forces involved and passed to the two police associations. The associations agreed to furnish comments on these principles to enable them to be taken into account in the preparation of the legislation.

The answer to the third question is yes. The fourth question asked what assurances were given. Commitments given have been in accord with the course of action being pursued by the Government in the framing of the legislation. Both the present Minister and I have assured both associations, firstly, that the jobs, career prospects and terms and conditions of employment of members of both existing Federal police forces would not be at risk; secondly, that the associations would be given an opportunity to comment on the broad principles proposed for the draft legislation. I believe that these commitments have been and will continue to be honoured.

page 727

QUESTION

SOCIAL WELFARE BENEFITS

Senator GRIMES:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-I ask the Minister for Social Security whether she has heard or read reports by the media today that the DirectorGeneral of the Department of Social Security, Mr Lanigan, was present on the night of 2 April at Commonwealth Police headquarters in Sydney when an operation was being carried out dealing with alleged social security frauds in New South Wales. I ask the Minister further: If this is so, is it consistent with answers that she gave to me on 23 November and 5 December last about this same matter? If it is so, I ask also: When did the Minister find out that her DirectorGeneral had been present in the operations room at the Commonwealth Police headquarters on the evening in question?

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

-I have seen a report in a publication today on the matter referred to by Senator Grimes. I had anticipated its appearance because it had been referred to me at the weekend by the journalist concerned. In relation to answers that were given on this matter in November and December, I do not believe that the article referred to the matter which was the subject of questions. The article referred to the attendance of the Director-General at the Commonwealth Police office in April of last year. My advice, in answer to questions, related to attendance at raids and other matters directly involved with Commonwealth Police operations. As I am advised, the Director-General visited the Commonwealth Police office in Sydney on his way from the airport to a meeting which had been arranged in the Sydney office of the Department of Social Security. I understand that he met with Superintendent Gillespie and Detective Chief Inspector Thomas. The Director-General advises that the conference was held so that he might be informed of what was required by the Department in the investigations of the Commonwealth Police, as it will be understood that the Commonwealth Police act for all departments in investigations of this kind. This is the information that was given to me, I believe, late last year or early this year as a matter of fact in relation to the attendance of the Director-General at the Commonwealth Police office. It was not an attendance that was involved in the raids or directly involved in the investigations. It was a matter of discussion affecting the operation of my Department with the police for its liaison purposes.

page 727

QUESTION

SOCIAL WELFARE BENEFITS

Senator GRIMES:

– I ask a supplementary question of the Minister for Social Security. Is it not a fact that I asked her a question concerning the involvement of any of her officers in the Commonwealth Police investigations that occurred on those nights? Is it not a fact that in a letter dated 5 December the Minister wrote to me:

Both the Director-General of my department and the Commissioner for the Commonwealth Police, Mr Davis, have advised me that no officer of the department was involved in these activities.

Is the Minister now telling us that the presence of her Director-General after flying from Perth to receive a briefing from the Commonwealth Police cannot be construed as being involved in these activities on that night?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– My advice is that the Director-General visited the Commonwealth Police office in Sydney on the night of 2 April. As far as being involved in the direct work of the police in their investigations or in the raids which were referred to by Senator Grimes -

Opposition senators interjecting-

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order!

Senator GUILFOYLE:

-I have given the information that the Director-General attended the Commonwealth Police office. Questions which have related to my Department’s involvement in the alleged frauds must comprehend that my Department is responsible for paying the pensions and benefits to people who are eligible for them. It is my Department’s responsibility, in accordance with instructions laid down not by this Government but by the former Government that where police investigations require material from the concerned department that department makes that material available. That has been the role of the Department -

Senator Grimes:

– You denied that anyone other than junior officers was present. You denied it in this place and in a letter to me.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I have given the information that was required by the previous question and by the question that has been asked today. The answer given to the earlier question was accurate. The answer that is now given to the question that has been asked is also accurate. It is an answer that has been given to me by the Director-General of my Department and it acknowledges his presence in the Commonwealth Police office on Sunday, 2 April.

page 728

QUESTION

TRADE PRACTICES: NEWSAGENCY SYSTEM

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. Is it a fact that on 5 February this year the Trade Practices Commission released a draft determination on the newsagency system in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory? Are reports correct that the draft determination would no longer give newsagents the sole right to sell and distribute newspapers, magazines, et cetera, and that businesses such as supermarkets could move into the field? As the determination could also have a flow-on effect in the other States, I ask: If these reports are correct, and as the Government is making every endeavour to encourage the development of small business in Australia, what steps will it take to make sure that newsagents have some protection against big business which, in itself, could virtually create a monopoly situation adversely affecting the viability of many small newsagency businesses and even leading to the destruction of many of them?

Senator DURACK:
Attorney-General · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

-The facts recounted by Senator Young in the preface to his question are correct. The Trade Practices Commission has prepared a draft report in which it expresses the view that the agreement and traditional arrangements between publishers and newsagents are not for the benefit of the public. The Government and the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs in particular were concerned about this matter. The Minister, with the authorisation of the Government, has carried out discussions with newspaper publishers and newsagents for the purpose of exploring with them whether some variation of the existing arrangements might preserve the exclusive position of newsagents to sell newspapers and magazines and also be in the public interest.

Those discussions were held last week between officers of the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs, publishers and a representative of the newsagents. I am pleased to inform the Senate that modifications to the agreement were agreed upon by the parties concerned. The agreement now has been re-submitted to the Trade Practices Commission. I am informed that the Government was represented at a meeting of the Trade Practices Commission this morning and made a statement to the Commission supporting the amended agreement reached last week in the discussions to which I have referred. As I have said, the Commonwealth Government has been very active in relation to this matter in trying to get the parties to reach an agreement and, hopefully, to persuade the Trade Practices Commission that the new arrangements are in the public interest.The Government is of the view that the present efficient system of home deliveries and general distribution of newspapers and magazines is of major public benefit and is concerned that the system may disappear. The matter now is back before the Trade Practices Commission. The decision, of course, will be one for the Trade Practices Commission and not for the Government. However, the Government is making representations. I have here a long statement which is along the lines that I have already indicated and which I do not propose to read out to the Senate. However, it will be available pub.licly. There has also been an appeal to the Trade Practices Tribunal from the Trade Practices Commission. As I have said, the Government has taken steps that were proper for it to take at this stage of the consideration of this matter.

page 728

QUESTION

RANGER URANIUM SITE: ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct a question to the Minister for Science and the Environment. I draw his attention to a question which I asked in this place on 7 March 1979 and which dealt with environmental problems at the Northern Territory Ranger uranium site. The Minister will recall that part of his answer was as follows:

My understanding is that such information is being made public in relation to any of the matters for which my Department, at least, is responsible now and for which it has been responsible in past years.

The Minister will no doubt remember that he was referring to the environmental impact statements. Is the Minister aware that on 20 September 1978 his predecessor, the Minister for the Environment, Housing and Community Development, Mr Groom, when referring to environmental impact statements, said:

These recommendations are a matter between myself and my Department and would not normally be made public.

Can the Minister now inform the Parliament whether there has been a change in government policy in relation to the public disclosure of departmental assessments and recommendations in relation to environmental impact statements or whether the Minister in fact misled the Parliament when he replied to my question on 7 March 1979.

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-From the facts that I was able to write down at the time, I do not feel that I misled the Senate in any way. I take it that the honourable senator is anxious to know what are the environmental procedures set down in relation to the development of the Ranger site and that the honourable senator feels that there is some inconsistency between what may have been said previously by the Minister for the Environment, Housing and Community Development and by me as Minister for Science and the Environment. I will look at the matter to see whether there is any inconsistency between the two statements. I feel that they may refer to two different subjects. My own view is that there is no reason for the environmental consequences of Ranger not being made known and I was of the view that that point had been put forward by the Minister under whose control the matter rests. I will look at that problem and bring forward a statement to the Senate.

Senator KEEFFE:

- Mr Deputy President, I wish to ask a supplementary question. I ask the Minister whether, according to what he has just said, I can take it that when the departmental assessment has been done, it will be made public, and that does mean a change in government policy.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I said that I would compare the two answers that had been given by the two Ministers in their capacity as Minister for the Environment and see whether there was anything inconsistent. I see no reason for the environmental assessments not being made public and I will look into that matter.

page 729

QUESTION

DETENTION OF AIRCRAFT

Senator MAUNSELL:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. In view of the initiatives taken in the United Nations to stamp out the evil practice of hijacking of aircraft and that body’s request for all nations to co-operate to that end, I ask the Minister: What steps is the Government taking to prevent a recurrence of what is, in effect, the hijacking of a Malaysian aircraft in Sydney? Is it a fact that the Malaysian workers involved in the recent incident were jailed not for industrial action but for the sabotage of aircraft which, if it had not been detected, could have caused the loss of many lives?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The Government has expressed its concern at the action by union members to ban the servicing and refuelling of an MAS aircraft, which is the subject of this question. The Government acted promptly and correctly in its efforts to resolve the dispute and to obtain the release of the aircraft. As to the technical meaning of the word ‘hijacking’ as used, the fact is that under a United Nations resolution, hijackings typically involve disregard for and danger to life and destruction of aircraft. Nevertheless, the withholding of the aircraft from its rightful owners and from its rightful purposes is a very serious matter. The Government is, of course, firmly committed to upholding the United Nations resolution and has indicated that it deplores the action of people in withdrawing services and in denying the use of aircraft to their rightful owners. I am bound to say that it would be inappropriate for the Government to comment on the situation with respect to the gaoled Malaysian workers.

Senator Grimes:

– Why?

Senator CARRICK:

– This is an internal matter for the Malaysian Government.

page 729

QUESTION

DETENTION OF AIRCRAFT

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is supplementary to that which was put to the Leader of the Government in the Senate on the Malaysian Airline System controversy. Is it not a fact that at the conference with the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the unions themselves the Government agreed with both parties that the actions that had been taken in Malaysia had not received its support; further, that both the Minister for Industrial Relations and the Minister for Foreign Affairs understood the attitude of the International Transport Workers’ Federation in making its protest? I simply want to make the point that although apparently the Government understood that view, the reply just given has taken no account of it. It would be useful in relation to both the question and the answer to give some consideration to that aspect.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I have no advice as to the nature of the discussions at the conference concerned. However, I am advised that throughout, consistently, the attitude of the Government has been that the gaoling of the Malaysian workers was, in fact, an internal matter for the Malaysian Government and not one for the public generally.

page 729

QUESTION

SCHOOL RETENTION RATES

Senator LAJOVIC:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-I ask the Minister for Education: In view of the Government’s concern at the level of youth unemployment, can he inform the Senate whether consideration has been given to encouraging more young people to stay longer in secondary education? Also, can the Minister provide the Senate with the latest statistics available on retention rates in secondary schools in the States and the Territories?

Opposition senators interjecting.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– Those who caused the unemployment, particularly that of the young, have been the ones who have been yelling the loudest in the last few moments. Both the Senate and the people of Australia do well to be reminded that for two decades prior to the Whitlam Government’s coming to office there was no unemployment, of either the young or the old. There is a relationship between leaving school early and the incidence of unemployment. Indeed there is such correlation that, virtually, the earlier one leaves school the higher is the rate of unemployment and the greater the difficulty among that age group in obtaining employment as honourable senators would know. Speaking from memory, the rate of unemployment for 15- year-old school leavers could be as high as 28 per cent. For 16-year-olds it falls to 13 per cent, and so it continues to drop until the average rate of unemployment for the public generally is reached.

In the Australian Capital Territory the retention rate is, of course, particularly high. The number of people who leave school before the end of year 10 is very small indeed. In 1978 the percentage was 3.9. That figure includes those who transferred. The fact is that the percentage of the total population over 15 years of age in the work force is higher than it was some 10 years ago. Measured in terms of the full employment of, say, 10 years ago, the percentage of such persons who are employed will be seen to be higher. Whereas 27 per cent of married women worked in the past, 42 per cent to 45 per cent work today. There has been a transposition and the young are finding it harder. It is true to say that the younger and the less equipped the school leaver, the harder it is for that school leaver to get a job. The Government is undertaking a number of remedial courses in an attempt to overcome this difficulty.

page 730

QUESTION

EXCISE ON SPIRITS

Senator ELSTOB:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer to the increase in excise levied on all potable spirits by the Federal Government in the 1978-79 Budget. Has there been any increase in revenue to the Government from this change in excise? What has been the change in revenue, whether it has been an increase or a decrease, in respect of each Australian spirit and each imported spirit on which the change took place?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– As the question asks for specific information which is not now available to me, I ask the honourable senator to place the question on notice.

page 730

QUESTION

TRANS-AUSTRALIA AIRLINES

Senator RAE:

– Will the Minister representing the Acting Minister for Transport give consideration to the question whether there is any good reason for the continued existence of TransAustralia Airlines as a wholly owned Commonwealth statutory authority? Would it not be consistent with the philosophy of the Liberal Party to see TAA become privately owned? If so, will the Government consider the formation of a company to purchase TAA, with such company having a shareholding structure which would give preference to TAA employees and involve at least some aspects of the Kelso plan with a limitation on the percentage shareholding to prevent any individual or company from obtaining a major or controlling interest in the company to be formed?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

-I suspect that Senator Rae has asked a very interesting question. It seems to have called forth a great deal of comment around the chamber. The Government’s policy as it stands at present is for the continuation of a two-airline policy which is predicated on one privately owned and one publicly owned airline. This principle has been endorsed over a number of years by successive Liberal-Country Party governments. I know of no proposal that that should be changed. The recent review of domestic air transport certainly did not put forward that there ought be a change in that regard. I will ask the Minister for Transport on his return to Australia to give consideration to the number of matters which have been raised by Senator Rae. I will draw the Minister’s attention to Senator Rae’s comments about what would be consistent with our philosophy.

page 730

QUESTION

SOCIAL WELFARE BENEFITS

Senator EVANS:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. It follows her answer to an earlier question by Senator Grimes in which she said that the subject matter of today’s exchange was different from the subject matter of Senator Grimes’s earlier question. Is it not the case that Senator Grimes’s original question in November 1978 asked about the involvement of departmental officers in the social security enforcement operation in April 1978? Is it not the case that the Minister replied in her letter to him of 5 December that she had been advised by the Director-General and the Commissioner of Police that no officer of the Department was involved? Is it further the case that the only qualification that she made to that proposition in her letter of 5 December was a reference to certain junior officers of the Department being involved as what she described as liaison officers in the provision of necessary information to the police? Would the Minister not concede that in those circumstances, whether it is all her fault or that of her Director-General and whatever the personal fate of the Director-General may be as a result of this latest extravaganza, that this was a serious misleading of the Parliament on a matter of substance, so serious in fact that if the principle of ministerial responsibility means anything she should add her name to the growing list of people who have tendered their resignations to the Prime Minister?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

-If there is an extravaganza, I think Senator Evans has listed his name to it. May I read to the Senate a question asked by Senator Grimes on 23 November 1978:

My question, which is directed to the Minister for Social Security, refers to the events of 3 April 1978, in which Commonwealth Police arrested some 175 citizens of Sydney who have since been charged with conspiracy to defraud the Commonwealth. Did any senior officers or officer of her Department accompany the Commonwealth Police on these raids? If so, who were they, or who was he, and what was the purpose of accompanying the Commonwealth Police?

My response was that I was not able to answer that question and that I would seek the information. I indicated that if I had the information by the end of Question Time I would convey it to the Senate. I wrote to Senator Grimes on 5 December. I would like to be permitted to read from this letter in order to set the record straight. I wrote:

In the Senate on 23 November 1978, you asked whether any senior officer of the Department of Social Security accompanied the Commonwealth Police in operations in which some 175 persons were arrested and were subsequently charged with conspiracy to defraud the Commonwealth.

Both the Director-General of my department and the Commissioner of Commonwealth Police, Mr Davis, have advised me that no officer of the Department was involved in these activities.

I then wrote a fairly lengthy paragraph which said - Senator Grimes- Read it.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

-If you wish it read, I will read it. It stated:

As you would know, theCommonwealth Policehasan independent charter to investigate and take action in respect of frauds against the laws of the Commonwealth. This includes offences relating to the improper claiming of social security benefits. To enable this function to be carried out, the department has to make available to the police such information as may be necessary to enable them to carry out their duties. For this purpose some relatively junior officers of the NSW branch of my department acted as liaison officers but were not in any way involved in the activities on or about 3 April in the course of which the arrests were made. Other junior officers acted as interpreters at times but the police have confirmed that they did not accompany the police on any of the missions which led to the arrests being made.

I believe the letter of 5 December amply answered the question raised on 23 November. The reply does not cover the subject matter of the question which was raised today. The subject matter of the question which was raised today was the attendance of the Director-General at Commonwealth Police offices on the evening of Sunday, 2 April. The answer to that is consistent with the advice given to me by the DirectorGeneral. The answer to the previous question was also consistent with the advice given by the Director-General and confirmed by the Commonwealth Police.

Perhaps I should address the remainder of my answer to Senator Evans who has raised this question with me. If he is unable to interpret the difference between accompanying police on Commonwealth raids and attendance as the Director-General of a department for whom the Commonwealth Police was acting, I am unable to give him any further information to assist him. They are two different matters. They were two different questions and I believe both have been answered in accordance with the information that was required on each occasion.

Senator EVANS:

– I wish to ask a supplementary question. Referring to the exact language which the Minister for Social Security employed in her letter of 5 December which she has just read to this chamber, can she inform the Senate exactly what the Director-General of Social Services was doing in the office of the Commonwealth Police on the night in question in April 1978 if it did not amount to being involved in the activities, if it did not amount to giving of information or if it did not amount to liaison?

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I find it difficult to understand the problem that seems to be surrounding this matter. My Department is involved in the payment of pensions and benefits and, as a result of information given and inquiries made, the police wished to investigate people who were being paid social security benefits. Of course this requires the obtaining of information from my Department. I do not believe that any reasonable person would assume that my Department would not need to provide to the police information about pensioners or beneficiaries. It is an established practice to do this. The allegation about a person accompanying the police has been denied by the Director-General and by the police, and I fail to see how further questions can establish that my Department’s giving information with regard to pensioners and beneficiaries is equivalent to a person’s accompanying the police on raids or investigations.

page 732

QUESTION

NEWSPRINT

Senator COLLARD:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister for Science and the Environment. Recognising that daily we are confronted and affronted by the pollution of the mind by the media, we are also contending with physical pollution in that after reading some of our daily newspapers we are left with a black residue on our hands, the Australian being by far the worst offender. Can the Minister advise whether such residue is dangerous if absorbed through the skin? Should one wash one’s hands after reading the said newspaper and before eating, to prevent ingestion and digestion of material from this newspaper? Until such time as the Australian cleans itself up, would it not be wise for the said newspaper to bear in bold plain print on the front page the caption: ‘Warning: Reading this newspaper is hazardous’?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– It would be impossible to give a comprehensive reply to that question. My understanding is that the various printing ink formulations change regularly, as different compounds are discovered. If the honourable senator is interested in pigments in ink, I will be very pleased to give him that information; but, if he is more interested in the content of the printed word within the newspaper, perhaps that question should be put on notice.

page 732

QUESTION

CIGARETTE ADVERTISING

Senator WHEELDON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Health whether she is aware that advertisements are at present appearing on commercial television advertising the wares of a firm of cigarette and tobacco merchants, the House of Dunhill, and that although no reference is made to cigarettes reference is made to the various more esoteric accoutrements of the vice of smoking so that it would be clear to any reasonably intelligent observer that what is in fact being advertised is cigarettes. Will the Minister ask her colleague the Minister for Health to examine this question to see whether the spirit, if not the letter, of the requirement that there be no advertising of cigarettes on the electronic media is being complied with?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I am advised by the Minister for Health that representations have been made on incidental and corporate advertising of cigarettes. The advertising of cigarettes and cigarette tobacco on television and radio has been prohibited since 1 September 1976 under the Broadcasting and Television Act. A working party was set up by the 1977 Health Ministers Conference to meet with representatives of the manufacturers and the Media Council to negotiate a voluntary code for the advertising of cigarettes outside the broadcasting media. The working party has so far had one meeting with the manufacturers and the Media Council and that was in January 1978. It will report to the 1979 Health Ministers Conference. The report of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare entitled ‘Drug Problems in Australia- an Intoxicated Society?’ tabled in Parliament contains a number of recommendations relating to the advertising of tobacco. I understand an interdepartmental committee has examined these recommendations and it is expected that an announcement of the action the Government proposes to take will be made early in the present session of Parliament. I will refer the particular matter raised by Senator Wheeldon to the Minister for Health and obtain up to date information for him.

page 732

QUESTION

COMPENSATION FOR SAND MINING COMPANIES

Senator BONNER:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I refer to differences between Dillingham Mining Co. of Australia and Murphyores Incorporated Pty Ltd and the Government with respect to compensation following the Government’s decision to stop sand mining on Fraser Island in Queensland. Because of the very substantial difference between the Government’s offer of $4m and Dillingham-Murphyores claim for $23m, will the Government consider appointing an outside arbitrator to determine fair and just compensation to Dillingham-Murphyores as a result of the Government’s decision?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– My understanding is that the Government had been advised that it had no legal liability to provide compensation to DM Minerals or to the other companies involved. Notwithstanding this, the Government recognises some obligation arising from the impact of the change in policy. Consequently, ex gratia payments have been offered to each of the mining companies and first line contractors. Ex gratia payments cover the loss of expected profits in 1977 and extraordinary costs of closure. To date offers of ex gratia payments have been accepted by all companies, with the exception of DM Minerals. The offer to DM Minerals is regarded as extraordinarily generous. The Deputy Prime Minister wrote to that company on 9 January this year advising that the company should decide whether to accept the offer by 3 1

March of this year. I am advised that if the offer is not accepted by that date it will lapse.

page 733

QUESTION

DETENTION OF AIRCRAFT

Senator HARRADINE:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations and concerns the Malaysian Airline System airliner which was the subject of bans in Sydney. Is it not a fact that the Malaysian Government gaoled the representative of the International Transport Workers Federation, Mr Donald Uren, and 22 local unionists? Is it not also a fact that the International Transport Workers Federation legitimately sought action by its affiliates in support of those unionists? Is it not a fact that MAS was warned that flights to Australia and indeed elsewhere where ITWF had affiliates would be counterproductive? Is it not a fact that despite warnings an aircraft was sent to Australia? Is it not also a fact that an MAS aircraft is currently grounded in Britain and that one is grounded in West Germany also?

Is it not also a fact that two senior Ministers of this Government met representatives of the Australian Council of Trade Unions last week and it was generally accepted that moves should be made to do two things: firstly, to attempt to attain the release of Mr Donald Uren and at least the release if not the charging of the other unionists; and secondly, to extricate the matter from the current fare negotiations. Is it not also a fact that the ACTU recommended to the 14 unions concerned that their ban be lifted. Is it not also a fact that those unions agreed to a lifting of the ban? Is it not also a fact that that recommendation was vetoed by a small handful of unionists who acted against the instructions of their unions and instead supported the manoeuvrings of pro-communist left operators at Mascot?

Senator DURACK:
LP

- Senator Harradine asked a question in which he sought confirmation of a large amount of factual material. Broadly speaking, I believe that the allegations of fact in the question are correct, but in the circumstances I believe that I should refer the question, with all its detail, to the Minister for Industrial Relations, because he is the one who was greatly concerned with the matter, so that he may provide a detailed answer to Senator Harradine.

page 733

QUESTION

ELECTORAL: FUNDING OF POLITICAL PARTIES

Senator SIBRAA:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to either the Leader of the Government in the Senate or the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services. In view of the decision of the New South Wales Government to establish a committee to investigate the possibility of public funding for political parties in election campaigns, will the Government reconsider the terms of the motion moved by me and seconded by Senator Grimes on 22 February calling for the establishment by the Federal Parliament of a joint committee to investigate the introduction of public funding of political parties at a Federal level?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I will refer the matter which has been raised by Senator Sibraa to the Minister for Administrative Services who is responsible for the conduct of the review of the Commonwealth Electoral Act which is at present still with the Commonwealth Electoral Office and has not yet come before the Government.

page 733

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– As the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs had discussions in Darwin last weekend with the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory Government, Mr Paul Everingham, and Mr Galarrwuy Yunupingu, Chairman of the Northern Land Council, in regard to public roads, Aboriginal lands et cetera, can the Minister inform the Senate how he sees the present situation in regard to this controversial matter and what has been agreed to by the three parties involved in the discussions? Will the Minister also inform the Senate whether the registration of Aboriginal land titles will now continue, or do they require amendment?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I did have meetings with the three land councils and also with the Northern Territory Government in Darwin last week. Subsequent to those meetings there was a meeting of the executives of the land councils, the Chief Minister and his deputy, and me. We discussed a number of issues which have been bedevilling the land rights situation in the Northern Territory. There has been a problem over the registration of land titles. That problem revolves around the fact that the Commonwealth has included in the titles certain roads which the Northern Territory Government believes should be excluded. As a result of the Northern Territory Government’s belief the titles have not been registered- a matter which has been of considerable concern to the land councils and to the traditional owners. Last Saturday agreement was reached as to a means of settling this dispute and a joint statement was issued on that agreement by the land councils, the Northern Territory Government and me. The basic agreement, which would still have to be confirmed by the land councils in proper meeting and so on subject to legal advice-although legal advisers were present at the meeting- would involve the titles being amended to exclude roads over which the public has a right of way, which is the exclusion presently provided for in the legislation. However, the legislation at the moment requires an exclusion in specific terms. The roads are to be actually specifically described if they are to be excluded from the titles. But if the Act is so amended and the titles are so amended it will mean that the titles can be registered and the parties could then deal with each other to try to settle the disagreements on the basis of which roads ought to be excluded. The legal positions of the land owners, the Northern Territory Government and the Commonwealth effectively will still be the same. I am hopeful that in that area the difficulties which have held us up will be dealt with.

Other matters which were of concern and which were dealt with in the discussions included the extension of town sites in the Northern Territory. I was questioned on that in the Senate the week before last. I indicated that I was concerned because of the possible conflict between that and the land freeze which the Northern Territory Government had given to the Aboriginal people to enable them to proceed with claims on Crown land. The discussions resulted in agreement that there should be further discussions between the land councils and the Northern Territory Government with respect to the extension of those boundaries with a view to examining where there had been any interference with claims by traditional owners. In addition, I received an assurance from the Northern Territory Government that no further expansion of town sites are envisaged between now and the end of the land freeze.

Senator KeefFe:

– There is nowhere else to go.

Senator CHANEY:

-That may be. The fact is that provided agreement can be reached on the towns which have already been dealt with there should be no further problem.

The other major issue which I mention briefly is the claims of the Borroloola people. In that case the Northern Territory Government has put forward a very sensible framework for negotiations between itself, the Borroloola people and the Northern Land Council with a view to a common approach being made to Mt Isa Mines Ltd which will result in the requirements of all parties involved in that area- namely, the Borroloola people, Mt Isa Mines Ltd and the Northern Territory Government- being met. That is a matter on which the Government will have to see how that negotiations go. I am satisfied that there is a good basis for negotiations in that each of the parties has a negotiating position- something that another party wants- and there is no better way to go into a negotiation than that. As far as my own role is concerned with the Borroloola situation, I do not propose to take action on Mr Justice Toohey ‘s recommendation with respect to the Borroloola common until the parties have had a chance to hold those discussions because I do not wish to pre-empt any agreement which may be reached. Finally, I have agreed with the Borroloola people that I will examine the possibility of issuing a title to the islands which was recommended by Mr Justice Toohey. The Borroloola people would like to get that if they can.

page 734

QUESTION

INTELSAT SATELLITE

Senator RYAN:
ACT

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. What arrangements were made under the Telecommunications Art, the Wireless Telegraphy Act and the Overseas Telecommunications Act for use of the Intelsat international satellite, first, for trial for domestic television transmissions by the Australian Broadcasting Commission and Overseas Telecommunications Commission between October 1978 and March 1979; secondly, for transmission of a television signal from Moree, New South Wales, for reception by OTC at the Domsat conference on 21 and 22 February 1979; and, thirdly, the transmission of a domestic television signal on behalf of STW9 Perth on 10 December 1977?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I do have some notes on the Intelsat matter but I do not think they cover the precise areas that are of interest to the honourable senator. I will seek from the Minister the precise information that she wants.

page 734

QUESTION

NEWSPRINT

Senator WALTERS:

– I direct my question to the Minister for Science and the Environment. It follows from the earlier question asked by Senator Collard. Is it a fact that the contamination by newsprint referred to by Senator Collard is a result of the specific newspaper mentioned not using paper produced in Tasmania? Honourable senators may laugh but it is perfectly true. Is it not a fact that the high class Tasmanian paper leaves the hands and the clothing of the reader completely clean? Is the Minister willing to advise all those people who do not wish to contaminate their hands to read only newspapers which use paper produced in Tasmania?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I feel that this question should not be addressed to the Minister for Science and the Environment. It is perhaps a matter that should be more correctly directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate or the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. If the question is whether I would advise certain newspapers that they should buy their newsprint in Tasmania, I think this Government has shown a particularly fine performance in protecting the interests of manufacturers in Tasmania. Undoubtedly the manufacturers of paper in Tasmania are quite pleased with the general basis of support that has been forthcoming. However, the honourable senator should not connect her question to that which was originally asked by Senator Collard, as the two are different. Senator Collard asked about the pollution that may come about through the use of certain pigments and dyes in the newsprint field. I had hoped to add at the end of Question Time to the reply that I have given to Senator Collard.

page 735

QUESTION

URANIUM

Senator ROBERTSON:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I direct my question to the Attorney-General. In response to a question of mine on Thursday, 22 February, concerning the location of the Supervising Scientist, Senator Durack replied:

I will refer that question to the appropriate Minister. I am not really sure whether the Minister for Trade and Resources is responsible for the Supervising Scientist. I will investigate the matter and refer the question to the appropriate Minister.

Has the Minister investigated the matter? Is he now in a position to give an answer to my question?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I regret that I am not in a position to give Senator Robertson an answer to the question. I will ascertain what has happened to the inquiries that would have been set in train as a result of his question, and will endeavour to obtain an answer for him as soon as possible.

page 735

QUESTION

OVERSEAS INVESTMENT IN AUSTRALIA

Senator KNIGHT:
ACT

– I ask a question of the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to the answer given by Senator Carrick to Senator Bonner’s question and, in that context, to this statement by Senator Inouye in the United States Senate:

History has taught us that financing will not flow to countries where investors have been dealt with unfairly in the past. As a result, I am deeply concerned that failure to resolve promptly the Fraser Island situation will create further uncertainty over the security of foreign investment in Australia at a time when that investment is sorely needed and is being actively pursued.

In view of this situation, and the concern expressed in business, political and other circles in the United States as to the decision of the Australian Government, can the Minister indicate whether the deadline to which he referred, and the appointment of an independent arbitrator with respect to compensation, might be reconsidered by the Government?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-As to the first part of the question, I have no evidence- I do not think my Government has- that the Fraser Island incident has caused any detriment to the flow of investment capital from America to Australia. As to the second part of the question, I would need to refer to the responsible Minister for consideration and reply.

page 735

QUESTION

SOCIAL WELFARE BENEFITS

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask a question of the Minister for Social Security. I do not ask for her resignation, but I want to clear up some information in relation to the events of 3 April. Did the Director-General of Social Services attend at the police office on the night of the raid? Was the proposed raid discussed by the Director with the Commonwealth Police? Did Inspector Thomas inform the Director of the raid that had taken place and of other raids to be made? Did he seek advice from the Director as to whether charges could be proved against some of the Greek pension recipients?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– In response to the first part of the question as to whether the Director-General attended the police office on the night of the raid, I understand that the Director-General attended the police office on the night of Sunday, 2 April. I am not aware whether that is the particular night to which Senator Cavanagh referred. Senator Cavanagh asked for specific information with regard to discussions between Inspector Thomas and the Director-General, and the advice given by one to the other. I will seek that information and give him a reply as soon as possible.

page 735

QUESTION

PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARY

Senator SHEIL:
QUEENSLAND

- Mr Deputy President, my question is directed to you. It should perhaps more properly be directed to the President in his role as Chairman of the Parliamentary Library Committee. Is it a fact that the Parliamentary Library is not taking publications emanating from the Republic of South Africa. If so, for how long has that state of affairs existed? Who would be responsible for issuing such an instruction?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Since the honourable senator believes that the question should be more properly directed to the President of the Senate, I shall so direct it.

Senator Carrick:

– I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.

Senator Georges:

- Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I have been wanting to do this for quite some time. The Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick) has asked that all further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. There has been a sudden cut off of Question Time, thus preventing a number of senators from asking questions. Therefore, I ask you, Mr Deputy President, to investigate and report to us on whether the Leader of the Government in the Senate is in order in asking, without leave of the Senate, that senators place all further questions on the Notice Paper. I ask you also to consider this point: Is it the right of the Leader of the Government in the Senate to ask that questions which might be directed to other Ministers also be placed on the Notice Paper? Is that not the responsibility of the Ministers concerned? What has happened, as a result of the procedure which has been followed for some time, is that Government senators, by directing planned questions to the Leader of the Government, have been able to take up a large pan of the hour that apparently is the accepted period for Question Time, to the disadvantage -

Senator Missen:

– Not all of us; no, I did not.

Senator Georges:

- Senator Missen did not get the call to ask a question today. But practically every question today from the Government side of the chamber was a planned question. These questions ate considerably into the hour that was available. Can you establish, Mr Deputy President, how it is that the Leader of the Government can rise in the chamber and on his own authority, without leave of the Senate, have all further questions placed on the Notice Paper?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- The situation has not altered during my term in this chamber, but I shall consider the matters that the honourable senator has raised.

page 736

QUESTION

SCHOOL RETENTION RATES

Senator CARRICK:
LP

- Senator Lajovic askedme a question about retention rates in schools. I am now able to inform him that the retention rates, expressed as a percentage of those students who enter high school and proceed to final year, are as follows: New South Wales, 35.7 per cent; Victoria, 33.8 per cent; Queensland, 36.8 per cent; South Australia, 35.7 per cent; Western Australia, 35 per cent; Tasmania, 25.4 per cent;

Northern Territory, 22.4 per cent; and the Australian Capital Territory, 67 per cent.

page 736

NEWSPRINT

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I wish to add to the answer I gave to Senator Collard earlier in the day relating to printers’ ink. I inform the Senate that the essential ingredients of printers’ ink include dyes, pigments and synthetic and natural resins. Waxes, dryers and other additives are also required. Some formulations could act as irritants to the skin and mucous membranes, such as those of the respiratory system. Occupational hazards related to industry, such as lead poisoning, have been essentially eradicated; but occupational dermatitis from contact with solvents, cleaners and, to a lesser extent, ink needs to be guarded against.

page 736

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I wish to clarify a point I made in an answer I gave to a question asked by Senator Kilgariff. I indicated in my answer to that question that no further town site extensions were contemplated by the Northern Territory Government during the period of the land freeze. I should have pointed out that that undertaking is subject only to the discussions with the Borroloola people relating to the area in the Sir Edward Pellew group of islands and the nearby land where probably a town and port site will be created. What I said is subject to that proviso.

page 736

BROADCAST OF PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- At Question Time on Thursday, 8 March, Senator Harradine asked that consideration be given to the rearrangement of the parliamentary broadcast on Wednesday of this week from the Senate to the House of Representatives to enable the debate on the abortion issue to be broadcast. I have sought the views of Senate members of the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings. I have also considered precedents and am mindful of the unquestioned right of the House of Representatives to use or not to use a broadcast day for the discussion of the issue. I have concluded that it would be inappropriate and undesirable for me to seek action by the Committee to rearrange the broadcast day. The whole consideration of the matter will be freely available to the public through the media and Hansard.

page 736

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Patents Amendment Bill 1979.

Pay-Roll Tax (Territories) Assessment Amendment Bill 1979.

Excise Amendment Bill 1979.

Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill 1 979.

Foreign Antitrust Judgments (Restriction of Enforcement) Bill 1979.

Dairy Produce Sales Promotion Amendment Bill 1979.

Defence Force (Retirement and Death Benefits Amendments) Bill 1979.

National Fitness Amendment Bill 1979.

page 737

ADVISORY COUNCIL FOR INTER-GOVERNMENT RELATIONS

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– Pursuant to section 7 of the Advisory Council for Inter-Government Relations Act 1976 I present the annual report of the Advisory Council for Inter-Government Relations for the year ended 3 1 August 1978.

page 737

NON-GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS (LOANS GUARANTEE) ACT

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– Pursuant to section 12 of the Non-Government Schools (Loans Guarantee) Act 1977 I present a report concerning guarantees and payments made under guarantees pursuant to the Act for the period 19 October 1 977 to 3 1 December 1978.

page 737

STEVEDORING INDUSTRY FINANCE COMMITTEE

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) Pursuant to section 30 of the Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee Act 1977 I present the report of the Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee for the period 5 December 1977 to 30 June 1978.

page 737

TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE AUTHORITY

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) Pursuant to section 30B of the Industries Assistance Commission Act 1973I present a report by the Temporary Assistance Authority on dental alloys.

page 737

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) For the information of honourable senators I present a report by the Industries Assistance Commission on certain discontinuous yarns of polyester and polyester viscose.

page 737

AUSTRALIAN FILM AND TELEVISION SCHOOL

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

– Pursuant to section 42 of the Australian Film and Television

School Act 1973 I present the annual report of the Australian Film and Television School for the year ended 30 June 1978.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– by leave- I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 737

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES

Report

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– I present the 64th report from the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances relating to the principles which the Committee adopts in its scrutiny of delegated legislation.

Ordered that the report be printed. Mr Deputy President, I ask for leave to make a brief statement and to give a notice of motion in relation to the report.

Leave granted.

Senator MISSEN:

-In this report the Regulations and Ordinances Committee informs the Senate that it has modified the four principles which it has adopted since 1932 in its scrutiny of delegated legislation. The revised principles are intended to reflect the present practices of the Committee. The original 1932 principles were adopted with the concurrence of the Senate and it is therefore my intention to move that this report be adopted by the Senate so that the revised principles will have the Senate’s approval. The Committee wishes to give senators time to read the report before the motion for its adoption is moved. On the other hand, the Committee would like the motion for the adoption of the report to be passed as soon as possible because the Committee is at present considering an Australian Capital Territory ordinance which it may wish to report to the Senate on the basis of the revised principles. I therefore intend to give a notice of motion for the adoption of the report. This notice will gain precedence over other General Business notices of motion and should therefore be considered on Thursday evening of next week. I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move:

That the 64th report of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, relating to the principles of the Committee, be adopted.

page 738

INTRODUCTION OF ARMY AND AIR FORCE CANTEEN SERVICE

Ministerial Statement

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– by leave- Honourable senators will recall that in May last year it was decided that the canteen arrangements for the Defence Force were to be changed. The Australian Services Canteens Organisation, or ASCO, was asked to prepare a rundown program and the Services were asked to propose alternative arrangements for meeting their canteen needs. I am now pleased to inform the Senate that the Army and Air Force are to get a new canteen service. The new service to be known as the Army and Air Force Canteen Service, or AAFCANS, will replace the Australian Services Canteens Organisation which was first set up in 1959. The Royal Australian Navy Canteen Service will continue to meet the needs of the Navy, but will be independent of the new service.

The Army and Air Force Canteen Service will operate as a statutory authority under the direction of the Minister for Defence as did ASCO. It will be governed by a single board of management which will replace the present Australian Services Council for Canteens and ASCO board of management.

The new board is to comprise four senior Service officers- two each from the Army and Air Force- a senior Defence departmental officer and two businessmen with experience in marketing and retailing. The managing director of the new organisation will also be a member of the board. The board of management will be supported by canteen committees at State, area, base and unit levels. These will be constituted to permit effective management participation by Army and Air Force personnel, including other ranks, and a high degree of local operational control at those levels.

The scope of service of AAFCANS will be modified to take account of the generally greater accessibility that servicemen and women now have to goods and services from commercial sources. Customer service will be directed primarily to taverns and food services. Other facilities that can be provided within the resources allotted for those purposes will be offered. Specialist services on larger bases, such as dry cleaning, newsagencies and service stations, will be arranged on a concession basis where appropriate. AAFCANS will take over the operation of the ASCO community store facilities at Woomera.

At a date to be fixed the obligation for Navy canteens and Service messes to purchase from the canteen service will be removed although they may opt to continue to do so if they wish, subject to the payment of appropriate administrative on-costs. Reliance will be placed on local purchase and delivery direct from suppliers rather than on bulk buying and storage. This will allow the extensive warehousing and distributive functions operated by ASCO to meet these requirements to be eliminated and administrative overheads to be greatly reduced.

The operation of the new service will be directed towards the making of profits that will permit the distribution of funds to Army and Air Force units and bases for amenities, morale and recreational purposes. Such distributions will be dependent on the results of local trading and will encourage soldiers and airmen to patronise their own canteens.

ASCO staff required for the operation of AAFCANS will be employed without loss of continuity or benefits and those who become redundant will be given all practicable assistance in finding other employment. Redundant employees will be eligible for benefits under the Redundancy in Australian Government Employment- RAGE- scheme and the National Employment and Training scheme and action is being taken to see that contributors to the ASCO Superannuation Fund will not be disadvantaged.

AAFCANS will take over the assets of ASCO to the extent necessary to carry on its new level of operations. Surplus capital funds remaining after responsibility has been transferred will be distributed to the Army and Air Force central welfare funds in suitable proportions. An immediate cash allocation of about $290,000, equivalent to profits arising from trading by ASCO in 1976 and 1977 but not previously distributed, will also be made to those funds.

Preliminary steps towards organising the new canteen service have commenced and it will come formally into being when the necessary changes have been made to the ASCO regulations. The first stages of the physical transition from the old to the new canteen arrangements are expected to begin on 1 April 1979. It is not proposed to specify a terminating date for this statutory body as has recently been suggested by the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations. I think the Senate will agree that this would not be an appropriate course for a trading organisation of this kind whose sole purpose is to provide a required service to the Army and Air Force on a continuing self-supporting basis. Similarly to ASCO the new service will be required to present to the Minister for Defence, the Minister for Finance and the Auditor-General an audited profit and loss account and balance sheet, covering its operations, at least once each financial year.

In conclusion I would like to express thanks to the many Service officers and businessmen who have served on the Australian Services Council for Canteens and the ASCO board of management. In particular I would like to mention the current Chairman of the Board, Mr G. J. Betts, whose advice and experience have been of much assistance in arriving at the present result. I would also like to pay tribute to ASCO, which has been the source of over $ 10m for Army and Air Force welfare programs since it began trading in 1 959. 1 present the following paper:

Introduction of Army and Air Force Canteen ServiceMinisterial Statement, 20 March 1979.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– by leave- The Opposition does not actually oppose the statement that has been put down by the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick). Undoubtedly as the years go by reorganisation of this type of service becomes necessary and we are all aware of the very great work that has been done to provide these facilities to members of the armed forces over the years. We would assume that a better service will be provided now as a result of this reorganisation. We are also mindful of the fact that the Government will be endeavouring to lessen its own financial commitments to the maximum once these new procedures are in operation.

There is just one point that I do want to make and that is the almost off-handed way in which the statement deals with the redundancy question which will apply to probably many hundreds of employees. There does not appear to be any attempt by the Government to ensure that the people who will be made redundant are provided with some form of alternative employment or even opportunities. The only reference to this point appears on page 3 of the Minister’s statement wherein it is said:

Redundant employees will be eligible for benefits under the Redundancy in Australian Government EmploymentRAGE scheme and the National Employment and Training scheme and action is being taken to see that contributors to the ASCO Superannuation Fund will not be disadvantaged.

Well, we would expect them not to be disadvantaged, but simply saying that these people can fall back on the provisions of the NEAT scheme and the RAGE scheme seems to be almost an abrogation by the Government of its responsibility to these employees. We do not believe that the Government ought to walk away from the welfare of and its concern for the welfare of people who have served in the Australian Services Canteens Organisation, no doubt in many cases for many years. Perhaps the Government will be prepared to look again at the implications for so many people who have been employed under the present scheme. But with that reservation in mind, I say that the Opposition has no opposition to the new proposals.

page 739

CRIMES AT SEA BILL 1979

Bill returned from the House of Representatives without amendment.

page 739

POULTRY INDUSTRY LEVY AMENDMENT BILL 1979

First Readings

Debate resumed from 8 March, on motion by Senator Carrick:

That the Bills be now read a first time.

Senator HAMER:
Victoria

-Last year I told the Senate- perhaps with slight exaggeration but not much- that the Departments of Defence as reorganised in 1975, was a disaster area. I should like now to be more specific about what I think is wrong with that organisation, and how it could be restructured to make it more effective.

First, we have to decide what we want a defence department to do. One must have such a department, or departments, because this is the only practical mechanism through which, under our system, political control of the Defence Force can be exercised. This political control of the Defence Force- subservience to the elected Government- is not in dispute in this country. The trouble is that sometimes it is interpreted as implying subservience to the Public Service, which is liable to cause great inefficiency and resentment.

Whilst I am on the subject of the political control of the Department of Defence, I should make the point that the present Minister for Defence (Mr Kiilen) is grossly overloaded. He is doing, with merely the part-time assistance of the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr McLeay), work that used to be done by five Ministers. I think that the span of political control should be greatly widened. To my mind, the best solution would be to appoint three or four Parliamentary Secretaries to the Minister. Perhaps one could be assigned responsibility for each armed service, and another could be responsible for defence production. I have argued previously the desirability of having Parliamentary Secretaries who could provide political supervision without requiring an expensive department of their own, and certainly the Minister for Defence deserves extra support.

The second requirement of a defence department is that it should provide professional advice to the Government, which must decide ultimately the strategic risks that face Australia and the resultant needs for personnel, organisation and equipment of the various arms of the Defence Force and- an area that is often not given sufficient weight- of the necessary logistic backup, including defence industry.

The third requirement of a defence department is that it provide for effective operational and administrative control of the Defence Force, that is, the three armed services.

The fourth requirement is that a Defence department should have the confidence of servicemen. Morale is an elusive quality- usually you do not notice it until you have lost it- and a vital ingredient of morale is confidence in the command. Servicemen are required and prepared to risk and, if necessary, to sacrifice their lives, but if we are to expect them to do this it is essential that they believe that those who are in authority understand their problems and know what they are doing.

Finally, I come back to a different aspect of my first point. We must always remember that the Defence Department is not only a Defence Force headquarters but also a great department of State. That does not mean that the key positions should necessarily be held by public servants. That may sometimes be desirable when those public servants have appropriate skills, but it is certainly not a necessary general rule. Let us look for example at the Department of Foreign Affairs, where the key positions are held by professional diplomats who are as separate from the general run of public servants are are the professional servicemen. Indeed, it would be as inappropriate to appoint a public servant to a controlling- and 1 mean dominant- position in the Defence Department as it would be to appoint a retired general with no diplomatic experience as the head of the Department of Foreign Affairs. Of course, the position would be exacerbated if the general were openly contemptuous of diplomacy and diplomats.

There is no doubt that the defence organisation which existed before 1975 did not meet the requirements that I have stated. Before 1975, each armed service was controlled by a board that was organised on functional lines but exercised collective responsibility in most matters. Each board comprised four or five professional service officers and one or two public servants. The chairman was usually the responsible Minister. In his absence the Chief of Staff presided. Over the service boards was the rather amorphous Department of Defence, almost entirely public service in nature, but with the enormous power which resides in the body which presents to Cabinet the case of the individual service’s financial requirements for manpower and equipment.

There were, of course, many glaring defects in this organisation. There was no overall command system. The Chairman of the Chiefs of Staffs committee had no command authority. That did not matter much when our military role was to provide units to serve under the command of the forces of other nations, but once we turned to look at operations of our own which, by their very nature, would normally involve more than one service, the command vacuum could no longer be tolerated. But that was not the most serious defect. In the pre- 1975 defence structure, the three completely separated services, which were co-ordinated feebly by a Public Servicedominated Department of Defence, sometimes seemed more concerned with fighting each other than with fighting a potential enemy. Timely, agreed assessments other than at the lowest common denominator, were almost impossible to obtain.

The problem, of course, was not helped by the fact that the defence vote was, in money terms, for long periods held static during a time of rapid inflation. This caused service chiefs to fight desperately for larger shares of the cake to ensure the survival of those capabilities of their own service that they deemed vital, and be damned to the other services. That was natural, perhaps, but not very helpful overall. The position was also not helped by the rapid and fundamental changes which occurred in the national strategy. Five major changes have occurred since World War 2. Some of these were effectively imposed by the Government, but all of the changes in strategy had caused, or should have caused, substantial changes in our force composition.

By 1975 a re-organisation which would create a much stronger and more effective defence department was clearly necessary. Wisely, no attempt was made to merge the three services as had been done in Canada- the single mudcoloured uniform approach- a solution which has little to recommend it. Probably it does achieve co-ordination but at the cost of the vital ingredient of unit morale. We are much better off with separate services, if adequately controlled and co-ordinated.

The 1975 re-organisation was achieved as a result of a report that had been prepared by public servants, who recommended a single defence department. No reasonable person could quarrel with that, but there can be a great deal of disagreement over the way in which it was actually done. The report itself was, on the whole, an unimpressive document but despite the unanimous disagreement to some important parts of it by the Chiefs of Staff, it was accepted in toto by the Whitlam Government.

What did the re-organisation achieve? To look at the good side first, it set up an operational commander of the defence force, that is, of all three armed services. The choice of title for the commander of the defence force- Chief of Defence Force Staff- was a curious one. I do not know whether the intention was to downgrade him, but as commander of the Defence Force, that is what he should be called. He is much more than merely the chief of a group of staff officers. His function is, to use the words of the Act, to command the Defence Force subject to, and in accordance with, any directions of the Minister. The administration of the Defence Force is the joint responsibility of the Secretary of the Chief of Defence Force Staff. The latter arrrangement, by the way, breaches one of the established military principles. The commander must have under his command the forces that support his task.

Before I leave the subject of the Chief of Defence Force Staff, there is one other aspect on which I should like to touch. Since the 1 975 reorganisation there have been three chiefs of defence force staff. A fourth has just been appointed but only for two years. Such short tenures inevitably diminish the influence of a chief of defence force staff. Apart from ill health, the requirement for rotation has dictated the short tenures. I think that the rotation requirement should not apply to the defence force commander. The usual argument for this rotation, that otherwise the promotion of junior officers would be hindered, decs not apply to him. He is separate from the ordinary service promotion structure. If we have a good defence force commander we should stick to him. He certainly should not be compulsorily retired at 60 years of age. After all, the most dynamic naval administrator of this century, Jackie Fisher, became First Sea Lord at the age of 63 years. He finally retired, very reluctantly, at the age of 74 years.

Winston Churchill became Prime Minister for the first time at 66 years of age. Of course, it varies with the individual, but we must not wreck our defence organisation because it is Buggins’s turn to be defence force commander.

Senator Lewis:

– Give Buggins a good pension. Isn ‘t that what it is all about?

Senator HAMER:

– I hope it is not about the pension aspect, as has been argued. Basically, what I am saying is that if we have a good man as defence force commander we should stick to him. We should not feel obliged to rotate him for reasons such as balance between the Services or any other factors such as that mentioned by Senator Lewis. The 1975 reforms also abolished the three service boards. In their place a commander of each service was appointed. He is responsible to the defence force commander. Again, these three service commanders were given the archaic and inappropriate titles of chiefs of staff.

One significant point that must be made is that the involvement of the three service commanders or their representatives in nearly all aspects of forward planning in the Defence Department, although it is hallowed by tradition, cuts right across the functional organisation of the Defence Department. It helps to create inefficiency and the proliferation of the committees which are the bane of the Defence Department. I think this involvement is a tradition which has outlived its usefulness. If we could create a professional, functionally organised defence department, the service commanders could with great advantage concentrate on the efficient running of their Services and leave the Defence Department to do the long-range planning. I think this part of the structure is otherwise all right.

There are, however, two points I would like to make. I hope that in any significant military operation involving more than one service-almost all significant military operations will involve more than one service- a single commander will be appointed for the operation, responsible to the defence force commander. The necessary navy, army and air force units must be unequivocally assigned to this commander who must not be in Canberra. If he were in Canberra the number of people second-guessing him would make his task almost impossible. The second point is that the reorganisation report, the Tange report, did not deal with the organisation of the three Services outside their central headquarters. Here there is plenty of scope for tidying up, a task which I hope the defence force commander will soon tackle.

Each service is organised differently. The air force is organised on functional lines. It has an operational command and a support command, although I understand that this organisation is under review. The army was recently reorganised on a three-pronged structure. It has operational, training and logistic commands. Incidentally, this is a structure which the air force tried and abandoned. The navy has just adopted yet another type of functional structure. It has an operational command and a support command like the air force, but the support command of the navy has no responsibility for dockyards and very little responsibility for training, the responsibility for which is held in the Navy Office in Canberra. There would, I am sure, be improvements in efficiency and economy if the three Services were organised on the same principles and their corresponding commands colocated or, at the very least, located close to each other. Such a desirable arrangement will not come about by chance. It will have to be imposed by the defence force commander.

What about the rest of the Defence Department structure, other than the operational control of the Defence Force? This is where the trouble is. The present Secretary has said that the Defence Department is not structured for war. I most certainly agree with him, but I do not share his complacency.

Senator Gietzelt:

– I thought we had to be ready for war 20 years ago.

Senator HAMER:

– We have to be ready for war at any time. Any prudent government has a defence organisation which is ready for war at any time. Looking at the Defence Department in this light, what is its structure? It has varied somewhat since the original Tange report, but its principles remain constant. Effectively, all the remaining power is in the hands of the Secretary. The divisions under the Secretary admittedly have the responsibility of advising and informing the Chief of Defence Force Staff as appropriate and as required- I use the words of an official document- but the effective power rests with the Secretary.

Under the Secretary are three deputy secretaries. It is worth spelling out their responsibilities because they show the extraordinary range of the responsibilities of the Secretary. The first deputy secretary is responsible to the Secretary for the Industrial Division, the Personnel Administration and Policy Division, the Establishments Division, the Financial Services and Internal Audit Division and the Manpower Policy and Requirements Branch. The second deputy secretary is responsible to the Secretary for the Strategic and International Policy Division which includes defence representation abroad, the Force Development and Analysis Division, the Programs and Budgets Division, the Natural Disaster Organisation and the three service chiefs of materiel. The latter are what are called two-hatted appointments. They sometimes work in their own service and sometimes in the Department of Defence. When they work in the Department of Defence they are responsible to the second deputy secretary. The third deputy secretary is responsible to the Secretary for the Defence Industry and Materiel Policy Division, the Defence Facilities Division, the Defence Communications System Division and the Management and General Services Division. On the same level is the Chief Defence Scientist who is responsible to the Secretary for, iter alia, the Military Studies and Operational Analysis Division and the Computing Services Division. Finally, still on the same level, is the Chief of Supply and Support who is responsible to the Secretary for the Supply Division, the Quality Assurance and Engineering Resources Policy Division and the three service chiefs of technical services. The latter appointments are two-hatted like the chiefs of materiel.

It will come as no surprise to senators that all five of these key policy-making positions are held by public servants. Most of the divisions under these five top men are headed by first assistant secretaries. Under them are numerous assistant secretaries and so on through the whole infrastructure. An enormous structure has been built up. The 1975 re-organisation of five government departments into one department has resulted astonishingly in an increase in the number of top public servants. The Defence Department now has a total of 1 18 First and Second Division public servants- by far the most of any department in the whole Public Service. There are 31,377 public servants in the Defence Department. That is almost exactly the manpower strength of the whole Regular Army. I do not want to give the impression that all these public servants are wastefully employed or that they could properly be replaced by servicemen. On the contrary, the role of public servants is to support the Defence Force by releasing trained professional servicemen for roles which they can best perform. Of the 31,000-odd public servants nearly 5,000 are working for defence science, 5,600 are in the naval dockyards and nearly 10,000 are in the Services’ supply organisations.

Although I have no doubt that economies could be achieved in this type of support, particularly in the naval dockyards whose productivity is appalling and whose likely reliability in a defence crisis is worse, it is not these positions about which I am talking. What I am worried about is the areas where public servants without appropriate experience or qualifications effectively dictate defence policy. Such positions, of course, are filled by First Division, Second Division or senior Third Division public servants. When one hears of cutbacks in the number of public servants, one should not be deluded into thinking they occur among Clyde Cameron’s ‘fat cats’- the First and Second Division public servants. More typically, they occur among civilian employees taken on in order to release skilled servicemen for the role for which they have been trained. It must be said that there are some- only a relatively small numberprofessional officers integrated into this structure responsible to the Secretary, generally at the lower levels.

The shortage of professional skills in the Defence Department inevitably causes a proliferation of committees. The Tange report recommended the establishment of 12 major policy and management committees. But there are in fact now many more committees. I heard the figure the other day of nearly 200 committees in the Defence Department. Certainly I have been informed that a Deputy Chief of Staff was personally involved with 27 committees. Committees used to be the bane of the old Defence structure. They were unavoidable then because the activities of five separate departments had to be co-ordinated. It is a tragedy that committees have continued under the new structure. This type of management by committee is contrary to the whole administrative approach of the armed Services. Although sometimes unavoidable it is in fact in general very bad administration, except perhaps at the very top where the span of information and skills involved may make a functional committee inescapable. Of course, committees are beloved by public servants who are accustomed to their somewhat leisurely and frequent indecisive method of operation. A skilled committee man in the position of power can delay a decision not for months but for years. Our Defence Department is becoming notorious for the way in which problems are passed to and fro and up and down between committees and for its reluctance or inability to make decisions. Someone recently rather rudely compared the Defence Department to a constipated cow into which one feeds a hell of a lot of grass at one end and nothing comes out the other end.

While on the subject of numbers, I should make it clear that it is not only in public servants that the Defence Department is overstaffed. The laudable desire to integrate professional servicemen and public servants at equivalent levels, and the top heavy nature of the Public Service structure, have caused an explosion in the senior ranks of servicemen in Canberra. In the Defence organisation in Canberra there are now 27 generals, admirals or air marshals; 56 brigadiers or their equivalents; and 131 full colonels. All this is for a Defence Force of only 70,000. This does not take into account the senior headquarters or those serving in ships, battalions or squadrons in the field. Think of it- a defence headquarters with 27 generals and 56 brigadiers. The balance between operational and headquarters numbers, of course, is a problem that has been around for a long time, but it has been exacerbated in recent years, except perhaps in the Army which always has had a top heavy rank structure. The Navy, for instance, has 14 admirals and 21 commodores for a total strength of 16,000 whereas in World War II, when the strength was more than 40,000, there were only four admirals and three commodores. We now have one-third the total naval strength but three times the number of admirals and seven times the number of commodores.

This over-ranking has most unfortunate effects. The Services are faced with the unpalatable alternatives either of accepting that most of their senior officers will be chairborne in Canberra with little or no recent operational experience, or else of over-ranking the relatively small number of operational jobs. I told the Senate earlier how the Navy tried to meet this problem by providing our United States-built destroyers with one captain and four commanders while United States sister ships had one commander. I will take another example. The nuclear powered aircraft carrier, USS Enterprise, has more fighters and strike aircraft than our entire defence Force in Australia yet it is commanded by a captain. The Melbourne is commanded by a commodore which, incidentally, creates great problems if the two operate together because on a rank basis, the small Melbourne would have tactical control of the very large Enterprise. So, it is not surprising that they do not often operate together. Even ranking measures such as this go nowhere near solving the problem. What is needed urgently is to bring the rank structure at Defence headquarters into a more reasonable balance with the size of our forces. Mr Deputy

President you may be thinking that surely I am exaggerating and surely the Defence Department cannot be that bad. My reply is that history is littered with examples of defence departments, war offices and admiralties which became grossly bloated and incompetent in peacetime. 1 believe we have an advanced case of this historically common disease.

What needs to be done to straighten out this mess? The first thing which must be done is to restructure the management at the top. The span of responsibility of the Secretary of the Department is quite inappropriate. It covers matters as diverse as strategic policy, financial management, operational analysis, personnel administration and policy, force development, computing services and communications. There is no one in the present Public Service, nor is there likely to be in the future, who is remotely qualified to understand, let along direct, such a varied range of activities, nor would one be likely to find someone in the Defence Force. What in fact has happened is that the five senior public servants responsible to the Secretary have been given a considerable degree of autonomy. So what we have at the top is an unstructured group of managers consisting of six public servants and one professional serviceman.

The span of interest in the Defence Department is far wider than that of any other Government department. The only way one could get the necessary informed input at the top decision making level is to have a board, perhaps called the defence council, of, say, five or six members, predominantly professional servicemen. This defence council should be organised on functional lines and be statutorily responsible for all the business of the Department with some particular members having exclusive responsibilities- the obvious ones being the Chief of Defence Force Staff for command of the Defence Force and the Secretary for the statutory financial responsibility. This is the type of management structure recommended by Lord Mountbatten for the British Ministry of Defence. With regard to the title of this body, perhaps I should mention that there is at the moment an informal group called the defence council or council of defence. This group comprises the Minister for Defence, the Minister for Administrative Services, the Secretary of the Department and the four chiefs of staff. The present Minister for Defence deserves great praise for setting up this group. It enables him to hear directly and regularly of the problems of the individual armed Services. I am sure this type of meeting should continue although I think it should be limited to the Minister and his four top servicemen. The title ‘defence council’ would be better given to the top Defence management body which I have proposed.

A reformed Defence Department should be predominantly manned by professional servicemen, certainly in the key decision-making positions. The Public Service should perform its proper role of supporting, not directing, the professionals in the defence field. The financial side, at the top anyway, in my view should be run by the Public Service. The Defence Force always has to watch the balance between operational and non-operational appointments. Financial management is clearly an area where the skills of the Public Service could be harnessed to the support of the Defence Force. There will, of course, be other key positions which would not normally be filled by servicemen- scientific and defence production posts, for example. The people with the necessary skills and experience in these fields would not often be available in the Public Service. I believe that for these posts we must be prepared to consider recruiting on a contract basis suitable people from outside both the Defence Force and the Public Service.

The Minister for Defence must be the chairman of the Defence Council which I propose. He bears the ultimate responsibility, and he should hear the arguments which lead up to the conclusions. His deputy should be the Defence Force commander. A similar arrangement should apply to the Defence Committee, which brings together the permanent heads of other departments to consider appropriate defence problems in a wider context. I mention the position of the Defence Force commander because it is important that the Government receives proper professional defence inputs at the highest level. As an example of the dangers that can arise I mention that new Cabinet committees covering various subjects, and the groups of officials appointed to advise them, were recently announced. The advisers to the Cabinet Defence Committee comprise six public servants and not a single professional serviceman.

What else needs to be done in a reformed Defence Department? The decision-making process needs a radical change. If we set up a functional structure, with qualified professionals at all levels, it will not be necessary to refer every complex question to committees which are normally a reflection of ignorance or weakness. Officers should be required to make decisions after studying the relevant factors or, if the decision is beyond their authority, to forward the proposal with a clear recommendation as to action. This is the normal procedure in the Defence Force, as it is in any properly run administration. We must do away with the extraordinary network of Defence Department committees which are superb vehicles for procrastination and lowest common denominator compromises but are disastrous for incisive administration.

The size of the Defence Department also should be radically reduced. At the moment it is fantastically bloated. In the Defence Department’s central organisation, according to the 1978 Defence Report, there are now 5,270 people. The cost in salaries alone cannot be all that far short of $ 100m a year. This is absurd. I think that the target should be to reduce the central defence organisation to not more than half its present size- preferably smaller- and to have a lean and efficient Defence Department. The service rank structure and the equivalent Public Service levels in the Defence Department must also be brought into reasonable balance with the size and rank structure of our operational Defence Force. On this subject, one of the quainter aspects of the Tange report was the way it gave equivalent military rank to various levels of public servants, describing them as four, three, two and one star appointments- using the American descriptions of generals, lieutenant-generals, major-generals and brigadier-generals. Incidentally, most people seem to think that the public servants, perhaps not surprisingly, rated themselves one rank too high. This certainly will have to be looked at when the defence structure is overhauled.

Finally, the prestige of the Defence Department, in the view of operational servicemen, must be radically raised. At the moment most servicemen would probably echo Gilbert and Sullivan in HMS Pinafore, mutatis mutandis:

Now, landsmen all, whoever you may be, If you want to rise to the top of the tree, If your soul isn ‘t fettered to an office stool, Be careful to be guided by this golden ruleStick close to your desks and never go to sea, And you all may be Rulers of the Queen’s Navee!

I must say that I have never known a time when respect for the Defence Department was so low. I find this very disturbing. The professionalisation of the Department would do a great deal to raise its prestige. It is also to be hoped that its approach would change radically. I remember being impressed by a large photograph in an office in the old Department of the Navy. It showed a destroyer ploughing through really heavy seas of the type that makes even the most hardened sailor feel queasy. Underneath was the caption ‘For whom we serve’. I hope that that attitude becomes widespread throughout the new Department, by precept and example.

How are we to achieve reform of the Defence Department? It certainly will not be achieved by a nibbling around the edges by the Public Service Board. The power of expansion or resistance through Parkinson’s law would undoubtedly overwhelm such nibbling. What we need is a major external review of the whole structure, by someone outside both the Public Service and the Defence Force, with no axe to grind or empire to build, to implement the sort of principles I have outlined. After all, the present structure has now had more than three years trial and has been found badly wanting. It is a tragedy that such a mess was made by the Whitlam Governmentand continued by us- of the very desirable process of integrating the higher defence organisation. The ancient Greeks had a prayer: ‘Give mine enemy a golden sword’. A modern version might well be: ‘Give mine enemy a structure like the Australian Defence Department’. It is not a situation we should or can afford to tolerate any longer.

Senator McAULIFFE:
Queensland

– I rise this afternoon because last Thursday I had my name on the list of senators wishing to speak on the National Fitness Amendment Bill but, due to a prior engagement, was unable to fulfil that commitment. So infrequent are the opportunities for the Senate to discuss the Government’s financial support for recreation and sport that I regretted having to miss that opportunity. So today I am using the provisions of Standing Order 190, which states that on a first reading of a money Bill a senator may speak on a matter which is relevant or not relevant to the subject, The money Bill that is being debated in the Senate now is the Poultry Industry Levy Amendment Bill 1979.I give notice to the Senate that that will be the only time I will use the word poultry ‘ throughout my address this afternoon.

In speaking to this Bill I would like to make some observations on the National Fitness Amendment Bill that was before the Senate last Thursday. I do not propose to make the speech that I intended to make on that occasion, but I feel inclined to make a few observations in order to place on record in Hansard a comparison between what this Government is doing and what the Labor Government did in providing financial assistance to sport and recreation. A long succession of Federal governments have been niggardly in their approach to sport and recreation. In fact, it took until 1939 for any Federal government to do anything worthwhile about giving a lead in this direction. In 1939 the National Fitness Council was formed as a wartime measure. It met all its objectives and did a good job. What

I have to say tonight is in no way a reflection on the longline of officers and members who served on that Council diligently and well and to the best of their ability, given the finance that was available to them, to achieve the objectives that were set for them. I had the honour of working closely with the National Fitness Council of Australia throughout the Labor Government’s period of office from 1972 to 1975 because the then Minister for Tourism and Recreation, the Honourable Frank Stewart, appointed me as the Government representative on that Council. I was able to observe closely the functions of this Council. It became increasingly obvious to me that the Council was not geared in any way whatsoever to meet the requirements of the 1970s.

In many ways we can be compared with the United States of America and, I suppose, in sport and recreation we can also take America as a comparison. In that country in 1960 President John F. Kennedy formed the President’s Council for National Fitness but 10 years later the Congress felt that it was inadequate and needed upgrading. It formed another committee of 14 members under the chairmanship of James Lovell, an astronaut. One of the requirements of six or seven of the members serving on that committee was that they be specialists in national fitness. Here in Australia we have an abundance of talent available to do a job equally as well as America or any other country can do. We have men of rare skills and experience in the medical sports associations of Australia. Many of them have played a prominent part in research that has been acclaimed internationally. But their efforts are stifled by lack of finance. Inadequate finance is made available for furthering the ideals to which these people are so dedicated.

I have the practical experience of being the president of the controlling body of the major sport of Queensland. I have reason to travel the length and breadth of Queensland. I cannot help noticing that many sporting bodies would be bankrupt were it not for chook raffles. Everywhere people are propping up sport by selling tickets in chook raffles. If we were honest with ourselves we would erect a monument to the chook in every provincial town not only in Queensland but througout Australia. This state of affairs is brought about by the lack of Government support or sponsorship for sport. If one were to do any research into this matter one would find that it was left to the Labor Government in 1972 to take the first positive step towards remedying the situation.

Senator Gietzelt:

– The terrible Whitlam Government!

Senator MCAULIFFE:

– That is what we hear, but history will prove how right the Whitlam Government was in many areas. One will recall the policy speech of the incoming Prime Minister, (Gough Whitlam), on 13 November 1972. He had this to say:

There is no greater social problem facing Australia than the good use of leisure. It is the problem of all modern and wealthy communities. It is, above all, the problem of urban societies and thus, in Australia, the most urbanised nation on earth, a problem more pressing for us than for any other nation on earth. For such a nation as ours this may very well be the problem of the 1980s.

On becoming the Government, the Labor Party- its record shows that what Labor promises Labor will do immediately carried out a major overhaul of recreational needs in Australia. How did it do this?

Senator MacGibbon:

– He sent us broke, so he solved the problem.

Senator MCAULIFFE:

– Never before has Australia been so much in hock as it is today when the balance of payments has us in such a perilous state that we have borrowed $2,000m in the last two years whereas in the five years of the Whitlam Government our indebtedness to overseas ownership was only $175m. I thank the honourable senator for his interjection and allowing me to get that information on the record. How did we overhaul our recreational requirements in Australia? The Whitlam Labor Government did it, firstly, by recognising the important part being played by voluntary organisations in providing recreational outlets for the Australian people; secondly, by providing capital grants for the construction of sporting community recreation and cultural facilities; thirdly, by assisting Australian sports men and women; fourthly, by stimulating an awareness of the benefits of individual fitness. So you see, gone were to be the days when voluntary workers financed sporting activities by the sale of chook raffle tickets and with other raffles throughout the hotels of this country.

As I said, the Whitlam Government honoured all the promises it made. More importantly, it made funds readily available for the implementation of sporting and recreational schemes. In its last year of office it approved $ 1 .3m for sports assistance programs, $75,420 for physical recreation development program grants, $850,000 for the national fitness allocations, $150,000 for sports facilities at national fitness camps, $144,000 for lifesaving club allocations, and hundreds of thousands of dollars as capital assistance for leisure facility programs in the various States. Capital grants were also made for leisure facilities in area improvement program regions, making a total expenditure of $ 1 1 . 1 m.

Now let us look at what happened when the Fraser Government came to power in 1975. What did it set about doing? The first thing it did was to abolish the Department of Tourism and Recreation and all funding was cancelled except where a firm commitment had been entered into and where funds had been previously appropriated. As a result of this drastic action thousands of sporting bodies were again left to their own resources. Had it not been for the financial assistance of some of the State governments, many of the sporting organisations would have faced financial disaster. One must realise that they were standing on their own resources in the first place with the sale of raffle tickets and lottery tickets. Then the Labor Government came to power and gave them worthwhile financial assistance. They adjusted their budgets accordingly but the Fraser Government, when it came to power, cancelled all this assistance and again left the sporting bodies to their own resources. It left many of them facing bankruptcy. In contrast to the $1 1.1m that was spent in this area by the Whitlam Labor Government in 1975, the Fraser Government’s allocation in the 1978-79 Budget is less than $1.5m. We readily admit that the Life. Be In It. campaign has been a huge success. The National Fitness Bill 1979 had the full support of the Opposition when it was before this Senate last Thursday. The ‘Life. Be In It.’ campaign has been an outstanding success. But let us look at the Government’s record in this very successful venture. The campaign was not an initiative of this Government; it was an initiative of the Victorian Government. In the first year of operation of the ‘Life. Be In It.’ campaign in Victoria the Federal Government gave the Victorian Government a subsidy of $60,000.

Senator Peter Baume:

– That was the Hamer Government, was it, Senator?

Senator MCAULIFFE:

– Yes, the Hamer Government. Now, with a fanfare of trumpets the Government would have us believe that it is making a worthwhile contribution to the ‘Life. Be In It. ‘ campaign and that it is only through the Federal Government’s generosity that the campaign is able to continue. This is far from the truth. In the overall situation the Federal Government will give $600,000 per year for three years making a total of $ 1.8m for the ‘Life. Be In It. ‘ campaign.

Having related that story to the Senate, one finds it extremely difficult to speak any further about the achievement of this Government in regard to recreation and sport. The Government has commissioned a task force on co-ordination in welfare and health, the report of which has become known as the Bailey report. But we are still waiting for some action from the Government to implement the recommendations. The inactivity of the Government in this area has been so great that for the first time in the history of sport in this country that I can recall- I have been around the ridges in sport for over a quarter of a century now and I have discussed this with people with longer experience and they assure me that they have never seen this situation before- the administrations of major sporting bodies in Australia have become so fed up with the lack of interest displayed in them by the present Government that they have been forced to form themselves into an organisation known as the Confederation of Sporting Bodies. This is the first time this has happened in the history of Australia. It has been brought about by financial necessity. This body has been formed to lobby to endeavour to persuade this Government of the importance of giving strong financial assistance to sporting and recreational bodies, particularly in this period when, due to technological change and automation in industry we will be confronted with an ever-increasing amount of leisure time. There has been no planning and no provision made to meet the situation in the community.

I return to the formation of the Confederation of Sporting Bodies. It represents 97 senior sporting bodies in this country with a membership of 5.7 million people. I come in contact with the representatives of these bodies regularly because we have similar problems to discuss. Dr Alan Aylett, President of the Victorian Football League, the VFL is concerned at the lack of Government response to aid for sport. Sir Arthur George represents soccer. He is a good supporter of the Government but he is the person most critical of it in this area. Kevin Humphries is the President of the Australian Rugby League. Mr McLaughlin is the President of the Australian Rubgy Union. All these people express to anybody who is prepared to listen to them their grave concern at the lack of interest and financial support that this Government is giving to sport in Australia.

The Government will tell us that it has formed the Sports Advisory Council. True, it has done that but it has not achieved anything because the Government has not taken on board any of its recommendations. If it has taken them on board, it is taking a long while to implement any of them. So pitiful is the Government effort that one wonders what would be the state of affairs if it were not for such people as those involved with the Rothmans National Sport Foundation, insurance companies and other organisations and those who are propping up sport in this country. I shall mention one body that I know something about, the Rothmans National Sport Foundation.

Senator Peter Baume:

– Blood money.

Senator MCAULIFFE:

– It has helped amateur sport to the extent of over $2m in the last 10 years.

Senator Peter Baume:

– Blood money. You won’t answer.

Senator MCAULIFFE:

– I will answer in a moment. This body has contributed over $500,000 in the last year. Amateur sport has to rely on this assistance because it cannot get the money anywhere else. Rothmans of Pall Mall (Aust) Ltd is only one of the cigarette companies propping up sport in this country, a job that correctly should be done by Federal authorities. I said earlier on this aspect- and I think it is worth repeating because I think it vividly describes the efforts of hundreds of thousands of people, of those who work in an honorary capacity to prop up sport in this country by running chook raffles and lotteries around the hotels- that there should be a monument to the chook in every city as a reminder of the lack of Government activity in this area. The Government must not shirk its responsibility to the youth of Australia.

When I mentioned the Rothmans Sport Foundation I heard the interjection: ‘Blood money’. It is a sad observation for any member on the Government side to make that sport is in such a parlous situation in this country, because it cannot get any Government assistance that it has to place itself in the position of being the recipient of over $5m annually from tobacco sponsorships. I say to Senator Baume that if it were not for the $5m sponsorships that major sport receives annually from tobacco companies in Australia half our sporting bodies would have to fold up.

The Confederation of Sporting Bodies feels strongly about the outbursts and the crusades of some members of Parliament. I refer particularly to Senator Baume. I do not mean to be personally offensive in any way to him. He is the Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Health and Welfare. At the moment he is conducting a fiery crusade and trying to persuade Liberal branches throughout New South Wales and in other areas strongly to support the recommendations that have been brought down in the report of his Committee. For that I have no argument with him whatsoever. He believes that the recommendations are in the interests of the nation and, therefore, he is pursuing thenacceptance.

Let us examine the realities of the situation. It is all right for Senator Baume while he is sipping a sherry at the University Club to be discussing with others around him that smoking and the taking of alcohol is injurious and dangerous to the health of people and to say that his Committee proposes to ban cigarette advertising and sponsorship and brewery sponsorship and advertising and if the people in the Federal Department of Health- these troglodites there- get their way they will close down cigarette factories and breweries. This is the line of argument that they are pursuing. They have worked themselves into a frenzy and this is their main objective.

Let us examine the practicalities and realities of this situation. In a moment I shall give some statistics to show how impossible, futile and ridiculous it is to branch out on such a campaign. So concerned is the Confederation of Sporting Bodies in Australia, which represents a membership of 5.7 million and 97 of the major sporting bodies in this nation, that it has carried a unanimous resolution. The text of the resolution is that every sporting body should have its own discretion to accept whatever sponsorships are appropriate. The Confederation strongly opposes any restriction on the sponsorship of sport by the alcohol and tobacco industries. More so the Confederation believes that not only would the funds be irreplaceable but also that the expertise of the tobacco companies is invaluable, and no financial figure could be place on it.

The Confederation is comprised of commonsense people, motivated by sports promotion. The decision the Confederation arrived at was taken on balance- how each sport would keep going, bearing in mind the assistance it could expect from the Government. The only way for sports to continue is by the further acceptance of sponsorship and advertising from tobacco companies and breweries. Anyone who knows anything about sport, no matter at what level, knows in his heart and soul today that no sporting body in Australia can continue to function without the sponsorships it receives today. A sporting body would be hungry and broke if it had to rely on the financial assistance it receives from any Government. I say quite sincerely and considerately to Senator Baume that I admire his dedication to what he is trying to achieve with regard to cigarette smoking and the drinking of alcohol, but I do not think it is practical or real for him, as a first step towards achieving the abolition of those things, to say that we must cut out advertising on sportsgrounds fences, on football jerseys or on competitors uniforms and that those companies should not be allowed to assist sporting bodies.

Who is going to fill the vacuum if the decree is brought in that these companies can no longer sponsor sporting bodies or be allowed to advertise? The Government has taken the advertisments off television, but common sense has prevailed in allowing the advertisements to remain on sporting oval fences and on competitors jerseys. If Senator Baume ‘s committee and the people who agree with him feel so strongly on this matter, why do not they enter into an education program to try to educate the people of the pitfalls if they continue to smoke and drink? Educate the people, otherwise Senator Baume and his supporters will make themselves look ridiculous. They are just stirring up a situation to which there can be no end. Whilst they carry pious resolutions and get the people to whom they are appealing to agree with them that smoking is harmful and drinking is harmful, the people will ask this: What are you going to do if you chop it out? What are you going to do to fill the vacuum left by ending it? That is the first thoughy that comes to sporting bodies. Man does not live by bread alone. What right do we have to tell the worker after a hard, laborious day’s work, when he looks forward to having a couple of knock-off drinks with his mate in the local bar before he catches his train home, or at smoko, after working hard for two or three hours when he gets the 10 minutes smoko and has a cup of billy tea and rolls a cigerette, that he cannot have a drink or a smoke? Senator Baume ‘s conscience tells him that these people should not be doing it, he should try to educate the people and let them make the decision.

This Government is earning a reputation. It will not let people do many things. The Government will not let the youth of this country work on account of the financial policies it is pursuing. It has paralysed the community and now he is endeavouring to say to the adults: ‘You cannot smoke and you cannot drink’. If one cannot work, smoke or drink, there is very little left worth living for. Study the practicalities of that side of the matter. I will assist the honourable senator in any campaign that he tries to promote which is an educational program showing the people what they should not be doing. However, any time that he advocates in this Chamber the cancelling of sponsorships to sporting bodies or the curtailing of advertising on sportsgrounds, et cetera, I will oppose him with every breath in my body until such time as he shows me how the Government can take the place of the sponsorships that these people are receiving.

I have never heard a recommendation from his committee that the subsidy given to the tobacco growers in Australia should be discontinued.

Senator Peter Baume:

– We did.

Senator MCAULIFFE:

– You have in your report?

Senator Peter Baume:

– You should read the report.

Senator MCAULIFFE:

– I will have to read it more closely. If it is there, I have not heard him expound it as eloquently as he has some of the other recommendations in the report. I am closely associated with people in politics who share the same view regarding tobacco as he does, but I never cease to marvel when I go round my own State or other States to see them being photographed proudly handing over the Department of Primary Industry’s cheque to the tobacco growers of that area who happen to be their constituents. It has to be one thing or the other. Either one believes in the cause for which one is fighting and not have any part of it or one has to approach it in a commonsense way and adjust one’s philosophies to the times.

I have said that sporting bodies cannot exist without the tobacco or brewery industries assistance. That assistance is important. It is even more important today when we are confronted with more leisure time than we have been at any other time in our history. The amount of leisure time will increase, particularly with the unemployment level as it is today, with over half a million people out of work. Many of them are young people who want to engage actively in sport but who cannot continue any longer, if the area of sponsorship that exists today is under challenge.

Let us come down to the practicalities of politics. 1 believe that Senator Baume is a very realistic politician. He is the Government Whip. It was mentioned recently in the Press that he was running for a position in the Ministry. I think he would do justice to the Ministry when he is elevated to that position. The honourable senator has a fiery crusade against cigarette smoking, tobacco companies and the breweries. But even if the branches support him in that crusade, what chance would he have of achieving his objective? We will now get down to the hard nuts and bolts of political reality.

In 1978-79 excise duty on beer alone was $765m; on spirits it was $77m; on tobacco, cigars, cigarettes and cigarette papers it was $565m. Customs duties for 1978-79 on spirits, liqueurs and other spiritous beverages, plus excise on tobacco and cigarettes, the figures for which are not available for the year 1978-79, but based on the figures for 1977-78, will amount to $2 billion to flow into the federal coffers for the year. How can any member of any government genuinely and conscientiously stand in his place and advocate the abolition of industries with a consequent $2 billion loss in revenue? Even now, with that drain-off from the two industries, the deficit is running at over $2 billion. The balance of payments is in such a precarious position that it is likely that the deficit will be closer to $3 billion by the time of the next Budget. If the Government did not have this $2 billion to draw on it would be facing a deficit of $5 billion. Where is the common sense in that situation? I would suggest to the honourable senator that anyone attempting to legalise marihuana would have a chance to advocate that if it is legalised no excise should be placed on it. The honourable senator has enough common sense to know as well as I do that once an excise is put on anything and it becomes a tax gathered for the Treasury, it will never be removed and the substance from which it is gathered will never be removed.

I say to the honourable senator that all he is doing with his crusade is stirring up a hornet’s nest. With his medical training he is quite right in his personal intelligent observations that cigarette smoking and the drinking of alcohol may be injurious to our health, but he branches out on a campaign, as he is doing today, soliciting support from and exciting people whom I referred to a while ago as troglodytes in the Department of Health in this city, as a result of which they say they will not rest satisfied until they close down the cigarette factories and the breweries. What an outlandish statement for anybody to make. This is the sort of hysteria that is going on. The Government should branch out in an education program but should leave sponsorships and advertising alone until such time as it can come up with an alternative to replace the lack of funds if such action were taken.

To summarise the figures I have just quoted nearly $2 billion will come into the Treasury’s coffers this year. It might also be important to make one other comparison. I refer to the amount of finance that has been made available to the sporting and recreational bodies. The amount of excise derived from beer, spirits and tobacco in the last six years has increased by well over 50 per cent, to the extent that the Government is now getting $2 billion from excise on cigarettes and alcohol.

Senator Peter Baume:

– But it is not net; it is gross.

Senator MCAULIFFE:

– Yet what are you giving back to sport? You are giving $7.4m this year, which includes a grant of over $2. 5m for the Commonwealth Games in Brisbane. The Government is giving $10m for the Commonwealth Games, spread over a period of five years. The assistance to sport has been reduced by 50 per cent yet excise has been increased on cigarettes and alcohol by 50 per cent. Why does the honourable senator not advocate that a great proportion of the finance derived from cigarettes and alcohol be given to sport? As I said earlier, man does not live on bread alone. The worker likes his drink when he finishes work and others enjoy a cigarette. Due to the financial policies of the Government there is no work for the young people. Because the Government is obsessed with inflation they are told that they cannot work today. We are being told that we cannot have a beer and we cannot have a cigarette. The community has been paralysed by the Government’s financial policies. I would suggest that the honourable senator and his committee stop before they go too far, adopt a more realistic approach and embark on an education program showing people in this community what injuries can occur from smoking or drinking. But leave the sport of this country alone.

From a practical, political situation the honourable senator is flying in the face of the opinion of 5.7 million sportsmen who have unanimously carried a resolution opposing the Government’s interference in sponsorship or sporting advertising in this country.

Senator BONNER:
Queensland

-The Senate is debating the Poultry industry Levy Amendment Bill 1979. As it is the first reading of a money Bill senators have an opportunity to talk about things that are not directly related to the Bill. I want to take the opportunity of bringing to the attention of this Parliament a matter that is of great concern to me and to many people in my State of Queensland. Time and again I have advocated in this Senate- particularly over the last two years- that there should be Federal Government intervention in my state of Queensland into the affairs of the Aboriginal community. Over the last two years a number of things have happened that has proven, perhaps not to the Government but to the whole of the Australian community, that there is a need for the Government to accept the responsibility given to it by the 1967 referendum and to intervene in the affairs of the Aboriginal community in Queensland. I refer to the matters of Aurukun and Mornington Island which I need not elaborate on at this stage because they have been canvassed in this Parliament a number of times, not only by people in this chamber but also by people in the other place, through the media and in other ways. Shocking things have happened to the Aboriginal people of those two communities.

We see now the high-handedness and the bureaucratic actions of the Queensland Minister for Aboriginal and Island Affairs and his Department in dealing with the affairs of Aboriginal people in another part of Queensland. I refer to the elections that have been held recently at Palm Island off the coast of Queensland, near Townsville. I lived on Palm Island for 1 5 years or more. I raised a family there. I have five sons and two foster daughters who were born there and I know many of the people there. I will mention some of their names today. I have even nursed some of them. When the elections for the Palm Island Aboriginal Council were called, they were run under the auspices of the Queensland Government. In the same way as local government is the creation of the States, the Aboriginal councils for the Aboriginal communities are a kind of creation of the States- the State of Queensland in this instance.

The elections were held and I have in my hands information to prove that one-third of the total voting population of that Aboriginal community was denied a vote by the authorities who are in charge and who, to use the kind of words used by Mr Porter, the Queensland Minister for Aboriginal and Island Affairs, are in control of the Aboriginal people of that community. There is no doubt that they are in control. The Aboriginal councils do not have self-management of or self-determination in their communities. The situation created by Mr Porter is a farce. A more arrogant man could not be found, and he should not have the responsibility for the lives of some 50,000 Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders in Queensland.

I want to quote from an article which appeared in the Messagestick. The Queensland Minister for Aboriginal and Island Affairs would say that this is a red rag newspaper, or a radical newspaper or a left wing newspaper. He would give it some name like that. But it is a paper that is published by Aboriginal and Island people, to tell their Aboriginal and Island brothers and sisters throughout this nation of many things relating to their affairs. On the front page of the Messagestick, under the heading ‘P.I. elections’, it is stated:

On Friday 23rd February 1979, Palm Island held the DAIA run community Council elections.

At least five (5) nominees were not allowed to run because the DAIA said they were ‘non-residents’. Every one of these nominees were born on Palm Island and grew up there, although they had left Palm Island for a while, the last one to move back to Palm Island was at least three and a half (3½) years ago. They all have a wife and family on the Island and their own home and job. They are leaders of the community and are in the front running of sports and other community activities.

A person who wants to vote in a State election must have his name on the electoral roll at least three months before the election is held. But this group of people have been in residence for3½ years and they are told that they do not have resident status.The article goes on to state:

At least one-third of the voting population were not allowed to vote because once again the DAIA stated ‘you are a non-resident’. All of these people have been back on Palm Island for at least three (3) years and some of these ‘nonresidents’ have never left Palm Island.

In at least two cases: I . The wife of a family-

It was actually the wife and mother of a familywas allowed to vote and the husband was not allowed to vote ( husband, wife and children moved back to Palms . . .

This happened on the same day. The Messagestick article continues:

  1. The wife of one of the candidates-

This is one of the candidates who was accepted as such- was not allowed to vote because she was classed as a non-resident’.

But she is living on the Island with her husband and she returned to the Island with her husband at the same time. The most important point is that people have been disfranchised. My second eldest son, Tom, was born on Palm Island. His wife, Olive, was born on Palm Island. We left Palm Island in 1960. My son returned to the Island in 1977. His wife left Palm Island in 1963 as a single girl. She married my son and they have a family of six children. They both returned with their six children in 1977to live on Palm Island. Olive was allowed to vote but Tom was denied a vote because he did not have resident status.

Senator Gietzelt:

– Everybody is out of step but the government.

Senator BONNER:

-That appears to be the case.

Senator Georges:

– Haven’t they any legal redress?

Senator BONNER:

– I will outline what they have tried to do. The Messagestick article goes on to state:

DAIA states in the 1971 Aborigines Act to become a resident you have to fill out a residency form and it has to be passed by the Council and then sent to Brisbane to be approved. Ninety pet cent of the people classed as ‘nonresidents’ on Palm Island have filled out at least one of these forms, in most cases people on Palm Island have filled out three or four of these forms in the Council office. They have been put on a shelf and have been forgotten about. Even the last Chairman has implied to most of these people they are residents.

We talk about self-management and about the rights and the freedom of people. That is what democracy is supposed to be all about. But this group of people must go through all these procedures and, having gone through them, they are denied a vote by the manager of the Island, the manager who represents the Director of the Queensland Department who, in turn, represents the Minister. We are told that the Aboriginal councils are running these communities and that they are responsible for the by-laws and everything else in the communities. But what do we find when a supposedly democratic election is held? When we were talking about the issues involved at Aurukun and Mornington Island, the Premier of my State and the Minister for Aboriginal and Island Affairs stood up and said: ‘The Aboriginal people run these communities. We do not tell them what to do’. Here is a classic example of their telling the people what to do. As I said earlier, because this article appears in the Messagestick the people in authority in Queensland will say: ‘Oh, yes; but that is only written up in a red rag paper’. They will refer to that newspaper by the types of names that I mentioned earlier.

I have also received a petition from Palm Island. It is signed- shades of Senator Bonner- by P. J. Bonner- Patrick James Bonner. He has prepared this petition which has been signed by 59 residents of the Island who are fully qualified to vote in the normal sense because they are voting in both State and Federal elections. However, they are not allowed to vote in an election that is very near and dear to them because it involves the running their own little community. There are 59 names on this petition which raises a number of points. I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

page 752

PROTEST OF PALM ISLAND ELECTION 28.2.79

Dear……………………. ,

As a candidate I call for a re-election because Questions 1, 2,3,4,5,6, 7, 8, and 9.

  1. 1 ) 1 /3 of the island was not allowed to vote, is that the people’s fault or is it the other 2/3’s privilege, or is it the DAIA system?
  2. Two sitting candidates of the former council were allowed the privilege of writing out who were residents and non-residents, prior to three days of the elections, is this allowed or is this the system of the DAIA?
  3. 3 ) 1 / 3 of the people were not entitled to vote because 1 , 2, 3, years, etc, I quote ‘NON RESIDENTS’.
  4. Why weren’t the people notified of who the candidates were a month prior to the election?
  5. Why should the Manager be present at all times during Palm Island election?
  6. Is the Manager of Palm Island (appointed by the DAIA) and Chairman of the former council allowed to take votes from the hospital and the Old People’s Home?
  7. Why was TDT (ABC) allowed access to Palm Island election whilst counting of votes. Is this allowed? Is this system in the State Government or we the Aborigines in the state of Queensland allowed our own prerogative.
  8. 8 ) Why shouldn ‘t the elected person with majority votes be Chairman or is it again DAIA privilege.
  9. Why, we the people, stand for this abuse to let part of the DAIA system to run our affairs or the council of the people to stand united in the state of Queensland, especially whom the people we represent.

Yours Sincerely, (Sgd.) P. J. Bonner

Patrick James Bonner

Senator BONNER:

– I thank the Senate. Some of these names on the petition are the names of people whom I knew as children and who have now grown up. I have known them since they were born. I have nursed them. I know each and every one of them. I know their mothers and their fathers and their grandmothers and their grandfathers. I shall mention at random some of these names on the petition. There is young Spencer Curley. His father was Tommy Curley. Tommy ran one of the boats on the island way back when I was on the island and even prior to that. Tommy raised a large family and the name of one of his sons appears on the petition. Then there is Francis Pickles. He is the son of my first wife’s sister. I nursed the kid. I was there when Francis was born. Francis Brown is another young man who, as far back as I can remember, has lived on the island.

Young Gabriel Thimble is another boy who was born on the island, but who moved away when his family also moved away. His family wanted to go back to the island because they could not hack it in the broader white community. They wanted to go back to live on their own island and to try to help to work and to develop that island. But they could not do so because of the over-lording bureaucratic control governing their lives, controls that told them what to do all the time and did not allow them to exercise their own thinking or to do the things that they wanted to do. They wanted to elect to their council people whom they felt were going to be able to do the things that they wanted to do for their community- people with whom they could work. They wanted the same situation that we have in the broader electorate in State and Federal elections: A person votes for the party he wants and he votes for the candidate who, he thinks, is going to do the best. But these people have been denied a vote.

I do not want to criticise those who have won their seats. I believe that they have won those seats because the Department has not been fair to other residents of the community. But I do not want to criticise those who have been elected; they are not responsible for this state of affairs. The Queensland Government is responsible, through its Department of Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement, for what I can only call cheating on one-third of the residents of that community on Palm Island.

Senator Colston:

– Do you think that other candidates might have been successful?

Senator BONNER:

-I am quite certain that other candidates would have been successful if that one-third of the residents had been allowed to vote. One young man was beaten by four votes. My son was a candidate in the elections and he was beaten by six votes. There are 59 signatories to this petition so we are certain that at least 59 people were disfranchised. It is no good anyone saying that the signatures are fakes because one only has to examine the handwriting to find that these are indeed the signatures of those people. I am quite certain that any handwriting expert who examined the signatures would say that they are bona fide signatures. This petition has been sent to the Minister for Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement in Queensland. A copy was sent to the Queensland Premier and a copy was sent to me. I believe that the Federal Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) also has a copy of the petition. But what will be said is: ‘Oh, yes, but they are only a mob of red raggers. Look! Bonner’s son is involved. It is only sour grapes’. There will not be an investigation. I say again as 1 have said so many times before in this chamber: Unless this present Commonwealth Government has the intestinal fortitude to take on the Queensland Premier and the Queensland Minister for Aboriginal and

Islander Advancement and see that the Aboriginal people are treated fairly and squarely, as they have every right to be, this kind of thing will continue and there will be pussy-footing and side-stepping.

I know that the present Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has told me that he does not want confrontation because nothing is achieved by that: He wants consultation. But how can one consult with people who will not consult, people who will not stand by their words, people who will continue to ride roughshod over other people and who will deny people their human rights; rights to do the things that they want to do within the framework of the laws of this land. The people of Palm Island do not want to break the law: They want to live within the law. But, goodness gracious me, when this kind of thing happens it is time the country knew about it and the people in this Parliament knew about it. I am disappointed that the Minister has not been in the chamber to hear what I had to say. I certainly hope that he will read Hansard tomorrow and will in some way try to do something about this shocking thing that has happened to the people of Palm Island.

These people have no other recourse. Where else can they go? They have come to me and asked me to bring this matter before the Parliament and to try to persuade the Government to intervene again on behalf of the people. There is also a petition sent down by the people of Yarrabah. So far I have heard nothing as to what has been done about it. I hope that something is being done. But until the Federal Government intervenes in the affairs of the Aboriginal people in Queensland, they will be continually beaten and defeated and will be put down so much that they will give up hope completely on Palm Island, in which case I do not know what will be the outcome. But I hope that the Government will- I say that it should- do something on behalf of the Aboriginal people in my State of Queensland.

Senator PRIMMER:
Victoria

-In rising to speak very briefly on this Bill, I raise a matter about which the more I learn, the more concerned I become. I refer to the fishing feasibility study being conducted jointly by Japanese fishing companies and the South Australian based company, Safcol, off the southern coast of Victoria. On 22 February, I asked the Minister for Science and the Environment (Senator Webster) a question relating to this matter. The Minister, in his reply at a later date said in part: lt -

That is the project- . . will examine the feasibility of commercial exploitation of these resources in both the catching and processing sectors.

Later, in that same reply, the Minister said:

Australian vessels are encouraged to participate in the project and suitable vessels will be equipped with squid jigging gear at no cost. Japanese skippers will provide instruction in squid-fishing techniques to Australian fishermen participating in the project.

I now ask the Minister: By whom are Australian vessels encouraged to participate? With whom do the owners of such vessels discuss participation? Whom do they contact in order to assess the suitability of their vessels? To whom do they turn for the necessary gear which, according to the answer I received, is obtainable at no cost? Fishermen along the coast to whom I have spoken- traditional fishermen who have been there ever since the fishing industry was established in that area- do not seem to be aware of any of these offers, or to whom they should turn.

According to a report in the Warrnambool Standard of some two weeks ago, the present Japanese fleet conducting the study- 11 vessels in all- after only four weeks in the area, had taken 1,000 tonnes of squid. According to that newspaper report, the fleet will return to Japan at the end of April and not return to the area until November or December. It is noted also, according to a statement from the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) dated 6 March this year that the Japanese firms involved in this project are the same firms that were granted rights in another squid feasibility project. That feasibility study will run from Carnarvon in Western Australia right round to the South Australian-Western Australian border. If they are as successful in that area as they have been in the area adjacent to the coast of Victoria, I suggest that those firms are in a bonanza situation. If they get 1 ,000 tonnes of squid in four weeks from an area of perhaps 250 miles, one wonders what they might be capable of pulling out of the ocean in an area of over 2,000 miles. The Press release by the Minister for Primary Industry went on to say that the company expected that the entire bottom fish catch could be sold in Australia or exported.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Senator PRIMMER:

– Prior to the suspension of the sitting I was referring to a Press release that had been put out on 6 March by the Minister for Primary Industry in relation to joint feasibility squid fishing studies conducted in the area between Carnarvon and the South AustraliaWestern Australia border. I had remarked that, according to the Press release, the Japanese and Australian companies who were jointly involved expected that the entire bottom fish catch could be sold in Australia or exported. I then asked: If the catch were in any way large what effect would that have on the local wet fish market? In my humble opinion that market is about as full as it can ever be. New markets must be developed, something that the local fishing industry is endeavouring to do. I believe that if there were to be any large influx of wet fish on the Australian market, regardless of the State in which it was placed, it would depress prices throughout the industry.

Another question which arises in relation to this exercise is that of price. Again, local fishermen who are interested in knowing what is going on are at a loss to find out what price processors are paying for the squid. I have been quoted prices ranging from $2.50 to $7.50 a kilo, and all sorts of prices in between. If we take the lowest price and multiply it by the 1,000 tonnes that the Japanese company has reputedly taken out of southern Victorian waters in four weeks we arrive at a value of $2.45m. That is a fairly sizable sum, in anybody’s mind, and certainly in the minds of the local fishermen who have fished this area or adjacent waters ever since the fishing industry was established in this country. Another question is how long this feasibility project will last and whether any squid will be left by the time Australian fishermen are permitted to get into the act or are able to do so of their own volition. Local fishermen in my area are asking: Is this in reality another move by foreign enterprises to ‘rip the guts out of another national resource”? I believe that answers to these questions would be very much appreciated by the traditional fishermen of whom I have spoken.

A letter in the most recent edition of the Professional Fishermen, written by a man with 50 years’ experience in the fishing industry in south-western Victoria, states in part:

The whole natural movement of fish on our coastline will be ruined if this project is allowed to continue.

I believe that is a very pertinent point. He concludes:

However, to me and I feel to many other fishermen this squid project approval is the ‘Death Knell’ of a young and flourishing fishing industry.

I do not know what studies our department has done in this area. It is well known amongst fishermen that Japan, the Soviet Union and goodness knows who else, but those two countries for sure, have been out in that area over the last decade or 15 years. It is quite fairly projected by those fishermen that foreign fishing enterprises know a lot more about the scene in relation to fish and their availability than do our fishermen and our department. It may well be that those enterprises have done their homework and are actually coming in on what one might describe as the grouter. Under the guise of experimentation and of assisting the Australian fishing industry, they will leave nothing for this country’s fishermen or for anybody else.

If a foreign enterprise, or any enterprise, takes 1,000 tonnes of squid in an area of up to 250 miles off the south coast of Victoria, questions should be asked as to what that will do to the total fish population of the area. At a depletion rate of 1,000 tonnes in four weeks, for how long can the industry, can the fish, in that area survive? Averaged out, that is a yield of 250 tonnes of squid a week. Just how long can the whole feed and ecological systems in the area withstand that sort of operation? I hope that our department would be very much aware of the position and would itself be asking that question. I believe that at the end of the study period, when these fleets go home, there will be nothing left for anybody. That is about where I would leave the matter at this stage. The final question I ask is: When does exploration become exploitation?

Senator PETER BAUME:
New South Wales

– The Senate is debating the first reading of a Bill which is concerned with poultry but, as other senators have pointed out, Standing Order 190 permits honourable senators to wander far from the subject and to discuss matters relevant and not relevant to the Bill. My intention is to move to a matter that is not relevant to the subject of the Bill- one that was raised this afternoon by my colleague Senator McAuliffe, who raised for the consideration of the Senate some of the matters that affected the funding of sport in Australia. Parts of the honourable senator’s speech were directed to issues related to government funding- whether there was enough or too little, and where responsibility should lie for any of the deficiencies in funding over the years. To those parts of his speech I do not take exception. I might differ on particular conclusions, but the matters were very proper matters to raise in the Senate in this kind of debate.

The honourable senator also directed part of his speech to an attempted defence of the funding of sport in Australia by the manufacturers or distributors of certain addictive drugs, particularly alcohol and tobacco. It is to those matters that I thought I should respond. I am grateful to the honourable senator for the generous impulses which induced him to speak nicely of me before proceeding to carve up the conclusions of the committee of which I was chairman. The criticisms which he offered were significant and it is proper that they be responded to. I am very grateful to the honourable senator for the courtesy he has shown in being present tonight to listen to my response. The honourable senator asked- I think I paraphrase his remarks correctly- what is the average Australian to do after work if he cannot have a drink and a smoke? It is very lucky that the honourable senator’s mother and father did not fail to answer that question. One can undertake many other activities which have nothing to do with smoking or drinking but which can be equally pleasant. Those, of course, many people would seek to promote.

I repeat, the honourable senator asked significant questions that deserve some kind of answer. The proposition which the honourable senator put to the Senate today could be restated as follows: One can justify funding from anywhere if the cause, that is the promotion of sport, is worthwhile. He said that because sport needs the money the arguments about where it comes from are largely irrelevant. He said that if sporting bodies cannot get money from anywhere else why should they not take money from those who will come to their defence and support their particular sporting activities.

On that basis where would we draw the line on the funding of sport in Australia? Would it be all right to take money which was derived from heroin trafficking? If it would not be correct to take that money why would it be correct to take other money just because it was needed? Would it be correct to take money raised as part of the proceeds of prostitution or extortion? Perhaps because those activities are illegal we might be able to draw a distinction. In moral terms I cannot see how one can argue that because the purpose for which funds are needed is proper it is therefore proper to ignore the source of the funds or the effects which that funding may have on the recipient. I put the view to the Senate that the recipient is no longer a free agent once he has accepted the money. He becomes tied to the person whose products are supporting him. He develops an interest in that person’s interests. Senator McAuliffe directed most of his remarks to me. I am flattered.

Senator McAuliffe:

– As the Chairman of the Committee.

Senator PETER BAUME:

– I thank the honourable senator for the interjection. He may care to understand that the chairman of a Senate committee is primus inter pares. He is one of a number of senators. He should reflect that the propositions which our Committee put, which I endorse and promote, are also endorsed by his colleagues Senator Melzer, former Senator Brown and Senator Grimes. The propositions were not made by one person. They were made by a group of people, including the honourable senator’s colleagues, in unanimous recommendations. The honourable senator does not deny that. I mention it only to put it on the record and make it quite clear.

Senator McAuliffe:

– I will have an opportunity to express my view to those senators in the party room. I will not have that opportunity to express my view to you in the party room because you will not be allowed in.

Senator PETER BAUME:

– We will put the other honourable senators on warning. I am sure that Senator McAulffe would have wanted today to put on record his interest in this matter. He is not an average Australian with no particular concern with sporting administration. He is the President of the Queensland Rugby League. When he talks about the importance of sports funding it is appropriate for him to make known to us, just as anyone should make known, that he has an interest in the matter under discussion.

Senator McAuliffe:

– I did.

Senator PETER BAUME:

-The honourable senator said that he did. I am grateful for that. We have to consider the kind of funding which sport in this country requires. I draw a distinction between different kinds of sporting activity. The Life. Be in it’ program and similar programs are essentially participation activities. Participation by many people is being sought. The ‘Life. Be in it’ program has as its goal that people should do more. On the other hand, many of the major sports in Australia are more gladiatorial. Would the honourable senator not regard rugby league as essentially a gladiatorial encounter? It is conducted actively by a few. It has a large number of spectators, often passive spectators, who follow their teams for pleasure and enjoyment but there is very little health promotion or participation by those people.

What do we have to look for in the kinds of funding that should be accepted by sporting bodies? The Senate Committee to which the honourable senator referred made some recommendations. We recommended that the Commonwealth Government ban the advertising of alcoholic beverages, whether by corporate advertising or by exhibiting the brand name in a planned fashion, in all the areas under Commonwealth Government control such as airports. We recommended that the Federal Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development as he then was and the State Ministers responsible for youth, sport and recreation appeal to all sportsmen and women throughout Australia not to lend their names and prestige to the promotion of alcohol or tobacco. We recommended that the Commonwealth Government make any grants to sporting and cultural bodies conditional on their not accepting money from manufacturers and retailers of alcoholic beverages or tobacco. We also recommended that the Commonwealth Government investigate the possiblity of indemnifying such bodies for loss of revenue, at least in the short term.

I daresay that the honourable senator has not read our report in sufficient detail to be aware of that rider to our recommendations. I accept the point that worries him that we cannot propose simply that one source of revenue be cut off without at the same time proposing in a responsible fashion that there be some attempt to indemnify those who would lose the revenue. Where does that leave us? Should we appeal to the sporting administrators in this country to look responsibly at the sources of money which they obtain or raise for the promotion of their sporting activities? I remind the Senate of the words of Stanley Baldwin when talking of the Press lords. He said:

What the proprietorship of these papers is aiming at is power without responsibility- the prerogative of the harlot through the ages.

Sporting bodies cannot accept the power which is given to them by money raised through sponsorship without accepting the responsibility which goes with that money. I have not heard in the argument which the honourable senator put or in the arguments which I have heard from other people connected with sport any attempt to undertake a responsible examination of what that sponsorship might mean. It is not given for no purpose. It is given by the tobacco companies and by the liquor interests with a very definite purpose. It is given as a promotional activity to enhance the sales of their products. It is given as a political activity, as insurance to build the base of support for them against attempts by government to regulate some of the effects which they produce. The honourable senator said that the Confederation of Sporting Bodies represents 5.7 million people. That is an interesting figure.

Senator McAuliffe:

– It is practical.

Senator PETER BAUME:

– The honourable senator said that it is practical. That is a very cynical view. He would remember the words of Oscar Wilde who said:

What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.

The purpose of sponsorship is not altruistic. Tobacco companies and liquor interests do not support sporting activity because they have big hearts. In fact, I saw in the paper today that one particular form of sponsorship was being removed because it was not thought to be effective in terms of its impact. The aim of such sponsorships is to increase the acceptability and use of these products. It is part of a campaign being conducted by the pushers of legal drugs to overcome the effects of any ban on access through the electronic media. It is promotional activity the same as any other promotional activity. Its goal is increased use of these products.

If the sporting bodies, whose case Senator McAuliffe presents, do not understand that they are part of the distribution chain by taking this sponsorship money then they are deluding themselves. If they become locked into a situation where they cannot survive without that money, where they have allowed themselves to expand solely because of money they take from the drug interests, then that is a tragedy even greater than a lack of funding. It is a tragedy to see members of an Australian rugby league team run on the field with KB logoes on their jerseys. It is distasteful to see the Australian cricket tests sponsored by Benson and Hedges. It is distasteful to see Steve Rixon and Dennis Lillee endorsing and promoting the sale of beer through television advertisements shown in my city. It is unfortunate that John Newcombe, a national hero, should have lent himself to the promotion of Cinzano. So it goes. Not only do we want to look at the question of sponsorship but we want to look also at the question of cult heroes, which is what our rugby league players and our cricket heroes are, lending themselves to promotion of these products.

Senator McAuliffe quite correctly and appropriately drew the attention of the Senate to the economic benefits which flow to government through government’s revenue activities in the area of tobacco and liquor.

Senator McAuliffe:

– The figures must have astounded you.

Senator PETER BAUME:

-The figures were well known to me. My only sorrow is that they do not include figures for excise on wine, but if the honourable senator cares to read my report he will see we advocate such an excise as well. What the honourable senator failed to give to the Senate is the other side of the ledger. The gross figures which are coming into government have to be balanced against the costs of these drugs. In two places in the report, which the honourable senator has obviously seen, there is an attempt to give the information that is known about the costs and benefits of both alcohol and tobacco. They are not known with the kind of precision we would desire. But what is emerging from the study of Dr Garry Egger in New South Wales, for example, is that whereas in 1972 tobacco was probably a net money raiser for government, in other words the amount coming in from excise exceeded the amount going out in terms of health costs and pensions, by 1976 that was no longer the case. At present tobacco is cost ineffective. It is a net revenue loss owing, of course, to the very sharp rises in health costs and the advances in social welfare benefits and so on. It is cost ineffective. The honourable senator may wish to draw attention to the excise we receive, but he would be more honest with the Senate if he balanced that against the costs which are incurred by society at the same time. With alcohol the figures are much less clear.

Senator McAuliffe:

– Why do you pay a subsidy to the tobacco growers?

Senator PETER BAUME:

-The honourable senator will know that with alcohol we are moving towards a situation, we think, where the costs and the benefits are probably coming into balance; but we need better studies to clarify that point. We as a committee found the subsidy paid for tobacco growing impossible to understand. I am sure the honourable senator would agree that the only consistent line for us to take, holding the views we held, was that those subsidies should be looked at with a view to their gradual phasing out so that any imposts fell first on imported leaf and last of all on domestic production. We would have to examine what the effects would be locally.

The Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare did not promote, has not promoted, is not promoting and will not promote prohibition of any legal drug use. We are not in the business of prohibiting or seeking to have prohibited the use of alcohol. We believe that most people use alcohol responsibly. We are not in the business of promoting the prohibition of tobacco use. We are in the business of stabilising and reducing the very high levels of use in our present society. Surely that is a modest aim. Our objections to the funding of sport by tobacco companies and liquor interests are that it is designed to increase the use of these products, to have more people using them and in greater amounts. It is no argument for the honourable senator to come before us and to say that because 5.7 million people through their sport have become dependent on such funding, the funding is justified. I will say here what I have said publicly in the last few days. It is a tragedy for sport in Australia that lock, stock and barrel it is being acquired by the liquor and tobacco interests as just another tool for them to use in their general promotion and their general sale of products.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– The Poultry Industry Levy Amendment Bill gives us a chance to talk about a number of issues. It deals with birds. I want to deal with birds and blokes. I had suggested that I might talk about some other matters but I have been stimulated by the debate on the matter raised by my colleague, Senator McAuliffe, and the contribution made by the Senator Peter Baume. I suppose, in a sense, I can see some positive results coming out of this debate. I find myself perhaps more inclined to support the views of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare because I like many others would be appalled at the extent to which sport in Australia is being taken over not only by the cigarette manufacturers and the liquor industry but also by Mr Packer. Of course, this is where I suppose I might take issue with Senator Peter Baume in that if he adheres to the principle of free enterprise and private enterprise being the god, as it is so often expressed by Government members and by the media generally in this country, then he has to live with the result. That result is that everything is for sale. If everything is for sale we cannot complain if, in fact, our rugby league players, our test cricketers and our sportsmen generally, the folk heroes, the professionals whom so many of our young people follow, are bought for dollars and cents.

I suggest to Government senators, who clearly are repelled by the blatant attempts that are being made in our country to promote a professional image in all our sporting activities, that they ought to examine the philosophy and the ideology upon which their Government policies are determined. If we support the principle that those who have the power to advertise can do so with impunity and in fact with the support of the forces that are so influential within our society, this is a natural corollary. The influence of advertising starts at an early age. For example, since we acquired a colour television set I have noticed that my own young child wants to watch it every morning. He is asked to chew lollies, to buy war toys and virtually to put pressure on his parents to buy him the muck that comes out of the McDonald’s and other fast food outlets. The whole emphasis in our society and in our electronic media is on promoting this sort of thing. It is difficult for parents to act in a way that would protect their children from false values and standards because the children are subjected to this not only in what they watch on television but also at the school canteen where the same sort of products are sold because a demand has been built up in the minds of impressionable children. Therefore it is very difficult for parents to stand in the way and to counter-balance that sort of influence.

When children start to grow up what do they see? They see the very things to which Senator Baume referred. These sorts of things are promoted by the person whom they look up to because he has scored a century in a test, in the case of the non-professional sportsman. But even when watching non-professionals on the Australian Broadcasting Commission what do we see? Signs promoting Benson and Hedges and KB on the hoardings and the fences and even on the scoreboards are shown on television. I consider these to be anti-social influences. Of course, on Channel 9 we see the Lillees and the batsmen about whom there is a certain folk hero concept not only performing on behalf of that sort of private sector approach but also at the end of the match going into the dressing room showing their hairy chests and drinking a KB. What sort of influence does that have upon the impressionable mind? We are concerned that high school age children are becoming one of the most important sectors in the consumption of liquor in Australia.

Senator Peter Baume:

– And tobacco.

Senator GIETZELT:

– And tobacco, of course. The same process is taking place in that respect. Surveys carried out by the media people in Australia have established that more than 80 per cent of those who watch television earn less than $10,000 a year. Of course it has also been established to the satisfaction of the promoters of these schemes that 90 per cent of Australian people now watch television. So there is a complete audience, a captive audience if you like, or a daily audience, which these promotional activities are influencing. They are influencing young people, who regard it as proper and natural that they should drink the moment they can drink and that they should smoke the moment they are able to smoke. That invariably happens at an age when parental influence is not able to exert itself as it did previously.

It is correct for the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare to make the sort of recommendations that it has made. It is an established fact, in respect of cigarette smoking, that cancer is now one of the main causes of human death. According to evidence presented by the New South Wales Health Commission before the New South Wales parliamentary select committee on extended liquor trading hours, alcoholism now is a very significant factor in community health. Yet we accept the principle that the private sector can do as it wishes, that advertising is open to those who can afford to advertise. There are not many people in this chamber who can afford to advertise. There are not too many small companies in Australia that can afford to advertise. It is the very big sector of the Australian corporate sector that can afford to advertise. The bulk of advertising revenue comes from those groups that I suggest to the Senate are doing irreparable harm to the whole social fabric of our society and creating the sort of conditions which will be detrimental to public health and to the wellbeing of our community.

I find myself in sympathy with some of the views that have been expressed by Senator McAuliffe. The Government should accept some responsibilities in respect of financing the activities of sport in this country and not leave it to the chook raffles and other voluntary activities which do not sustain the larger type of activities. We should start to challenge those sorts of values which I find lopsided and cockeyed- values which suggest that a sportsman should be given a large sum of money because, if he is a footballer, he has the physique and the capacity to score a goal or, if he is a cricketer, he is able to score a century or to get a hat trick. That is the value system which is now predominant in the thinking of our community and which unfortunately is the foundation upon which this Government builds its whole philosophy. I accept the sincerity of Senator Baume and the members of his Committee, but I think they have to analyse whether they should challenge the values that build up to that sort of situation which is detrimental to every individual who is subjected to this barrage of influence that makes it almost impossible for a child to be protected from this heavy advertising.

My real concern is that the very person who is now buying off Australian sport- 1 am talking of Kerry Packer- is endeavouring to convince this Government that it should subsidise the establishment in Australia of a satellite communications system which not only will have the effect of creating difficulties within the communication area but also will present the Australian people as a national captive audience in respect of advertising. It is not just the sectional advertising that we see at the moment, with advertising on television in Sydney, Melbourne or wherever. There are regional stations in rural areas. If a satellite system comes into being there will be the possibility of large corporations in our community being able to sell, in one fell swoop as it were, a whole concept to a national audience. If it is wrong, as has been suggested by the Senate Committee, to have this emphasis on cigarette and alcohol advertising, it seems to me that it is wrong for us to give any credence to a suggestion that in this country we should divert resources from what is needed in education, community health and public facilities generally into subsidising the whim of a person who sees a chance to get in on the ground floor in respect of a communications satellite. It is wrong for this sort of advertising, which I think is so detrimental to the Australian people, to be delivered to a captive audience. I and any thinking person ought to deprecate the way sport is developing in this country. It will continue to develop in this way until such time as the Australian Government accepts its responsibility to fund established sporting organisations properly, as Senator McAuliffe has said. That ought to be the aim of any government worthy of its name. After all, who pays for that advertising? The cost of the advertising does not come from the generosity of W. D. & H. O. Wills (Aust.) Ltd or Tooth and Co. Ltd. It is the consumer who pays for it. It is paid for out of the cost of the can, bottle, cigarette or cigar. It is a part of the cost structure. The Government should take it off the companies by taxation and use the revenue to subsidise Australian sport.

Why should a government allow people in the private sector to take the type of decision which can make or break a sporting partner? Senator Baume is quite correct in drawing our attention to the fact that one company that hitherto had expressed some support to a sporting organisation in Sydney intends to withdraw its support. Imagine the gloom that would descend today upon such an organisation that became the victim of a group of men sitting in some high place who said that they were going to withdraw their support for a team because they did not like the coach or the team itself, or because they believed it had no chance of winning the competition. Is that the sort of principle that we want to see develop in our sporting codes? Do we not want equal opportunity for all sporting organisations?

One would imagine that, if we lived in any sort of democratic community, we would want equal opportunity for each sport, whatever it may be, to have the capacity to put the best players on the sporting field. But that is not the case. In fact, if company A, B or C decides to back a certain club, that club has the capacity to buy the best players. Senator McAuliffe would agree that this happens in Rugby League particularly and in the other codes too. If a club is wealthy, it has access to the best players. Is it in the interests of sport that a player can be bought and sold as a chattel in order to create a team that should win because it has a sufficient number of the best players available? That is not what I was taught about sport when I was going through my educational process and I am sure that it is not accepted by the general community. But that is the process that has developed in the Australian community today. I find it distasteful and disgraceful that we have allowed it to develop to the stage where one or two powerful individuals, wherever and whoever they may be, can so distort our community values in respect of what is regarded in this country as being part of our national makeup. Sport plays a significant part in the thinking and consciousness of the average Australian. We have allowed to develop a situation in which those who have capital, those who happen to be the lucky people who have capital- it may have been the people in Associated Securities Ltd a few months ago; it may even have been Harry Miller a few months ago and now it may be some other organisation or company- can make a decision that will drastically alter the concepts and the ambitions of a team by the wearing of uniforms bearing the words TNT, KB or the name of whatever other company cares to put its funds into the club concerned.

I find it distasteful not only from a moral point of view but also from the point of view that those companies then have the gall, the temerity and the capacity to put down these advertising costs as a company expense and claim them as a tax deduction which in turn means that the rest of the Australian community has to pay higher taxation. That is an unfair undemocratic sort of system when a couple of characters sitting in a posh office in some part of our Commonwealth can make that sort of a decision and expect the community to thank them for helping the clubs involved. This sort of advertising influences millions of people who watch sport on the electronic media. But members of the community are forced to pay higher taxes because of this socalled generosity in the form of emoluments to various sporting organisations. This applies right through the whole advertising industry. I think it is about time that we started to challenge these concepts and ask whether the community should pay for advertising in the way that it does. It pays for it through the payment for the article purchased. It pays for it because of uncollected taxation.

Senator Peter Baume:

– And it takes away from government.

Senator GIETZELT:

– We pay for it in a loss of good health. Senator Baume is quite correctand I am sure that this is what he is agreeing with me about- when he says that we pay for it in respect of the medical benefits that are paid by Medibank or the private health funds. In fact we are paying out, according to some surveys that I have seen recently in Victoria and New South Wales, hundreds of millions of dollars in the treatment of alcoholism and to care for cancer ridden people. Given the influence of advertising campaigns in these matters the community is paying time and time again.

In those circumstances, I think it is about time that the community and the Parliament decided to have a closer look at the situation. I agree with Senator Baume. I am not a prohibitionist. I do not believe that those who want a drink or a cigarette should be denied them. As one of my colleagues has said, I accept the right of a person- and I like to exercise that right myself if I have worked hard- to go and have a beer or the right of those who smoke to be able to do so during smoko. What we are concerned about is extending these opportunities to our children and to others who are easily influenced.

If honourable senators would look at this in a logical and proper way, they would see that there is much evidence showing how easily people are influenced by the electronic media. After all we all know about McDonald’s fast food service. If it had not been advertised on the electronic media over the past couple of years we would not know what a person was talking about if he said: Have you bought your take-aways from McDonalds, the fast food service?’ The fact is that it has been able to be promoted on the electronic media. Nutritionists have suggested to me in one or two submissions to me as Labor’s spokesman on consumer affairs that the medical profession is starting to appreciate what thus sort of thing is doing to community health. In referring to take away food services, I do not want to do disservice to this company. That is not what I am in the game of politics for. But I question whether from a social point of view the promotion of this sort of food is desirable particularly at a time when we are concerned about community health and the health of individuals.

I hope that this debate will at least influence honourable senators to look at this subject in a more enlightened way. Both Senator McAuliffe and Senator Baume have raised most capably the question of where Australia is going in respect of sport in this country. I do not believe that we ought to allow sporting codes to be dominated by the private sector of the community. I believe that if we wish to retain our image as a sports-loving country we ought to be doing something about subsidising sport from the only place from which it could and should be subsidised- the public purse- without fear or favour, to create a state of equality and not to allow people to use sport just to promote a product.

Originally I wanted to speak about another matter. I seek the indulgence of the Senate to raise another matter which I am concerned about, namely, community health. To some extent I may be travelling a parallel road with Senator Baume, but it is purely coincidental. In recent weeks there has been a great deal of attention given by the media to the question of X-ray exposure. The media is one of the few areas were we receive information. For that I give it credit. It does play a part in stimulating discussion and in disseminating information. Recently I asked Senator Guilfoyle, as Minister representing the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt), a question about X-ray exposure. She gave me the following answer: . . the Commonwealth Radiation Laboratory is responsible for monitoring and minimising radiation dosage received by patients through the medical use of X-rays.

She said that some reassessments were in progress. She then went on to say:

Presently there is no scientific proof that individuals in Australia are being exposed to a higher dosage of X-rays than is medically necessary.

It is this sort of comment from our Ministers and our public agencies about environmental hazards and radiation that has caused me to undertake some research. I am not satisfied that the Government is applying itself in the way that it should, which is to protect community health. That statement implies- this is most importantthat the Australian community can be exposed to any level of a possibly hazardous productwhether it be X-rays or the insecticide which was talked about in recent weeks, 2,4, 5-T- unless it can be proved definitively that the product seriously threatens human health or life. I see a degree of inability on the part of this Government in approaching its responsibilities with regard to 2,4,5-T. There is a degree of intellectual poverty here because the view seems to be expressed by government agencies that until the product is proven guilty it should be regarded as innocent. It means that the onus of proof is shifted to the consumer, whom I suggest to the Senate is not able to make a value judgment with respect to such things as 2,4,5-T, to prove that the hazard exists before he or she can be protected.

In recent years we have seen large rural communities in this country and in other parts of the world heavily drenched by this substance. Already large numbers of rural workers, farmers and those in rural communities have been subjected to the use of this substance without our really understanding whether that substance is safe or unsafe. It is held by some people that the substance is very seriously affecting public health and that it causes mutations in future generations of human beings. There is some evidence to show that this is something that this Government ought to examine more seriously. Last Friday week the United States Environmental Protection Agency imposed an emergency ban on the use of 2,4,5-T. An article on this ban, published in the Age of 7 March, states:

The agency said its decision was based on studies finished only days ago showing high miscarriage rate among pregnant women following the spraying of 2,4,5-T in Oregon forests.

The EPA said immediate suspension was considered necessary to avoid the use of 3,176 tonnes of the defoliant and weed killer during the spring spraying season in the United States.

The Environmental Protection Agency has made a much more serious survey and examination and has taken a more humane attitude than that suggested in the reply which Senator Guilfoyle gave me when I asked her this question several weeks ago. I quote now from the cable sent from Washington to the Australian Health Department prior to the answer that Senator Guilfoyle gave me. It states:

We are not saying that the health effects in humans are positively proven or that 2,4,5-T should never be used again.

What we are saying is that there is sufficient evidence to stop further exposure to the chemical until the issues can be resolved.

Here we have a situation where the United States has taken a position, concerned as it is with the state of health of those who may be affected by this chemical. I do not think it is good enough for the Government to take the view that when in doubt it ought not to act. It seems the principle upon which the Government should act is that when in doubt it should act to protect the health of those people who may otherwise be affected by the use of such a chemical. It seems to me that this is the correct attitude that we ought to adopt. It is the attitude that has been adopted in the United States.

It is true that there are people who take a different point of view. There are those who suggest that there are serious hazards but that there is no scientific proof. However, there is enough evidence, surely from the United States conclusion, to say that until we are reasonably sure that there is no problem then that conclusion ought to apply so far as Australia is concerned. What has happened is that the States have been as reluctant to move as the national health authorities have been federally. I cannot understand why we are so reluctant to follow the American experience. Generally we seem to take many of the bad influences of the United States in these matters. From time to time many senators and people in our community have expressed concern about some of the violence and racial difficulties which are so much part of the scene in the United States and the way in which we allow our society to deteriorate. But when the United States takes some steps of a positive nature that have as their objective the protection of public health and individual health, we seem to be reluctant to follow the particular lead. Mr Jack Snelson, an authority on herbicides, has estimated that Australia uses between 2,700 and 4,000 tonnes of 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D each year. In a retail sense this represents something like $24m.

Returning to the question I asked Senator Guilfoyle a couple of weeks ago about the herbicide and also the question that I asked her about X-rays, I think that one is entitled to say that she has not given me the sort of answer that should be expected from a Minister of the Crown. Let us look at the use of X-rays generally. The known danger of routine medical X-rays has just hit the Australian media on the new program Nationwide on 26 February. My question, of course, follows that particular program. One would have expected that the Minister for Health would have supplied the Minister for Social Security with a more detailed answer than she gave me. In the program Nationwide, the following allegations were made by responsible scientists:

Members of the Australian public are being subjected to total cumulative X-ray dosages which are now suspected of being capable of inducing cancer and genetic damage.

The exposure of the community is doubled by their exposure to man made radiation, 90 per cent of this dosage is due to medical uses of radiation and as much as half may be unnecessary.

I do not know whether that is a correct estimate. I do not know whether Senator Baume would agree with me but that is what the allegation was and it has not been refuted by any reputable scientist or spokesman on behalf of the medical community. It was further stated:

The most important cause of unnecessary irradiation is from unnecessary X-rays ordered by doctors, or X-rays not taken in optimum ways.

One would have thought that this Government would have been very interested in that, having regard to the constant complaints that we have heard from the Minister for Social Security and the Minister for Health about the increasing costs of our medical scheme. No evidence has been produced to suggest that that subject has been examined by those who express concern about the increased medical costs in this country. In that program it was said also that attention must be drawn to the widespread use of the mini films X-ray system which delivers a dose of up to 1 5 times the dosage delivered by other available machines, produces a less clear picture, but is used simply because of its immediate convenience for the operator. It was further stated:

X-rays are being used routinely for dental X-rays- yet even the Director of the Australian Radiation Laboratory, Keith Lokan says that he personally would decline to have a routine dental X-ray.

I believe that these claims are extremely serious. One would have thought, even with respect to the matters that were raised on that program, that there would have been some public rebuttal of or explanation about whether there was any substance in the allegations. It has been put to me by large sections of Australian medical service recipients that those allegations have some substance and that many people in Australia are being subjected to unnecessary health impairing radiation. I can only ask the Senate and those Ministers charged with this responsibility whether those allegations have any substance. If not, the responsible authorities ought to say so. They have not said so. This deserves more response than vague comments about impending studies and lighthearted reliance on the absence of certain proof, especially as the difficulty of obtaining that proof is increased by an absence of monitoring. An Australian Broadcasting Commission reporter is recorded as saying:

No one knows how many X-rays are taken in Australia each year -

If that allegation is true I find it alarming. If the Government of Australia is spending too much on health and X-rays, one would have imagined that at least we would know. The ABC report continued:

There are no records of the total dose of radiation being administered through X-rays to the population at large, nor of the cumulative dose each individual may be receiving.

I applaud the fact that the ABC reporter has brought this to the attention of the Australian public, but where is the response? Where is the refutation, the rebuttal or the endorsement of that sort of public ventilation of the issue? The ABC reporter goes on to say:

Since 1954, the taking of X-rays has mushroomed into big business in Australia, but no one really knows how big.

I have referred already to the increased costs to Medibank and the community generally. Not only is there serious growing concern over the unnecessary exposure to X-rays, but there is also a growing scientific doubt about what harm accrues from a small dose of radiation. This reflects not only on the medical use of X-rays, but also on the safety of the nuclear power industry which this Government has so irresponsibly presented as being safe.

I accept the fact that there are members of this Government who are concerned about public health, but if this Government is concerned about the safety of Australian medical service recipients, or the safety of those sections of the global community exposed to the growing radiations from the nuclear industry, it should have acted already in response to the growing international concern about nuclear radiation generally. What is the evidence for this new concern? Firstly, and most recently there is an 800-page draft report of a committee formed last May by President Carter of the United States, in response to higher cancer rates amongst those living near nuclear facilities and bomb sites. The report in the Canberra Times dated 1 March 1979 dealing with this subject states as follows:

A small but unresolved threat to health posed by radiation in low dosages -

It notes that many X-ray exposures could be eliminated. According to the latest issue of New Scientist the summary produced by the task force that was set up by President Carter states:

The results of recent studies of populations exposed to very low levels of radiation raise serious questions . . and suggest that risks may be higher than earlier predictions.

A lot of other experts have drawn attention to this. I would like to make reference to people like Professor Manucso and Drs Stewart and Kneale who have made extensive studies of cancers amongst workers at the United States Hanford nuclear facility. Their studies have shown significant increases in cancers amongst workers exposed to less than the permitted safe radiation dose. They have calculated that the safe level would double a workers chance of getting leukaemia in less than one year. So if we are really concerned- and I would suggest that the Senate standing committee is concerned in its report on cancer- we should be concerned about the suggestion that there is a significant increase in cancer of up to 450 per cent amongst workers at the Portsmouth nuclear submarine building facility. There are statements by scientists all over the world which suggest that there ought to be a further examination of this issue. What I am saying is that whilst the Senate standing committee has drawn attention to some aspects, there are wider implications that ought to be examined by those who know the industry, who know that risks exist and who are concerned about public health. The sort of prejudices that so often exist in our minds because of our individual ideologies ought to be set aside and we ought to apply ourselves to the same considerations of these issues as we have to alcohol and cigarettes. I would, therefore, suggest that there is a case for even greater examination of the issues involved in radiation, as there is in the report that has come down from the Senate’s own committee as presented by Senator Baume.

I started off by challenging the value system upon which so much of our activity exists within this community. I suggest that it is time for many people to examine where that value is leading us. It is leading us into an area which does not have regard for the health of individuals and for the best interests of the Australian community.

Senator MacGIBBON:
Queensland

– Before I commence to deal with the subject about which I wish to speak in this first reading debate on the Poultry Industry Levy Amendment Bill, I would like to comment on the last point that the previous speaker, Senator Gietzelt, made about radiation and the risks from radiation to the community. I saw that segment on the Nationwide television program to which the honourable senator referred. I think I can safely say- I am choosing my words- that it lacked a little bit of balance. It exaggerated some points. The risk of radiation has been recognised by the medical and dental professions, not for 10 or 20 years but for many decades. Some of the people most affected were the early medical practitioners working with radiation. They suffered the effects of it themselves. The matter has been continuously under review by the various public health bodies, including the National Health and Medical Resarch Council.

In recent years techniques have led to a minimisation of exposure times. The members of the professions who are using radiation as a diagnostic tool are well aware of the consequences of its injudicious application. I am sure that the matter is well in hand. I am aware that the Australian

Dental Association- I would be surprised if the Australian Medical Association did not do so as well- made a public reply to that program. It is a matter that must be put in balance. Any patient going to a medical practitioner for an examination, where it is indicated as being necessary, usually receives some X-ray examination. The X-ray machine is a supporting tool in a diagnosis. If the diagnosis is not correct and the patient resorts to litigation against the practitioner, which is quite common these days, and that practitioner has not taken the elementary diagnostic step of making a supporting radiographic examination where it is necessary, he does not have a case in court; he is likely to be sued by that patient for negligence. It is a matter of balance and it is something of which the professions are well aware.

I would like to speak about a matter that is of continuing interest to the Senate, namely, the suggestion that Ministers not sit in the Senate. It is not my intention to propose that this be done immediately, because I am well aware that there are some slight administrative adjustments consequent on this action. Rather, it is my intention to review the question in general terms. I will review the great advantages, in the form of more relevant and responsive government accruing to the Australian people, of not having Ministers in the Senate, apart from the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I shall outline the alternative procedure of committees, committees endowed with adequate resources both in the authority of their chairmen and in secretariat and research staff to support them. Finally, I shall deal with the misconceptions that this proposal seems to have engendered.

It is all too evident that there is concern about the performance of elected parliamentary governments in this country and in other countries. Everyone who lives in a democracy would support the argument that it is the most desirable form of government because it should maximise the freedom of the individual in society. Most people are prepared to accept some delay and some inefficiency in the workings of a democracy as the price they pay for safeguarding those freedoms. However, there is a limit to how far any system of government can be inefficient. If the inefficiency is taken too far, the government can lose the respect, and thereby the support, of the populace; or it can be so inefficient that the country it governs cannot survive in competition with other nations. If enough people become dissatisfied with our system of parliamentary government it will not survive. I suggest that clear and important signs of dissatisfaction are evident in the community. It is not overstating the case to say that a body of people in the community see this Parliament as at best an irrelevance and at worst a positive handicap in the growth of the country.

When we analyse the critics’ statements, we find that what they are saying is not a criticism of parliamentary government per se but a criticism of the way it works and the way it conducts its affairs. People are very concerned at the inappropriateness, to put it euphemistically, of much of the legislation parliament produces. There are reasons why inappropriate legislation is passed in the parliament from time to time. A Minister must rely very heavily on advice and guidance from his department in preparing legislation. In a stable situation this works very well. In a dynamic situation, such as we have had for the last few years and which we will have in the foreseeable future, when new situations are arising continuously, it becomes very difficult to get the correct response out of this system. Basically, it is a system that looks backwards to go forward. It looks to the past, in the form of experience, to plan what it will do in the future, and when the future is not mirrored in the past it is in difficulties.

Short range policies are another cause of bad legislation. A government with a three-year term of office finds it hard not to induce a state of euphoria that is beneficial to its political future at least once in every three years. Those measures that it uses may not be conducive to the best interests of the country. Furthermore, the members of the community are concerned, when differing points of view are clearly evident and valid, that their legitimate input through their own electoral representatives, who are private members of parliament, seems to have no influence on Executive decision. The exercise of power by the Executive is a profound question which I do not wish to explore tonight. In government, leadership must be exercised, and exercised confidently and positively. In the Westminster system, the Executive must have the support of the members of the Government on the floor of the House when legislation is presented, or there would be chaos. But the giving of this support effectively denies the right of the private member to question, to inquire and to modify. The consequences of this have been lucidly described by Professor Gordon Reid, who observed that the House of Representatives ‘had become the captive of the Executive government of the day and is now a sadly repressed and debilitated parliamentary chamber’.

I argue most strongly that the problems we face are not fundamental problems concerning the worth of a democratic system. The problems we face are management problems- problems of modifying a system that has worked reasonably well in the past and making it more appropriate for the needs of the present and of the future. Above all, there must be a progressive, logical improvement which can be made within the laws of the Constitution. I am certainly not advocating a new radical approach and a new system, the success of which cannot be foretold.

This Australian Federal Parliament stands alone. There is nothing the same as it anywhere else in the world. It is not a copy of the Parliament of the United Kingdom; it is not a copy of the Congress in the United States of America. It cannot be changed to follow either system. The most important distinguishing feature of the Australian Federal Parliament is the Senate, with its powers without parallel in any other second house of parliament in the world. As senators we have the power to change the ways we conduct our business. Furthermore, it is the only avenue by which change of importance and magnitude can be effected in the Federal Parliament without altering the Constitution or making some other extreme move. The Senate is the creative body of Australian politics. It has a proud history of innovation and achievement. The Standing Orders- that most inviolate repository of tradition- have been changed over the years. In 1970 came the great innovation of the committee system which has greatly increased the prestige and effectiveness of the Senate.

It is important to stand back and view these changes with detachment. They form part of a logical response to changed circumstances. The need for further change is still with us. It is perfectly correct and legitimate for us to respond by changing our methods to meet new situations. After all, it is our birthright. Parliaments once were very dynamic and innovative. Australian aspirations are changing. Only the first tenuous signs of this are detectable at present, but there is an emerging wave of realism in the air. After the problems of the last six years, following on so many years of ease, people are getting back to basics. They want to be more self-reliant. They want less government and certainly less intrusion and less hindrance by government in their daily lives. They want performance, not platitudes, from their government. It behoves us to meet those demands by improving our management systems.

Within the Australian context there is little formal recognition of the Federal Ministry. Section 6 1 of the Constitution vests the executive power of the Commonwealth in the monarch, exercisable by the Government-General as the Queen ‘s representative. Section 62 empowers the appointment of Executive Councillors, holding office at the Governor-General’s pleasure, to advise in the governing of the country. Under Section 64 the Governor-General may appoint officers to administer departments of State. These Ministers of State shall be Executive Councillors and must become members of either Federal House within three months of their appointment to office.

Historically, the concept of a Ministry to advise the monarch grew out of the Privy Council but it owes its origins to the practices of continental Europe. Even in its formative years, such a body was the object of criticism. Francis Bacon said:

The doctrine of Italy and practice of France, in some kings’ times hath introduced cabinet councils, a remedy worse than the disease . . . that is . . . councils of gracious persons recommended chiefly by flattery and affection.

I am sure that the latter part of that quotation does not apply today but certainly the part about councils of gracious persons does. Under the Stuart monarchs the notion of a committee composed of Ministers, advisers and courtiers upon whom the King relied and who were responsible for the transaction of most government business, came to be accepted as the machinery of executive government. The Privy Council remained only for the conducting of formal business.

The coming to the throne of George I, who displayed an all-embracing disinterest in government affairs, saw the executive assume the decisive role in state affairs. During this period, Sir Robert Walpole, as First Lord of the Treasury, emerged as the first of Britain’s Prime Ministers. George Ill’s attempt to reassert the power of the monarchy stimulated the development of the doctrine that Ministers should be united by political principle and that the Prime Minister should be the freely elected chosen leader of his colleagues. The 1832 Reform Bill, which introduced a slightly more popular franchise in a more representative collection of constituencies, ushered in the era of party government with Cabinet government. It was in 1 84 1 , with the defeat of Lord Melbourne’s Whig Government in the Commons and the subsequent election of Sir Robert Peel’s Tories that the concept of parliamentary responsibility was established.

Gladstone sought to define the role of the lower House when he said:

Your business is not to govern the country, but it is, if you think fit, to call to account those who do govern it.

However, with the increased rigidity of the party system operating in the Lower House, Ministers no longer have to nurse their measures through the House and be prepared to defend and amend them at every turn.

I submit that events since Federation now preclude the House of Representatives from effectively discharging that responsibility. Indeed the demands of executive government actively prevent the Lower House from scrutinising closely government performance. This is even true of this chamber. The All-Party Parliamentary Joint Committee of Constitutional Review found in 1959:

In particular, the evolution of political parties has upset the speculations of many of the Founders as to how the Senate would function. The Senate has for many years been as susceptible to party political influences as the House of Representatives and proceedings in the Senate usually find party divisions corresponding to those in the House of Representatives.

It is in this historical context that the role of Ministers in the Australian Senate must be examined. In the first Federal ministry of 10 members under Edmund Barton, two Senators served, Senator Richard O’Connor being Vice-President of the Executive Council. Five senators served in the Menzies ministries between 1939 and 1941, frequently as Ministers without portfolio. This practice was continued during the Labor ministries of the 1940s. Since 1972 both Labor and Liberal prime Ministers have restricted Senate representation to five or six out of 27 Ministers.

The next step in our evolutionary path is for Ministers not to be appointed from the Senate. Let us look briefly at how this would operate. First of all, the Leader of the Government would be the sole member of the Ministry to remain in the Senate. His duty would be to provide adequate means of communication between the two bodies. Secondly, ministers could appear on roster in the Senate to answer questions. This would be an improvement on the present system whereby the Senate is denied the opportunity of ever questioning the great majority of the Ministry. Standing Orders could be amended to allow a longer period for Question Time. The right to supplementary questions could be granted to all senators, not only the senator asking the question.

Interestingly, the Senate, nearly 60 years ago, sought to bring this about. In 1920, Message No. 21 from the President of the Senate to the Speaker read:

The Senate transmits to the House of Representatives the following Resolution which has been agreed to by the

Senate, and requests the concurrence of the House of Representatives therein, namely: ‘That the Standing Orders Committees of the Senate and House of Representatives be requested to consider the question of preparing Standing Orders providing that a Minister in either House may attend and explain and pilot through the other House any Bill of which he has had charge in his own House’.

The House of Representatives never debated that proposal.

On 16 May 1973, the then Prime Minister informed the House of Representatives that the Government intended proceeding with a proposal to have Ministers in each House regularly rostered to answer questions without notice in the other House. The Standing Orders Committee of the House of Representatives recommended that it be given a trial, but consideration of the report lapsed on the dissolution of Parliament on 11 April 1974. The administrative details, however, were not considered insurmountable.

Thirdly, the legislative and general purpose standing committees of the Senate would be retained with the chairmen of the committees being granted parity of status with ministers and the Committee secretariat improved to provide the necessary secretarial and research competence. Bills would originate in the House of Representatives and be presented for their first reading in this chamber as they are at present; then the relevant committee would receive the Bill and review it. Most of the Bills would be approved automatically by the committee, but those requiring further consideration could be the subject of further debate in the Senate or exposed for public comment before being voted on.

The first benefit would be that the Senate would be able to operate more competently as a House of review. There would be the removal of a conflict of interest from this chamber. Let me be at great pains to stress that I am not reflecting on the integrity of the Ministry in any way. But being a Minister and being a senator can produce interests which are not always compatible. In 1926, Sir Earle Page defined the duties of a Minister and at the same time highlighted the difficulties facing a Minister sitting as a member of a genuine House of review when he said:

A Minister may personally hold certain views, but in Cabinet he has to abide by the decision of the majority and fight for whatever policy is put before the country by Cabinet as a corporate body.

The doctrine of Cabinet solidarity is inimical to this House performing its proper role. The functioning of this chamber as an effective and efficient House of review should not be compromised. Quick and Garran, in their annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth, defined the fundamental precept of Cabinet government.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Sibraa)- Order! Senator MacGibbon, I suggest that you frame your speech so that it does not transgress Standing Order 419 which states in part:

No Senator shall digress from the subject-matter of any Question under discussion; nor anticipate the discussion of any subject which appears on the Notice Paper.

Order of the Day No. 209, standing in the name of Senator Hamer, commences:

  1. 1 ) That, in the opinion of the Senate-

    1. Senators should no longer hold office as Ministers of State . . .

Therefore, I suggest that you frame you speech so that it does not directly transgress Standing Order 4 19.

Senator Peter Baume:

- Mr Acting Deputy President, I seek clarification. I take it that the honourable senator would be in order if he discussed the general relationship between the Houses as he did when he commenced his remarks and other matters related thereto. It is only the particular matter of ministerial representation to which you are drawing attention at this moment.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT- That is right.

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Senator O’Byrne) agreed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator MacGibbon from continuing his remarks.

Senator MacGIBBON:

– I repeat, Quick and Garran in their Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth said:

The principle of the corporate unity and solidarity of the Cabinet requires that the Cabinet should have one harmonious policy, both in administration and in legislation, and that the advice tendered by the Cabinet to the Crown should be unanimous and consistent; that the Cabinet should stand or fall together.

The first loyalty of a Minister is to the Executive. That priority transcends the Minister’s responsibility to this chamber as a senator and therefore it can only detract from our proper constitutional role. Secondly, in some cases it may be desirable to hold public hearings. There are obviously some topics on which this would be impossible but it could be a move of very considerable value. It would allow people with specialised knowledge- knowledge that might not reside within the Parliament or within the

Public Service- to come forward. With the diversity of skills and interests in a modern society, this is a very real point, for governments in this age frequently control forces that they do not understand. It would also provide an opportunity for minority groups to argue their case and be granted a fair hearing. How much more preferable that would be to making their points on the streets. Above all, it would provide a tangible opportunity for the public to contribute to the legislation that controls their lives.

The other enormous benefit of this system is that it allows the Government to have its policies discussed without embarrassment. Under the present system it tends to operate against the prestige of a government if too much discussion takes place amongst its own private members on proposed legislation. Unless a government is infallible there is some potential benefit in other minds considering its actions. The legislative process would be advanced if discussion, explanation and amendments were able to be made to legislation without distress to the Government of the day. The possibility of public hearings would have the effect of slowing down the number of Bills presented to the Parliament. This would be a good thing because, as has been shown in this chamber previously, we pass in a year three times as many Bills as does the Canadian Parliament, and twice as many as does the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Big numbers of Bills mean big Government with higher taxes to pay for their implementation. We need fewer Bills and less government.

If the review function of the Senate were enhanced, then the State could exercise more effectively its responsibilities to the States and play an important role in the decentralisation of power. The origins of the Senate are to be found in the concern of the smaller States at the time of Federation to see an equitable distribution of power. This is fundamental to the long-term survival of a democracy. The same considerations can be extended to other groups. We are very concerned about the rights of the States, but we are also concerned about the rights of informed people to be able constructively to contribute to their government, of minority groups to make their own contribution, and of private members of parliament to make theirs.

Those who argue against this move seem to have difficulty in understanding that what is proposed is merely a machinery move and that no legislation is involved in bringing it about. The whole purpose of this move is to improve the efficiency and the competence of Parliament and thereby its relevance and value to the Australian people. It is incorrect to say that the power of the Senate would be diminished and that the power to withhold Supply would disappear. That is a different question. The powers of the Senate are defined in the Constitution and can be altered only by a referendum. There is no intention at all to alter those powers. All that is sought is an internal management change, which in no way affects the rights or privileges of the Senate. Far from diminishing the powers of the Senate or the respect in which it is held, it would enhance them because it would become a more effective body.

It is also said that somehow the Government of the day would lose control of the Senate, if this came about. That argument need not be considered further for it is grossly insulting to every honourable member of this chamber. It can mean only either that this Senate is incapable of coming to an intelligent and responsible decision or that it is an adjunct of the Executive.

Whilst this proposition is an old one, I am grateful that it has been brought up in recent times and it is pleasing that the initiative has been taken by a Liberal senator, because it is very much in accord with Liberal philosophy. We are concerned with the individual member of society, with the distribution of power, with the maintenance of the States and of the Federal system of government. In all of these matters the place of the Senate is crucial. Its effectiveness determines to what degree we are successful in attaining those goals. As I said at the beginning, many criticisms are made of the way in which this Federal Parliament operates with regard to the society around it. It is seen as being far too ponderous, too unresponsive and irrelevant to the needs of a modern Australia. Let us examine seriously ways in which we can put our house in order to meet those needs.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– I listened with interest to what Senator MacGibbon had to say. His contribution, together with that of Senator Hamer, seems to seek a new role for the Senate. It appears that both senators are well intentioned. In fact, they are very hopeful. I wished Senator Hamer success, and he has now the support of Senator MacGibbon. What attracted me in the remarks of Senator MacGibbon was his concern for the rights of the individual. If he has a particular interest in this matter he should just recently, as a Queensland senator, have been moved to consider the rights of one individual in particular. I seek to enlist his support to see whether an injustice which has been perpetrated against an individual in Queensland can be corrected. If I sensed his attitude correctly, I believe that he is interested in the rights of individuals and of minorities. Therefore I presume to attract his attention to what happened in Queensland over the past week. I am not concerned about myself or about any group with which I am associated in the campaign in Queensland to establish some sort of understanding of the need for the rights of individuals. That is a matter that I can take up myself in various forums. I can take particular actions which might lead me to accept some penalty. I can, I assure Senator MacGibbon, look after myself.

In the case in question an individual was exposed and became defenceless. The honourable senator is in a position to assist. If not, his Party is. I refer to the case of Michael Egan, a young policeman in Queensland who suddenly, and rather emotionally, came to the decision that he would quit the police force. He did so when he was performing his duty as part of the police force, which was supervising a small rally of a group of women who were celebrating International Women’s Day. As happens in Queensland from time to time, the police overreacted to the situation and, possibly stimulated by the peculiar attitude of the Special Branch in that State, took action against this small group of men and women who, in any other State, would not have been considered to be breaking the law. They were on the footpath. They were in twos and threes. Perhaps they were not dressed according to the norm. Perhaps they were not supporting what many of us more conservative individuals would support. Nevertheless, they had a point of view that they wanted and should have been free to put.

During that demonstration Constable Egan decided that he had had enough. A friend of his was one of the demonstrators and was about to be arrested by Special Branch police. He came to her defence and in so doing put himself in a position in which he had to resign from the police force. That should have been penalty enough. But what happened as a result of that resignation? He drew upon himself the wrath of a considerable proportion of the police force in Queensland- I do not say all the police force because I know it to be otherwise. Within the space of a few days he became a fugitive within his own city. He was not a fugitive from some Mafia organisation or brotherhood. He was not a fugitive from some criminal underworld. He became a fugitive from the police force in Queensland. Surely Senator MacGibbon must be as alarmed as I am at the result of that sequence of events which made this man a fugitive to the point that today he left Queensland and took a train to Victoria. He was not prepared to go by car or motorcycle. He thought the safest way was to leave by train. According to an article in the Age today he decided to lose his identity, to disappear as an individual and to emerge again.

We are not talking about Alabama, South Africa or one of the dictatorships of South America. We are talking about Queensland, an Australian State, one of the States of the Federation. It seems to me that action needs to be taken by those of us who represent Queensland to see that this does not happen again. What Constable Egan did was to bring to the surface in a dramatic way that sickening problem which is Queensland’s problem. Immediately Constable Egan took this step he was vilified by the Premier and leading officials of the police force. Is Michael Egan paranoid in leaving the State? Am I paranoid in describing his actions in this way? Perhaps I would not have done so on Wednesday of last week but after the episodes of Thursday of last week I would say that Michael Egan is not paranoid. Nor am I.

Let me recount what happened to Michael Egan. He suffered personal attacks from the Premier who dismissed him as a person of no account who was not fit to be a member of the police force. In spite of two years of substantial support from within the force- this has been proved by letters that were written- he was vilified and discounted by the Premier. The Premier tried to associate him with the more radical groups of the civil liberties movement in Queensland, fortunately without success. On the Thursday night Michael Egan, because he was concerned about rumours which were being circulated within the police department and by others, in particular the Special Branch, endeavoured to contact me by telephone. On that night the civil liberties group happened to be holding a rally in the teachers’ hall in order to gather support nationally for the proposition that there should be a change of legislation in Queensland. The proposal for a change of legislation was supported by the Liberal Party of which Senator MacGibbon is a member and by the Labor Party. The two major parties in Queensland support a change but the Premier and the National Party do not.

I was at that meeting. Michael Egan rang my home. He was told that I was at the meeting. He discussed the matter with my wife. He said that it was urgent and that he did not think it would be advisable for him to go to a civil liberties meeting. As it happened I did not receive the message to ring him back. Towards the end of the meeting, at about 10 o’clock, he decided to turn up. He rode his motorcycle to the teachers’ hall, parked it outside and came into the hall. I spoke to him for some time together with Tom Uren and a civil liberties lawyer called Terry O ‘Gorman, an executive member of the Council of Civil Liberties. We knew that newsmen were outside. We also knew that the meeting had attracted a considerable number of police, including half the Special Branch. It was said that 37 police were present. Our estimate was that there were considerably more but let us say that 37 police were outside the hall to supervise a meeting of about 150 people. Among the police present were a couple of dog handlers who used the dogs in order to control riots and disturbances.

The meeting dispersed. Only a handful of us were left, including Michael Egan, Tom Uren, Terry O ‘Gorman and I. We deliberately delayed for at least half an hour to allow the police to disperse and the newsmen to leave. At the end of that time it was suggested to Michael Egan that he leave by the back entrance of the teachers’ hall. The caretaker made those arrangements. Michael Egan said: ‘My bike is at the front and I prefer to leave from the front’. We went to the footpath. Michael Egan reached his motorcycle and put on his helmet. I exchanged a few words with him. He had said to me that he was afraid. He was to see his lawyers the next day to seek their advice. He was seeking my advice. The advice being given to him was that he should leave the State. That advice was being given to him by a person no less that the exCommissioner of Police in Queensland, Mr Whitrod. It was being given to him by his close associates. It was being given to him by the leading criminal lawyer in Queensland. He was to discuss the matter the next day. Michael Egan wanted to stay and work in Queensland. He wanted to be with his friends. He wanted to close to his home.

We were tailing off the conversation on the footpath. I remember the sequence of events as I spoke to him very clearly. Suddenly everything slowed down. This happens when one suddenly realises that something is happening and one does not really know what to do about it. A policeman detached himself from the group on the right, walked past Michael Egan’s motorcycle a few yards away from me and deliberately looked at the number place of the bike. He walked further down the street and gave that information to a commissioned officer who transmitted the information over a radio. This was clear; I saw it. There is no doubt in my mind as to what happened. Michael Egan took off on his motorcycle at what I would consider to be a normal pace for any vehicle. Admittedly, as I remarked to Tom Uren, his exhaust sounded a little rowdy, but that is the nature of exhausts in motorcycles. A motorcyclist drops a couple of baffle plates, puts a bell fitting on the end of the exhaust, and gives his motorcycle a full ‘burble’ as we used to call it when we were youngsters. That is the sort of exhaust which Michael Egan had.

As he took off from the footpath and moved up Boundary Street a police patrol car pulled out from a side street. It was not in sight of Michael Egan. It followed him up Boundary Street. Immediately people scattered for their cars. It was suggested that Michael Egan should be followed home to see that he arrived safely. As it happened a patrol car followed Michael Egan. Newspaper men ran to their cars. We went to our cars, but mine was facing the wrong way. I took time to put my seat belt on because I was in full view of a group of policemen, one of whom was continuing to transmit. My view is, and it is supported by what happened afterwards, is that the details of Michael Egan’s number plate and the fact that he was leaving were flashed to every patrol car and every motor cycle policeman in the area.

We missed a turn. Michael Egan went left; we went straight on. But when we came back we discovered that Michael Egan had been apprehended in Wickham Terrace by 10 police cars and seven motor cycles. What happened was recorded by radio and television reporters. The police cars and motor cycles all converged on one solitary single individual in Wickham Terrace. Most honourable senators would have heard the broadcast of that event and the exchange between Terry O ‘Gorman, who reached the scene, and the apprehending officer. Michael Egan was booked for having a faulty muffler. At the end of the exchange the policeman said: ‘You’ll keep’. That was evidence to both Michael Egan and myself that he was to be the object of considerable harassment. There was no doubt that the police were determined to drive Michael Egan out of the State. Michael Egan was followed and a television sequence on the Haydn Sargent program showed him arriving for a television appointment at Mount Cootha followed by an unmarked car with four Special Branch policemen in it. This was after the Police Commissioner had given an assurance that there would be no harassment of Michael Egan. Police cars went past his home at Bardon at regular intervals. It was evident that the advice given by Whitrod was good advice. The advice given to Michael Egan by his lawyers the next day was good advice also, and he has taken that advice.

The question I want to ask now of the Government is this: Has the federalism policy of this Government succeeded so well that the Government can ignore what happened in Queensland to Michael Egan, a person driven out of the State, hounded out of the State, because he had the temerity to speak openly about exercising his discretion not to arrest in a situation where he believed a law was not being broken? Michael Egan has had some sharp words to say. He did not come to his decision lightly. He possibly would not have come to the decision so quickly had the incident not occurred at the demonstration. He said, among other things, that there is a requirement in Queensland that young police officers should follow the direction of their commissioned officers. Their discretion is limited. He said it was generally accepted in the Queensland police force that the discretion of officers was not to be exercised. In fact that discretion has been given away by senior officers of the police force. The general impression is that the police force does not operate on its own in the interests of the people but is a servant to the government of the day. It is to that level that the police force in Queensland has been allowed to descend.

Nevertheless Michael Egan, having given thought to the matter, suddenly burst out of what had become a bondage for him. As he said, he was required to fabricate evidence, and he objected to this. He was not allowed to use his discretion, and he objected to this. He believed the Police Commissioner had surrendered his discretion to the Queensland Government, and he did not agree with this. But the decision to resign from the police force having been made in a dramatic way, surely everyone here, including the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick), will accept that it was not to be expected that he should be treated in this way. Therefore, since the Leader of the Government in the Senate is here, I ask him- and perhaps at some future time I may be able to ask him other questions- what action is to be taken by the Federal Government to ensure that the rights of an individual are protected against such harassment. ‘Harassment’ is the only word that can be used. Is such treatment as would force an individual to leave his State, leave his city, leave his home, lose himself in another State, and lose his identity to be tolerated in Australia? Is that to be accepted as something that can occur to an Australian person or, for that matter, any individual?

The matter will not rest there of course. There are many forces at work which will change the situation. I say to Senator MacGibbon that if he and his colleagues in Queensland were prepared to apply themselves to the problem and within their party bring pressure to bear upon the right person in Queensland, the situation would change dramatically. Let us look at the position in Queensland. A recent poll reveals that the antics of the Premier of Queensland are beginning to lose him support. In spite of the electoral gerrymander, support is beginning to swing to another party. I would say at this stage it happens to be the Liberal Party. As that is evident, of course it is now the responsibility of the Liberal Party to seize upon the situation and to change the balance in Queensland to bring about what I would consider to be a more enlightened type of Government. It seems to me that many people would express the same views as those Senator MacGibbon has expressed here tonight. It seems to me also that if that opinion were to be expressed more widely the Liberal Party would seize the opportunity, perhaps for a short time assisted by another party, to change the direction of government in Queensland so that people like Michael Egan are no longer harassed. There is much to be done in Queensland and much needs to be changed if the basic rights of individuals with which the Liberals are so much concerned, are to be protected.

I have here a letter which I received from the Dean of the Faculty of Law at the University of Queensland, R. N. Barber. It states:

I understand that the Criminal Investigation Bill 1977 is shortly to have its second reading in Federal Parliament.

That is not quite correct, as I discovered when I asked a question the other night. The Bill was brought before Parliament, the Parliament was dissolved and I do not think the Bill has been brought back. That is my understanding. I think Senator Missen pointed that out to me. Nevertheless the Bill is somewhere. Dean Barber says:

As a lawyer, I consider that the enactment of this Bill is most desirable and I respectfully commend it to you. It will serve as a basic safeguard to human rights. In particular I would urge that 5.24 (dealing with the treatment of persons under restraint) be passed in its present form, so as to ensure that persons awaiting trial, and- obviously- whose guilt has not been proven, are treated with dignity and respect as befits all human beings.

Michael Egan is a classic example of what has been allowed to happen in Queensland. He suddenly became the bench mark. He is an individual not associated with the civil liberties movement who was repelled by police action, repelled by the police force of which he was a part, and he rebelled. I have given the sequence of events which made him a fugitive in his own land.

I come now to what Dean Barber refers to as the basic human rights of individuals at the point of arrest before they have been taken to a court and before they have been proven guilty. He refers to the need for human beings to be treated with dignity and respect at that point. My experience is that at the point of arrest, in Queensland at least, a person becomes less than human. When I was first arrested, I must admit, I was vocal about it. I proclaimed all sorts of things. I called for all sorts of* assistance. I think Terry O ‘Gorman said to me: ‘What has happened to you happens to blacks every night of the week both in Brisbane and Redfern’. From my experience once one is arrested one has no rights. One may be in a watch house and treated as though one has no rights at all. From the point of arrest one is treated with physical force that is not necessary to carry out the arrest. It seems that the Queensland police force is taught that to arrest a person he must be seized firmly and his arm must be thrust behind his back. If he resists in any way handcuffs must be applied and if the resistance is in concert with some other disorder physical violence is to be applied and is condoned in those circumstances. The conditions in the watch house and in the remand section of the prison are such that one can only accept what Dean Barber said, namely that the Criminal Investigation Bill of 1977 should be brought back within the Parliament and passed as swiftly as possible. That would cover only the Territories. Nevertheless it might set an example which, as I said the other night, Queensland eventually would be forced to follow.

What happened after my arrest I found hard to believe. The magistrates’ courts were not the independent courts that I believed them to be. The whole sequence of events revealed the true nature of the situation, how justice is applied at the lower level in Queensland. Honourable senators should realise, of course, that the magistrates’ courts are the people’s courts. Many of us will finish in some conflict with the law and may appear before a magistrate’s court. The magistrate’s court should be fair and above any reproach whatsoever. But one discovers the reality is that the magistrate is a servant of the Queensland Department of Justice. He depends upon the Department for his promotion. He is not part of the independent judiciary, and he should be. The prosecutor in a magistrate’s court is a member of the Police Department, not of the Crown Solicitor’s Office. The person bringing the charge is nearly always a policeman, a member of the Police Department. In reality the situation is loaded against the defendant. Time after time I have been witness to situations in which the magistrate has accepted the word of the police without question and has dismissed the defendant as a liar. A leading lawyer in Queensland was correct when he said that procedures before the court become, under test, an exercise in lying. A person who is able to lie best has the best chance of success. Surely we cannot permit this state of affairs to continue.

I am sorry that I should be seizing upon what Senator MacGibbon has said. I mentioned him several times in my speech. Because of the nature of the electoral distribution in Queensland the immediate solution to the problem rests very much with the Liberal Party. Why should I concern myself with the short term solution? The short term solution is necessary because of what happened to Michael Egan. It happened last week. It is affecting Michael Egan and his family right now. We cannot wait till there is a change of government in Queensland. That may take some time. Injustice after injustice is occurring in Queensland under the administration of a National Party government led by a person who is not, shall we term it, a worthy representative of his own party. That is how bad the situation has become.

Senator Cavanagh:

– It was suggested that he needed psychiatric treatment.

Senator GEORGES:

-It was suggested by a member of the Liberal Party. Of course there is now pressure on Mr Bjelke-Petersen to resign because of it. Neverthless Mr Bjelke-Petersen is so glorified in his own ability -

Senator Cavanagh:

– He may need sympathy, not condemnation.

Senator GEORGES:

– When I think of Mr Bjelke-Petersen I think of Michael Egan. All my sympathy is with Michael Egan and there is none left for Mr Bjelke-Petersen because he is the person who denigrates people such as Michael Egan. He can see no good, no principle in people such as that young person. When it was said to him: ‘Michael Egan has been hounded out of this State’ he said: ‘Of course Michael Egan is free to go. He can go if he wants to. I am interested only in those people who are coming to Queensland to invest their money. Since we abolished death duties many people have been coming to Queensland. I am interested only in them ‘. He is not interested in what is right for the individual. He is not interested in Michael Egan. Because Michael Egan did something with which he did not agree, in his eyes Michael Egan became a raving radical overnight.

Senator Cavanagh:

– But if the old man has a mental affliction should he not have some sympathy? He cannot help it.

Senator GEORGES:

-Senator Cavanagh is seeking to get from me some outright condemnation of Mr Bjelke-Petersen. If he looks back over the record he will see that I have had some harsh things to say about the Premier of Queensland. I do not apologise for them. What he has done to Michael Egan justifies all that I have said. It is not necessary for me to say anything further. He is not suffering from any recently acquired complaint. He has behaved in this way from the very start. I do not think that anyone should accept the responsibility except those in the Liberal Party in Queensland because they have a solution to the problem. Again I come back -

Senator Cavanagh:

– They might all be mentally affected.

Senator GEORGES:

-Senator, you try me, but I should not retaliate. I have merely entered this debate to ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick) who is in the chamber whether he is satisfied that his concept of federalism was intended to reach a position in which the States should become so sovereign, so separate and so different in the application of human rights that we can condone, ignore or be indifferent to what has happened in Queensland. I would like to ask the honourable senator a question. I know that he cannot enter into this debate but, as Senator Baume was suddenly stirred into entering the debate by something which Senator McAuliffe said, perhaps I can stir Senator Carrick into responding. Perhaps he could respond and say that the human rights legislation which the Government intends to introduce will make it impossible for any government in Australia to treat an individual as the Queensland Government has treated Michael Egan.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

-I also want to take the opportunity in this first reading debate on the Poultry Industry Levy Amend: ment Bill to talk about discrimination against individuals. But I do not have to go to Queensland to look for an example as Senator Georges had to do. I merely look to this Government and its employees. I raise the matter of the Government having chosen to ignore for more than two years its employees who have been injured or who have become ill while in its service. I believe that this treatment of these people by this Government has in fact been shameful. It has been meted out to workers who have been helpless, who up until now have been unorganised and whose poor health has been aggravated by their poverty and the neglect by their former employer which in fact is the Federal Government.

Payments to these people are made under the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act. Payments are made to exemployees of the Government who have been invalided out of their jobs because of injury or illness. The rate of payment to these people has been kept at the same low level for over two years whereas other pensioners and beneficiaries who are the responsibility of the Government have had twice-yearly cost of living rises every year since 1974 up until the present Government stopped that level of generosity and reduced adjustments to once yearly. These other people who are the responsibility of the Governmentthose people who have been invalided out- have had only one rise in that time- that is, one rise in the rate of payment between 1974 and 1979. In 1976, the last time the compensation payment rate was in fact increased, the compensation payment represented about 83 per cent of the minimum wage in this country. It now represents 67 per cent of the minimum wage.

The present payment to a single ex-employee of the Commonwealth is $80 a week, of which $3.70 goes in tax. In 1975 the Fraser Government withheld the increase due to these people to save money. In 1976 an increase was given. In 1977 and in 1978no increase was given. We have no indication yet whether an increase will be given in this year’s Budget. I am not talking about vast sums of money. I am not talking about millions of dollars. I am talking about five per cent of the injured and invalided Commonwealth employees who generally without superannuation are destined to spend in most cases the remainder of their lives on compensation payments from the Commonwealth Government. I am talking about $ 100,000 a year which is all it would cost to restore these payments to 84 per cent of the minimum wage, a formula which in the past has generally been agreed upon as reasonablegenerallyagreedupon,thatis,until this Government decided to reduce payments by attrition and inflation and therefore reduce the living standards of its own ex-employees.

Since September 1976, this Government has kept its hands on $250,000 that rightly belongs to ill and crippled ex-employees. It has shown itself up in fact as uncaring for and unthinking about these employees. It has shown the same mean-minded attitude that it showed when in the last Budget it tried to tax the pensions and the allowances of the handicapped. It failed on that occasion. Those proposed taxes were in fact withdrawn in the face of unexpected militancy and unexpected solidarity on the part of the handicapped people themselves.

In the last Budget, Commonwealth compensation payments were not increased because the Government believed that it could get away with withholding these funds for another year and it has in fact done so. The Government’s back bench members- the representatives of many of these ex-employees in the Australian Capital Territory- did not lift a finger on behalf of the neglected ex-employees. At that time, these people were isolated and they were just unorganised. That has always been the case in the past because they belonged to different unions; they worked in different departments; and they came from different areas in this country. It is the case no longer. They are angry; they are organising; and they have a case which the Government should answer.

In November 1976-I well remember when these rates were last raised- the Opposition attacked the Government for the unwarranted delay in waiting two years before that increase. The Government ignored the fact that an increase had been due at the time of the election in 1975. But, even then, none of us realised- in fact we did not imagine- that the Government would disgrace itself even further by not increasing the money for another three years. We do not know now whether it will be four or five years before there is an increase. At the time the Minister for Social Security, Senator Guilfoyle, admitted that some adjustments had been done when she said:

I agree that for a long period to elapse before some change is made to the level of benefit diminishes that benefit.

She agreed that the Government by neglect was diminishing the benefit. She did and has done nothing about it. When questioned about why the Government had done nothing about it she maintained and has continued to maintain that the reason for this was that the Commonwealth rate was still ahead of the rate in some States. I said at thetime that this was equivocation- and I repeat it- and it is also unworthy of the Minister because a comparison of weekly rates shows that the Commonwealth compensation rate at the moment is the lowest in Australia except for Victoria. It is a fair bet, I would say, that the Victorian Premier will give the rate in Victoria a sharp lift due to the fact that he has an election in the next few weeks. If I may comment briefly, in

Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania, the provisions for compensation in fact specify full pay. In New South Wales, the rate is $88.40 a week. In the Australian Capital Territory awards, it is $87.89 a week. In Queensland, it is $80.50 a week. The Australian Capital Territory rates are indexed quarterly and the New South Wales rates are indexed twice a year. Only Victoria which pays $73 a week has a worse payment record than the Commonwealth. The Victorian Government has promised to lift rates by approximately $30 a week in relation to the movement of average weekly earnings over these last four years.

I particularly draw the attention of the Senate to the situation that exists in the Australian Capital Territory. The present rate of payment in the Territory is $87.89 a week compared with the Commonwealth payment of $80. In the Territory these rates are, I repeat, indexed quarterly. Canberra has the reputation of being a company town. The Public Service is the major work force and form of administration. In most company towns, no matter what we think of them, traditionally the company looks after its own, but not in Canberra. The company has permitted the condition of its own injured employees and the widows of employees who died in its service to deterioriate by hanging on to legitimate pension increases which they should have received in the’ last three years. The compensation paid to victims in the Australian Capital Territory is higher in private enterprise, because its awards are proofed against inflation, than the compensation paid to government employees. The Government, even in its own headquarters, cannot be trusted to pay fair awards for injuries and illnesses incurred on the job.

I draw the Senate’s attention to the way in which lump sum payments to the bereaved families of workers who have lost their lives in the Commonwealth Public Service have dropped in value since 1976. I repeat that only in Victoria does a lower rate apply than in the Commonwealth. During the last debate on the Commonwealth employees compensation legislation held in 1976, I pointed out that the lump sum payments to widows and payments for specified injuries had increased by only 25 per cent between 1974 and 1976, whereas other rates had gone up by between 40 per cent and 45 per cent. Senator Guilfoyle ‘s defence then, as is her defence now, was to state that the rates were higher than the rates in some of the States. This is no longer the case. I believe that the Minister and the Government should acknowledge that serious erosion of the situation has occurred and, quoting her again, ‘a long period to elapse before change is made to the level of the benefits has occurred and therefore the benefit has been eroded’. It is another way of saying that we are waiting to see for how long we can get away with withholding these payments to former employees before public indignation and the indignation of the exemployees catch up with us. Therefore, it is important that this Government’s neglect of compensation cases is condemned. The sooner that the Government and its supporters are aware of what is happening and restitution is made to the people whose money is being withheld by the Government, the better. It is important that we bring this up and make people aware of just how mean and despicable this Government has been.

The honourable member for Grey, Mr Laurie Wallis, and I have frequently brought up the matter in this House and in another place. The Council of Australian Government Employee Organisations has been mounting a persuasive campaign to introduce in this session of Parliament improved rates and for increasing these rates to 84 per cent of the minimum wage. In fact CAGEO recommends twice yearly indexation of compensation rates once they have been introduced, increased to 84 per cent of the minimum wage, and we in the Opposition support this line. We believe it is a reasonable method of indexation just as we believe it is a reasonable method of indexation for pensions and other benefits. We also support CAGEO ‘s representations that the Act should be amended to provide for compensation to be awarded at the rate applicable when the claim was admitted. CAGEO makes many other points in its very carefully worded and carefully researched submission to the Government. I hope the Minister and the Government will take note of its case now and not wait until the Budget. Because of these disgraceful delays there has been hardship and there have been difficulties created for exemployees and their bereaved dependants. We believe there should be no delay in the introduction of legislation providing for the rates to be increased and for twice yearly indexation of these rates; it is simple legislation. It needs no appropriation legislation to give it effect. It would receive the support of the Opposition and it would receive the support of fair-minded Government supporters on the other side of this chamber and in the other House.

We would be pressing for retrospective payments to compensation victims backdated at least to 1977. In 1954 a precedent for this was set when the Government backdated increases to payments under the Commonwealth employees compensation legislation which had been delayed by an election. This precedent should have been followed in 1976, as the Opposition then suggested, when the increases were again delayed by an election in 1975. We believe that that situation should apply now. The Government would be merely returning money which did not belong to it; returning money which had been withheld because of the Government’s misguided economic policies. I mention that because of the great variety of unions, because of the great differences in areas in which these people are employed and because of deficiencies of the compensation schemes which were brought out by the Commissioner for Compensation in his recent report, people affected by this failure of the Government had not been organised and had not been able to present their case. This is changing.

Recently in Melbourne I attended a meeting organised for the purpose of bringing together some of these people in an attempt to bring justice to people affected by the Government’s neglect. They were men and women from the construction industry, the communications industry, munitions factories and hospitals and Commonwealth car drivers. They came from a lot of government departments and instrumentalities. They had two things in common. All were invalided out of the service because of injuries and illnesses. All felt they had been let down by the Government. All were suffering from the Government’s failure to increase these payments. They had a lot to say about the failure to update the legislation and about the general conduct of the Government in treating compensation cases. They pointed out, and I point out, that the maximum payment is $80 a week and is taxed. These people have no pensioner health entitlements and no fringe benefits. They always have a great need to consult doctors and to patronise the chemists. Among their stories were many examples of lax administration, of delays, and of desperate situations which arose because of the compensation set-up. Some departments failed to send the weekly cheques at Christmas, at the New Year and at Easter. I was shown a copy of one cheque dated 22 September 1978 which arrived on 2 January 1 979.

No public servant, no one else in the community, would allow that kind of delay to his own Christmas cheque. The Government would not dare to hold up aged, invalid or any other pension cheques at that season of the year, but it does so with payments to ex-employees on compensation. As was the case with other pensioners, we were told frequently about lost files and about the quarterly form which has to be completed. In this case it comes without a stamped addressed envelope, whereas with pensioners and others a stamped addressed envelope is normally sent. We were told about the failure of reimbursement for deductible medical expenses including chemist expenses. Some people have been trying for years to get reasonable reimbursement.

Some families, because some members of the family are working, can support people through delays like this. However, many of these people have no such family support and are living from week to week, from day to day. They have a lot of difficulties because of their illness and because of the low rate of payment. They have extra difficulties in having to confront the bureaucracy that deals with this problem. Many complained that they had not been offered rehabilitation. Many complained that they had had no payment for months and had been refused sickness benefits because compensation payments were expected to come. This is a very bad and a wrong situation.

Debate interrupted.

page 775

ADJOURNMENT

Herbicides- Petroleum Pricing Policies- Social Services

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I do not want to detain the House, but I want to talk in some detail about what I believe are the very grave dangers associated with the use of the herbicides, 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D. I know that I have raised this subject in the House before, but on this occasion I have a lot more technical information which I believe ought to go on the record. This subject has been raised by other honourable senators in this chamber as well.

I believe that the use of these particular herbicides, and some pesticides, is extremely dangerous. There is a responsibility particularly on the Australian Government to take appropriate steps to suspend the use of these and other dangerous pesticides and herbicides. If the Government is not prepared to do that I believe there ought to be a temporary suspension until there has been an open public inquiry into their use. Witnesses should be able to come forward with the knowledge that they can make statements for which they cannot be sued afterwards. They should receive some sort of protection from the royal commission or a Senate select committee. We do have a Senate standing committee which would be able to handle this type of inquiry.

Over a period of about 1 8 months a number of people have been involved in trying to create a public awareness of the dangers of the herbicide 2,4,5-T. The Melbourne Truth has carried on a campaign for almost a year to have 2,4,5-T banned, particularly after an incident which took place in the Sale area where it was obvious that deformed children had been born. Lately the Truth has been joined in the campaign by other newspapers, in particular the Melbourne Age. Recently in Victoria the State Health Minister, Mr Vasey Houghton, advised against using 2,4,5-T in Melbourne and other built-up areas. The Government in Victoria did not go so far as creating a ban. We know, of course, that the Government in Victoria is facing an election and to ban the use of the herbicide at this stage would probably have created the impression that it was against the farmers and other people who feel the need to use these types of herbicide.

I have been told by people who operate in the field that technically there are other herbicides and pesticides that can be used. When I raised this matter before I talked about the pressure that an environmental group was applying in America to ban the use of this particular herbicide. Inquiries have been called for in Britain and a number of other countries are worried about the short and long term effects. Quite recently the American Environmental Protection Agency used emergency powers as a result of the pressures applied on it by environmentalists to place bans on 2,4,5-T. This was done after a series of miscarriages which took place in Oregon. It was felt that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to place a ban on the use of this particular herbicide. The Agency has not extended the ban to 2,4-D. In 1978 there were birth defects at Sale in Victoria and at Cairns in north Queensland. Lately 2,4-D has been responsible- this is on circumstantial evidence again- for birth defects at Sunshine in Victoria. The State governments of Victoria and Queensland and the National Health and Medical Research Council have cleared the herbicide 2,4,5-T. I want to say something about that later because it appears from a recent statement by the Minister for Health in Queensland, Sir William Knox, that no real inquiry was carried out. On Friday, 9 March 1979, in a statement published in the Press, the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) warned State governments about jumping to conclusions on the possible side effects of 2,4,5-T. I do not know how many deaths and birth deformities are required before there is sufficient proof for the Government to take some sort of positive action. It appears that we need this sort of evidence before governments are prepared to act, even though Mr Houghton in Victoria has taken a low profile and has warned people about using it in built-up areas. Recently in the Queensland Sunday Mail a report stated:

The State Health Minister (Sir William Knox) said the latest American action had caused new concern. He said the investigations carried out in the Cairns area last year, following allegations that 2,4,5-T had caused birth defects, had not been a full scientific study.

Might I interpose there to say that when that particular inquiry was carried out we were told by the Premier of Queensland- not in these precise words-that it was a lot of poppycock and that the use of 2,4,5-T could be continued.

Last year Mrs Rosemary Belbin together with other concerned mothers in the Innisfail area, claimed that they had sufficient evidence to prove that their children were suffering from ill health because of this herbicide, that low flying planes were using this particular herbicide over canefields and the wind drifts and whathaveyou were causing it to come into the area where people were living. I know that she put up with a considerable amount of criticism, particularly from farmers. Many farmers have said to me that they do not use this herbicide because they realise how dangerous it is. There are no laws currently in Queensland, and as far as I know in most other States, to indicate that the use of this herbicide is safe. There is no real law to determine what happens to people who store it. I would like to quote from a technical document shortly which I think will indicate that there is a need for a more cautious approach to the use of this herbicide. The report continues:

Sir William Knox said he understood the American study has been a scientific experiment comparing birth defect rates in areas where the spray was used with rates in areas not sprayed. He said the Health Department’s Cairns study was not available in any documented form-

If nothing was documented obviously the investigation was a very superficial one. The report continued:

Any Australian action on 2,4,5-T should be uniform and Australia wide- not initiated by any State, he said-

I do not often agree with William Knox, but I do agree with him on that. It ought to be a national campaign in order to ban any. sort of dangerous chemicals which are used as widely as 2,4,5-T. The report states further:

In Washington, the chief of Environmental Protection Agency pesticides branch (Frank Parsons) told the Sunday Mail that there ‘seems to be an awfully strong case’ linking 2,4,5-T with binh defects.

We are having to make a presumption from our studies in Oregon, that there is a cause and effect relationship between this chemical and miscarriages, ‘ he said.

We have ample evidence from animal studies that it also has other effects on laboratory animals.

That includes other birth defects, tumours which could be cancer causing and lower off-spring survival rates. ‘

In a recent issue of the Melbourne Truth a number of dates were set out in about 16 to 17 small paragraphs. I have not had an opportunity to show these to you Mr Deputy President or to the Attorney-General (Senator Durack), who is at the table, but it would save time if these could be incorporated. I am prepared to pass them over to the Minister or to you. I seek the incorporation of that document. I have another technical document here which I have shown to the Minister and the Government Whip in your absence from the chair and they have agreed to its incorporation. I am merely trying to save the time of the Senate because the documents are self-explanatory. I seek leave to incorporate the articles in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

March, 1978- While still awaiting the report of his Consultative Council into the Yarram deformities, Mr Houghton tells State Parliament: ‘It has been established that the abnormalities were not due to any inhalation of either of these products (2,4-D or 2,4,5-T).’

March 21, 1 978- Assistant Health Minister Mr Jona dissociates himself from Mr Houghton’s view, reported in The Age, that families in the Yarram area were blaming herbicides for the birth abnormalities, because they felt guilty.

March 22, 1978- Mr Houghton tells the Legislative Council: ‘Until I receive some scientific evidence on which to act, I do not intend to recommend their (the herbicides’) prohibition.

June, 1978- Mr Houghton recommends a statewide ban on the use of both herbicides, pending the outcome of the Consultative Council’s report.

Late June, 1978- Mr Houghton lifts ban on 2,4-D after the National Health and Medical Research Council gives the -chemical a clean bill of health.

September 26, 1978 - Mr Houghton announces Consultative Council ‘s verdict on Yarram, and lifts ban on 2,4,5-T.

Late September, 1978- Mr Houghton rejects as gobbledygook’ a statement by Mr Michael Arnold of the ALP, that herbicides are highly toxic.

Early October, 1978- Premier Hamer calls for a statewide review of the herbicide situation.

Early October, 1978- New batch of birth abnormalities emerges in Sale after herbicide spraying.

Mr Houghton dismisses any link as ‘ pure coincidence ‘.

October 14, 1978-Melbourne expert Dr John Russell reveals in Truth that 2,4-D can stay in the body for 10 years.

October 16, 1978- World recognised expert Dr Arthur Galston tells Truth from America that 2,4,5-T is a ‘lethal killer which causes cancer and malformation of unborn babies’.

October 17, 1978- Mr Houghton repeats in the House that both weedicides are ‘now free of any restrictions by the Department of Health’.

October 18, 1978-Mr Hamer tells the Legislative Assembly: ‘That report (the Consultative Council’s report) entirely cleared the use of” 2,4,5-T from responsibility for the deformities of those children’.

October 21- In Truth Dr Wendy White, a Queensland medical practitioner, claims proof of many binh abnormalities caused by herbicides, including the two she suffered herself.

October 25, 1978- Mr Houghton tells the Legislative Assembly: ‘In America 2,4,5-T is permitted to be sprayed on a food crop. That is not done in Victoria’.

October 28, 1978-Truth discovers that five Lands Department workers in Stawell died from cancer after extensive handling of herbicides.

November 1, 1978- Mr Houghton describes Truth’s Stawell story in the House as an ‘ unscientific deduction, and irrelevant’.

November 4, 1978- A West Australian pedigree goat breeder tells Truth of five kids born with hideous deformities after heavy spraying with 2,4-D.

November 25, 1978- Gippsland farmer Rene Woollard tells Truth of her 12-year losing battle with herbicides ending in the destruction of her $50,000 50-acre farm.

December 16, 1978-Mr John Evans, an ex-CSIRO herbicides expert, tells Truth the Yarram Consultative Council’s findings are ‘worthless’.

December 30, 1978-Truth reveals that five Lands Department workers put on sick leave after urine tests had herbicide contamination in their systems.

February 10, 1979- Gippsland Lands Department worker Arch Layell tells Truth he has two years to five before dying of a cancer his doctors agree could be caused by herbicides.

Senator KEEFFE:

-Most of the herbicides are not manufactured in this country. They are manufactured by trans-national organisations and are imported into this country. I believe that because of this fact there has been a reluctance on the part of conservative governments in particular to take the final step to ban or suspend the use of the herbicide to which I am referring tonight.

In America 9 million lb of 2,4,5-T is used annually. This is a fairly massive quantity of herbicide to use. Apart from the cases that I have cited, there are other doctors in north Queensland who have said to me privately that they are disturbed about birth deformities, miscarriages and, in some cases, the unexplained death of infants. We have been subjected to the use of this type of herbicide over a long period. I am honest enough to say that the circumstantial evidence surrounding this herbicide is quite condemning. But we must add to that the fact that, during the currency of and after the French nuclear bomb tests in the Pacific, there was a very heavy atomic fallout in many parts of north Queensland. If the people who compile the statistics are honest about the position they will recognise that the leucaemia rates are higher. A doctor, who condemned me in 1966 and said that I did not know what I was talking about when I spoke out about the French nuclear bomb tests fallout, only a year of two ago stated publicly, whilst not admitting that I had made the original statement, that the tests might be responsible for birth abnormalities.

We must look at the position of our Australian servicemen who served in Vietnam, where this type of herbicide was used extensively as a defoliant. The Americans are now doing this and are finding that many of the servicemen who served in the areas where the defoliants were used in Vietnam are now suffering from various types of diseases which are starting to show up after this brief period since the cessation of hostilities. I believe that every serviceman who served in the areas where defoliants were used in Vietnam owes it to himself and his family to seek urgent medical examination to make sure that he is not suffering as a result of the extensive use of that type of herbicide. Ms Diana Plater wrote an article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 12 March 1979. 1 will quote only three or four paragraphs of it which I think back up the argument that I have used. It states:

Cotton chippers near Narrabri were forced to lie flat on their faces when a low-flying aircraft sprayed insecticide over them, the New South Wales Select Committee on Aborigines has been told.

Incidentally, many of the people who work in the cotton fields there are of Aboriginal descent. The article continues:

The men had been told when they began work at 6 a.m. on January 28 that they would be given notice before the fields were sprayed, according to a letter written by one of the workers.

The only notice given was the aeroplane flying directly over our heads and minutes later returning to drop a load of poisonous spray over the workers, ‘ the letter said.

A community health nurse read the letter to the Committee in Narrabri last week during a hearing on the conditions of Aborigines working in the cotton fields near Narrabri and Wee Waa, in the north-west of New South Wales.

The letter said reactions suffered by the workers included burning, rashes, weeping eyes, sore throats and heavy perspiration.

After complaints were made, the manager had told the workers they had not been told in advance because ‘we were in a hurry.’

The lives of the workers were placed in jeopardy because the people running the cotton plantations were in a hurry. The article goes on to state:

A health officer with the Narromine Shire Council said yesterday there was some evidence that chippers, who remove weeds from around the growing cotton, had been sprayed on other occasions.

Those normally affected were loaders, pilots and markers.

The people involved should be given the opportunity to have a thorough medical examination in order to ensure that there is no lasting damage to their health. The document that I will seek to have incorporated in Hansard was given to me by a now retired person, Tom Winkley of Townsville, who some years ago had a commercial operator’s licence to use this type of herbicide. The commercial operator’s licence states: . . licensed commercial operator in charge of ground equipment from which ground distribution of herbicides is earned out from the date hereof to thirtieth day of June 1972, inclusive, subject to and in accordance with the Agricultural Chemical Distribution Control Act 1966-1970 and the Regulations made thereunder . . .

On one of the pages reference is made to what can happen with unformulated 2,4,5-T butyl esters. A description of the types of mixtures is given. As far as I know, this information has never been published outside an official manual which has been compiled for the use of those people who are responsible for the spraying of so-called pests in every-day life, whether those pests be on a farm, associated with main roads or in other areas.

Incidentally, we have some grave doubts about the people who use small aeroplanes to distribute 2,4,5-T, in particular. The Department of Primary Industries in Queensland is supposed to give permission before a plane takes off with a load of herbicides for the spraying of canefields and other crop areas; but there is some doubt about whether permission is always obtained and whether aeroplanes are not taking off without permission. We are currently investigating the registration numbers on two or three aeroplanes which, it appears, did not have the requisite permission to carry out a spraying operation. Wind velocity, wind direction and other matters must be taken into consideration before herbicides of this dangerous type can be used. The caution notes in respect of 2,4,5-T state:

Operators: At spraying strength should not be a hazard to operators.

Animals: Can be harmful to fish. Contamination of dams and water courses should be avoided.

This is not always the case because when aeroplanes are making a run they do not always take these precautions. There is no one there to observe whether the precautions are being taken. The notes go on to state:

Non-poisonous to livestock but they should be kept out of treated areas for at least 2 weeks if poisonous weeds such as variegated thistle are present.

In fact, whilst the cautionary note is there, it is obvious that the herbicide is poisonous to livestock under some circumstances. The notes continue:

Non-target Plants: Spray, spray drift and vapour (fumes) can cause injury to most broad-leaf plants such as fruit trees, ornamentals, vines, vegetables, flowers, cotton, papaws, legumes.

Use near ornamentals should be avoided, not only because vapour (fumes) given off for up to several days after application can be blown on to them, but because their roots may spread to treated areas.

The notes also deal with storage. They state:

Storage near materials to be applied to plants (fertilizers, insecticides, fungicides) should be avoided.

More detail is given on another page. I will not take up the time of the Senate by reading it out, as I will now seek leave to have that document incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS DISTRIBUTION CONTROL ACT 1966-1970

Commercial Operator’s Licence G No. 182

This is to certify that THOMAS EDWARD WINKLEY of 247 Wills Street in the city/town of TOWNSVILLE is authorised to act as:

a licensed commercial operator in charge of ground equipment from which ground distribution of herbicides is carried out from the date hereof to thirtieth day of June 1972, inclusive subject to and in accordance with the Agricultural Chemicals Distribution Control Act 1966-1970 and the Regulations made thereunder,

Date ofIssue 23 July 1971. E. T. Prodonoff

Standards Officer

Signature of Licencee T. E. Winkley. 2,4,5-T- butly esters (formulated) see also 2,4,5-T- butyl esters (unformulated)

Active Constituent- 2,4, 5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid

[2,4,5-T].

Formulations Available- liquids: 40 per cent w/v 2,4,5-T present as butyl esters. 80 per cent w/v 2,4,5-T present as the butyl ester.

Trade Names- numerous.

Classification- translocated.

Use- Control of: woody plants, including trees, by overall spraying; basal bark, frill ringing or cut-stump treatment:

Trees controlled include wattles; some species of eucalypts and tea trees; banksias; sandalwood; pepper trees; poplars; elms; willows.

Other woody plants controlled include african boxthorn, blackberry, brigalow, cockspur, gooseberry, gorse, green cestrum, groundsel-bush, hickory, honeysuckle, lantana, lime bush, native raspberry, poison ivy, prickly acacia, sweet briar.

Mixing Sprays- mixes with water or oil.

Application- Overall spraying- high volume:

Rate- varies with the kind of plant, from *0.06 per cent to 1 per cent 2,4,5-T in water. For instance *0.06 per cent 2,4,5-T at a volume of about 300 gal. per acre for blackberry, bramble; *0. 1 per cent 2,4,5-T at a volume of about 100 gal. per acre for brigalow, young gorse; *0.2 per cent 2,4,5-T at a volume of about 100 gal. per acre for blackberry, native raspberry, wattles, sandalwood; *0.4 per cent 2,4,5-T at a volume of about 100 gal. per acre for some wattles, susceptible eucalypt suckers and seedlings up to 5 feet in height; * 1 per cent 2,4,5-T for brambles, briars- wet with fine spray, see page T-7/68.

Technique- overall or spot spray to wet leaves and stems thoroughly

Overall spraying- low volume of Brigalow

Virgin scrub:

Rate-* lb. 2,4,5-T in water per acre, or *‘A lb. to % lb. 2,4,5-T in oil per acre.

Timing- November to March.

Technique- overall spray by air-blast misting machine.

Suckers:

Rate- two applications, each of *4 oz. to 8 oz. 2,4,5-T in oil per acre volume of oil:- at least2½ gal. for small suckers up to 10 gal. for suckers 5 feet in height.

Timing- November to March- the second treatment is made 12 months later.

Technique- overall spray by air-blast misting machine. Basal bark treatment of susceptible scrub and timber species:

Rate- varies with kind of plant, from *1 per cent 2,4,5-T in oil for brigalow, wattles, lantana, sandalwood, to *4 per cent 2,4,5-T in oil for limebush.

Technique- 2,4,5-T/oil mixture is liberally painted or sprayed on bark all round base and for a distance of 12 to 18 inches up stem.

Cut-stump treatment:

Rate- varies with kind of plant, from *1 per cent 2,4,5-T in oil for wattles, *2 per cent 2,4,5-T in water or oil for green cestrum, groundsel-bush, to *4 per cent 2,4,5-T in oil for susceptible timber species.

Technique- plant is cut off as close to the ground as possible (below 6 inches) 2,4,5-T mixture is applied to freshly cut stump, seepage T-7/68.

Frill ringing:

Rate- varies with kind of plant, from 1 per cent 2,4,5-T in oil for some very susceptible eucalypts and tea trees; mature wattles, to 4 per cent 2,4,5-T in oil for other susceptible eucalypts, lime bush.

Technique-mixture is applied to freshly cut complete frill not higher than 6 in. above ground level.

Limitations- Some species of eucalypts and tea trees are not controlled.

Application to tree during period of poor sap flow should be avoided.

Application of oil mixtures to leaves or bark, wet from dew or rain should be avoided.

*4 oz. of 2,4,5-T is present in 10 fl. oz. commercial preparation containing 40 per cent w/v 2,4,5-T; 5 fl. oz. commercial preparation containing 80 w/v 2,4,5-T; 1 lb. of 2,4,5-T is present in 2 pints commercial preparation containing 40 per cent w/v 2,4,5-T; 1 pint commercial preparation containing 80 per cent w/v 2,4,5-T.

A commercial preparation containing 40 per cent 2,4,5-T is diluted with water or oil as follows to obtain the spray mixture strengths listed: 0.06 per cent-1 part made up to 666 parts; 0.1 per cent- 1 part made up to 400 parts; 0.2 per cent- 1 part made up to 200 parts; 0.4 per cent- 1 part made up to 100 parts; 1 per cent- 1 part made up to 40 parts; 2 per cent- 1 part made up to 20 parts; 4 per cent- 1 part made up to 10 parts.

A commercial preparation containing 80 per cent 2,4,5-T is diluted with water or oil as follows to obtain the spray mixture strengths listed: 0.06 per cent- 1 part made up to 1332 parts; 0.1 per cent- 1 part made up to 800 parts; 0.2 per cent- 1 part made up to 400 parts; 0.4 per cent- 1 pan made up to 200 parts; 1 per cent-1 part made up to 80 parts; 2 percent- 1 part made up to 40 parts; 4 per cent- 1 part made up to 20 parts.

Rain within 1 hour of application can reduce effectiveness of overall sprays.

Treated plants are left undisturbed until tissue is dead.

Other Points- Some formulations are inflammable. Volatile.

Caution:

Operators- Liquid concentrates can be irritating to the skin and eyes. Splashes should be washed from skin and eyes immediately.

At spraying strength, should not be a hazard to operators if hands and exposed skin are washed before meals and after work.

Animals- Can be harmful to fish. Contamination of dams and water courses should be avoided.

Non-poisonous to livestock but they should be kept out of treated areas for at least 2 weeks if poisonous weeds, such as variegated thistle, are present.

Non-target Plants- Spray, spray drift and vapour (fumes) can cause injury to most broad-leaf plants such as fruit trees, ornamentals, vines, vegetables, flowers, cotton, papaws, legumes.

Use near ornamentals should be avoided, not only because vapour (fumes) given off for up to several days after application can be blown onto them, but because their roots may spread to treated areas.

Equipment- Equipment used for mixing and spraying mixtures should not be used for spraying susceptible, desired plants.

Storage- Storage near materials to be applied to plants ( fertilizers, insecticides, fungicides) should be avoided. 2,4,5-T-BUTYL ESTERS (unformulated) see also 2,4,5-T-BUTYL ESTERS (formulated) Active Constituent- 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid

[2,4,5-T].

Formulations Available liquids- containing from 104 per cent to 107.9 per cent w/v 2,4,5-T present as butyl esters. Trade Names- numerous.

Classification- translocated.

Use- Control of woody plants susceptible to 2,4,5-T/Oil mixtures.

Species controlled include: brigalow. wattles. other acacia, green cestrum, susceptible timber and scrub species by basal bark treatment, frill ringing or cutstump treatment.

Mixing Sprays- mixes with oil; will not mix with water. Application- Brigalow:

Rate- varies with type of growth, from *8 oz. 2,4,5-T per acre, to * 1 lb. 2,4,5-T in oil per acre.

Technique- overall spray from air-blast misters repeat treatment is needed for standing suckers.

Wattles (except for fern-leaf species):

Rate-* 1 lb. 2,4,5-T in oil per acre.

Technique misting (basal bark or cut stump treatments are used for fern-leaf species).

Scrub and timber species:

Treatment- basal bark.

Rates- vary from * 1 per cent to 2 per cent 2,4,5-T in oil.

Timing- when plants are growing actively.

Technique- mixture is liberally painted or sprayed on bark all round base and for a distance of 1 2 to 1 8 inches up stem.

*seepageT-10/68.

Treatment- frill ringing.

Rates- vary from 1 per cent to 4 per cent 2,4,5-T in oil.

Timing- when trees are growing actively.

Technique- mixture is applied to freshly cut complete frill as close to ground level as possible (below 6 in.).

Treatment- cut-stump for green cestrum, susceptible scrub and timber species.

Rates- vary from 2 per cent to 4 per cent 2,4,5-T in oil.

Timing- when trees are growing actively.

Technique- mixture is applied to freshly cut stumps which have been cut off as close to the ground as possible (below 6 in.).

*1 gal. of a commercial preparation containing 104 per cent w/v 2,4,5-T will treat: 10.4 acres at the rate of 1 lb. 2,4,5-T per acre, or 20.8 acres at the rate of 8 oz. 2,4,5-T per acre. 1 gal. of a commercial preparation containing 107.9 per cent w/v 2,4,5-T will treat: 10.8 acres at the rate of 1 lb. 2,4,5-T per acre, or 21.6 acres at the rate of 8 oz. 2,4,5-T per acre. 1 per cent 2,4,5-T mixture is made by diluting 1 part of commercial preparation containing: 104 per cent w/v 2,4,5-T to 104 parts with oil; 107.9 per cent w/v 2,4,5-T to 108 parts with oil. 2 per cent 2,4,5-T mixture is made by diluting 1 part of commercial preparation containing: 104 per cent w/v 2,4,5-T to 52 parts with oil; 107.9 per cent w/v 2,4,5-T to 54 parts with oil. 4 per cent 2,4,5-T mixture is made by diluting 1 part of commercial preparation containing: 104 per cent w/v 2,4,5-T to 26 parts with oil; 107.9 per cent w/v 2,4,5-T to 27 parts with oil.

Limitations- Accurately calibrated equipment is needed for precise overall spray application. Will not mix with water. Not all woody species are susceptible. Susceptibility of an unknown species can be checked with a local field officer or adviser.

Caution:

Operators- At spraying strength, should not be a hazard to operators.

Animals- Can be harmful to fish. Contamination of dams and water courses should be avoided.

Non-poisonous to livestock but they should be kept out of treated areas for at least 2 weeks if poisonous weeds such as variegated thistle, are present.

Non-target Plants-Spray, spray drift and vapour (fumes) can cause injury to most broad-leaf plants such as fruit trees, ornamentals, vines, vegetables, flowers, cotton, papaws, legumes.

Use near ornamentals should be avoided, not only because vapour (fumes) given off for up to several days after application can be blown onto them, but because their roots may spread to treated areas.

Equipment- Equipment used for mixing and spraying mixtures should not be used for spraying susceptible, desired plants.

Storage- Storage near materials to be applied to plants (fertilizers, insecticides, fungicides) should be avoided. 2,4,5-T with 2,4-D-Amine salts

Active Constituents- 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid [2,4,5-T]; 2,4-dichlorophenoxyaceticacid [2,4-D].

Formulations Available- 20 per cent w/v 2,4,5-T, with 40 per cent w/v 2,4-D both present as the dimethylamine salt.

Classification- translocated.

Use–Controlof: vines and other broad-leaf weeds in sugar-cane and non-crop areas.

Weeds controlled include most annual broad-leaf weeds and some perennials. Some broad-leaf weeds are resistant. (If in doubt about a particular species, the local Adviser should be consulted). wild tobacco, groundsel-bush, blackberry, lantana. Mixing Sprays- mixes with water.

Application- Broad-leaf weeds in sugar-cane:

  1. Rate- *6 oz. 2,4,5-T with 12 oz. 2,4-D per acre (the addition of a wetting agent improves effectiveness).

Technique- overall spray.

  1. Rate-*0.06 per cent 2,4,5-T with 0.125 per cent 2,4-D (the addition of a wetting agent improves effectiveness).

Technique- overall or spot spray.

Wild tobacco tree:

Rate-*0.05 per cent 2,4,5-T with 0. 1 per cent 2,4-D.

Timing- when plants are young.

Technique- overall spray to wet leaves thoroughly.

Groundsel-bush:

Rate-*0.06 percent 2,4,5-T with 0. 125 percent 2,4-D.

Technique- overall spray to wet leaves and stems thoroughly.

*see pageT-14/68.

Blackberry:

Rate-0.04 per cent 2,4,5-T with 0.08 per cent 2,4-D.

Timing- during the period from December to March.

Technique- overall spray to wet leaves and stems thoroughly.

Lantana:

Rate-0.05 per cent 2,4,5-T with 0. 1 per cent 2,4-D. Timing- during period from February to March.

Technique- overall spray to wet leaves and stems thoroughly.

Other Points- Non-corrosive; Non-volatile.

Caution- Operators:

Liquid concentrate can be irritating to the skin and eyes. Splashes should be washed from skin or eyes immediately.

At spraying strength, should not be a hazard to operators if hands and exposed skin are washed before meals and after work.

Animals:

Can be harmful to fish. Contamination of dams and water courses should be avoided.

Non-poisonous to livestock but they should be kept out of treated areas for at least 2 weeks if poisonous weeds, such as variegated thistle, are present.

*6 oz. 2,4,5-T and 12 oz. 2,4-D are present in1½ pints commercial preparation containing 20 per cent w/v 2,4,5-T with 40 per cent 2,4-D.

A commercial preparation containing 20 per cent w/v 2,4,5-T with 40 per cent 2,4-D is diluted with water as follows to obtain the spray mixture strengths listed: 0.04 per cent 2,4,5-T with 0.08 per cent 2,4-D- 1 pan to 500 parts; 0.05 per cent 2,4,5-T with 0. 1 per cent 2,4-D- 1 part to 400 parts; 0.06 per cent 2,4,5-T with 0.12 per cent 2,4-D- 1 part to 320 parts.

Non-target Plants- Spray and spray drift can cause injury to most broad-leaf plants such as flowers, shrubs, vegetables, fruittrees, cotton, vines.

Repeated use near ornamentals, desired trees or crops should be avoided as their roots may spread to treated areas.

Equipment- Equipment used for mixing or spraying mixtures should not be used for spraying susceptible, desired plants.

Storage-Storage near materials to be applied to plants (fertilizers, insecticides, fungicides) should be avoided. 2,4,5-T with 2,4-D-Butoxy ethanol esters

Active Constituents- 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid

Formulations Available- liquids: 8 per cent w/v 2,4,5-T present as the butoxy ethanol ester 16 per cent w/v 2,4-D present as the butoxy ethanol ester.

Trade Name-Weedone R Brush Killer 32.

Classification- translocated.

Use- Control of: some difficult to kill perennial weeds by overall spraying. mixed woody and broad-leaf weeds by overall spraying:

Woody plants controlled include blackberry, blackthorn, some eucalypt suckers, galvanised burr, groundsel-bush, mallee regrowth, paddy’s lucerne, St. John’s wort.

Mixing Sprays- mixes with water or oil.

Application- Overall spraying:

Rates- vary with kind of plant and the conditions, from 0.05 per cent 2,4,5-T with 0. 1 per cent 2,4-D in water for blackthorn, to 0.13 per cent 2,4,5-T with 0.26 per cent 2,4-D in water for some eucalypt suckers.

Timing- blackthorn- after flowering; others- when plants are growing actively.

Technique- overall or spot spray to wet leaves and stems thoroughly.

A commercial preparation containing 8 per cent w/v 2,4,5-T with 16 per cent w/v 2,4-D is diluted with water or oil as follows to obtain the spray mixture strengths listed: 0.05 per cent 2,4,5-T with 0.1 per cent 2,4-D- 1 part to 160 parts; 0.13 per cent 2,4,5-T with 0.26 per cent 2,4-D- 1 part to 60 parts.

R Registered Trade Mark.

Limitations- Some species of eucalypt are not controlled.

Application during periods in which sap flow is poor should be avoided.

Disturbance of treated plants within 3 months of application should be avoided.

Other Points- Non-inflammable. Non-corrosive.

Volatile, but less than mixtures of the butyl and ethyl esters.

Caution- Operators:

Splashes of concentrate and spraying mixture should be washed from skin and eyes immediately.

At spraying strength, should not be a hazard to operators if hands and exposed skin are washed before meals and after work.

Animals- Can be harmful to fish. Contamination or dams and water courses should be avoided.

Non-poisonous to livestock but they should be kept out of treated areas for at least 2 weeks if poisonous weeds such as variegated thistles, are present.

Non-target Plants- Spray, spray drift and to some extent vapour (fumes) can cause injury to most broad-leaf plants such as fruit trees, ornamentals, vines, vegetables, flowers, cotton, papaws, legumes.

Use near ornamentals should be avoided, not only because vapour (fumes) given off for up to several days after application can be blown onto them, but because their roots may spread to treated areas.

Equipment- Equipment used for mixing and spraying mixtures should not be used for spraying susceptible desired plants.

Storage -Storage near materials to be applied to plants (fertilizers, insecticides, fungicides) should be avoided. 2,4,5-T with 2,4-D-Butyl and ethyl esters

Active Constituents- 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid [2,4,5-T]; 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid [2,4-D].

Formulations Available- liquids: 20 per cent w/v 2,4,5-T present as the butyl ester; 20 per cent w/v 2,4-D present as the ethyl ester; and 40 per cent w/v 2,4,5-T present as the butyl ester; 40 per cent w/v 2,4-D present as the ethyl ester.

Trade Names- numerous.

Classification- translocated.

Use- Control of: some difficult to kill perennial weeds by overall spraying. mixed woody and broad-leaf weeds by overall spraying, woody plants by cut-stump or basal bark treatments, prickly pear, crofton weed:

Weeds controlled include african boxthorn, blackberry, blackthorn, broom, caltrop, camel-thorn, castoroil plant, groundsel-bush, lantanat, native raspberry, paddy’s lucerne, thistles, wattle, wild tobacco tree.

Woody plants controlled by cut-stump treatment include african boxthorn, groundsel-bush, wild tobacco.

Woody plants controlled by basal bark treatment include blackthorn, boxthorn.

Mixing Sprays- mixes with water or oil.

Application- Overall spraying: Rates- vary with kind of plant and the conditions, from 0.05 per cent 2,4,5-T with 0.05 per cent 2,4-D in water for untreated blackberry, to *0.2 per cent 2,4,5-T with 0.2 per cent 2,4-D in water for old, difficult to kill plants such as briars and regrowth of treated plants.

*see page T-2 1/68. tduring months of February, March, April. Timing- when plants are growing actively. Technique- overall or spot spray to wet leaves and stems thoroughly. Basal bark treatment: Rate- varies with kind of plant, from *0.5 per cent 2,4,5-T with 0.5 per cent 2,4-D in oil for boxthorn, briars, to *2 per cent 2,4,5-T with 2 per cent 2,4-D in oil for some eucalypts.

Timing- when plants are growing actively.

Technique- mixture is liberally painted or sprayed on bark all round base and for a distance of 12 to 18 inches up stem.

Frill ringing:

Rate- varies with kind of plant, from *1 per cent 2,4,5-T with 1 per cent 2,4-D in oil for large wattles, to *2 per cent 2,4,5-T with 2 per cent 2,4-D in oil for some eucalypts.

Timing- when plants are growing actively.

Technique- mixture is applied to freshly cut complete frill as close to ground level as possible (below 6 in.). Cut-stump treatment:

Rate- varies with kind of plant, from *0.5 per cent 2,4,5-T with 0.5 per cent 2,4-D in oil for wild tobacco tree, to *2 per cent 2,4,5-T with 2 per cent 2,4-D in oil for stumps of eucalypt suckers.

Timing- when trees are growing actively.

Technique- mixture is applied to freshly cut stumps of suckers which have been cut off as close to ground level as possible (below 6 in.). Prickly pear:

Rate- *1 per cent 2,4,5-T with 1 per cent 2,4-D in oil.

Technique- overall spraying to wet leaves and stems thoroughly. Crofton weed:

Rate-*0.2 per cent 2,4,5-T with 0.2 per cent 2,4-D in water.

Technique- overall spraying to wet leaves and stems thoroughly, particular attention being paid to the heart of the bushes. see page T-2 1/68.

Limitations- Some species of eucalypt are not controlled.

Application during periods in which sap flow is poor should be avoided.

Rain within 1 hour of application can reduce effectiveness of overall spray.

Disturbance of treated plants within 3 months of application should be avoided.

Other points- Non-corrosive. Volatile.

Caution- Operators:

Splashes of concentrate and spraying mixture should be washed from skin and eyes immediately.

At spraying strength, should not be a hazard to operators if hands and exposed skin are washed before meals and after work.

*A commercial preparation containing 20 per cent w/v 2,4,5-T with 20 per cent 2,4-D is diluted with water or oil as follows to obtain the spray mixture strengths listed: 0.05 per cent 2,4,5-T with 0.05 per cent 2,4-D- 1 part to 400 parts; 0.1 per cent 2,4,5-T with 0.1 per cent 2,4-D- 1 part to 200 parts; 0.2 per cent 2,4,5-T with 0.2 per cent 2,4-D- 1 part to 100 parts; 0.5 per cent 2,4,5-T with 0.5 per cent 2,4-D- 1 pan to 40 parts; 1 per cent 2,4,5-T with 1 per cent 2,4-D- 1 part to 20 parts; 2 per cent 2,4,5-T with 2 per cent 2,4-D- 1 part to 1 0 parts. A commercial preparation containing 40 per cent w/v 2,4,5-T with 40 per cent 2,4-D is diluted with water or oil as follows to obtain the spray mixture strengths listed: 0.5 per cent 2,4,5-T with 0.05 per cent 2,4-D-l part to 800 parts; 0.1 per cent 2,4,5-T with 0.1 per cent 2,4-D-l pan to 400 parts; 0.2 per cent 2,4,5-T with 0.2 per cent 2,4-D-l part to 200 parts; 0.5 per cent 2,4,5-T with 0.5 per cent 2,4-D- 1 part to 80 parts; 1 per cent 2,4,5-T with 1 per cent 2,4-D-l part to 40 parts; 2 per cent 2,4,5-T with 2 per cent 2,4-D- 1 part to 20 parts. Animals- Can be harmful to fish. Contamination of dams and water courses should be avoided.

Non-poisonous to livestock but they should be kept out of treated areas for at least 2 weeks if poisonous weeds such as variegated thistles, are present.

Non-target Plants- Spray, spray drift and vapour (fumes) can cause injury to most broad-leaf plants such as fruit trees, ornamentals, vines, vegetables, flowers, cotton, papaws, legumes.

Use near ornamentals should be avoided, not only because vapour (fumes) given off for up to several days after application can be blown onto them, but because their roots may spread to treated areas.

Equipment- Equipment used for mixing and spraying mixtures should not be used for spraying susceptible, desired plants.

Storage- Storage near materials to be applied to plants (fertilisers, insecticides, fungicides) should be avoided.

Senator KEEFFE:

– We should not be treating the use of this herbicide carelessly. So many dangers are involved with the types of herbicides being used in Australia, quite indiscriminately in many cases, that we may be placing the lives of adults in jeopardy. One paragraph in the article in the Melbourne Truth which I had incorporated in Hansard indicates that four or five people are now dying of cancer in one area. It is possibly because of the use of this herbicide that those lives are now being lost. In this International Year of the Child we are doing a very grave disservice to our children, born and unborn, if we run the risk of using this type of herbicide in settled areas and, as far as I am concerned, in any area at all.

Experienced farmers tell me that there is no need to use it. In fact, experienced farmers in the sugar cane growing areas are using other types of non-toxic herbicides or manual means to get rid of weeds and other pests rather than run the risk of using this very dangerous herbicide. I hope that the Government will take note of the facts I have presented. I hope that the State and Commonwealth Health Ministers will take note of them and I hope that in their deliberations this week or next week they will decide to ban 2,4,5-T, if not permanently, until such time as the whole case has been properly researched and examined. This would give Australians, particularly young Australians, an opportunity to live a healthy life. The death of unborn babies and the birth of babies with deformities quite easily could be attributed to this herbicide.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– Tonight I wish to refer to an article in the Adelaide Advertiser of 10 March, attributed to Senator Jessop and to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, Mr Fife, in relation to fuel price equalisation. To put the matter in its proper perspective, I quote from the April issue of the Rural Digest which is compiled by the shadow Minister for Primary Industry, Senator Walsh. Under the heading ‘Petrol Price “Equalisation”- A Dishonoured Promise’, Senator Walsh quotes the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) as saying in his policy speech last November:

Immediately after the election the Government will take action to equalise the price of petroleum products between city and country without adding to city prices . . . The scheme will bring country prices down initially to less than one cent a litre (4 cents a gallon) above city prices.

Senator Walsh went on to make quite a few other remarks in that news letter which he publishes every month. He talked about the areas where there would be no subsidy. I refer only to the areas in South Australia because they are pertinent to my remarks this evening. In South Australia, we find that towns like Murray Bridge, Mount Gambier, Port Pirie, Whyalla and Port Lincoln get no subsidy at all under this magnificent scheme brought in by this Government. But some subsidy is payable in cents per litre in South Australia. A country town like Kimba gets 0.2c per litre subsidy, Streaky Bay, 0.4c per litre, Leigh Creek, 0.8c per litre, and Oodnadatta, 1.5c per litre. Oodnadatta is the only place in South Australia getting the 4c a gallon subsidy. Of course outside the capital cities in South Australia the oil companies have about 10,000 pricing localities. At the local government meeting at Cowell earlier this month Senator Jessop must have been taken to task about the Government failing to honour its promise; otherwise, he would not have put out the Press statement that he did. I will refer to that later because it seems quite strange that both Senator Jessop and Mr Fife would make such a statement, in view of their actions during the 1973 referendum on price control.

On 23 August last year, Senator Wriedt, when speaking in reply to the Budget Speech, and as recorded at page 324 of the Senate Hansard, had this to say:

The increased costs flowing from the Government’s new petrol tax are quite enormous. I can remember Senator Withers in this chamber on 27 August 1975 saying that there would be an increased excise on petrol, which he said would add about 10 cents a gallon to the price of fuel. It is a wonder the Government did not take heed of Senator Withers’ warning. I am also surprised that, the Country Party has blithely accepted it. It will add $950’ a year to the costs of an average sugar farmer and over $1,200 a year to the costs of an average wheat grower. The higher fuel prices, together with the increased income tax and other charges, creates a severe cost disadvantage for all farmers. These are the people who produce 40 per cent of our exports and who are supposed to be more competitive as a result of this Budget.

On the same day, and as recorded at page 339 of the Senate Hansard, Senator Evans, when participating in the same debate, said:

Perhaps the largest single inflationary impact will come from the massive increase in petrol prices, the effect of which will very quickly be felt not only by the individual motorist, particularly the rural motorist but in the price of every transported product.

What might have been a rational and defensible increase if it had been phased in over a substantial period becomes quite irrational and indefensible- except to Esso-BHP, which stands to make a massive windfall gain by it- when it is introduced, as it was, overnight.

On 24 August, the next day, I posed a question regarding petrol pricing to Senator Carrick, as Minister representing the Treasurer. I said:

He will recall my question on 17 August about a difference of $4.1 m between the figure given in the Treasurer’s Budget Speech and that given in Budget Paper No. 4 in relation to funds allocated under the States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act 1965. Is it a fact, as is being claimed by some petroleum resellers, that the real increase in the petrol price will be 21c a gallon and not 16c a gallon as stated in the Treasurer’s Budget Speech?

So this is where we get the difference. Senator Carrick replied:

So that there can be no doubt about the precision of the answer, I will seek the information from the Treasurer and make it available to the honourable senator.

I conducted a search of my office tonight to see whether I had in fact been supplied with the answer but I could not find anything. I may be mistaken. I will have to conduct a further search later.

On 14 September 1978, when we were debating the Excise Amendment Bill in this chamber, I said:

There is a difference of 9c to 10c a litre in price between Adelaide and the country areas. We were led to believe that it was the Government’s policy not to have a difference of more than 2c a litre in fuel prices. That is not so. There is a difference of anything up to 40c a gallon. In answer to

Senator Georges the Minister said that the allocation of Australian crude oil is based on sales. All retail sales outlets are one-brand service stations. Yet in the metropolitan area of Adelaide super grade fuel can be bought at 16.2c a litre.

My colleague, Senator Elstob, interjected:

It is 15.9c a litre.

That is what he could buy petrol for in Adelaide. I then went on to point out that petrol prices were as high as 22c and 23c a litre in other places. Doing a quick calculation of those prices, we find that, when we were debating the Excise Amendment Bill on 14 September 1978, according to Senator Elstob petrol could be bought for as low at 15.9c per litre in Adelaide whilst the figure I saw on the pumps was 16.2c per litre. During this last week we have found that super grade petrol cannot be bought anywhere in Adelaide for less than 23.4c per litre. So the price has gone up by nearly 8c per litre. Multiplying that by 4Vi, that is an increase of about 33c or 34c a gallon since the Excise Amendment Bill went through this Parliament. This has added greatly to the costs of every consumer durable or commodity that the consumer in this country has to purchase.

This Government’s policy on petrol has caused no end of problems. The Government led the farmers and the people who dwell in country areas to believe that they would not be paying any more than 4c a gallon, at the outside, difference in the petrol prices. Those of us who live in the country know that there is an enormous difference between the petrol price that is paid in the country areas and that which is paid in the metropolitan areas. This is despite the fact that petrol companies, particularly those in Adelaide, have ceased to discount petrol and their prices have gone up, as I have said from September last year to last week by about 8c to 9c per litre.

Mr Wallis, the honourable member for Grey, who represents practically 90 per cent of the State of South Australia- he has an enormous electorate which goes right to the Western Australian border, coming down as far south as Peterborough, while going across to the New South Wales border and reaching the Northern Territory border- when speaking on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1978-79, referred to the fuel pricing subsidy. As recorded at page 2036 of the House of Representatives Hansard of 1 8 October 1 978, Mr Wallis had this to say:

A few months ago members of the Government were trumpeting around the country stating what a great benefit the fuel pricing subsidy would be. Under that scheme transport costs of fuel were subsidised. Despite all that trumpeting, the Budget reversed the whole process and increased the price considerably, which more than wiped out any benefit that was received as a result of the fuel subsidy.

Of course that is what the farming community is complaining about. This Government made great promises during the election campaign of 1975 and again in 1977 of what it would do to equalise petrol prices, but what has happened? We find that the Government did not even honour its promise regarding the difference in price being only 4c a gallon. It brought in world parity pricing and put up the price of petrol by an enormous amount. It did not tell the electors, particularly the people in the country, that that was what it was going to do at that time.

Again I quote from the Rural Digest edited by Senator Walsh. Under the heading, ‘Fuel Freight Subsidy Scheme Questioned by Government Backbencher’, Senator Walsh says:

An interesting submission to the Prices Justification Tribunal’s inquiry into the Shell company’s latest application for a price rise, was made on 3 1 January by the new Liberal Member for Barker, (SA), Mr Porter. While for the most part his submission appears to have been what is normally described as ‘grandstanding’, it did contain one comment which may ultimately prove embarrassing for the Government and Mr Porter.

Since Mr Porter’s life expectancy is probably greater than the Government’s (he is very young, and Barker is a very safe Liberal seat), his remarks may be worth repeating. He said: ‘. . . the Federal Government’s fuel freight subsidy seems to be absorbed by the pricing policy pursued by the applicant (i.e. Shell ) or the retailers ‘.

So again Senator Walsh is able to point out that in fact the consumers are not benefiting as they were promised in the Fraser Liberal Government’s policy speech prior to the last election. The most interesting thing in regard to this Press release that has been put out by Senator Jessop, a South Australian Liberal senator, is the following quotation from the Adelaide Advertiser. It is headed: ‘Minister queried on fuel prices’ and has as its date line Port Pirie, 10 March 1979. It reads:

The variation in fuel prices between metropolitan and country areas was raised recently with the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, Mr Fife.

SA Liberal Senator Jessop bought up the matter at the recent annual meeting of the Eyre Peninsula Local Government Association at Cowell.

Mr Fife replied that the Federal Government had taken steps to ease fuel costs to rural consumers with the petroleum freight subsidy scheme introduced in SA on 1 July last year.

The subsidy to SA this financial year had exceeded $1,188,000.

The next paragraph is most interesting and revealing:

One of the factors contributing to variations in fuel prices between the two areas is the fact that in peacetime the Commonwealth has no Constitutional power to control reseller profit margins, ‘ Mr Fife said.

There again we have conclusive proof that this Government has misled the electorate. There was in the Prime Minister’s policy speech nothing to warn the electors that the Government had no power to invoke his policy promise that petrol prices would be not more than 4c a gallon higher in country areas than it was in city areas in Australia. Mr Fife is now on record- I assume that he would be because this Press release is attributed to Senator Jessop and is reported in the Adelaide Advertiser- &s using the excuse that the Government cannot honour its promise because under the Constitution in peacetime it has not the power to control prices.

Let us consider the prices referendum that was conducted on 8 December 1973. 1 am indebted to one of the staff members of the Library who, at very short notice this evening, obtained from the Australian National Library some of the back issues of the Adelaide Advertiser. I was amazed to see in that newspaper on Thursday 6 December 1973, just two days before the referendums a full page advertisement which had been inserted by the Liberal and Country parties and which had been authorised by certain persons in Canberra. It prevailed upon the electors to vote No. Yet here we have Mr Fife using the excuse that the Government has not power under the Constitution to honour its election promise to equalise fuel prices. These were the very people who advocated the No vote. I refer honourable senators to an article, published in Politics, IX of May 1974, written by Joan Rydon, Reader in Political Science at the La Trobe University. On the subject of the prices referendum she said:

Generally the alignment of state and federal party leaders was clear as, e.g., in New South Wales where the Sydney Sun on the evening before the referendum had Wran, the leader of the Labor Opposition, putting his case for ‘Yes’ and Askin, the Liberal premier, that for No’

We all know that Mr Fife was a Minister in the Askin Government.

Senator Puplick:

– You should read the article that follows that.

Senator McLAREN:

– I do not need to read the article. I am quoting the statement that Mr Askin advocated a No vote on price control. Mr Fife was a Minister in that Government. Mr Fife now has the audacity to write to Senator Jessop- no doubt in an endeavour to get him off the hook because the Government had not honoured its promises on fuel equalisationstating that the Government has not the power under the Constitution to invoke price control. There we have another dishonest promise and a very weak and lame duck excuse by a Liberal senator in endeavouring to get himself off the hook on the west coast of South Australia. We well know that, prior to the last election, Senator

Jessop promised that the people of Streaky Bay, in the far west of the State, would have television before Christmas of last year. Of course they could not deliver the goods. The honourable senator then disowns the statement which was given to him by the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Staley). The honourable senator is on record in the Press as saving he disowns the statement. He was promised by the Minister that the people of this area would have television.

They do not have television yet and they are not likely to get it for a number of years. The only way the people will get television over thereand I am sure they all realise this- is to elect a Labor Government at the next election. We will do what we did for the people of Leigh Creek. We gave them television after many years of procrastination by a Liberal Government which made all the promises in the world. Nothing was done until Senator Douglas McClelland became Minister for the Media and set things in train. Everything was under way when we went out of office in 1975 to give the people of Leigh Creek television.

I wanted to raise this matter tonight because this is another illustration of what Government members will do, particularly back benchers with letters from their Ministers. They go out into country areas and try to persuade people that for some fallacious reason they cannot carry out election promises. The excuse that Mr Fife uses is on record in the Adelaide Advertiser. We have heard all sorts of excuses. We will hear many more before the next election. I think the electors of the country areas of Australia should be warned of the tactics that will be adopted by this Government. They should be warned about the promises that we have proved to be false over and over again in this chamber. The Government has no intention of carrying out these promises. It makes the false promises to encourage the electors to put it into office but then does not deliver the goods.

Senator COLSTON:
Queensland

-I will be brief tonight. I will be very brief because the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle), to whom I wish to direct some questions, is not in the chamber. On 8 March last I raised some matters in relation to social security. I had made it known that I wished to speak on a social security matter on 8 March which was the last day before we rose for the week’s recess. I was informed then that the Minister was not able to come into the chamber because of a prior arrangement. Nevertheless, I set forward what I thought were some points which needed to be brought before the chamber on the day before we were due to rise. I had hoped that during the recess some answers to the questions I posed on that day would be provided either to me or to the Senate. Unfortunately, as far as I can see, this did not happen.

I therefore said to my Whip tonight that I wished to raise on the adjournment a matter dealing with social security. I believe that this request has been passed on. Yet I still do not see the Minister for Social Security in the Chamber. There may be quite a valid reason. I have not been told why the Minister is not in this chamber. It is pointless for me to raise the matters which I wish to put before the Senate tonight if the responsible Minister is not in the chamber. I will therefore give notice that I will again attempt tomorrow night to raise the same matter that I wished to raise tonight. I hope that then the Minister will be in the chamber so that she may be able to give some answers to me and the Senate on the points that I raise.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I will ensure that the matters raised by Senator Keeffe are passed on for the attention of the Minister concerned. Senator Colston also wished to raise some matters tonight. Senator Guilfoyle is not able to be present in the chamber during the adjournment debate tonight. However, she has provided me with a short brief in relation to the telephone rental concessions for pensioners, which I think is the matter upon which Senator Colston spoke previously and upon which apparently she understood the honourable senator intended to speak upon tonight.

Senator Colston:

– I will speak on it tomorrow night.

Senator DURACK:

– If the honourable senator intends to talk on this matter tomorrow night I will leave it until then for the Minister for Social Security or the Minister in the Senate at that time to deal with. Senator McLaren spoke at some length on energy pricing policy and its effects on the community, particularly the farming community. The points raised by Senator McLaren deal with important matters of government policy which the Government believes are vital for the Australian economy. In particular the Government believes that all sections will benefit despite the increases which have occurred in the price of petrol and related products. The major problem facing Australia is one of self-sufficiency in energy, particularly crude oil supplies. It seems to me that Senator McLaren lost sight of the reasons for the Government’s policy in the remarks he made, dealing as he did with the short term aspects of the policy rather than the long term justifications for it.

When we came into government three years ago Australia was facing a very serious crisis because of the downturn in exploration for oil and gas, particularly in the three years of the Labor Government. We were facing the possibility that by the mid- 1 980s Australia would be only 30 per cent self-sufficient in crude oil. Now, largely as a result of the pricing policies of the Government and also because of the encouragement that has been given to exploration, the estimated selfsufficiency for Australia in the 1980s is 50 per cent. That is a very large increase. There has been a considerable increase in expenditure on exploration. That has been shown as I have indicated by the increase in self-sufficiency which has been projected. As a result of the incentives which have been provided to exploration, particularly by the pricing policy, I think we can confidently look forward to further increases in our reserves of oil and gas. These are absolutely vital to the future security of everyone in Australia and the well-being of our economy.

Senator Wriedt:

– Who knocked back our legislation?

Senator DURACK:

-We are talking about the pricing policy and its justification. It has obviously increased the price of oil. That was the object of the policy.

Senator McLaren:

– I was talking about equalisation.

Senator DURACK:

-The honourable senator was talking about the price of oil. I am giving the justification for the pricing policy. There are other aspects of the pricing policy such as the encouragement of a proper allocation and use of resources and conservation. The Government believes that the policy as a whole is fully justified. Senator McLaren said that he was complaining about the equalisation policy. That policy is designed to achieve a more adequate equalisation of prices between city and country. It is not a policy which in itself guarantees a particular price of petrol to anyone in the country. The Government is trying to achieve a greater degree of equalisation and fairness between prices paid in the city and in the country. To confuse that with the pricing of petrol generally is wrong. To say that prices have risen generally is no justification of the claim that the Government has repudiated that particular policy.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 11.15 p.m.

page 788

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

CSIRO Research Program Objectives 1978-79 (Question No. 1125)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Science and the Environment, upon notice, on 2 1 February 1979:

What was the total cost of production and printing of the document CSIRO Research Program Objectives 1978-79.

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

The cost of producing and printing 2500 copies of CSIRO Research Program Objectives 1978-79, in terms of material and direct labour costs excluding overheads, was:

Survey of Migrants Information Needs (Question No. 1128)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 2 1 February 1 979:

  1. 1 ) What was the ‘survey of migrants’ information needs’ mentioned on page 37 of The Courier-Mail, 9 December 1978.
  2. In which cities or areas was the survey conducted.
  3. 3 ) When did the survey take place.
  4. Which organisation or organisations conducted the survey and what was the cost to the Minister’s Department.
  5. Was any Commonwealth authority approached to carry out the survey; if so, what was the response; if not, why not.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The newspaper report refers to a recommendation of the Galbally Review of Migrant Services and Programs that an extensive survey should be commissioned to determine: the information most needed by migrants; the forms in which it is most accessible to them; what use they make of the media; and their attitudes towards different methods of receiving information.
  2. The survey is being conducted in all State capital cities and a number of other areas including Canberra, Newcastle, Queanbeyan, Geelong and Mildura.
  3. The survey is currently taking place. It began in November 1978 and it is now expected to be completed in June 1979.
  4. The survey is being conducted by an external consultant, W. D. Scott and Company Pty Ltd of North Sydney with the Australian Sales Research Bureau Pty Ltd of Melbourne as a sub-contractor. An amount of $150,000 recommended in the Galbally Report to cover the cost of the survey has been provided within the Department’s Estimates for 1978-79.
  5. No. The Galbally Report recommended the commissioning of a survey. On this basis it was considered that tenders should be called from outside consultants. The advice of the Australian Bureau of Statistics was sought at the outset on the way the survey might be conducted and the Bureau was involved in the selection of the consultants. The selection process was carried out in conformity with rules prescribed by the Public Service Board. The Bureau has continued to be represented on the Interdepartmental Steering Committee managing the project.

Steel-belted Radial Tyres (Question No. 1130)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 20 February 1979:

Has the Federal Government investigated alleged defects in certain steel-belted radial tyres, as suggested in the Sunday Mail 10 December 1978; if so, what has been the result of the investigations.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

The report in the Brisbane Sunday Mail of 10 December quoted the Queensland Minister for Transport (Mr Tomkins) as saying that he had asked the Australian Transport Advisory Council to examine the matter of faults in steel-belted radial tyres.

This was discussed at the most recent meeting of the Council in February and it was noted that the New South Wales Department of Motor Transport and the Commonwealth Office of Road Safety are now in the process of collecting any available information on the subject. Any action to be taken will depend on the outcome of those inquiries.

Ma Evans’s Hair Restorer (Question No. 1135)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 20 February 1979:

Has the Department of Health carried out any investigations in relation to the contents of ‘Ma Evans’ hair restorer’ and the claims made about the ‘restorer’ in the Courier Mail, 14 December 1978; if so, what are the results of the investigations.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

The Department of Health has not carried out any investigations in relation to the contents of ‘Ma Evans’ Hair Restorer’.

Commonwealth controls over new therapeutic substances are exercised under the relevant provisions of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations. Furthermore, no standard exists for hair restorers under the Commonwealth Therapeutic Goods Act and no such standard is likely to be developed for a compound herbal preparation such as ‘ Ma Evans ‘ Hair Restorer ‘.

Since this preparation has been manufactured locally any investigations into the contents and claims for the product are a matter for consideration by the relevant State health authority.

Non-Government Business Colleges (Question No. 1138)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 20 February 1979:

Has a standing committee been set up to approve courses in non-Government Business Colleges; if so: (a) who are on the committee; (b) what is their remuneration; and (c) what administrative assistance and staff have been provided for the committee.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

Membership and arrangements for the standing committee to approve courses for funding purposes, in nongovernment business colleges, have not been finalised. I will provide the honourable senator with this information as soon as it is available.

Brisbane Airport: Curfew Arrangements (Question No. 1141)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 20 February 1979:

  1. 1 ) What curfew arrangements prevail at Brisbane Airport.
  2. Was the curfew broken during the period from 1 December 1978 to 31 December 1978; if so, what are the details.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Scheduled operations by turbo-jet engined aircraft are not permitted at Brisbane Airport between the hours of 1 1 pm and 6 am local time.
  2. Some operations were allowed within the curfew during the period stated. The Minister for Transport granted 26 dispensations for turbo-jet engined aircraft operations because a strike by transport workers severely disrupted airline services throughout the country for some days commencing on IS December 1978. After consideration of the effects of the strike on many hundreds of passengers, the following dispensations were granted for operations at Brisbane: 15 December- 5; 17 December- 1; 18 December- 2; 19 December-3; 20 December-3; 21 December-4; 22 December- 8.

Apart from these dispensations no other turbo-jet engined aircraft operations occurred within the curfew during the period concerned.

Departure Tax (Question No. 1143)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 21 February 1979:

  1. How many times has the Minister left Australia since 24 October 1978.
  2. Did the Minister pay a Departure Tax on all such occasions; if not, why not.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. Twice.
  2. Yes. (Paid by the Department of Administrative Services.)

Departure Tax (Question No. 1145)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 21 February 1979:

  1. 1 ) How many times has the Minister left Australia since 24 October 1978.
  2. Did the Minister pay a Departure Tax on all such occasions; if not, why not.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Once.
  2. Yes.

Departure Tax (Question No. 1150)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 21 February 1979:

  1. 1 ) How many times has the Minister left Australia since 24 October 1978.
  2. Did the Minister pay a Departure Tax on all such occasions; if not, why not.
Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Foreign Minister has provided the following supplementary information:

The answer which appeared on page 480 of Hansard of 1 March 1979 was inaccurate. I regret the oversight involved which was unintentional. The correct answer to the honourable senator’s question is: -

1 ) Twice.

Yes.

Departure Tax (Question No. 1 156)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 20 February 1979:

How many times has the Minister left Australia since 24 October 1978.

Did the Minister pay a Departure Tax on all such occasions; if not, why not.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) One overseas visit in the nature of a private holiday has been taken since 24 October 1978.
  2. The departure tax was paid as required.

Departure Tax (Question No. 1157)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 2 1 February 1 979:

  1. 1) How many times has the Minister left Australia since 24 October 1978.
  2. Did the Minister pay a Departure Tax on all such occasions; if not, why not.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. Between 24 October 1978 and 2 1 February 1979, 1 departed Australia on one occasion.
  2. Departure Tax was paid with respect to that journey.

Departure Tax (Question No. 1159)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 21 February 1979:

  1. How many times has the Minister left Australia since 24 October 1978.
  2. Did the Minister pay a Departure Tax on all such occasions; if not, why not.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. Once.
  2. Departure Tax was paid in respect of this journey.

Departure Tax (Question No. 1160)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 2 1 February 1 979:

  1. 1 ) How many times has the Minister left Australia since 24 October 1978.
  2. Did the Minister pay a Departure Tax on all such occasions; if not, why not.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. Once.
  2. Yes.

Departure Tax (Question No. 1161)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Science and the Environment, upon notice, on 21 February 1979:

  1. 1 ) How many times has the Minister left Australia since 24 October 1978.
  2. Did the Minister pay a Departure Tax on all such occasions; if not, why not.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Two.
  2. Yes.

Rubella (Question No. 1170)

Senator Peter Baume:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 20 February 1979:

  1. 1 ) Has there been a drop in reported rubella activity in Australia similar to that which has occurred in the United States since 1969.
  2. What is the Australian experience in rubella vaccination and what problems remain to be overcome in eradicating this disease in Australia.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. There has been a drop in reported rubella activity in Australia, the number of notifications received over the past 10 years being:

1969-1,506; 1970-1,134; 1971-731; 1972-827; 1973-861; 1974-597; 1975-632; 1976-333;

1977-179; 1978-149 (unconfirmed).

These figures do not include New South Wales, Western Australia and Tasmania, were rubella is not notifiable. Approximately 80 per cent of the notifications were received from Victoria except for the years 1 969 and 1973 when approximately 63 per cent were from that State.

The decrease in numbers cannot be adequately explained and it must be accepted that a decline in notifications rather than a genuine decrease in the incidence of the disease itself may be a contributing factor.

  1. The policy concerning rubella immunisation in Australia differs from that being followed in the United States of America. In that country, infants are being immunised with the aim of totally eliminating the disease from the community. In Australia, the policy is to allow the disease to circulate in the community thereby allowing a natural immunity to develop in a significant proportion of the population.

Since foetal damage resulting from infection during pregnancy is the major problem with this disease, possible immune deficiencies in females approaching or in the years of reproduction are covered by offering immunisation using rubella vaccine.

It is considered that the immunisation campaign in the schools is progressing fairly satisfactorily with an estimated average 80 per cent to 85 per cent coverage being achieved. However, the testing of women in the early stages of pregnancy has indicated that approximately 10-15 per cent still have inadequate immunity, and it is considered that additional efforts are required to improve the immune status of women prior to their first pregnancies. This is being done in the various States and Territories with, in some areas, the assistance of the various organisations concerned with deafness which is a frequent result of foetal infection.

Meanwhile, the School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine has agreed to undertake prospective surveys in the community to assess the level of immunity and to monitor progress over the next few years. The National Health and Medical Research Council has recommended that the ‘congenital rubella syndrome’ replace ‘rubella’ on the list of recommended notifiable diseases.

The incidence of the syndrome could be used to assess the immune status of the adult female population and consequently the effectiveness of rubella immunisation programs.

Ministerial Meetings with Business Consultants (Question No. 1194)

Senator Walsh:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 20 February 1979:

  1. 1 ) On what dates since 1 0 December 1977 has the Minister or members of his personal staff met representatives from (a) Canberra Liaison Pty Ltd; (b) Cramb Tariff Services Pty Ltd; (c) Peter Cullen Pty Ltd; (d) Dunkley International Ltd; (e) Ronald C. Fisher Trade Consultants Pty Ltd; (0 Denis M. Gilmour and Associates Pty Ltd; (g) International Public Relations; (h) Macintosh, Parkes and Associates; (i) Eric Walsh Pty Ltd and (j) Eric White Associates.
  2. What organisations was each firm representing on each occasion.
  3. What was the name of each person present on each occasion.
  4. Where did each meeting take place and what was its duration.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The members of my personal staff and I are contacted from time to time by various representatives of public relations firms and lobbyists.
  2. Because of time involved and the cost to the taxpayer no record is kept of the name of the organisation, the name of the person, the venue and duration of the meeting.
  3. See (2) above.
  4. See (2) above.

Ministerial Meetings with Business Consultants (Question No. 1197)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 20 February 1979:

  1. 1) On what dates since 10 December 1977 has the Minister or members of his personal staff met representatives from: (a) Canberra Liaison Pty Ltd; (b) Cramb Tariff Services Pty Ltd; (c) Peter Cullen Pty Ltd; (d) Dunkley International Ltd; (e) Ronald C. Fisher Trade Consultants Pty Ltd; (f) Denis M. Gilmour and Associates Pty Ltd; (g) International Public Relations; (h) Macintosh, Parkes and Associates; (i) Eric Walsh Pty Ltd; and (j) Eric White Associates.
  2. What organisations was each firm representing on each occasion.
  3. What was the name of each person present on each occasion.
  4. Where did each meeting take place and what was its duration.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. to (4) I have met people from time to time who I understand were engaged in the business of public relations. If the honourable senator would be more specific I will be more specific in my reply.

Ministerial Meetings with Business Consultants (Question No. 1199)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister for Science and the Environment, upon notice, on 21 February 1979:

  1. 1) On what dates since 10 December 1977 has the Minister or members of his personal staff met representatives from: (a) Canberra Liaison Pty Ltd; (b) Cramb Tariff Services Pty Ltd; (c) Peter Cullen Pty Ltd; (d) Dunkley International Ltd; (e) Ronald C. Fisher Trade Consultants Pty Ltd; (0 Denis M. Gilmour and Associates Pty Ltd; (g) International Public Relations; (h) Macintosh, Parkes and Associates; (i) Eric Walsh Pty Ltd; and (j) Eric White Associates.
  2. What organisations was each firm representing on each occasion.
  3. What was the name of each person present on each occasion.
  4. Where did each meeting take place and what was its duration.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows: (1), (2), (3) and (4). The information sought by the honourable senator concerns matters which are confidential to those individuals or organisations who make representations to myself and my staff. It would therefore be quite inappropriate for me to disclose details of any meetings with members of the public.

Departmental Approaches by Lobbyists (Question No. 1208)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 21 February 1979:

What procedures exist within the Minister’s Department to record approaches made to staff by lobbyists. ,

Senator Durack:
LP

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

As a part of its normal day-to-day operations, my Department has many approaches from businessmen and organisations representing the interests of business groups. As a matter of routine, a record is made of all significant discussions.

Departmental Approaches by Lobbyists (Question No. 1229)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 2 1 February 1979:

What procedures exist within the Minister’s Department to record approaches made to staff by lobbyists.

Senator Durack:
LP

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

All approaches to theDepartment of Business and Consumer Affairs are treated on a case by case basis. All approaches involving any departmental action are recorded in relevant files.

No specific procedures exist within the Department to deal with approaches by lobbyists. Such approaches are treated in the same way as approaches from other individuals or organisations.

Departmental Approaches by Lobbyists (Question No. 1231)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 20 February 1979:

What procedures exist within the Minister’s Department to record approaches made to staff by lobbyists.

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

No formal procedures exist to record approaches made to staff by lobbyists. The normal practice followed is for the officer concerned to prepare a record of conversation for the subject file. Written submissions are requested on significant issues and the Minister is informed of such approaches.

Departmental Approaches by Lobbyists (Question No. 1232)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice, on 21 February 1979:

What procedures exist within the Minister’s Department to record approaches made to staff by lobbyists.

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

Many approaches affecting a variety of activities are made continuously to staff of theDepartment of the Capital Territory by citizens and representatives of organisations and no procedures exist to record specifically whether the approaches are made by lobbyists. In an individual case where a record of an approach is made it would be usual to note the name of the person making the approach if it is known and is relevant to the circumstances. This would apply whether the person making the approach is a lobbyist or not.

Departmental Approaches by Lobbyists (Question No. 1234)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister for Abor iginal Affairs, upon notice, on 2 1 February 1979:

What procedures exist within the Minister’sDepartment to record approaches made to staff by lobbyists.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

The standard practice when approaches are made by representatives of particular interest groups is for the officer concerned:

to make a file note recording details of the interview, its outcome and matters requiring action; and

as appropriate, to brief senior officers and/or Minister.

Dual Citizenship (Question No. 1239)

Senator Mulvihill:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 21 February 1979:

What is the membership of the working party which was established, following the Minister’s discussions with Yugoslav Ministers on 11 December 1978 (Commonwealth Record, 11-13 December 1978, pages 1716 to 1717), to examine aspects of dual citizenship.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

The working party to examine matters arising out of dual Australian/Yugoslav citizenship will involve senior representation from the Australian Embassy in Belgrade and representatives from the appropriate Yugoslav Ministries. The commencement of the review depends on action by the Yugoslav authorities.

Commonwealth Cars in Queensland (Question No. 1242)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 2 1 February 1 979:

  1. 1 ) How many Commonwealth cars in Queensland carry a Queensland number plate.
  2. To which Departments are such cars allocated.
  3. Do any of the Commonwealth cars with a Queensland number plate have some other identification which shows that they are Commonwealth vehicles.
  4. What Queensland registration fee is paid for Commonwealth cars which carry Queensland number plates.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 25 vehicles.
  2. Department of Administrative Services- 13; Department of Business and Consumer Affairs- 1 1; Department of Defence- 1.
  3. They do not have any other identification to indicate they are a Commonwealth vehicle. The Commonwealth plates are secured in a concealed position within the vehicle.
  4. No charge is made for Queensland State registration.

The use of State plates on Commonwealth vehicles is strictly controlled, and is confined to certain circumstances where there is a need for security and anonymity.

Domiciliary Nursing Care Benefit (Question No. 1244)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 20 February 1979:

Is a brochure available on the Domiciliary Nursing Care Benefit; if not, is it proposed to publish one in the near future.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

A pamphlet outlining the provisions relating to the domiciliary nursing care benefit has been in existence since the introduction of the benefit in 1973. The pamphlet is available from all offices of the Department of Health.

Aviation*. ‘Near Misses’ (Question No. 1245)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 20 February 1979:

Did: (a) a ‘jumbo’ jet narrowly avoid disaster when it took off from the runway at Melbourne Airport; (b) an Ansett Boeing 727 have to change course to avoid an RAAF ‘Hercules’; (c) a ‘Tri-Islander’ take evasive action because it was too close to another aircraft; (d) a near miss occur in July 1978 when a Boeing 747 delayed complying with descent instructions over Sydney; and (e) a Boeing 747 over Cowra have to take evasive action when a DC9 came too close to it, as reported in the Sunday Sun, 4 February 1979; if so, what are the details in each case.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. On 10 December 1976 a Boeing 747 aircraft operated by Singapore Airlines was involved in an air safety incident at Melbourne Airport when it over-ran the runway before becoming airborne on take-off. The aircraft was not damaged and continued its planned flight to Singapore. Details of the incident are contained in Aviation Safety Digest 104/78, a publication which is produced by my Department for safety education purposes.
  2. On 8 December 1978, the pilot of an Ansett Boeing 727 aircraft turned his aircraft to the left when he observed an RAAF Hercules ahead at about the same level on a reciprocal heading. The pilot of the Hercules observed the Boeing and also turned to the left. The Boeing was en-route from Perth to Adelaide and was climbing to flight level 330. The Hercules was cruising at flight level 220 but the responsible air traffic controller erroneously believed it to be cruising at flight level 200 and planned separation between the two aircraft on this basis.
  3. On 12 October 1978 the pilot of a Trilander aircraft approaching Mackay turned to the right to avoid a Cessna 182 aircraft which he observed ahead at about the same altitude on a reciprocal heading. The Trilander had been given a clearance to descend by a trainee air traffic controller at Townsville who did not consult his supervisor prior to issuing the clearance.
  4. An air safety incident involving a Qantas and a Pan American Boeing 747 aircraft occurred some 260 kilometres east of Sydney Airport on 21 July 1978. Following an air traffic control co-ordination breakdown the Qantas aircraft was given a clearance to descend through the level occupied by the Panam aircraft. The crew of the Qantas aircraft observed the Panam aircraft, which was flying in the opposite direction, and did not act on the clearance until the two aircraft had passed. There was no loss of separation between the aircraft.
  5. On 25 February 1978 a TAA DC9 aircraft en route from Melbourne to Brisbane and a British Airways Boeing 747 aircraft en route from Sydney to Perth passed in the vicinity of Cowra, New South Wales with less than the required standard of vertical separation. The Boeing 747 had been cleared to climb through the level of the DC9 but its rate of climb proved to be less than anticipated by air traffic control. When it became apparent that separation would not exist, the Boeing 747 was requested to make an expeditious descent to a lower level.

Aviation: ‘Near Misses’ (Question No. 1248)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 20 February 1979:

Was an investigation carried out into an incident involving an Army ‘Kiowa’ helicopter and a Trans-Australia Airlines DC9 jet in Townsville, as reported in the Townsville Daily Bulletin, 2 February 1979; if so; (a) what was the incident; and (b) what was the result of the investigation.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. An air safety incident has been reported to have occurred on 25 January 1979 when a TAA DC9 aircraft inbound to Townsville from Brisbane passed above an Army Kiowa’ helicopter with less than prescribed standard vertical separation some 8 kilometres south of Townsville Airport.
  2. b) The incident is being investigated by the Air Safety Investigation Branch of my Department and, as all air traffic in the Townsville area is controlled by RAAF air traffic control, the RAAF has been requested to investigate the ATC aspects of the incident. Investigation of the incident has not yet been completed.

University of Queensland: Medical Students (Question No. 1253)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 20 February 1979:

Did an article in the Brisbane Telegraph, 19 February 1979, report a claim by Professor Ralph Doherty that the University of Queensland ‘ might be forced to cut the number of medical students as a result of initiatives from the Tertiary Education Commission’; if so, has the Tertiary Education Commission made any suggestion to the University of Queensland that the number of medical students should be reduced.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

An article reporting the claim by Professor Doherty appeared in the Brisbane Telegraph of 9 February 1 979. The Tertiary Education Commission has not made any request of the University of Queensland to reduce its intake of medical students. In its Report for the 1979-8 1 Triennium, Volume 1 , the Commission considered that in the light of the current assessment of the supply of and demand for medical manpower it would be difficult to justify any expansion of medical education. The Commission went on to support the view that there should be no variation in the intake of students into medical schools during the 1979-81 Triennium.

Currency: Devaluation (Question No. 1258)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 21 Febuary 1979:

What was the total percentage devaluation of the Australian dollar between August 1976 and 20 February 1979?

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

Between August 1976 and 20 February 1979 the Australian dollar moved down against the trade-weighted index of currencies by 2 1.7 per cent

New South Wales Country Aerodromes (Question No. 1261)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 20 February 1979:

When was the terminal at each of the country aerodromes in New South Wales last painted?

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

Painting of terminal buildings at country Government aerodromes in New South Wales was last undertaken as follows:

Broken Hill- January 1978

Cons Harbour-October 1977

Tamworth- August 1978

Wagga-April 1977

Williamtown- March 1975.

Because the remaining country aerodromes are mainly owned and maintained by local authorities, no complete records concerning painting of terminals at these aerodromes are maintained by the Commonwealth Department ofTransport.

If the honourable senator has some particular location in mind perhaps relevant information could be obtained for him.

Deaths on Drilling Rig (Question No. 1275)

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 20 February 1979:

What role has the Minister’s department played in investigating the accidental death of two employees on the drilling rig ship, Esso Endeavour, off the Victorian coast.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

It is assumed that the question refers to an accident which occurred on board the self-propelled semi-submersible drilling rig Ocean Endeavour on 1 January 1979 in the course of on-site petroleum exploration.

Under current administrative arrangements such matters do not come within the administrative responsibility of my Department and accordingly it has not had a formal role in the investigation of the accident which was carried out by State authorities. However shortly after the accident officers of the Department visited the rig for other purposes and were informed of the circumstances of the accident.

Great Barrier Reef : Talks Between Prime Minister and Queensland Premier (Question No. 1285)

Senator Mason:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 20 February 1979:

  1. Has the Prime Minister, as reported in the Sunday Mail, 7 January 1979, requested talks with the Premier of Queensland, Mr Bjelke-Petersen, on the future of the Great Barrier Reef.
  2. When was such a request made, and what date was requested for such talks.
  3. Has Mr Bjelke-Petersen made any reply to the requests; if so, when, and what was the reply.
Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1), (2) and (3) On 19 December 1978 I wrote to the Premier of Queensland suggesting that Commonwealth and State officials meet to discuss appropriate arrangements for management of the Great Barrier Reef Region, in the context of the Premiers Conference agreements to extend the powers of the States into the 3-mile territorial sea.

The Premier agreed, in a letter dated 10 January 1979, that the discussions be held. The first meeting has already taken place; future meetings will be held as necessary.

Director-General of Social Services: Overseas Visit (Question No. 1301)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 2 1 February 1979:

  1. 1 ) What was the itinerary of the official visit made overseas by the Director-General of the Department of Social Security in January and February 1979.
  2. What was the purpose of the visit in each of the countries visited.
  3. Did he attend any of the medical reviews undertaken by the medical team in Athens.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

I am advised that:

During the period 15 January 1979 to 5 February 1979, the Director-General of the Department of Social Security visited the United States of America, Canada, Great Britain, Italy, Switzerland, Yugoslavia and Greece.

The purpose of this visit was to discuss matters of common administrative interest with officials of the countries referred to in (1) above, other than Switzerland and, in the latter country, the visit was to the

Department’s European office located at Geneva, where discussions were also held with the DirectorGeneral of the International Social Security Association.

No.

Tarcoola-Alice Springs Standard Rail Link (Question No. 1320)

Senator Kilgariff:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 21 February 1979:

  1. What is the present stage of construction of the Tarcoola-Alice Springs standard rail link.
  2. Has the Government decided to accelerate funding of the construction of the line; if so, what will be achieved by the increased injection of funds.
  3. Are any figures available relating to income from, and stock numbers already being carried on, the new line, in view of the fact that it has a commercial use up to the present point of construction.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) At the end of February 1 979 the railhead had reached Chandler siding, 453 km north of Tarcoola. Earthwork, bridge and culvert construction has reached the Northern Territory border, 563 km north of Tarcoola.
  2. In February the Government approved acceleration of construction of the new Tarcoola-Alice Springs line, which is now expected to be completed in November 1980, almost a year ahead of schedule.
  3. The first commercial consignment of freight was carried on the line on 26 January 1977. Since then limited freight has been carried, often attached to construction trains. Specific freight statistics for the line have been compiled only since 25 June 1978. Previously the figures were included in statistics for Tarcoola.

Goods and livestock carried between 25 June 1978 and 6 January 1979 was as follows:

Total ANRC revenue for the goods carried between 25 June 1978 and 6 January 1979 was as follows:

Aboriginal Legal Aid Service (Question No. 1384)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 25 February 1979:

Did an article in the Courier Mail, 3 February 1979, report the National Parry Member for Mount Isa in the Queensland Parliament, Mr A. Bertoni, as saying, amongst other things, that ‘The Aboriginal Legal Aid Service is a well-known leftwing organisation, heavily involved in polities’; if so, has the Minister found it necessary to check the accuracy of Mr Bertoni ‘s statement.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. No.

Food Poisoning (Question No. 1389)

Senator Chipp:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 28 February 1979:

  1. Did the Australian, 21 February 1979, contain a report regarding an alarmingly high amount of arsenic in prawns being sold throughout Australia.
  2. Were some corrective actions taken to upgrade the standard of food testing in Australia by strongly encouraging the registration of food testing laboratories with the National Association of Testing Authorities, following investigations of food poisoning that occurred some eighteen months ago when babies were fed baby formula contaminated with Salmonella.
  3. What progress has been made in the area of food testing registration.
  4. Will such progress minimise the occurrence of these distressing outbreaks.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes. The article referred to information provided by the Minister for Health in answer to a question from the Leader of the Opposition (House of Representatives Hansardof 20 February 1979, p. 1 1 1 , Question No. 27 16).
  2. Yes. Following the contamination of infant formula in 1977, discussions between the food industry, State and Federal authorities and the National Association of Testing Authorities (NATA) resulted in an expanded program of certification of laboratories engaged in quality control of food production.
  3. Prior to October 1977, 39 laboratories held NATA registration for chemical testing of foods and 26 for biological testing of foods. Since then, a further 1 1 laboratories have gained NATA registration for chemical testing and 9 for biological testing. In addition, another 13 chemical and 7 biological food testing laboratories are currently being assessed for registration.
  4. The risk of outbreaks will be reduced. Progress being made in the upgrading of quality control testing facilities available to the food industry will lessen the chance of contamination of foods and consequent food poisoning outbreaks.

World Wine Exposition

Senator Durack:
LP

– On 8 November 1978 Senator Coleman asked me as Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources the following question, without notice:

My question is directed to the Attorney-General in his capacity either as Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources or as Minister representing the Minister for Special Trade Representations. I am endeavouring to get some information in relation to the world wine exposition which I understand is to be held in Singapore in May of next year. I have received a number of complaints relating to the Australian Wine Board’s activities in this area in that it is proposing to wine producers that they should not participate in the exposition on the grounds that accommodation is not available, the sites are not up to standard, et cetera. I have received a further complaint that the Australian Trade Commissioner who is based in Singapore is reported to have said in public- I quote the words that were expressed to meThere is something wrong with the contract’. In view of the comment by the Minister for Primary Industry when he launched the world wine exposition that the exposition that is to be held in Singapore in 1979 deserves our commendation and in fact has been given our sponsorship, I ask: Has the Government checked the contract relating to the world wine exposition which is to be held in Singapore? If not, will it now do so? Providing that the contract is found to be in order, will the Minister make some public statement to the effect that it is in order in an endeavour to assuage the fears of Australian wine producers and perhaps encourage them to participate in a project which may assist in a substantial recovery of the Australian wine industry?

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

I have been informed that an Australian company, Expo of World Wines Pty Ltd, is arranging an international wine exhibition in Singapore from 8 to 19 May 1979, which is to be called ‘World Wine Expo’.

My Department has received from Expo of World Wines Pty Ltd a copy of a form of contract which it is understood intending exhibitors to the ‘World Wine Expo’ are asked to execute. The question of the terms upon which a company should participate in the exposition is one for the parties and the Government has not involved itself and does not propose to involve itself in this question.

I am advised that the suggestion that the Australian Trade Commissioner in Singapore has publicly commented on the contract is not correct.

National Acoustic Laboratories

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

-On 21 February 1979 (Hansard, page 86) Senator Primmer asked me a question without notice concerning the services provided by the National Acoustic Laboratories (NAL) to country areas of Victoria.

The Minister for Health has provided the following information on these services:

The reports being circulated concerning the suspension of NAL country visits are quite incorrect. The Department of Health, as with all other Departments, reviews its financial position midway through each financial year and, following the review, NAL services continued at their former level. For example, NAL visits are planned for two weeks every month to Geelong, for three days every month to Bendigo and for one week every two months to Warrnambool.

Because of the high demand for NAL services and the imposition of staff ceilings it has not been possible to meet every need as soon as the Government would wish throughout Australia. However, a Joint Management Review conducted by an outside consultant firm, the Public Service Board and a senior officer of the Depanment of Health has recently submitted its report. This is now being considered by the Depanment of Health and could lead to further improvement in the services provided.

Herbicide 2,4,5-T

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

-On 8 March 1979 Senator Mason asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Health, a question without notice (Hansard, pages 627-8) concerning the implications of the studies that were conducted by the Colorado State University and the Miami University’s School of Public Health into the use of Herbicide 2,4,5-T.

The Minister for Health has provided the following information:

The Government is aware of the results of studies prepared by the Epidemiologic Studies Program, Human Effects Monitoring Branch, Benefits and Field Studies Division- Office of Pesticide Program(OPP)- Office of Toxic Substances (OTS) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of the USA in which the Colarado State University and the Miami University’s School of Public Health took an active part. The report, published on 28 February, was received on 9 March from Washington.

I am not aware of a telex message from a Health Department spokesman in Brisbane expressing anger at the slowness of the National Health and Medical Research Council (NH & MRC) in obtaining facts of the Alsea incident. Any delay was due to the time taken in transit of the documents which were dispatched from Washington on 1 March.

Copies of the report were forwarded to individual members of the Pesticides and Agricultural Chemicals Subcommittee of NH & MRC and to members of the Special Working Party of Council, which considered this subject last year, on the same day it was received. In view of the extensive total documentation to be examined (some 3S0 pages), time must be allowed for adequate consideration of the facts presented and for assessment in relation to the considerable number of reports on 2,4,5-T which have previously been studied.

The Pesticides and Agricultural Chemicals Subcommittee of NH & MRC will meet on 21 and 22 March and the reconvened Special Working Party on 23 March. This agricultural chemical has been in use throughout the world for about 30 years and it has been subjected to numerous studies. I reiterate that considered judgment and not precipitate action is required.

I shall make a further statement to take any further action deemed necessary as soon as the NH & MRC has conveyed its advice.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 20 March 1979, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1979/19790320_senate_31_s80/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant