Senate
27 March 1979

31st Parliament · 1st Session



The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Condor Laucke) took the chair at 3.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 955

PETITIONS

Democratic and Parliamentary Processes

Senator ROBERTSON:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– On behalf of Senator Evans, I present the following petition from 14 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.

Citizen Initiative

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

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

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled should: initiate necessary action for a referendum to be held to amend the Constitution to provide for Citizen ‘s Initiative, on the following conditions:

If a specified percentage of the voters (for example 2 per cent) sign a petition asking that a referendum be held on a certain question, then the Federal Government would be obliged to hold that referendum, and the result would become law.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Compensation: Commonwealth Government Employees

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition from 276 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 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.

Petition received and read.

Indexation of Pensions

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 22 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 1 978-79 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 pov erty level to 30 per cent of average weekly earnings.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Compensation: Commonwealth Government Employees

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition from 206 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 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.

Petition received.

Democratic and Parliamentary Processes

Senator MELZER:

– I present the following petition from 9 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 inparticular.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Compensation: Commonwealth Government Employees

Senator McINTOSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 4 1 9 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 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.

Petition received and read.

Compensation: Commonwealth Government Employees

Senator COLEMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 588 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.

The Clerk:

– Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:

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 Walsh.

Petition received.

Abortion: Medical Benefits

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

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

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Senators Hamer and MacGibbon.

Petitions 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 adjustments 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, Button, Guilfoyle, Hamer and Missen.

Petitions received.

page 957

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 957

QUESTION

INFLATION

Senator MCAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– Does the Leader of the Government in the Senate realise that much of the resurgence of inflation is due to the Government’s own actions with regard to big increases in tobacco and alcohol duties and very big increases in petrol prices with more to come? Would not the cutting of sales taxes reduce the consumer price index?

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

– The answer to the second part of Senator McAuliffe’s question is yes. In fact the Government cut sales taxes very substantially in the last Budget, notably in the automotive industry where considerable stimulus has occurred. As to the reasons for the resurgence in inflation, they are many. One was an increase in food prices, particularly meat prices, in the last quarter. That was itemised by the Commonwealth Statistician. There is also, of course, the pressure of above-award wage claims on the economy. The fact is that the effect of the Government’s increasing customs and excise taxes on the CPI was evidenced both in the Budget and in the Commonwealth Statistician’s last report. They could be well taken care of and absorbed if the trends that the Government has been inducing over the past year were to continue. There is no reason to believe that because there was a worrying upsurge in food prices in recent months the downward trend of inflation should not continue in the future.

page 957

QUESTION

EXPORTS TO JAPAN

Senator SIM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Attorney-General. I refer to the misunderstandings that used to occur between Australian and Japanese businessmen due to a difference in the nature of contracts and in contract law in each country. This matter was referred to in the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence in 1973. Has the AustraliaJapan Law Foundation been successful in removing these misunderstandings, or most of them? If so, has the removal of misunderstandings facilitated recent negotiations between Australian mining companies and Japanese business interests?

Senator DURACK:
Attorney-General · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– The Australia- Japan Law Foundation, to which Senator Sim refers, was set up and is supported for precisely the reason that he mentioned; that is, the differences in the laws of the two countries. The very great trading association that we have with Japan, of course, calls for a study of these matters. I know that this

Foundation has done a good deal of work in relation to the matter. I have not got an up to date report from the Foundation, but in the light of Senator Sim’s question I will seek to obtain a report from it in relation to this question and ascertain whether I can make a statement on it to the Parliament.

page 957

QUESTION

INTEREST RATES

Senator GEORGES:

– I remind the Leader of the Government in the Senate of his prediction that interest rates would drop by 2 per cent. I ask him now: When does he expect to reach that target?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I hope that all honourable senators will have been very well pleased with what was a very significant downward turn of interest rates. I think that the long term bond rate has moved downwards by as much as about 1.5 percent.

Senator Georges:

– What about interest rates?

Senator CARRICK:

-As all but Senator Georges would know, that sets the pace for downward turns of interest rates in Australia. As distinct from what has occurred in Britain and America we have had a downward turn and this has been healthy. I do not intend to make predictions as to when particular goals should be achieved. All I can say is that if the Government ‘s policy is continued- and that is advocated by all responsible international and national authorities- interest rates will continue a downward turn.

page 957

QUESTION

PATERSON’S CURSE

Senator THOMAS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Science and the Environment. At the Australian Agricultural Council meeting in Christchurch, New Zealand, on 30 January this year, agreement was reached between State Ministers of Agriculture for the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation to release the insect species which is expected to control Paterson ‘s curse biologically. Representatives of rural organisations that support this action have expressed concern to me that because of representations from apiarists the insect may not be released. Can the Minister say whether the insect will be released; and, if so, where and when?

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

– It is only two months since the Australian Agricultural Council made its decision in relation to Paterson ‘s curse. I acknowledge that Senator Thomas has news of the Council’s meeting in Christchurch, New

Zealand. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation’s biological control unit in southern France has collected specimens of the insects concerned. It is necessary to rear them under quarantine conditions in a laboratory and to prepare them in a suitable form for dispatch. It is also necessary to send them to quarantine laboratories in the Division of Entomology in Canberra. Because of environmental and biological constraints under which CSIRO scientists must work, it would probably be towards the end of the year at the very earliest that we could expect importation of the organism into this country. Once under quarantine in Canberra, it will then be necessary to devise and carry through methods of mass rearing the insects and to make them available to State authorities for release. At the present time the CSIRO is proceeding along those lines. I understand that the Minister for Primary Industry proposes to ask State Ministers of Agriculture and Primary Industries to delay implementing the decision of the Australian Agricultural Council -

Senator Cavanagh:

- Mr President, I raise a point of order. Is not the Minister for Science offending against the provisions of Standing Order 406? He is reading this speech.

The PRESIDENT:

– The point of order is not upheld.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I am not sure whether I should not start again at the beginning. I was at the point of saying that -

Senator Georges:

- Mr President, I raise a point of order. We discussed this matter last week. It is obvious that this is another planned question to which the Minister is giving a long, deliberately planned answer which could be better given by leave of the Senate at the end of Question Time. Alternatively, the matter could be raised in the adjournment debate so that Opposition senators also could enter into the debate. The Minister is reading a very long statement in reply to a question which was supposed to be asked without notice. It is obvious that he had notice of the question and that the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation prepared for him a long statement on the matter. That is a misuse of Question Time and it offends against the purpose of Question Time.

The PRESIDENT:

– There is no substance to the point of order.

Senator WEBSTER:

-As a matter of fact, I had a note about this question. I fully expected that, if Opposition senators had any intelligence whatsoever, in the interests of the people whose votes they are apparently trying to win- that is, the members of the rural community- they would have some knowledge of the importance of Paterson ‘s curse.

Senator Keeffe:

– I take a point of order. I am at a loss to understand whether the Minister is speaking to the point of order or continuing his reply to the question.

The PRESIDENT:

– I did not sustain the point of order that was raised.

Senator WEBSTER:

-Picking up the thread of my reply, I understand that the Minister for Primary Industry proposes to ask State Ministers for Agriculture to delay implementing the decision of the Australian Agricultural Council. I understand that the Minister has been approached recently by the Federal Council of Australian Apiarists. Its concern that its industry may be affected should biological control of this weed be introduced is something which must be assessed along with the interests of all people in the rural community. I have had many letters both from primary producers who are affected by Paterson ‘s curse and from apiarists who feel that their industry will be affected in some way. When consideration of the matter has concluded, I may be able to give a more complete answer to the honourable senator’s question.

page 958

QUESTION

ELECTRICITY WORKERS IN NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Has the Leader of the Government in the Senate noted the statements circulated by some of his ministerial colleagues, particularly the Treasurer’s threat to withhold funds from New South Wales, concerning the decision of the New South Wales Government to offer a 37^-hour working week to electricity workers in New South Wales in return for increased productivity? Is the Minister aware that the decision of the New South Wales Government was made to overcome blackouts during the forthcoming winter and to facilitate the use of maintenance men on shift work, thus enabling the Electricity Commission of New South Wales to utilise the less costly of the power stations which feed into the grid? Will the Minister in his dual role as Leader of the Government in the Senate and as a senator for New South Wales insist on protecting and preserving the sovereign rights of the Government of that State, particularly its right to make its own decisions, and the fiscal rights and entitlements of the people of New South Wales? Will he lodge objection to the arrogant, capricious, uninformed and wanton statements of his ministerial colleagues?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-When listening to an earlier question I could not help thinking that the other name for Paterson’s curse was Calamity Jane; I was looking at the fields opposite. The answer to Senator Douglas McClelland ‘s question is that I have seen the statements of the Treasurer and, I think, others of my colleagues, regarding the proposal of Mr Wran. Honourable senators will realise that Mr Wran, when an advocate before the courts in this matter was unsuccessful and now is seeking to do by politics what he failed to do by persuasion in arbitration.

Senator Georges:

- Mr President, I raise a point of order. The Leader of the Government has cast a grave reflection on the Premier of New South Wales. I remind you that when from time to time I have offered comments about the Premier of Queensland I have been brought to order. I suggest that the Leader of the Government ought to withdraw the remark about the alleged incompetence of the Premier of New South Wales when he was an advocate before the courts.

The PRESIDENT:

– The matter of incom- petence can be raised by any member of the Pariament and by any Minister.

Senator CARRICK:

– I said simply that he was an unsuccessful advocate and, of course, that remark contains no offence at all. The fact is that all State governments have been asked to cooperate with the Commonwealth in increasing the campaign throughout Australia to reduce the rate of inflation so that employment can be restored. Any step taken which increases costs in this country puts people out of jobs; it is a pacesetting step towards disemployment. It is not for the Commonwealth to be a partner to an action by a State to increase the rate of inflation and the level of unemployment and to take a pace-setting step towards causing more inflation in Australia. Naturally the Commonwealth will tell the people of Australia what are the consequences of the action of the Premier of New South Wales.

page 959

QUESTION

AID TO VIETNAM

Senator ROCHER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, will be suitably brief but I do hope that I will get the fullest possible answer from him. Were any Australian aid projects in the Democratic Republic of Vietnam damaged or destroyed by the invading, occupying or withdrawing armed forces of the Chinese People ‘s Liberation Army?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– My advice is that the experts associated with the two Australian aid projects in Vietnam- the Moc Chau dairy products factory and the Thai Binh livestock development project- were withdrawn in early February following the suspension of the aid program. Australia therefore no longer has direct links with the projects. We have not received reports as to their current status. The honourable senator may be interested to know that the Thai Binh state farm is approximately 160 kilometres north-east of Hanoi and 80 kilometres south of the Chinese border in the mountainous zone of Quang Ningh Province. The Moc Chau dairy products factory site is some 200 kilometres west of Hanoi and 13 kilometres from the Laotian border. We have had no reports of fighting in those areas and therefore no reports of possible damage.

page 959

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH PARLIAMENT OFFICES, ADELAIDE

Senator ELSTOB:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services. It also concerns the Minister for Housing and Construction. On 1 6 January 1979 the Minister for Administrative Services advised members and senators from South Australia by letter that the Commonwealth Parliament Offices were to be relocated at 13 Grenfell Street, Adelaide, in about May of this year. In the Adelaide Mail of last weekend it was stated that the Government was now planning to erect a building in Pirie Street- Gawler Place, Adelaide, which building would include a full Cabinet room and office accommodation for South Australian members of parliament. Is it still the Minister’s intention to relocate the South Australian Commonwealth Parliament Offices in Grenfell Street? If so, is that a temporary measure until the new building is completed, if in fact a new building is to be erected in Pirie Street? If the building mentioned in the newspaper is to be erected, when will it be commenced and when is it likely to be completed?

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

– Members of the Opposition no doubt will be relieved to know that that is a question very much without notice and I am therefore unable to give a long, detailed and boring reply which would enable the Senate to have an answer to it. I am sure the Minister for Administrative Services could answer the honourable senator’s question. I will pass on to him the various inquiries that the honourable senator has made. I might say that the subject matter of this question has been the exclusive preserve to date of Senator Bishop. The honourable senator may find that he has a demarcation dispute on his hands.

page 960

QUESTION

AQUARIUM FISH

Senator TEAGUE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Science and the Environment. It concerns the importation of aquarium fish. Is it correct that the Australian Fisheries Council has received from a small committee of public servants a report proposing that new and major restrictions be imposed on the importation of aquarium fish, with a reduction of the present list of 600 fish species to permit only 100 species to be legally imported? Is it correct that this would demolish half of the $20Om aquarium fish importing industry in Australia and yet at no stage has the industry been consulted? Can the Minister assure the Senate that the restrictions will not in fact be implemented by the Government and that before any new arrangements are considered by the Government the industry’s representatives will be fully consulted?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-The Commonwealth Government is concerned about the possible environmental risks associated with the importation of aquarium fish, particularly fresh Water species. There are also risks relating to human health, which of course are the responsibility of the Minister for Health. On 1 December 1976 the then Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, Mr Newman, accepted the responsibility for advising the Commonwealth Government on matters relating to aquarium fish. I take it that it is aquarium fish to which the honourable senator’s question refers.

Currently over 640 species of fresh water aquarium fish are permitted entry into Australia. The identification of all these fish at airports of entry is a very major problem. The task is impossible under present conditions. The Australian Fisheries Council at its meeting on 10 November 1978 considered the matter and submitted to the Minister for Primary Industry a list of approximately 100 species of fresh water fish that it recommended could be permitted entry into the country. The list was compiled by the Council’s advisory committee on imports and exports of live fish. The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, with whom the responsibility lies for implementation of import restrictions has yet to consider that recommendation. There are very great difficulties in deciding this matter. For instance, I understand from identifications at airports that at present fish such as piranhas, fresh water moray eels and walking catfish- which would be of interest to you, Mr President- have all been illegally imported. Of course, any escape of these fish into the fresh water environment would be a very major problem because these fish would harm our fresh water species in many areas. There is also a risk of many diseases being conveyed to fresh water fish and indeed to humans should this occur.

The question is whether there is an industry to be harmed. The honourable senator suggested that the importation of aquarium fish is an industry that earns up to some $200m in Australia. Certainly, in letters that have come to me, it has been suggested that that is its magnitude. The matter is of great importance and ranges over a number of portfolios. I will have the matter referred to the Minister for Primary Industry and attempt to obtain a more comprehensive response.

Senator TEAGUE:

-Mr President, I have a supplementary question.

The PRESIDENT:

– The subject of the supplementary question must be directly relevant to the question the honourable senator asked originally.

Senator TEAGUE:

– Will the industry be consulted directly before the Government makes any alteration to the present restrictions?

Senator WEBSTER:

– I understood that representations were made by one of the fresh water aquarium fish associations in 1976 in early discussions on the limitation on imports. I will put that proposition to the Minister. I am sure that he will give it consideration.

page 960

QUESTION

LOBBYING BY FORMER PARLIAMENTARIANS

Senator WALSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government. I ask whether there is any regulation or convention which would inhibit or preclude a former Chairman of the parliamentary Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on his retirement from Parliament from accepting a job lobbying on behalf of an armaments manufacturer Government and departmental contacts he established as Committee Chairman. Is it correct that former Senator Cormack is now a lobbyist for the French aviation group OFEMA, the maker of the Mirage 2000 aircraft?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I am not aware that there is any restriction on any persons including farmers, who may retire prematurely or otherwise from this Senate- devoutly to be desired in some cases- lobbying in their own self-interests.

Senator Georges:

– Not relevant.

Senator CARRICK:

– No, he is not relevant. I agree with Senator Georges that the most irrelevant person -

Senator Georges:

– You are not answering the question.

Senator CARRICK:

-I have been asked whether in fact a retired Chairman of the parliamentary Joint Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee is debarred by any convention or regulation from taking up particular enterprises outside this Parliament. I have said there is no disbarment of which I know of any ex-member of Parliament from pursuing any interests, including special interests that might be in particular industries that relate to the Labor Party. Senator Walsh has referred to a very distinguished ex-President and ex-senator of this chamber. I have no doubt in the world that whatever Sir Magnus Cormack is doing today will be honourable and ethical.

page 961

QUESTION

CHILD MINDING FACILITIES AT FAMILY COURT

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– I ask the AttorneyGeneral whether he recalls my asking him approximately a month ago a question in relation to the provision of child minding facilities at the Family Court in Brisbane. Does he recall my asking him on what grounds those child minding facilities were closed and asking questions relating to the detailing of hardship that this might have imposed? Does he also recall my asking him whether the area which had been previously used for child minding was now being used for staff recreation purposes? Does he recall indicating that he would quickly seek an answer to give to me? When can I expect an answer to that question?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I did make inquiries in relation to the matter and I mentioned the result of them to Senator Martin. I will ensure that that is put in writing and is provided to her as soon as possible.

page 961

QUESTION

DOMESTIC AIR FARES

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. I revert to the question of add-on fares, that is, the lowering of domestic fares in the same way as excursion international fares have been set by the Minister. Of course, the Minister will be making a statement today about the Association of South East Asian Nations and progress which has been reported in other areas. I ask the Minister whether he is aware that in his own State of Western Australia the Western Australian Minister for Tourism yesterday said that Western Australians have lost three-quarters of a million dollars in cancelled air fares because no lower domestic air fares have been announced in connection with the lower excursion fares. It is now two months since deputations from Western Australia and South Australia met the Minister- I was on a deputation- and asked the Minister to announce as soon as he could lower add-on fares. While we understand that the matter has been discussed by the domestic air lines and by Qantas Airways Ltd, as yet no statement on lower air fares has been announced. When is the Government likely to announce what is a necessary alteration to domestic fares commensurate with the new negotiations which have taken place? I hope that the Minister will be able to announce in the Senate soon what should be the necessary reductions in the States I have mentioned in particular because, as the Minister knows in respect of his own State, these delays are imposing great restrictions on the tourist industries within Western Australia and South Australia.

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I share the hope expressed by Senator Bishop that I might shortly be able to make the announcement that he seeks. Senator Bishop has asked a number of questions about this matter over a period of months. The Senate is aware of the great interest that has been shown by a number of State politicians and, indeed, by the travelling public in his own State and in Western Australia. I have no information beyond that which I gave to the Senate within the last two weeks: that discussions were proceeding and the Minister for Transport hoped there would be an early announcement. I shall check the position with him again and I hope to give a more definitive reply.

page 961

QUESTION

VETERANS’ PENSIONS

Senator WATSON:
TASMANIA

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs aware that the rates of dependants’ pensions paid by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs have not been increased since 1964? Can the Minister give an explanation as to why this is so? Can he give an assurance that these rates will be reviewed in the context of the Budget this year?

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

– I will need to refer that question to the Minister for Veterans ‘ Affairs to seek the information. As the honourable senator will understand, ail matters of Budget expenditure are reviewed at Budget time. However, I will seek more specific information on this matter for him.

page 961

QUESTION

OIL PRICES

Senator TATE:
TASMANIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and the Minister for

Business and Consumer Affairs. Did the national Government request certain oil companies to play down the seriousness of Australia’s oil supply and cost problems resulting from the crisis in Iran, thus misleading the Australian public? Did certain oil companies respond to this request by giving undertakings to the Government to avoid public panic by understating the crisis? Subsequently, have certain companies claimed that this has inhibited their applications to the Prices Justification Tribunal? Has the national Government now agreed to forward a case to the PJT on behalf of these private corporations? Finally and most importantly, was the agreement of the Government to go to the PJT part of the original arrangement for the oil companies not to present the true picture to the Australian public? If not, why does the Government feel obliged to lend its weight to the oil price rise application?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I will refer that question to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs.

page 962

QUESTION

ASSISTANCE TO LONE FATHERS

Senator GRIMES:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-I ask the Minister for Social Security: Does the Commonwealth Government contribute 50 per cent of the cost of assistance given by the States to lone fathers in the first six months of their being lone fathers, as it does in the case of lone mothers? If not, why not, and does the Government intend to change the situation?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– As I understand the position, it is the States that do not contribute the 50 per cent to lone fathers in the first six months. I understand that when the introduction of the supporting parent’s benefit was undertaken by the Government there was difficulty in some States. I will need to check the up-to-date position in that regard. I am not sure that at the time of the introduction of the supporting parent’s pension the States participated in regard to lone fathers in the same way as they do in the first six months in regard to other pensions.

Senator GRIMES:

-Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question. Am I to infer from the Minister’s answer that those States that support lone fathers for the first six months are doing so at the cost of the Federal Government and are not contributing anything themselves? If the Minister is saying that, I believe that she is mistaken and should check the situation.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I think that we may be at cross purposes. At the time of the introduction of the supporting parent’s pension there was difficulty in regard to some States participating in the new arrangements in the same way as they participate in relation to other pensions. I am not sure of the up-to-date position. I think that Senator Grimes is now referring to the fact that for the first six months some States are making different arrangements. I will have to check the up-to-date position in all the States.

page 962

QUESTION

ACADEMY OF SCIENCE

Senator DAVIDSON:

-Has the Minister for Science and the Environment noted that in an address yesterday to the Australian Academy of Science in Canberra His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales drew attention to what he understood was the absence of an oceanographer in the Academy fellowship? Can the Minister indicate whether or not that is the situation? Can he give me some progress information on the Division of Oceanography working at Flinders University in South Australia within the School of Earth Sciences? Can the Minister indicate why no oceanographer is related to the Academy and whether any possibility exists for that situation to be remedied, especially in view of the fact that Australia is surrounded by what His Royal Highness called ‘ such rich marine resources ‘?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I had the good fortune to be present yesterday when the Prince made his comments. I heard no remark in dissent to his comment that no oceanographer was a member of the Australian Academy of Science. The Australian Academy of Science is an independent body. It is certainly not for any Minister or for this Government to direct its course of action or to suggest who should be members of the Academy. I know that the honourable senator’s interest stems from his interest in Flinders University where, I understand, there is quite a deal of competence and knowledge in the area of oceanography and marine science. Of course, such expertise is held in a number of areas in Australia. I am unable to say why certain ocean.ographers or marine scientists are not members of the Academy.

I believe that far greater attention needs to be paid to research in Australian waters, particularly as we proceed to declare a 200-mile economic zone. Over many years- I think it would be more than 10 years- the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation has put forward the proposition that oceanographic vessels should be available to it. I know of the competence that the CSIRO has in the areas of fisheries and oceanography from my knowledge of its Cronulla establishment. However, in recent years it has been possible for Australia to play a more prominent role in oceanographic research. We have had the opportunity to lease the Sprightly, the Courageous and a number of other vessels, which has contributed greatly to our knowledge of the conditions of oceans in this pan of the world. However, there is much to be done. I can only say that the honourable senator has asked a very intelligent question and in doing so has prompted the Government to act in this direction at this time.

page 963

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH MOTOR VEHICLES

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services and refers, as I have referred on previous occasions, to the absence of air-conditioning in Commonwealth motor vehicles and to the resultant discomfort suffered by both passengers and drivers who spend long hours in the vehicles, particularly in warm climates. I ask: Is it true that of all the vehicles in the Commonwealth fleet throughout Australia, approximately only 10 per cent are airconditioned? Am I also correct in understanding that those vehicles which do enjoy airconditioning are all Ministers’ cars? Is the Minister aware that ordinary Commonwealth vehicles are used to transport repatriation and other hospital patients? Does he believe that it is indeed an injustice that patients must suffer this extra discomfort during the hot summer months? Does the Minister agree that the inclusion of airconditioners in newly-acquired vehicles would substantially increase their resale value on replacement? If so, why is it that he or his predecessors have repeatedly rejected requests from the Transport Workers Union of Australia for air-conditioners to be installed in motor vehicles on the ground that comfort has to be considered against cost? In the interests of public health and safety, when will the Minister authorise the installation of air-conditioning in all Commonwealth vehicles?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

- Senator Missen has shown a very consistent interest in airconditioning in cars. He has been joined by Senator Melzer, who is now taking an interest in this area. I must say, in an attempt to be brief, that the answer to the first pan of the honourable senator’s question is no, it is not true that 10 per cent of the Commonwealth’s vehicles are airconditioned; the percentage is substantially smaller than that. We have more than 4,000 cars and station wagons. Only 157 of those are passenger cars which are air-conditioned. That is a very small proportion. It is true that those vehicles are reserved for Ministers and others who are termed ‘VIPs’. What the definition of that term is I am not sure. When those vehicles are not required by Ministers they are used for ordinary pool work, including the son of work to which Senator Missen referred, namely, the transport of repatriation patients. I understand that four air-conditioned ambulances are available for repatriation patients.

I am advised that if all the cars and station wagons in the Department’s passenger fleet were to be purchased with air-conditioning the initial capital cost would be over $2m, recurring on relacement and there would be increased maintenance and fuel costs. I would have thought that Senator Missen, with his long interest in conservation and environment, would be interested in taking into account the additional fuel costs involved with air-conditioning. A problem also arises in that substantial fleets are operated by semi-government bodies. The commissions and so on have in excess of 20,000 vehicles in their fleets. So the total costs would be very substantial.

In the context of last year’s Budget deliberations the Government decided that it was unable to liberalise the existing policy on airconditioning. It is true that there are areas in which considerable stress is cause by heat. I would have thought that those areas were well away from Victoria. I know that in the past Senator Missen has referred to the problem in Queensland. The Government realises that the problem has to be kept under review, particularly in relation to those areas.

page 963

QUESTION

WHEAT PAYMENTS

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question, which I direct to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, relates to the Government’s decision to force the Australian Wheat Board to fund portion of the first advance payments to wheat growers with trading bank bills and Mr Sinclair’s guarantee that the interest rate to the Board would not be above the Reserve Bank’s rate. First, how will the gap of about 2 per cent be bridged? Will it require special legislation and, if so, when will the legislation be introduced? Secondly, since the Government has decided to subsidise wheat growers., who are now the most prosperous group of Australian farmers, how does it justify the Prime Minister’s assertion that farmers can easily afford the $170m that the 1978-79 Budget will add to all farmers ‘ fuel bills this financial year?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I cannot answer the honourable senator’s question in two or three words. I fear it may be as well for the honourable senator to put his question on notice. If the Senate would like an answer I certainly could refer to Mr Sinclair’s comments on this matter. The honourable senator may be aware of the comments made by Mr Sinclair at a seminar entitled ‘Wheat and its Future’ held at the Moree Services Club at 12.30 p.m. on Friday, 16 March 1979. If the honourable senator read that response he would obtain the facts that he seeks.

page 964

QUESTION

DISALLOWED QUESTION

Senator MacGibbon having addressed a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The question is out of order. Questions must be within the responsibility of Ministers.

page 964

QUESTION

VIP AIRCRAFT

Senator EVANS:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Finance. What payments have been made or expenditure authorised from the Advance to the Minister for Finance this financial year in respect of the purchase and refitting of two Boeing 707 aircraft for executive use? When were such payments made or expenditure authorised? Why was it not possible for this expenditure to be specifically appropriated in Appropriation Bills (No. 1) and (No. 2)? Why has it not been the subject of a special Appropriation Bill? Finally, how did such expenditure from the Advance satisfy the criteria which have been variously laid down for such expenditure, namely, that it be authorised only in urgent and special circumstances or that it be unforeseen or unforeseeable?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I have information from the Minister for Finance and I will endeavour to deal with all the questions that were raised. As I understand it, the first question asked what payments had been made or what expenditure had been authorised. If we were to go to the other parts of the question, I might be able to come back to answer the first part. Senator Evans asked why it was not possible for these payments to be included in Appropriation Bills (No. 1 ) and (No. 2). They are matters that are dealt with in the Advance to the Minister for Finance. This is in accordance with established practice, having regard to the fact that the use of the rule governing the Advance to the Minister for Finance is that, where the expenditure is not known at the time of the Budget, it is a proper use of the Advance to the Minister for Finance for payments of this kind to be made.

With regard to the expenditure, as I understand it, at the moment no payments have been made, but under the purchase arrangements an amount of $10,200,610 is due to be paid on 30 March. The funds have been provided from the Advance to the Minister for Finance under Appropriation Act (No. I). I think the question related also to the use of the Advance to the Minister for Finance only for urgent, special or unforeseen circumstances. The wording of the Advance appropriations, which has remained unaltered for years without question in Parliament, does not include any such requirement as was specified by Senator Evans. Therefore, the Parliament has made no such requirement of the Government. However, as a matter of practice, the Advances are controlled in this way; that is, matters which are unforeseen and urgent are paid for from the Advance to the Minister for Finance. The payments are urgent because for valid commercial reasons Qantas Airways Ltd requires settlement by 30 March 1979. They were unforeseen as to amount at the time of the preparation of the Budget. I am ‘not sure whether there are any more unanswered parts of the question, but if there are Senator Evans could redirect them to me.

Senator EVANS:

– I would be pleased to do so in a supplementary question. I asked why this payment had not been made, if not in Appropriation Bills (No. 1) and (No. 2), then as the subject of a special Appropriation Bill to enable this Parliament to debate the matter before the expenditure was in fact incurred.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– The Advance to the Minister for Finance deals with matters of this kind and, as I understand it, Appropriation Bill (No. 3), which will be the Bill from which this expenditure will be paid, will be introduced late next week. As I understand it, payment before 30 March was required by Qantas for its own financial reasons and the payment from the Advance to the Minister for Finance is the way in which it is able to be done. The answer to the question as to debate before expenditure is perhaps best stated by saying that the Government’s intentions were well known to honourable senators. Reasons exist for making the payments now rather than in two or three months’ time. Parliament will be able to debate the merits of the Government’s actions during its consideration of the Additional Estimates. That will take place in this session of Parliament. If we were to hold back the payments, I understand, there would be some difficulty for Qantas in its own financial arrangements.

page 965

QUESTION

INVALID PENSIONERS: AIR-CONDITIONING OF PREMISES

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

– I preface my question, which is directed to the Minister for Social Security, by saying that no doubt the Minister is aware that in this nation there are many invalid pensioners whose condition is a result of their being chronic asthmatics, that the more seriously ill of these pensioners are required on medical advice to install air-conditioning units in their homes so as to ease their condition and improve their quality of life, and that such air-conditioners are required to operate non-stop, thereby resulting in increased power charges which are causing financial hardship to these people. Therefore, I ask the Minister whether there is any provision which would provide financial assistance in these cases. If not, will the Minister look into the question of providing such assistance, thereby alleviating the full emotional discomfort of financial worries?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

-I am not aware of any provision which could provide financial assistance through the Department of Health on this matter. I will see that my Department considers what the consequences of such a provision would be. I will also refer the question to the Minister for Health for his consideration.

page 965

QUESTION

TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE

Senator HARRADINE:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, because of the effect of technological developments on future employment prospects; or it may be directed more appropriately to the Minister for Science and the Environment, who is responsible for preparing us for future shocks, technologically speaking. In what year is it expected a computer will become chess champion of the world, with all that that implies?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-I doubt whether the question is seriously directed to me. Senator Harradine suggested that it might be more appropriate for another Minister to answer it. I will consider to which Minister it should be directed.

page 965

QUESTION

ROXBY DOWNS MINERAL DEPOSITS

Senator MESSNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for National Development. Because of the opposition of the South Australian Labor Government to uranium mining, is it likely that the world’s largest copper-uranium deposit at Roxby Downs will not be developed, especially in the light of last Wednesday’s announcement of the discovery of high grade copper at

Benambra in Victoria by Western Mining Corporation Ltd? If so, would this be a bitter blow to South Australia’s hopes for industrial development, the blame for which could be laid solely at the door of the Australian Labor Party’s uranium policy?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– A number of questions have been asked in the Senate about the South Australian Government’s policy in regard to Roxby Downs. It is unfortunately a fact that that policy, which does not approve of uranium mining, is being continued. It certainly appears that the policy will affect and even prevent the development of this major ore deposit at Roxby Downs. I will refer this question to the Minister for National Development for a more detailed answer.

page 965

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY RADIO PROGRAMS

Senator ROBERTSON:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. Following the recent visit of the Minister for Post and Telecommunications to the Northern Territory, can some indication be given to the Senate of plans that the Government may have to bring radio programs- in the words of the Speaker of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly- ‘to those 30,000 outback Territorians who presently cannot receive local news or weather or the programs specifically designed for them’?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I did not hear all of the question asked by Senator Robertson. From what I heard, I think that it is a question which I should refer to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications for a detailed reply. I will do that and obtain a reply for the honourable senator as soon as possible.

page 965

QUESTION

CONSUMER PROTECTION

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. In view of the statement in the Bulletin of 27 March 1979 that the Trade Practices Act provides that ‘when consumers buy goods that are defective, wrongly described, or unfit for use, they can seek recourse against either the seller or the manufacturer’, is it a fact that in these circumstances a manufacturer would have to pay freight on the returned goods and could, as the article suggested, be liable for a taxi fare from Darwin to Melbourne? Is it correct that there is no protection for the manufacturer against the apparent lack of provision for the consumer to pack reasonably the goods returned? Is it correct that the consumer may take action against the manufacturer up to three years after discovering the alleged fault and does not have to supply proof that the damage was not caused by incorrect or careless use? If these possibilities do exist in the Act, are steps being taken to revise these loosely denned areas?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-I am not aware of the actual publication to which Senator Archer refers. It appears that the matter may call for some legal consideration and legal opinion, which I would not wish to give without considering it further. Any amendments to the Trade Practices Act certainly come within the province of the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. I will pass the question on to the Minister and endeavour to obtain an answer from him for the honourable senator.

page 966

QUESTION

SANKEY CASE

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

– My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and I refer to the recently concluded Sankey case in the Queanbeyan Court of Petty Sessions. Does the Minister have any knowledge of any payments made to or on behalf of Mr Sankey to cover his legal costs?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I have no knowledge of the matter. I imagine that the question should be properly addressed to the Attorney-General and not to me. The specific answer to the question is: No; I have no knowledge of the matter.

page 966

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Is the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs aware of the plans of the South Australian Government to introduce a land rights Bill that will involve the giving of about 32 per cent of the northern part of South Australia to the Pitjantjatjara Aboriginal people as phase one of a program to extend land rights ultimately over about 50 per cent of the State? Can the Minister say what consultations have been carried out with the Commonwealth on this subject? In view of the constitutional responsibility of the Commonwealth in these matters, can he provide any details of the proposal?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I am aware of the South Australian Government’s proposal to legislate for land rights in that State. The proposed legislation is broadly in line with the legislation which was enacted by this Parliament in 1976. 1 am unable to give a response in any detail to the honourable senator about the degree of consultation on this matter between the Commonwealth Government and the South Australian Government, but in the past three months that I have been Minister for Aboriginal Affairs it has not been a matter which has caused me concern or to seek any action. The reports which I have received on the legislation show that it very much follows the pattern which the Commonwealth Government put forward and enacted after it came to office and which, I think, had the broad bipartisan support of this Parliament. I will put on inquiry the detailed matters raised and let the honourable senator have some further information.

page 966

QUESTION

ELECTRICITY WORKERS IN NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator SIBRAA:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and arises out of a question asked earlier today by Senator Douglas McClelland. Does the Government see any inconsistency in its reaction to the New South Wales power workers being granted a 37’A-hour week in view of the fact that power workers in Victoria already enjoy a 37W-hour week? Further, will the Minister comment on the possibility that the threats made by the Treasurer to reduce funds for New South Wales constitute an attack on States ‘ rights and threaten to undermine the relative harmony of State-Federal financial arrangements?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The Government does not see any inconsistency. The aim of the Government is to ensure that inflation is reduced and not increased and, therefore, that action which would incite inflation does not occur. The attack on State rights would come if one State in a maverick fashion were to incite inflation in Australia and destroy or weaken the purchasing power of people in other States and, also, of the Commonwealth. Indeed, if the direct action of the Wran Government were to exacerbate inflation and, for example, weaken the purchasing power of pensions, it is not State rights that are affected. It is a libertine action which ought to be corralled as we intend to do.

page 966

QUESTION

AIR FARES BETWEEN AUSTRALIA AND JAPAN

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

-I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. I understand that it was reported by the Australian Broadcasting Commission this morning that the Minister for Transport had said that he believed that there would be no cut in air fares between Australia and Japan and vice versa because the Japanese Government was showing no interest in developing discounted air fares. Having in mind the considerable amount of trade between the two countries over the last few years and the desirability of developing further understanding and communication between the two peoples, can the Minister advise the Senate what is the present position and possible future of incentives for air travel between Australia and Japan?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I am advised by the Minister for Transport that there is no suggestion that air fares between Australia and Japan will not be reduced in due course. It is the Government’s policy to seek lower fares on all routes between Australia and other countries. Tentative proposals for fare reductions were made to Japanese authorities last December as a basis for discussion between officials of both countries. It was subsequently agreed that that question would be pursued in the first instance in discussions between Qantas Airways Ltd and Japan Airlines. Two rounds of those talks have taken place and the results to date have been disappointing from the point of view of the Australian Government. It is hoped that the airlines will talk further in the near future and that more rapid progress will result.

page 967

QUESTION

PASSPORT CONTROL

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question about current passport controls to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer, firstly, to the case ventilated by Senator McAuliffe and me of the Gold Coast tycoon by the name of Flynn who emulated the character in Forsyth’s novel The Day of the Jackal by substituting a passport in the name of another Flynn for his passport. What are we doing to tighten up that avenue of exploitation? Secondly, at a lower level, the Minister would know of the case of an Australian on a serious narcotics charge who was given back his passport as he was granted an adjournment of his case to enable him to go to the United States on a business commitment. In that instance would we mark the passport as expiring when the adjournment was to expire or would it be open-ended?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– This question concerns specific and particular knowledge of the Minister concerned. I will refer it to him and seek an answer.

page 967

CRIMES AT SEA BILL 1979

Assent reported.

page 967

QUESTION

CHILD MINDING FACILITIES AT FAMILY COURT

Senator DURACK:
LP

-I wish to add to an answer to a question that Senator Martin asked me earlier today about the closure of a child minding centre at the Family Court of Australia in Brisbane. I have found that, as a result of the inquiries that I said I had undertaken, I have been provided with some notes for an answer. I regret that this information has not been conveyed to Senator Martin in writing, as I had undertaken to do. It is a fact that the child minding service at the Family Court in Brisbane was withdrawn at the end of November 1978. Unfortunately, the person in charge of the position had to be transferred to other duties in the court and could not be replaced for the time being.

I am informed that there have not been any incidents involving children in the court since the closure. The clerical staff in the counselling area take care of some children while their parents are undergoing counselling. This occurs in the counselling reception area. Children are given toys and books to occupy them while they are there. The centre is also used at times for supervised access under the supervision of a court counsellor. The centre was used by the staff for recreation purposes on one occasion outside registry hours but not during registry hours. The decision to close the service was made within the court management, based on the resources available to it. It certainly was not a decision taken with my knowledge or approval, but that would not normally be required in a decision of this sort. The centre will be reopened if and when resources are available under staff ceilings. I cannot give any assurance as to when that could be done.

page 967

QUESTION

INVALID PENSIONERS: AIR-CONDITIONING OF PREMISES

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

- Senator Bonner asked a question of me today about chronic asthma sufferers. I now have information which enables me to expand on my answer. There is no provision in the Social Services Act under which chronic asthma sufferers receiving an invalid pension could qualify for additional financial assistance to enable them to install air conditioners in their own homes. However, as part of the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service, a wide variety of aids and appliances are available to substantially handicapped persons from within the broad working age group to help them to iive independently within their own homes and /or return to gainful employment. An air conditioning unit could be provided to an asthma sufferer receiving an invalid pension only if it were to complement a current and acceptable rehabilitation program in terms of adequately restoring independence and, where practicable, a return to suitable employment.

The question of assisting needy persons with their power expenses is a matter for State and local governing bodies. The provision of aids and appliances for handicapped people generally is covered under section 9A of the National Health Act, which is administered by the Department of Health. The aids available under this legislation are restricted to artificial limbs, stoma appliances for those suffering from colostomies and ileostomies, home dialysis equipment and hearing aids for eligible persons. Assistance to the handicapped within Australia is a matter which the Government has under constant review. As I said earlier, I will refer Senator Bonner’s question to the Minister for Health.

page 968

QUESTION

DEFENCE SERVICE HOMES INSURANCE SCHEME

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– In the Senate Hansard of 9 and 10 June 1978 and of 8 November 1978 answers are given to questions No. 448 and No. 787 respectively. These questions were asked by Senator Colston about the defence service homes insurance scheme. The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs has now advised me that errors in the figures shown in these answers have been brought to his notice and he has asked me to inform the Senate. I am advised that the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs is writing to Senator Colston about this matter. I seek leave to incorporate the necessary corrections in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

Answer to Question No. 448-

New South Wales:

The aggregate surplus of receipts over payments was $2,704,063, not $2,765,5 1 9 as shown.

South Australia: 1957-58-Payments were $23,626, not $23,636 as shown.

Western Australia: 1974-75-Payments were $118,616, not $186,616 as shown; 1 976-77-Payments were $ 1 88,630, not $ 1 88,690 as shown.

Tasmania: 1959-60-Receipts were $9,088, not $9,008 as shown.

Answer to Question No. 787-

Tasmania: The surplus was $84,057, not $84, 157.

page 968

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN WOOL SYMBOL

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-Recently, Senator Watson asked me for some details of the Australian wool symbol. The Minister for Primary Industry has provided me with information to add to the answer I gave. Because of the wool industry’s considerable and successful investment in the Woolmark program conducted in Australia by the Australian Wool Corporation, the question of support for an additional symbol, with all of its implications for consumer understanding and manufacturer-retailer support for wool merchandise, obviously has to be approached with great care. As part of the process of assessing the possibility of the Corporation’s assisting the Wool Textile Manufacturers of Australia with the promotion of the Australian wool symbol, I understand that a committee consisting of members from both organisations was formed, with the objective of establishing a basis for an effective working relationship. A group within this committee has prepared a draft marketing plan for the launching of the symbol.

I am informed that, through this committee, the Australian Wool Corporation has confirmed its willingness to co-operate with the WTMA in the promotion of Australian wool symbol merchandise, providing the viability of such a project is established. The draft marketing plan, which will require the approval of both the WTMA and the Corporation, is to be presented to the committee this month for further discussion and consideration. This thorough and careful approach to the making of decisions in support for the additional wool symbol seems to be most sensible, particularly as involvement by the Wool Corporation would divert in some measure from its established and on-going wool promotion activities.

page 968

MOUNT LYELL MINING OPERATIONS

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present copies of agreements dated 1 November 1977 and 30 June 1978 between the Commonwealth of Australia and the State of Tasmania relating to financial assistance to subsidise Mount Lyell mining operations.

page 968

SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLICATIONS

Senator ARCHER:
Tasmania

-I present the eighth report from the Senate Standing Committee on Publications.

Report- by leave- adopted.

page 969

REPORT OF THE SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

Ministerial Statement

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– by leave- On 22 August 1978 the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations tabled the report on its examination of the 1 974-75 annual report of the Australian Housing Corporation. The annual report was not tabled until 7 June 1978 and the Committee investigated to ascertain the reasons for the delay in presentation to Parliament. The report has been considered by the Government and I am now in a position to respond on its behalf. The Standing Committee considered that the main reason for the delay in presentation of the 1 974-75 annual report was the administrative and legal problems which arose because the Australian Housing Corporation came into operation on 24 June 1975. As a consequence, the Defence Service Homes Scheme was administered during the financial year by two different bodies under legislation providing for a different accounting standard for each body. The Government has noted the conclusion by the Committee that, where the accounting system of an organisation such as that administering the Defence Service Homes Scheme is to be changed, the change should, wherever possible, be made at the start of a financial year.

A major cause of concern to the Standing Committee was that although interim reports and informal financial statements for the years 1975-76 and 1976-77 were prepared by the Defence Service Homes Corporation these were not presented to Parliament by the Minister. This is not entirely correct as the interim report and statements for 1975-76 were tabled by the then Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, Senator Durack, on 25 August 1977. The Standing Committee recommended that a new section be added to the Defence Service Homes Act to provide for interim reporting to the Parliament where an annual report, with financial statements in a form approved by the Minister for Finance, is not ready for tabling within 9 months of the end of the financial year. The Committee considered this would ensure that Parliament would be kept informed of Defence Service Homes activities on an up-to-date basis. Final reports and audited financial statements of operations under the Defence Service Homes Scheme during 1975-76 and 1976-77 were tabled by the Acting Minister for Veterans’ Affairs on 21 November 1978. An interim report and informal financial statements in respect of 1977-78 were tabled on the same day.

The Government has carefully considered the Standing Committee’s recommendation and supports the principle that Parliament be kept informed on an up-to-date basis. However, the problems which arose in connection with reports for the period 1974-75 and 1976-77 have been resolved, and the Defence Service Homes Corporation has resumed the practice of earlier years of reporting on an interim basis where audited financial statements are not available. As this practice meets the basic objective of the Standing Committee’s recommendation the Government has decided not to amend the Defence Service Homes Act as proposed by the Committee.

Having said that, I should mention that the Government has noted the view expressed in the Standing Committee’s First Report on Statutory Authorities of the Commonwealth that its recommendation in respect of the Defence Service Homes Act should be applied universally through a proposed Annual Reports Act. That suggestion of the Committee will be considered by the Government as part of its examination of the more recent report. Mr President, I thank the members of the Standing Committee for their report, the importance of which can be readily gauged by the Government’s acceptance of the general principles outlined in that report.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– by leave- I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 969

CIVIL AVIATION: NEGOTIATIONS WITH ASEAN NATIONS

Ministerial Statement

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– by leave- I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the statement of the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) made on 27 March 1979.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

page 969

CIVIL AVIATION NEGOTIATIONS WITH ASEAN

When I first announced Australia’s new international civil aviation policy last October, I gave an undertaking to provide the House with further information.

Subsequently, I made a detailed statement on March 6 1979. I consider that it is appropriate now for me to give Members a further report, following the negotiations between myself and my colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, with ASEAN Ministers in Jakarta last week.

These were meaningful and profitable talks at which positive progress was made.

We were all in agreement that there is a need to lower air fares between Australia and ASEAN countries, and we all agreed that such lowering of fares should be brought about as quickly as possible.

Both myself and the Minister for Foreign Affairs were extremely pleased at the positive attitude adopted by all Ministers at the conference, and at the co-operative, good humoured and cordial atmosphere that was maintained throughout the two days of negotiations.

Reading some of the press reports in the weeks prior to the meeting one would have thought that the talks were heading for confrontation. Let me assure the House that at no time was there any indication that such a situation might arise. Indeed, as the joint press statement said:

The meeting was held in a cordial and constructive atmosphere, in keeping with the long established tradition of close and co-operative links between the ASEAN countries and Australia.

I shall now explain just what we have achieved in Jakarta.

Most importantly, as I have mentioned, we are all in agreement that lower air fares are necessary. There was general acknowledgement that the lower air fare arrangements we have already reached with other nations should not be jeopardised.

It was the consensus of the Ministerial meeting that lower air fares should be negotiated as soon as possible between Australia and each ASEAN member country. Australia had submitted indicative lower fares in discussions between officials late last year.

We will now be entering into bilateral negotiations with the five ASEAN countries in the near future, to consider the ranges of cheap fares which ASEAN proposed at the Jakarta meeting, and which we found attractive and accepted in principle. Considerable detailed work has to be done to establish precise fare levels and conditions.

It is most significant to note here that, as the joint statement said, such bilateral discussions will ‘in no way effect the ASEAN collective approach ‘.

There have been accusations made recently that Australia, in implementing its new low fares policy, has been trying to split ASEAN unity. This is not the case. It never has been the case. We assured the ASEAN Ministers in Jakarta, quite unequivocally, that we had never held any desire to prejudice, let alone split, their unity. They accepted that assurance.

The wording of the joint statement, pointing out that we can move to bilateral discussions without affecting the ASEAN collective approach, clearly proves the point that the ASEAN Ministers accept that Australia is acting in a completely even-handed manner in the implementation of its new air fares policy.

I believe the meeting provided an excellent opportunity for Australian Ministers to reiterate the positive features of the policy we have adopted.

We emphasised that the policy allows completely equal participation by the carriers of developing countries in the carriage of traffic between their countries and Australia; offers a means of avoiding disputes over capacity entitlements; provides a stimulus to tourism between Australia and ASEAN; and allows Australia and each of its bilateral partners to sit down to discuss and agree the manner of change in air service arrangements that will permit lower fares.

Concern had been expressed that our new policy could damage tourism in the ASEAN region. I have consistently held the view that lowering fares between Australia and ASEAN would benefit tourism in the region. Our estimates of traffic growth based on the fare levels suggested by ASEAN last week confirm this view. After allowing for both generation of new traffic and normal growth we estimated that the growth in traffic in the first twelve months after introduction of the new fares would be at least 25 per cent and probably closer to 30 per cent.

We have not yet, of course, agreed on what the precise reductions in fares between Australia and the ASEAN countries will be. That is a matter for the bilateral negotiations. But I can tell the House that indications at this stage are that they will be about 30 per cent for lower fare types and in some cases could be even more.

By way of comparison, the lower fares we now have in place between Australia and the United States average a 28 per cent reduction on the previous comparable fares.

There are two other issues which emerged from the Jakarta conference. One is the question of the level of fares which allow stopovers in the ASEAN region on the Kangaroo route between

Australia and the UK/Europe. The other is the question of ASEAN airlines participation in the carriage of traffic on the direct point to point fares between Australia and UK/Europe.

Before I discuss these points, let me say that since we began discussions with the ASEAN nations last year, I have been seeking their proposals on the changed arrangements that Australia had suggested to them. Immediately after I announced our new policy last October, Australian officials visited each ASEAN country individually. In January, we held two days of detailed discussions here in Canberra with ASEAN civil aviation experts, where our proposals were explained in great depth.

These discussions in all cases were carried out by an Australian team consisting of officials from both the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Transport.

We have now received detailed proposals from ASEAN. We now have a positive base on which to work. I have said all along that the sooner we can get to the negotiating table the sooner problems seen by ASEAN countries can be resolved.

The ASEAN Ministers put forward to us a proposal for stopover fares at significantly lower levels than those we had advanced. They believe their proposals are better suited to their needs, and are economically viable in relation to the Australia/Europe end to end fares. We are now studying these proposals as a matter of urgency.

Also, the ASEAN Ministers put forward to us a proposal to enter into the carriage of end to end traffic between Australia and the UK/Europe, which they consider will not in any way jeopardise our cheap air fare arrangements with our European partners. All Ministers recognised that they should not be jeopardised. We were not in a position to examine fully their proposals during the short time we were in Jakarta, lt was agreed, therefore, that they should be put to urgent study.

We have agreed that officials should report back to their respective Ministers on these two points. I expect that, within one month, an ASEAN /Australia officials meeting will be held to consider the studies now being undertaken on those points.

This all amounts to a positive and most satisfactory result to the Ministerial meeting.

Mr Speaker, I would now like to turn to the question of our relations with ASEAN in so far as our air fares policy is concerned.

As I said at the outset, both myself and Mr Peacock were delighted at the atmosphere of goodwill and co-operation that existed throughout the talks. There is no doubt that the outcome of the meeting reflected a determination on the part of all the Ministers present to avoid an atmosphere of confrontation and to find a solution at the negotiating table. There is more understanding now between Australia and ASEAN of just where we stand. I think it is appropriate to repeat part of what my colleague the Minister for Foreign Affairs said in his opening statement to the conference:

Over the years we have consistently placed high value on our relationship with the countries of South East Asia. Australia has clearly demonstrated both its unequivocal support for the concept of ASEAN, and its commitment to work closely with the Association. We have always believed ASEAN to be of critical importance to the strength, stability and progress of the region. I reaffirm to you that this policy remains unchanged and that it will guide the approach of the Australian delegation at this meeting.

The ASEAN Ministers accepted those assurances completely, and without question.

This was the first time that we have had formal Ministerial negotiations with ASEAN on this subject. We can now work on the proposals that came from the meeting, and I am confident that we are now well on the way to achieving agreement with ASEAN.

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I move:

That the Senate take note of the statement.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– This is the third occasion on which a Minister in this place has presented to the Senate a statement made by the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) on the very vexed question of air fares as they relate to overseas countries, and in particular to the countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations. On each occasion the report has been one of self-adulation in which the Government has sought to justify the position that has been taken by Australia in both multilateral and bilateral negotiations with overseas countries, particularly those in the ASEAN region. One can only ask the question: How much longer are we to be subjected to these reports, which seek to convey to the Parliament and to the community at large that al! is well in the negotiations between the ASEAN countries and Australia?

It goes without saying that the Australian community, indeed this Parliament if it had such an opportunity, would be in favour of considerable reductions in fares for those who are fortunate enough to be able to travel overseas. I do not think that there would be any point of conflict on that issue. However, it has to be restated that for more than a year there has been a degree of procrastination and delay in implementing that objective, an objective that has been challenged by the countries in the ASEAN region which profit from the stop-overs that had hitherto been part of the process of travel between Australia and Asia and from Australia via Asia to Europe generally. The report that Senator Chaney, on behalf of the Minister, has presented to the Senate for consideration again seeks to suggest that there is not a great deal of conflict between our position and the position of the ASEAN countries. That simply and blandly states the position and ignores the obvious reality that whatever we may do in pursuing the objective of providing reduced air fares for Australians we must do at the expense of some of the existing processes. If it is possible to reduce air fares other than in that way, why have we waited until 1979 to do so? Why have we had to have our arms twisted? Why have we been forced to take the sort of unilateral action we have taken, clearly at the expense of those in the ASEAN region?

It has been said many times, although I do not want to canvass this particularly, that our relations with the ASEAN countries are paramount, that they are the cornerstone of our foreign policy considerations in our own region, and that we cannot take independent action because we may affect our relations with those countries. Of course, it was in justification of that premise that we backed off from what was happening in Timor and have refused to become involved in other areas of conflict, whether in relation to trade union matters in Malaysia or whatever. When it comes to the nitty-gritty, when it comes to the question of our interests against those of the ASEAN countries, we have been adopting what can be described only as a dog-in-the-manger position.

Our endeavours to reduce air fares- and we all support that aim- have been at the expense of stop-overs in the countries of South East Asia. We see our opportunity to reduce air fares by cutting out some of the stop-overs which, by their very nature, must be a cost factor. Yet the mere suggestion of that, the mere determination of that, understandably and perhaps properly, from the point of view of the interests of the ASEAN countries, has aroused a very violent reaction. To those countries the stop-overs represent a very important income-earning capacity. There is a point of conflict.

I appreciate that I have an advantage over other senators in that I had a chance to study the statement before it was made available to my colleagues. It is ludicrous and pious of the Government to seek to convey the view that we are not in an area of conflict or confrontation. It would be better if we were to put our cards on the table and to say to the Australian Parliament, to the Austraiian people and to the ASEAN countries that there are areas in which there is a conflict of interest. Pursuant to that, some compromise has to be made if we are to meet the objections that have been made by the ASEAN countries. Clearly, if one were to study the terms of trade with those countries and if one were to study the cash inflow of those countries one would have to admit that Australians have a very substantial spending capacity in Singapore, Bangkok, Kuala Lumpur and so on. There are quite useful additives to the domestic economics of those countries. Therefore, one can understand the very strong statements which have emanated from the capitals of the ASEAN countries as we have taken steps to reduce the number of overseas landings and stop-overs in our pursuit of a lower air fares policy.

I find it inconceivable that the Government should seek in this statement to convey the impression that there was cordiality and understanding of the Australian position in the recent talks. The mere fact that ministerial discussions were necessary and that not only the Minister for Transport but also the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) had to attend those discussions only highlight the degree to which there is a very serious point of conflict between the Australian position and the position of the ASEAN countries. The ASEAN countries are insisting, in their interests, that the provision of stop-overs should be maintained, firstly, because of the accommodation they can provide and, secondly, because of the degree to which certain Australian tourist funds are expended in those countries. But to read the statement, one would think that it meant that all has been resolved; that there is no difference of opinion; that there is no conflict of interest between them and us. We of the Oppostition object to such platitudes being expressed. On page 1 of the statement the following remark appears:

We were all in agreement that there is a need to lower air fares . . .

We are all in favour of motherhood. Who would disagree with that? On page 2 the statement went on to state:

It was the consensus of the ministerial meeting that lower air fares should be negotiated as soon as possible between Australia and each ASEAN member country.

The entire statement ignores the basic point at issue. The attitude adopted by the Australian

Government has been the subject of a lot of adverse comment by the ASEAN countries. It has to be understood that the ASEAN countries want to participate in the Australia-UK-Europe low aif fare scheme, but that they do not want to participate in it at the expense of the stop-over principle. They have made that point very clearly in all their public declarations. It might well be that in the cordiality of discussions and dinners we were able to present our point of view. We do not contest that. But in this statement no mention is made of the fact that our interests clearly run counter to the interests of the ASEAN countries and that those countries have a point of view which cuts right across the declared and professed aim of this Government. For example, the ASEAN countries have suggested that the present first-class and economy-class arrangements between us and countries overseas should be maintained. They have suggested the introduction of a new element of reduced air fares related to dual advance bookings which would enable the maintenance of principles which I suppose could only be described as constituting a stop-over proposal. One can appreciate their having that point of view, seeking as they do to have access to the lucrative Australian tourist industry.

On reading the document one gains the impression that the people of the ASEAN countries are lined up waiting to come to Australia- that it is a two-way process. We know that that is not the case and that what is in the minds of the ASEAN countries is the capacity of a country such as Australia, with a higher living standard than theirs, to spend countless Australian dollars in the market places of the ASEAN countries. Clearly the Ministers were not able to resolve the problem, despite the cordiality which existed, to use the expression used in the ministerial statement. This continues to be apparent in the statements that are being made. Questions concerning this matter have been asked in this place. Today a question was asked about air fares between Australia and Japan. We are already under a great deal of criticism from the Dutch authorities. We have been under great pressure from other European countries. Clearly we will be under a great deal of criticism from those countries which are affected by the Government’s current attitude.

I do not believe that it is proper that the Government should present such a plausible statement as this and should suggest that the problem which the Ministers could not resolve at the recent discussions in Jakarta will now be resolved at the technocrat level. After all, according to the statement, negotiations have been going on now for more than six months. As we well know, they were going on throughout the whole of 1978. They have been going on for considerably more than a year. If the problem could not be resolved last year at the technocrat level and if it could not be resolved at the ministerial meeting held within only the past few weeks, I fail to see how we can accept with any degree of enthusiasm the way in which this statement has been presented for our consideration. We have been told that the matters are still to be discussed at the technocrat level- at the officer levelrather than at the level at which government policy is determined. It is because of those considerations that we find the statement unsatisfactory. The Minister stated that the ASEAN Ministers put before the Australian Government and the Australian negotiators:

  1. . a proposal to enter into the carriage of end to end traffic between Australia and the United Kingdom-Europe, which they consider will not in any way jeopardise our cheap air fare arrangements with our European partners.

The statement went on to state that this ‘should be put to urgent study’. Is that not what the officers of the Minister concerned, Mr Nixon, and the officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs have been discussing at officer level for the past six or seven months? It seems to me that the document therefore fails to inform the Parliament about the real problem that we have to concern ourselves with- whether in fact we consider our interests to be paramount or whether in fact we take into consideration the interests of those countries that clearly will be affected by the cheap air fare policies. There should be a clear definition of where we are going. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 973

GENERAL BUSINESS

Discharge of Notice

Senator PETER BAUME:
New South Wales

- Mr President, following a promise given by Senator Carrick to Senator Wriedt I seek leave to move a motion for the discharge from the Notice Paper of a General Business Order of the Day.

Leave granted.

Motion (by Senator Peter Baume)- agreed to:

That General Business Order of the Day No. 2 1 9, standing in my name, relating to the report of the Manufacturing Industries Structural Adjustment Study Group be discharged from the Notice Paper.

page 974

REPORT OF STUDY GROUP ON STRUCTURAL ADJUSTMENT

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– On behalf of Senator Carrick, I seek leave to move a motion to take note of the report of the Study Group on Structural Adjustment.

Leave granted.

Senator CHANEY:

-I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 974

GENERAL BUSINESS

Withdrawal of Motion

Senator MASON:
New South Wales

-I withdraw General Business Notice of Motion No. 2 standing in my name relating to a report of the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly Standing Committee on Education and Health.

page 974

POULTRY INDUSTRY LEVY AMENDMENT BILL 1979

First Readings

Debate resumed from 22 March, on motion by Senator Carrick:

That the Bills be now read a first rime.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– When this debate was adjourned last Thursday I had made some comments relating to the entry into Australia of investor owned multinational hospital companies. I have asked two questions of the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick). Although the first question was asked on 2 1 November last year I am still waiting for the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) to indicate the Government’s reaction. When the Minister, Mr Hunt, wrote to me on 29 December last he said:

My consideration of the matter has not yet reached a point where I am in a position to offer a firm view on this matter.

That is why I am raising this issue. It is about time the Government had a policy- one consistent with its assertions that the escalating cost of health in Australia must be contained.

Whatever controls the State governments may have in this area, it is the Commonwealth Government that foots most of the bills through the medical and hospital benefits funds. No individual, except the really wealthy, can afford to pay the real costs of present day medical technology. How can the Government sit back without a policy when the Hospital Corporation of America, known as HCA, through its wholly owned Australian subsidiary, Hospital Corporation of Australia, already controls four hospitals in three States and is in the process of buying three more in New South Wales. There now seems to be another American investor owned company anxious to make profits out of the hospital business in Australia. American Medical International (Australia) Pty Ltd, known as AMI, is seeking to take over the proposed teaching hospital for Monash University in Melbourne. As the Victorian Government has promised in successive State elections that it would provide a public hospital for Monash University, this action amounts to a sell-out. It is being kept quiet until after the State election is held on 5 May next. This is a matter that needs a lot more airing. I am sure that the State Government will have to answer many questions, because this will be an issue in the Victorian election.

My attention was drawn last year to the HCA move into Australia and its claim that fees would be set so as to provide for a 17 per cent return on investment later rising to 2 1 per cent. This was in relation to the $ 1 8m St Luke ‘s private hospital to be built at Doncaster in Melbourne and operated by HCA. My question of last November was specifically directed to the Government’s attitude to this statement of intent. On reading the letter written by the Minister for Health I got the feeling that the Minister was not too happy about the situation. But he has kept very quiet about it ever since. I now ask, and I hope that the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle), who is in the chamber, will convey what I have to say to the Minister for Health: Does the Government look with complacency at the entry into Australian hospitals of multinational outfits concerned with high profits? Apart from the financial aspect, surely there is a moral aspect. Do we want overseas owned and controlled firms to run our hospitals? Do we want the expensive and grossly inequitable American system of health care?

I also ask: What study has the Federal-State Co-ordinating Committee for Private Hospital Accommodation made of the impact of this company on the Australian hospital scene? Does the Department of Health have economists capable of providing the Government with adequate cost-benefit studies? I further ask whether the Minister had drawn to his attention an article in the journal Modem Health Care for August 1 978 in which the following is stated:

HCAs S45m hospital acquisition and development project in Australia is pan of the company’s plan to develop foreign markets in case the United States and State governments apply controls which severely limit the profitability of domestic hospital operations.

This indicates that the United States Government is taking very close notice and cognisance of the expansion of these profiteering hospitals and there is a possibility that it will do something to control them.

This is the same firm as is seeking to expand in Australia because it foresees increasing government regulations in its home base in the United States. What do we know about this organisation? As I mentioned before, its business success can be traced to the same source as promotes Kentucky Fried Chicken, namely, Mr Jack Massey. In fact, in one article the organisation has been called ‘Southern Fried Hospitals’. HCA is based in Nashville, Tennessee, and was incorporated there in 1960 as the Parkview Hospital Inc. In 1968 it adopted its present name and set out on the tremendous growth which has made it the largest private hospital organisation in the world. The business brains behind all this was Mr Jack Massey, who had built Kentucky Fried Chicken Corporation into the world’s largest commercial marketer of prepared food. His partners in founding HCA were Dr Thomas Frist Snr and a Dr Thomas Frist Jnr.

Senator Gietzelt:

– If you eat the food you finish up in hospital.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– It means that if they have food to spare from Kentucky Fried they can sell it through their hospital chain. It is a fast food and fast body business. It is very cynical. Dr Thomas Frist Jnr is now president and chief operating officer of this company. He was remarkably frank in an interview quoted in the Modern Health Care article to which I referred earlier. He is quoted as saying:

Say if the Government limits our return to less than our current 15 per cent to 16 per cent. One of the reasons we’re setting ourselves up in the contract management area and international market is that if our return is decreased on our company-owned base, we could offset these decreasing profit margins with other areas of support.

As I quoted in my second question on this matter on 2 1 March last, Dr Frist Jnr also said:

If down the road a moratorium were put on building hospitals in this country - meaning the United States- we could shift the commitment of our money, cash flow and reinvestment from the United States to other areas. If we were not already in an international position, it might take us three to four years to develop that market.

Is that how the Government would like to see the hospitals of Australia run- as a convenient market for a multinational company anxious to avoid government controls in its home country? Is the Government serious in its attempt to persuade the States to rationalise their hospital networks or is health care to be a lucrative foreign investment? We should remember that it is not just the cost of a hospital bed that provides high profits for this new breed of multinational. It has other companies which provide hospital equipment and high cost medical technology. We can imagine the gamut of expensive tests that patients will receive in these hospitals, mostly at the Australian taxpayers ‘ expense. Do we want surgical operations to be performed in hospitals which are also run as a business investment? How many unnecessary operations would this lead to? In Australia historically, except for nursing homes, we have been accustomed to publicly owned hospitals and church or doctor controlled nonprofit making hospitals. Has the Government thought through what will be the public’s reaction to this new development, that is, once there is more publicity about it in the Press.

The Australian Financial Review provided a frank heading to its article about HCA’s plans for a chain of hospitals in Australia. It said: Business moves in as government quits hospital beds’. The Government should realise that this will be the way the Australian electors also will see the issue. No government in Australia can retreat as this one is trying to do from the provision of comprehensive health care facilities. The only condition imposed on HCA by the Foreign Investment Review Board is that it eventually will allow 20 per cent Austrlaian equity. This is to be put into effect by providing equity in each separate hospital through subsidiary companies rather than allowing any Australian equity in the Hospital Corporation of America. Surely doctor investors, as has been suggested is most likely, will further boost medical and hospital costs to the taxpayer. The Government knows that there is a coming over-supply of doctors, and this development adds a further complication. What is the Government’s attitude to Dr Frist’s threat of more profits and reinvestment in the classical way of multinationals ever seeking an open field with minimum government regulation? This amounts to virtual blackmail of governments in an area of basic human right- access to health care.

If this company in its own country would say, Right, we will pack up’, how much more easily would it say it to us? In 30 cities in the United

States an HCA hospital provides the only hospital care. I am sure that every Australian will find it shocking that in so many cities hospital care has been monopolised by this one company. This firm has made $8m in profits from its management of a 1 50-bed hospital in Panama City and a 250-bed hospital in Saudi Arabia. The Modern Health Care article says that this $8m profit of these two hospitals is to be transferred to Australia as part of the company’s initial investment. Where will this company decide to transfer its Australian profits- to Nashville, Tennessee, or to some new international investment?

So far I have referred only to the St Luke’s project in Melbourne. HCA has already bought the luxury Baulkham Hills hospital in Sydney. Interestingly it was able immediately to renegotiate the mortgage at more favourable rates of interest. Such is the financial clout of this multinational chain. It has bought the Dudley Hospital at Orange in New South Wales and the Belmont Psychiatric Hospital in Brisbane. It has a controlling interest in the Linacre Hospital in Melbourne and is in the process of buying two hospitals in Newcastle and one at Wentworthville in Sydney. It expects to have 10 hospitals here by 1 98 1 . Because of its rapid expansion outside the United States into foreign markets it expects to double its size in five years.

The other multinational and investor-owned hospital company which sees Australia as a growth area is AMI- American Medical International. The journal Barron’s on 26 December 1977 referred to this company’s record profits and said that it was shaping up for another boom year in 1 978. Evidently over half of its revenue in the United States came from Medicare Medicaid. Its pre-tax profit margins were about 8 per cent of revenues for United States hospitals, 1 6 per cent for foreign hospitals and 1 3 per cent for established health care services. This latter revenue, that is, from health care services, has risen from under $1.4m in 1971 to more than $22m in 1976-77. This is where enormous rip-offs can be made. The Government knows the problems it has had with pathology business in Australia, and I use the word ‘business’ advisedly. This has been the growth area in medical practice here and has been more akin to the assembly line fast food business.

American Medical International is in this business too. It provides whole packages of services from management, laboratory services and technical consulting to highly sophisticated and expensive equipment such as computerised axial tomography scanners. The Government would be aware that the introduction of such high cost medical technology as these scanners needs to be co-ordinated in a rational way so that there is not an over-supply and, need I suggest, an over-use in some cities while in other parts of the country there is a lack of such facilities. I ask the Minister to look carefully at this question. I have raised it previously and I raise it again because I am especially concerned that the teaching hospital required for the medical facility at Monash University may be run by AMI. This would be unprecedented in Australia.

Senator COLSTON:
Queensland

– The Senate is debating the first readings of the Poultry Industry Levy Amendment Bill 1979 and the Poultry Industry Assistance Amendment Bill 1979. 1 am using the provisions of Standing Order 190 to speak of a matter not pertaining to these two poultry industry Bills. I mention this because on occasions people who have listened to my speeches and others who have taken the opportunity of reading them in Hansard have commented to me wondering why I have not spoken about the particular Bill. I state at the outset that this is a way of allowing us to speak on subjects which we think need to be brought before the Senate. We do not have to speak to the subject matter of the Bill before the Senate.

Each day most people in our society wish to communicate with one another. We have developed a number of methods of communication. For example, we speak to one another or we write letters. In some cases we employ a system of signs or signals. Possibly the most important aspect is not how we communicate, but how well we do so. It is important that we understand what each person is attempting to convey. In other words, it is important that we are really communicating, not merely using the methods of communication but failing to use them well. When we communicate, it is not necessary that we agree with one another. If we agreed all the time, it possibly would be a dull world. Nevertheless, if we are to make any progress in our quest to communicate, it is essential that we really do understand one another.

For a number of years I have been interested in one important aspect of our ability to communicate by use of the written word. This particular aspect is the readability or level of difficulty of a piece of prose. Honourable senators would be well aware that reading material varies greatly in its ease of comprehension. Certainly, the better our reading skills, the less likely this is to bother us. Yet, the ease or difficulty of a given piece of written material is an important factor for school children. For some adults with limited reading skills it remains an important factor throughout life. Some writing, of course, can be so difficult that it can tax even the very good reader.

Before there were any widespread attempts to quantify the level of difficulty of particular written work, experienced educators were able to grade written material with some level of success, using, I suppose, a type of rule of thumb. A study I carried out on some Queensland primary school readers over 10 years ago suggested that these readers were well graded in their level of difficulty. Those who compiled the books had most likely not heard of methods of determining readability levels. Even if they had heard of these methods, I doubt that they would have used them. What is more likely is that through experience they had developed certain techniques which allowed them to grade their material in a satisfactory manner.

To achieve clear, concise writing- prose which permits us to communicate with a minimum likelihood of error- it is not necessary to have a sound knowledge of formulae for determining the difficulty level of written English. It is, however, necessary to understand some basic writing techniques. In general, the shorter the sentence, the less the reading difficulty. As well, simple words are preferable to more complex ones, provided, of course, that the shorter word amply carries the meaning which one wishes to convey. There are a number of other techniques which one may employ. However, I do not intend to work through these, as my basic purpose this afternoon is far different.

The matter I intend to discuss this afternoon is some written material which is compiled by public servants. I have seen sent by government departments to the public too much writing which is almost beyond comprehension. Indeed, some of the writing could lead one, perhaps cynically, to believe that there was a deliberate attempt to confuse. Yet, I would not accept such a conclusion. More often than not, a public servant takes a great amount of time to give a full explanation of a problem posed to his department. Too often, failing to use even some basic writing techniques, he produces a jargon-filled piece of officialese. The result is a total lack of communication. I do not wish to imply that this always occurs. I have seen departmental writing which is crystal clear. But too often public servants write in their own jargon, against their own middleclass background of experience, and completely fail to convey their meaning to the public. This is not done wilfully, but it certainly happens.

I was prompted to speak on this matter because of a particularly bad letter a constituent received from a government department. By bad’, I mean that it was most difficult to read. Rather than put it aside as just one more piece of bureaucratic prose, I decided to have its readability level calculated. Before I quote the letter, however, I shall mention something about the particular formula which was used on this letter to determine its level of readability. A number of formulae are available, but the one which was used on the piece of prose that I shall read shortly was the Flesch reading ease formula. I refer those people who wish to obtain detailed information about the Flesch formula to the Journal of Applied Psychology, June 1948, pages 22 1 to 233. 1 shall give a brief summary of some of the main points of Flesch ‘s formula.

The formula rates reading ease as a figure between 0 and 100. The range of scores is outlined as follows: A reading ease score of 0 to 30 may be described as very difficult. A score from 30 to 50 is difficult. A reading ease score between 50 and 60 is described as fairly difficult. Flesch describes the 60 to 70 score as standard. A score from 70 to 80 denotes fairly easy reading; from 80 to 90, easy; and from 90 to 100, very easy. So that the points I will outline may be more easily understood, I seek leave of the Senate to incorporate in Hansard the table outlining these reading ease scores and their description.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows-

Senator COLSTON:

-One of the advantages of using Flesch ‘s formula, as opposed to one of the many other formulae which are available, is that, having established a reading ease score, one may compare a piece of prose with the readability of some Australian newspapers. This perhaps gives a better indication of the relative reading difficulty than by reference to the table which I have just mentioned. In 1966, Jonathan

Anderson published in the Australian Journal of Psychology the results of calculations which he made of the reading ease of nine Australian newspapers, using Flesch’s formula. Jonathan Anderson was at that time at the University of Queensland. He is now Professor of Education at Flinders University.

At this stage, I shall read the letter which prompted me to say something about the letter’s level of difficulty. With the indulgence of the Senate, I ask that the letter be printed as it was received by my constituent. In that way, it may be seen that in the fourth paragraph the word dependant’ is incorrectly spelt. As well, the word ‘lease’ is used instead of, I presume, the word ‘leads ‘. This in itself is sloppy work to emanate from a Commonwealth government department. The letter states:

Dear Sir

INCOME TAX

Your letter of 24 July 1978 in which you requested an amendment of your income tax assessment for the year ended 30 June 1 978 has been received.

You were concerned with the application of the health insurance levy at family rates within your assessment, pointing out that both you and your wife were in receipt of income and that you elected to pay a single levy while your wife elected to obtain private hospital and medical cover.

In determining the applicable levy ceiling and in considering whether a person has taken out sufficient private insurance to qualify for exemption from the levy, it may be relevant whether the person has ‘dependants’. A person will be free of the levy otherwise payable if he or she and all of the person’s dependants are covered by appropriate private health insurance for the whole of the year.

For levy, purposes, a person is a ‘dpendant’ of another if he or she is a resident of Australia to whose maintenance the other person contributes. A person will be taken to have contributed to the maintenance of another person during any period which they reside together. This lease to the result that a husband wife residing together, who are each in receipt of income, are for levy purposes both to be treated as a person who has a dependant . . .

Rather than continue to read this letter it might be preferable if it is incorporated in Hansard and I seek leave to do so.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

Dear Sir

INCOME TAX

Your letter of 24 July 1978 in which you requested an amendment of your income tax assessment for the year ended 30 June 1978 has been received.

You were concerned with the application of the health insurance levy at family rates within your assessment, pointing out that both you and your wife were in receipt of income and that you elected to pay a single levy while your wife elected to obtain private hospital and medical cover.

In determining the applicable levy ceiling and in considering whether a person has taken out sufficient private insurance to qualify for exemption from the levy, it may be relevant whether the person has ‘dependants’. A person will be free of the levy otherwise payable if he or she and all of the person’s dependants are covered by appropriate private health insurance for the whole of the year.

For levy, purposes, a person is a ‘dependant’ of another if he or she is a resident of Australia to whose maintenance the other person contributes. A person will be taken to have contributed to the maintenance of another person during any period during which they reside together. This lease to the result that a husband wife residing together, who are each in receipt of income, are for levy purposes both to be treated as a person who has a dependant- each is to be viewed as a dependant of the other. Here the relevant ceiling is $300 and the levy is apportioned; the husband will be charged levy on the basis of his own taxable income and the wife will be charged levy only to the extent (if any) necessary to bring the combined levy up to the ceiling level.

Thus, in your case, as you are considered to be a dependant of your wife and you do not have appropriate private health insurance cover, your wife is also not free of the levy otherwise payable.

The health insurance levy applicable to you has been calculated as follows: 2.5 per cent of your taxable income of $9,187 which equals $229.67. The levy payable by your wife is $70.32 to bring the total levy payable to $299.99 which is the family ceiling payable for the 1 977-78 year.

Trusting this satisfies your query.

Senator COLSTON:

-I thank the Senate for allowing me to incorporate this letter in Hansard. Those who read the text of the letter in Hansard will agree that it is a very difficult letter to read. Not only is it a very difficult letter to read but also it is a very difficult letter to comprehend. When I first read the letter I found it very difficult to comprehend and I am sure that the person who received this letter from the Department was more confused after reading it than when he initially queried the Department about his problem. I did not read all the letter so I therefore should point out that the letter finishes with this very clear and concise sentence:

Trusting this satisfies your query.

The last sentence probably was the most readable part but it stood in stark contrast with the remainder of the letter. I asked the Parliamentary Library to calculate the reading ease score of this letter. Its score, using the Flesch formula, is given another table which I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard. If leave is granted, I will speak about the table.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

Senator COLSTON:

-I thank honourable senators. The table that I have incorporated in Hansard is headed ‘ “Reading Ease” Score of Letter and a Number of Australian Newspapers’. I shall outline these scores, progressing from the easiest level of readability to the most difficult. The readability level of the Australian newspapers came from the article written by Jonathan Anderson which appeared in the Australian Journal of Psychology. The Sunday Mirror headed the list in terms of easiness with a reading ease score of 63. The Sunday Mail in Brisbane came next with a score of 58, followed by the Daily Mirror with a reading ease score of 55. The Sun in Melbourne, the Telegraph in Brisbane and the Courier Mail in Brisbane each had a reading ease score of 54. The reading ease score of the Age in Melbourne was down to 46- it was more difficult to read- and the Australian also had a score of 46. The Sydney Morning Herald was the most difficult to read of the nine Australian newspapers sampled. It had a reading ease score of 45. 1 repeat for honourable senators that the lower the reading ease score the more difficult the paper is to read. So the Sunday Mirror with a reading ease score of 63 was easier to read than the Sydney Morning Herald with a score of 45. However, using the same formula the letter had a reading ease score of 22 which, incidentally, was in the highest level of difficulty referred to by Flesch when he produced his formula.

I remind honourable senators that the reading ease scores for these nine newspapers were published in 1966 and I concede that since then there may have been some movement in the level of reading difficulty of those newspapers. Nevertheless, they are a good guide and certainly something with which this letter may be compared. The comparison that I have just made shows how dreadful was this letter if it was a genuine attempt to convey information to a member of the public. It was far more difficult to read than any of the nine newspapers and within the range which Flesch described as ‘very difficult’. In fact, it was far more difficult than the most difficult news category in Anderson’s study. Anderson not only looked at the nine newspapers that I outlined but also categorised news items. He found that the most difficult category was ‘world news’. It had a mean reading ease score of 44.

The plain fact is that the letter should not have been sent in such a difficult form. It is obvious that a great deal of time was expended in drafting the letter. Without additional care being paid to the ease with which it could be read, much of the original drafting time became wasted effort. I am certain that honourable senators could find ways in which the readability of this letter would be improved. With just a little care it would be possible to redraft the letter and put it into the range of scores for the nine newspapers. Perhaps at some future Public Service course this letter may be taken as a sample of difficult writing to be improved by redrafting. If it is, I would be pleased to know what level of reading ease is accomplished.

Let us not leave the story there for what lesson can be learned from what I have discussed this afternoon? The letter I quoted this afternoon was obviously one from the Australian Taxation Office. I have no evidence to suggest that, in terms of the reading difficulty of its correspondence, this Office is atypical. Until convinced otherwise, I expect that other offices and departments currently issue letters of similar reading difficulty. Clearly, when this occurs there is a lack of communication. The public servant spends part of his day drafting a letter and goes home satisfied that he has done a good day’s work. Two days later, a member of the public stumbles through that difficult letter which he has received in the mail and remains as confused as he was before he wrote to the government department. No wonder the public sometimes feels frustrated. This type of situation cannot continue. There must be a series of training programs to ensure that those who write letters to the public fully understand how to communicate. These training programs need not be lavishly organised. For example, when I was a public servant in Queensland I found that I could conduct training programs within my own branch without significant disruption to the work of the branch. I am convinced that the long term consequences of these programs led to a much better work output from my staff. Although such training programs need not be lavishly organised, the training programs which I suggest must take place. The sheer waste which occurs due to the lack of communication is something which we cannot afford and obviously cannot condone.

I also suggest that departments make regular random selections of the written work that they produce. No harm could result if they take some of their written work and actually calculate its level of difficulty or hopefully, to take the term from Flesch its reading ease. Departments must not remain so isolated from the public that they forget that their clients deserve the courtesy of prompt, accurate and easy to read replies to their letters. Certainly I would see any move by government departments to improve their communication with the public to be most commendable.

Sitting suspended from 5.52 to 8 p.m.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The Senate is debating the first reading of the Poultry Industry Levy Amendment Bill 1979 and the Poultry Industry Assistance Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1979. Because these Bills are money Bills this debate affords honourable senators an opportunity to speak to the grievances they have. It was the first President of the Senate, Sir Richard Baker, who said that he proposed at the first sitting of the Senate to allow a general debate on matters of relevancy or irrelevancy on first readings on money Bills in order to give to members of the Senate the same sort of privilege as members of the House of Representatives had on Grievance Day when a time was set for them to air matters of grievance. As the Clerk of the Senate said yesterday at a meeting of the Senate Standing Committee on Standing Orders, the underlying principle is: ‘Hear our grievance before we, the Senate, will give the Executive Supply’.

Along with many of my colleagues who have already spoken, I take advantage of this opportunity to ventilate a number of matters concerning the Parliament and the responsibility of the Executive to this Parliament. It has often been said that following the events that took place in this chamber in October and November 1975, the Government and Parliament would have to engage in a bit of fence mending to re-create a favourable impression of Parliament in a large section of the Australian population. I am afraid that since this Parliament assembled after the 1977 election, the bloated majority of the Fraser Government in both Houses of Parliament has meant that the fence mending has not taken place. Indeed, many of the posts seem to be falling down. It is the arrogant, complacent, lethargic and uninterested attitude towards the Parliament by the Executive Government of this country that is of concern to me as a senator in this Parliament.

From the events that happened in November 1975 and the Government’s indifferent attitude to this Parliament, it is obvious that it believes that if it loses government or the majority in the House of Representatives again, then all it has to do is retain a majority in the Senate and it will be able to repeat what it did to the prestige of Parliament in November 1 975. This is portrayed by the failure of the Government to respond satisfactorily to many of the questions that have been asked at Question Time and to many of the questions that have been placed on notice and in the failure of Ministers to make in the Parliament ministerial statements that can be debated. Instead, they give long-winded answers to Dorothy Dixers at Question Time. The complacent and indifferent attitude of the Government can be seen in the cavalier way in which reports of the Parliament are ignored despite an undertaking that this Government gave to the Australian Parliament. Let me refer to the notice papers of both the House of Representatives and the Senate. It might surprise honourable senators, especially those on the Government benches, to realise that one question on the House of Representatives Notice Paper was placed there as long ago as 15 March 1978- over 12 months ago. It was placed on the Notice Paper by the Opposition Whip in the House of Representatives, the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson). With respect to the Government and to the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Mr Adermann), it is a rather simple question. The question simply is:

Are British ex-servicemen receiving Australian service pensions entitled to the pensioner health benefits. If not, why not.

It is beyond me why it is taking a Minister of the Crown, the Minister for Veterans ‘ Affairs, over 12 months to answer that very simple question. On the House of Representatives Notice Paper is another question that was placed there on 2 June 1978 and another question that was placed there on 15 August 1978. 1 think it is scandalous of the Government to allow a question to be on the Notice Paper for more than 12 months without any apparent attempt being made to give an answer. What is the situation regarding questions on notice in this House? The first question on the Notice Paper was placed there by my colleague Senator Cavanagh on 24 May 1978, about 10 months ago. It is directed to the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Durack). It is question No. 483. 1 will not raise all the matters that are set out in the question but, in short, Senator Cavanagh asks the Attorney-General:

Will an investigation be held to ascertain whether a Commonwealth Minister or Ministers, a Queensland Minister, or a former Secretary of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs may have been in breach of the Crimes Act 1914, and will an investigation be instituted as to whether there has been a conspiracy to breach the Commonwealth law; if not, why will the Government not institute such an investigation.

That question contains very serious allegations for the Government to answer. Bearing in mind the last question that my colleague has framed within question No. 483, and the very serious imputations concerning Ministers of the Crown and others, I would have thought it would be in their own interests, as well as in the interests of this Parliament, to have matters of that nature cleared up. But the Government hopes that with the passage of time, with perhaps two or three years going by, with another election coming and another Parliament coming, that Notice Paper will be scrapped.

I see that the Leader of the Government (Senator Carrick) is in the chamber this evening. He should advise his colleagues that if Ministers do not answer within a reasonable time the questions that are placed on the Notice Paper then we of the Opposition will have to look very closely at and scrutinise in detail all of the legislation that those Ministers put before the Parliament. Perhaps instead of the Committee of the Whole agreeing to deal with Bills as a whole we will have to deal with them clause by clause, and thus make it more difficult for the Government to get its legislation through. I therefore appeal to the Leader of the Government and to Government Ministers to realise that they all have a responsibility to this Parliament; that they cannot just treat it with indifference or a certain air of lethargy. If the Parliament is to make a favourable impression on the Australian people, Ministers must have a responsibility to the Parliament.

I wish now to deal with a very serious question I asked without notice on 2 1 February concerning the arrest of Australian citizens. It was directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services. My question is recorded on page 80 of the Senate Hansard of 2 1 February. I said:

My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, follows the answer given to the Senate yesterday by Senator Guilfoyle. Bearing in mind the statement of the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) to the Senate yesterday that the first Commonwealth Police brief on the matter told her that the word ‘Greek ‘ did not appear at all on placards being held by alleged social welfare offenders being photographed by police but that yesterday she said she has since been advised that in at least five cases a placard bearing the date of binh and the word ‘Greece’ following it was used when police were taking photographs, I ask the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr McLeay) whether he will ascertain and inform the Senate why that information did not appear in that first police brief given to the Minister for Social Security. Secondly, I ask what was the reason for the placards being used in the photographs? Thirdly, will he ask the Minister whom he represents in this place to order a thorough investigation to ascertain why the real facts were kept from the Minister for Social Security and thus denied to the Australian Parliament.

In his response Senator Chaney stated:

I shall convey the contents of that question and the requests it contains to the Minister for Administrative Services and seek replies for the honourable senator.

There was a situation where accusations were being made. Because of insufficiency of briefing by the relevant officers to a Minister of the Crown that Minister unwittingly and unknowingly did not give the Parliament the full information that was in the hands of the police officers and the Public Service. It was not given to the Minister and thus not given to the Parliament. It has taken over a month for a reply to come and by sheer coincidence that reply came about half an hour before I came into this Parliament. It was not given to the Senate but was given to me. I intend to put that reply on the record because, the question having been heard, in fairness to everyone concerned the Parliament is entitled to have the answer. The letter is from the Minister for Administrative Services and is dated 26 March. It states:

Dear Senator McClelland,

On 2 1 February 1 979 in reply to a question without notice you asked concerning social welfare benefits, Senator the Hon. F. M. Chaney advised that the contents of the question would be referred to me for a full reply.

In answer to the first two questions you asked the following information has been provided to me by the Commissioner of the Commonwealth Police-

The police brief prepared on 27 April 1978 for the Minister for Social Security was prepared by the Commissioner’s Office in Canberra. At that time -

I emphasise those words- the Commissioner advised he had not been informed of all the details of the events in Sydney . . .

That is a scandalous state of affairs, for questions to be asked in this Parliament, for a police commissioner to be asked to give a brief to a Minister of the Crown so that that Minister can respond on behalf of the Government and now, at this stage, we are told that at that time- namely, when the brief was being prepared in April 1978- the Commissioner of Police advised that he had not been informed of all the details of the events in Sydney. The letter continues:

  1. The instructions issued to Commonwealth Police for taking identification photographs provide for the name and date of birth of the persons to be included in the photograph by way of a placard. While the instructions do not require the person’s place of birth to be included in the photograph this appeared inadvertently in a small number of photographs which carried the word ‘Greece’.

In so far as the third question you asked is concerned the Commissioner’s explanation for such action being taken has been investigated and instructions have been issued to ensure the inclusion of the place of birth in identification photographs does not occur again.

It is said that it was inadvertence on the part of someone, that there were a small number of photographs taken which carried the word Greece’ but that now all that will happen is that an instruction will be given that the showing of place of birth in identification photographs does not occur again. I think it is a cavalier, offhanded manner in which the reply has been prepared. I do not blame the Minister for Adminis.tative Services; I blame the people who prepared the letter for the Minister for giving that sort of off-handed reply. I suggest that the Government looks at those sorts of matters. I now want to deal with the question of parliamentary committee reports because it was on 26 May 1978 that Senator Withers, as the then Leader of the Government in the Senate, making a statement on behalf of the Prime Minister, told the Senate that so far as parliamentary reports were concerned, the Government would be replying to the Parliament as to the action that it intended to take on the recommendations set out in the report and it would intend to make such a statement to the Parliament within a period of six months. At page 1933 of the Senate Hansard of 26 May 1978 Senator Withers stated:

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

Later on in the same statement Senator Withers stated:

There have been a number of reports tabled since the Government took office on which the Government’s attitude has not yet been announced. The Prime Minister has asked Ministers to inform the Cabinet of action taken or proposed to be taken in relation to them and, where appropriate, the Parliament will be informed in these cases too.

That was in May 1978, nearly 10 months ago. We were told at that time that reports of the Parliament would be considered by the Government and within six months of the report being tendered a report from the Government would be given to the Parliament setting out what action it intended to take. I have obtained some figures which lead me to understand that a report was presented by the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on 1 June 1978 on the subject Australia, Antarctica and the Law of the Sea. The date for response by the Government in regard to that report was 1 December 1978. No report has yet been forthcoming from the Government. The Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee made a report on the priority of crown debts. It was tabled on 2 June 1978. The date for response by the Government was 2 December 1978. There has been no report from the Government to the Senate as to what action the Government intends to take. The report of the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee on the subject of annual reports referred to committees was tabled on 6 June 1978. There has been no report from the Government as to what it intends to do. The 61st report of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinance was tabled on 7 June 1 978. There has been no response from the Government as to what it intends to do about that report. On 7 June 1978 the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment tendered a report on the subject of annual reports being referred to the Committee. Again, there has been no report from the Government.

The Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations tendered a report relating to the Australian Housing Corporation’s annual report for 1974-75. The Committee’s report was tabled in Parliament on 22 August, but only today the Minister for Social Security, on behalf of the Minister for Veterans ‘ Affairs, tendered a report to the Senate- about two months after the end of the period of six months. The matter of expenditure by government departments on the hire of pot plants was referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations by one of the Senate Estimates committees, and recommendations were made in a report tabled on 22 August, but still there has been no report from the Government. The Senate Standing Committee on National Resources reported on Australia’s water resources on 24 August 1978. Again, there has been no report from the Government. The Finance and Government Operations Committee tabled a report on the use of consultants on 28 September 1978. To date, there has been no report from the Government, and it has only another two days in which to do that. The 62nd report of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances was tabled on 28 September 1978. The Government has another two days in which to tell the Parliament what it is doing in respect of the matters referred to in that report.

The Government is displaying a lethargic and arrogant attitude towards this Parliament. I believe that it has to pull up its socks and show some respect for the authority of the Parliament. I wonder what the Government’s attitude would be if by chance it did not have a majority in this Senate. I am sure that it would have a different attitude. The Government is not living up to its undertakings to keep the Parliament informed and to take the Australian people into its confidence. It is treating the Parliament with an arrogant contempt. If the Parliament is again to become meaningful, then all members of Parliament have to be prepared to confront the Government openly on the matter.

There are two other short matters to which I wish to refer. One relates to the failure of the Government to act on the report of the Horton Committee of Inquiry into Public Libraries in Australia. The report was commissioned by the Labor Government when it was in office. It was tendered to this Government shortly after we went out of office, but to date nothing has been done about it by the Government. I last asked a question on the subject on 18 October last year. On behalf of the Government, the Minister for Science and the Environment (Senator Webster) said that he was unable to give the Senate any accurate information on the matter; that he would attempt to get an answer on whether the report had been pigeon-holed; that he did not know the quality of the report; and that he was unable to make any further comment at that time. In fairness to the Minister, I point out that I have made a precis of his answer. I sent a copy of my question and the Minister’s reply to the Australian Library Promotion Council, and on 15 February this year I received the following response from Mr Watson, the Editor of Australian Library News:

Dear Senator McClelland,

The answer of the Minister in the Senate representing the responsible Minister is, to us, both alarming and depressing. The Austraiian Library Promotion Council and the Library Association of Australia have done all in their power ( barring strikes, violence and terrorism) to get attention to the historic report, without avail, since April 1976 when it was tabled in Parliament.

Any comprehensive evaluation of the whole information and cultural process reveals what a tremendous direct and indirect component is provided by the library system in Australia.

Correction! There is no national system due to the appropriate recommendations of the Horton Report not being implemented.

With all the inadequacies revealed in the Horton Report, three million Australians use state and public library services directly, and like schools, colleges and universities, the indirect benefit is to the whole population.

If library facilities (building, stock, staff, research, equipment, promotion) matched the developmental level in Australia of formal education and the mass media- the usage factor could easily be nearer to six million.

We believe obtrusiveness of the mass media, with the tyranny of the mass audience over most of its content, and its control being in the hands of a mere handful of people, makes the development of public libraries all the more important.

Yours faithfully,

S. WATSON,

Editor

Australian Library News

In that letter the Australian Library Promotion Council expressed its disgust at the cavalier way in which the valuable and historic report of the Horton Committee has been ignored by this Government. I make an appeal to the Minister at the table, the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick), who I know has some concern about education in this country, to take up the matter with his colleague, the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ellicott) to see whether we can get the matter into Cabinet, to see whether we can get a decision, and to see whether the Parliament can be told what is to happen about the matter.

The other matter to which I wish to refer briefly is the problem of youth unemployment in the State I represent in this Parliament, the State of New South Wales. I refer to figures published as recently as 16 March by the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner) in a statement headed ‘Major Labour Market Series as at February 1 979 ‘. It is interesting to note, by way of aside, that the Minister said in that statement that preliminary estimates of the monthly labour force survey released on 16 March by the Australian Bureau of Statistics showed that in February- that is last month- an estimated 381,100 persons were unemployed and were looking for full time work. On the next page of the statement the Minister said that, at the end of February 1979, 481,707 persons were registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service as unemployed and were seeking full time work. It is beyond my comprehension that on the one hand an estimate by the Bureau of Statistics shows that 38 1 ,000 people were out of work in

February whilst on the other hand 481,000 persons were registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service as unemployed. I know that the Government relies on the estimate published by the Bureau of Statistics; but, in support of the Commonwealth Employment Service figure of 481,000, the statement issued by Mr Viner indicated that the Minister for Social Security had advised that as at 23 February 1979 the number of persons receiving unemployment benefits was 357,463, a rise of 15,586 over the previous month. The figures do not tally. They are out by 100,000 or so. I suggest that the Government has to look at that situation.

My colleague Senator Sibraa and I were in the north-west of New South Wales over the weekend and we visited places such as Warialda and Inverell. We saw at first hand some of the problems of youth unemployment in the rural areas of New South Wales. Some of the figures contained in the Minister’s statement of March show the seriousness of the situation, despite a boom season in rural industries, with the grain industry in a buoyant situation, the situation in the wool industry on the increase and the beef industry enjoying record prices. I cite the Commonwealth Employment Service figures for Dubbo, a large city in the west of New South Wales. In and around Dubbo 3,501 people are registered as unemployed. The number of unfilled vacancies available is 170. In and around Dubbo 524 school leavers are registered as unemployed and the number of unfilled vacancies for juniors is a mere 32.

Let us consider the situation in one of the towns near one that we visited, namely, the town of Narrabri, in which the total number of people registered as unemployed is 1,675. The number of unfilled vacancies in that area is a mere 60. The number of young school leavers registered as unemployed is 2 1 6 and the number of unfilled vacancies is 8. All told, the total number of people registered as unemployed in the nonmetropolitan areas of Sydney- that is, the rural areas of Sydney- is 82,848. For those people there are only 2,449 vacancies. That is a scandalous state of affairs. No wonder there is a continuing drift from the country to the city. But as far as the young people of this country are concerned, 13,084 school leavers in the non-metropolitan area are registered as unemployed and the number of job vacancies is 62 1 . About 50 school leavers are lined up to get each job.

The situation is much worse in the rural areas than it is in the cities. In the metropolitan area of

Sydney 93,223 people are registered as unemployed, but there are 7,900 vacancies there compared with 2,400 vacancies in the country. For the 10,653 school leavers registered as unemployed in the metropolitan area of Sydney there are 3,289 vacancies. I repeat that 13,084 school leavers are registered as unemployed in the rural areas and there are a mere 62 1 job vacancies and 10,653 school leavers are registered as unemployed in the metropolitan area of Sydney and there are 3,289 job vacancies. I know that the New South Wales Government is doing all within its power to bring work to these areas. The members of the Australian Labor Party in New South Wales have been working closely with the New South Wales Government to overcome some of the problems but until the Federal Government adopts a different attitude towards the problems of the States and the problems of people, particularly those in the rural areas of this nation, the situation will go from very bad to severe and critical indeed.

It is my responsibility, as a senator representing New South Wales, to bring those figures to the attention of the Government, particularly to the attention of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, who also is a New South Wales senator, and to plead with him and the members of his Government to do something to overcome the plight of the many unfortunates in the rural areas of New South Wales.

Debate interrupted.

page 984

DISTINGUISHED VISITOR

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the gallery of a former colleague and member of this place in the person of George Poyser. It is a pleasure personally and on behalf of the Senate to tender to him a warm welcome back to these precincts this evening.

Honourable senators- Hear, hear!

page 984

POULTRY INDUSTRY LEVY AMENDMENT BILL 1979

First Readings

Debate resumed.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

- Mr President, I am sure that we all share your welcome to our former colleague, George Poyser. I wish to take the opportunity of the first reading of the Poultry Industry Levy Amendment Bill and the Poultry Industry Assistance Amendment Bill (No. 2) to raise a matter which I have raised before in the Parliament and which I believe indicates a dereliction of duty on the part of the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen), and to bring the Senate up to date on what I believe to be a very serious problem involving the procurement program for the Royal Australian Navy. On 24 October of last year the Minister for Defence, in his defence review, provided certain information to the Parliament about the cost of three patrol frigates, or, as they are commonly known, FFGs. On that occasion the Minister provided the latest costs available to the Australian Government and indicated that he expected shortly to update that information.

Shortly after, I became aware that the Todd Shipbuilding Corporation, which was building the patrol frigates for the Australian Government, was in financial difficulties. Because of my concern about the cost of these vessels and the shipbuilder’s liquidity problems, I asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick), representing the Minister for Defence, a series of questions during the second and third weeks of November. In response to those questions Senator Carrick, after seeking information, gave what appeared to be full and frank answers. In any event, they provided much more information than had previously been given by the Minister for Defence. On the question of the cost of the FFGs, Senator Carrick referred to the fact that the cost estimates are subject to a complete review on a periodic basis. He referred to the undertaking of the Minister for Defence to update the information on costs and he went on to say that it was expected that the results of the review would be available by the end of the year.

Well may the Government have been concerned by the fact that the questions of costs had been raised by the Opposition. For the first two FFGs, the latest costs provided by the Minister for Defence were those available in January 1977, that is, more than two years ago. The situation is only marginally better in relation to the third FFG, as the Minister has been able to provide only an estimate of costs as at August 1977. That is getting on towards two years ago. This would be worrying enough under normal circumstances but, due to the cost escalation which has occurred in relation to these ships, the lack of information available to the Government is a scandal. The fact that we have not been given any more information since then can only make one come to the conclusion that some incredible escalation in costs has taken place, of which we have not been told.

When the project was first announced in 1974, the full cost of the first two ships was estimated to be $187m. By February 1976 this estimate had increased to $330m, which is an increase of $143m in two years. Twelve months later, the cost of the first two ships had jumped to $4 14m, more than double the original estimate. When the cost of the third ship is added in, the total bill at some time during 1977 would have been in excess of $500m. It is now more than four months since the Minister for Defence told us that he would update the cost of these patrol frigates. Let us be quite clear: We are talking about three ships whose cost escalation has turned them into what could be described as floating Fills. Yet the Australian Government has not -

Senator Knight:

– Who ordered these ships? Who scrapped the DDL project?

Senator WRIEDT:

-I can see that Senator Knight’s knowledge of the matter is scanty. As I have already indicated, the first two ships were ordered in 1974. But that is not the issue.

Senator Knight:

– Who scrapped the DDL project?

Senator WRIEDT:

– We are not talking about the DDL project; we are talking about the FFGs. We are talking about the cost escalation which was part of the agreement with the United States Government and which I will come to, if the honourable senator will bear with me. He will then see the manner in which his Government has been remiss and careless in the manner in which it has policed its obligations concerning the construction of these ships. The Australian Government has not had an indication of cost increases for the first two years of this program.

I raised the matter in the Senate when we were discussing the Defence estimates last November. We have still had no response. Once again, I point out- especially for Senator Knight’s benefit- as I did on the last occasion, that under the memorandum of arrangements between the United States of America and Australia, the Australian Government is entitled to information on costs on a continuing basis. Notwithstanding that arrangement, we have not heard a thing about the cost of these three vessels since January 1 977. If that were the only issue involved with these FFGs, the matter would be serious enough. However, for other reasons, the picture is much worse.

The issues surrounding these vessels could be summarised as follows: First, they are extremely costly vessels and at this stage we have not the slightest idea about their eventual cost. Who knows, we may not be looking at a figure approaching $ 1,000m when we get the truth of what is happening. Secondly, the vessels have been constructed by a company which is in financial difficulties and may well be an inefficient shipbuilder, thus further increasing the costs. I would refer any honourable senators to the evidence that was given on this very point by experts in this area before the Armed Services Committee of the United States Congress. They established beyond any reasonable doubt that this company is not classified as an efficient shipbuilder. Thirdly, the ships have been acquired for a purpose quite different from the purpose for which they were designed. Fourthly, the ships do not contain adequate armament for their protection so they become extremely vulnerable to enemy attack.

In response to questions I asked Senator Carrick informed us that the contract under which these ships are being purchased is what is known as a fixed-price incentive contract. As I understand Senator Carrick ‘s answer at the time, it means that if the cost of the ship is reduced below the target cost, the profit to the shipbuilder is increased. Conversely, if the cost rises above the target cost the profit to the shipbuilder is reduced. But the precise details of this contract are not known and have not been made known to the Parliament. The details have never been released and the exact way in which the contract operates is not known. I certainly do not know how it operates although I have endeavoured to find out exactly what is involved.

On the face of it, it would appear that the control over the costs lies substantially with the shipbuilder. How is the Australian Government to keep under control such detailed matters on such a basis is beyond me, particularly as we cannot even get cost estimates that are less than two years old. In other words, we look as if we are to pay out what we are told to pay out without having any real idea of how the costs were calculated. In view of the enormous cost of these vessels I do not have to explain to the Senate just how much this is distorting our whole program of acquiring capital equipment for the Navy.

Senator Carrick also confirmed that the Todd Shipbuilding Corporation was in some difficulty. In fact he pointed out on 14 November last year that the Australian Government had been made aware of this fact in August 1 976. It was only as a result of my asking the question that two years later that fact was brought to light. Yet, even though the Government was aware of this in August 1976, it went ahead in November 1977 and ordered a third FFG from the same shipbuilder.

There are suggestions, as I have indicated, that the particular yard building the ships is inefficient. Yet, in the light of known facts conceded by the Government about the condition of the shipbuilding firm and the enormous escalation in costs of the first two units that had already taken place, how is it that the Government went ahead and ordered a third vessel? A journalist who visited the yard of this shipbuilder in Seattle, which is one of two Todd yards, reported that that yard was using equipment which was not up to date and that this was one of the reasons why it was not able to maintain a proper standard of efficiency.

There have also been suggestions that the ships coming out of the Todd yards are costing 14 per cent more than similar vessels coming from the Bath Iron works at Mayne. This would not be so bad if the costs of the vessels were an average cost spread over the whole purchase of this type of vessel for the United States Navy. But such is not the case. On 17 November Senator Carrick confirmed that the cost of the Royal Australian Navy ships will be determined by the labour, material and service costs incurred in the construction of the vessels for our Navy. If our vessels are being built by a less efficient yard under contract to the United States Government and by a corporation which is in some financial difficulty, it is logical to assume that our ships are to cost more than the unit cost of a vessel being built for the United States fleet. Under these circumstances it is time that we had a proper explanation of just what is going on.

The patrol frigates were designed for very specific purposes under the concept promoted by Admiral Zumwalt, a former Chief of the United States Navy. He argued for what was known as a high-low mix’, those items whose role demanded attention were built to high levels of operational capability and weapons technology. Other equipment was designed around very much more tightly controlled operational concepts to result in the cheapest possible vessels to perform the role. As part of this ‘high-low mix’, the low end of the force was the FFG, the role of which was strictly to operate in convoys in company with other vessels. For Australia, of course, the FFG represents the high end for the Navy. So it works back to front.

The role of the FFG has been described in answer to a question on notice on 24 November- and this is the official definition of the role of the FFG for the Royal Australian Navy- in these terms:

The FFG has a capability for conducting prolonged, independent patrol and surveillance operations in situations of relatively low level of threat and combined with other forces, would provide a valuable contribution to both the defence and offensive capabilities of such forces in higher level situations.

As we have on order only three of these vessels, it appears clear that substantially they will be carrying out an independent patrolling role. In other words, they will be on their own whereas they have been designed for American purposes to be used in conjunction with other vessels. This immediately increases the risk to which these vessels will be subject under our conditions and raises some very serious doubts about their relationship to current Navy strategies. In any event, the very great Australian investment is much more vulnerable because of the role given to these vessels by the Navy.

This would be bad enough if the ships had adequate defences. Unfortunately, in this respect, they will fall far below their American counterparts. The major risk to the FFG will come from Sea-skimmer surface-to-surface missiles similar to the harpoon missile with which I believe the ship will be equipped. The defences against such an attack come from detection of the attacker or destruction of the missile it would fire. The detection capabilities of the FFG should come from helicopters and sonar systems. American FFGs will be fitted with two LAMPS helicopters, an active SQS 5 6 sonar and a passive towed array sonar known as TACTAS. As yet the Navy has not selected its helicopters for the frigates and we will have to await judgment as to their suitability. However, our ships will not be fitted with the TACTAS sonar, even though the Americans have established that the sonar to be fitted to the Australian vessels is, by itself, thoroughly inadequate. Thus our ability to detect a vessel which is a potential attacker is greatly reduced.

The Sea-skimmer missiles are comparatively invulnerable to conventional shipboard weapons. For this reason the Americans are developing a close-in weapon system which offers some hope of defence against these missiles. Australian ships will not be fitted with a close-in weapons system. Thus, they will be highly vulnerable on three grounds. Firstly, they are likely to be acting independently rather than in convoy for which they were designed. Secondly, their capacity to detect attackers is considerably less than that of their American counterparts, thirdly, their capacity to defend themselves against an attacker is also considerably less than that of the American ships. Under these circumstances, this Government is taking a grave risk with this huge investment. We do not argue for one moment whether selection of types in this area of military technology has risks and we also accept the escalation clauses which go into these contracts, but we call for a full explanation of the matters we have been raising in connection with these vessels. In particular we call on the Government to provide up-to-date cost details of these three ships. If the Government does not make a very prompt response to these requests it can be assured that it will hear much more on this issue in the future.

I close my remarks in respect of this matter by saying that although we accept that these decisions by governments are great and that the amounts involved are very great, this Government has failed over the past two years to keep abreast of the escalation in costs which has obviously taken place and of which we must learn the truth in the very near future. I say to the Government that unless it is prepared to tell the Australian people just what has happened in the case of these contracts, it is falling down lamentably in its defence program.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bills read a first time.

Second Readings

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I move:

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

Leave granted.

The speeches read as follows-

Poultry Industry Levy Amendment Bill 1979

The purpose of this Bill is to increase the maximum rate of the Commonwealth hen levy from the present $ 1 to $2 per hen per annum. The levy on hens has been the principal feature of the scheme which was devised by the Council of Egg Marketing Authorities of Australia- CEMAAin 1964 to assist in stabilising the Australian egg industry.

The CEMAA scheme is basically a States’ scheme which has been supported by each State Government. As the scheme involves a levy it is supported for Constitutional reasons by Commonwealth legislation. The Commonwealth legislation provides for a maximum hen levy of $ 1 per annum and for the distribution of the levy receipts by means of grants to the States for assistance to the industry. The bulk of the money has been used to offset the losses which the State egg marketing boards have incurred in the disposal of export eggs. In recent years escalating costs of egg production and inflation have resulted in the need for a higher rate of returns to enable producers to carry on.

The hen levy, which has been imposed at the maximum for some years, is now inadequate in relation to the present pricing structure of the egg industry and State egg boards have again been required to impose their own equalisation charges on eggs to meet the higher level of losses on exports. The situation has again been reached where some producers are not sharing equitably in meeting the losses from egg exports and this is placing orderly marketing within the industry under serious threat. Consequently, the CEMAA has sought an increase in the maximum rate of hen levy from $1 to $2 per hen per annum. Clause 3 of the Bill gives effect to the CEMAA recommendation which has received the agreement of all State Ministers in the Austraiian Agricultural Council.

The operative rate of levy within the $2 maximum will be prescribed after considering a recommendation from the CEMAA to provide the finance needed to cover the reimbursement of export losses. An assurance has been received from the CEMAA that after meeting the normal costs of administration and research the levy proceeds would not be used for purposes other than for the equalisation of returns on eggs by the State egg marketing boards. The assurance of CEMAA provides that if any State egg board receives levy reimbursements in excess of its equalisation requirements, the excess money will be returned direct to the producers in the State on a per hen basis.

At present the reimbursement of the levy proceeds is confined to the States for equalisation purposes. Provision has been made, however, in the accompanying Bill, the Poultry Industry Assistance Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1979, to enable future payments from the Poultry Industry Trust Fund to be made for the assistance of the poultry industry in the Territories as well as in the States. The purpose is to ensure that Territory producers are not disadvantaged vis-a-vis other producers by the proposed increase in the hen levy maximum.

Some producer opposition has been expressed in Tasmania and Northern and Central Queensland on the grounds that they do not contribute to the egg surplus. The State agricultural Ministers have, however, accepted that it was their responsibility to settle any areas of difficulty in the industry within their States in connection with the increase in the maximum rate of the hen levy. In conjunction with the egg production control legislation which is in operation in all States and the Australian Capital Territory, the amending Commonwealth legislation should ensure the continuing stability of this important Australian primary industry. I commend the Bill.

Poultry Industry Assistance Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1979

This Bill, which is complementary to the Poultry Industry Levy Amendment Bill 1979, provides for payments to be made from the Poultry Industry Trust Fund to assist the poultry industry in the internal Territories of Australia. The Poultry Industry Trust Fund was established under the Poultry Industry Assistance Act 1965 and is financed from the hen levy imposed under the Poultry Industry Levy Act 1965. As explained in my second reading speech on the Poultry Industry Levy Amendment Bill 1979 reimbursement of the levy proceeds from the Trust Fund is presently confined to the States for equalisation purposes.

Although the Australian Capital Territory does not require levy proceeds for equalisation purposes, provision has been made in Clause 5 of the Bill to provide for reimbursement of levy proceeds from the Trust Fund to be made to Australian Capital Territory producers. The purpose is to ensure that Australian Capital Territory producers are not disadvantaged vis-a-vis other producers through the increase proposed in the hen levy maximum in the Poultry Industry Levy Amendment Bill 1979 from the present $1 to $2 per hen per annum. While Northern Territory producers are at present exempt from the levy a similar provision has been made in Clause 3 of the Bill to permit levy reimbursements to be made, if necessary, to producers in the Northern Territory. There are no budgetary implications for the Commonwealth in this Bill as all the moneys are contributed by the egg producers themselves. I commend the Bill.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– The two Bills which are before the Senate, the Poultry Industry Assistance Amendment Bill (No. 2) and the Poultry Assistance Levy Amendment Bill, are complementary. The levy Bill raises the levy imposed on licenced hens from a maximum of $ 1 in the pre-existing legislation to a maximum of $2. The associated measure also authorises, under conditions which are not stipulated in the Bill so far as I can tell, reimbursements from the levy proceeds to egg producers in the Australian Capital Territory and in the Northern Territory. So far as I can tell, there is no provision for levying hens kept by egg producers in the Northern Territory, but that is a matter I will be taking up in the Committee stage or on which I ask the Minister for Science and the Environment (Senator Webster) to advise us in his reply to the second reading debate.

The purpose of this legislation is to maintain what is perhaps somewhat euphemistically called orderly marketing and what could be more accurately described as the maintenance of a two-tiered pricing system under which sales of eggs on the domestic market are concluded at considerably higher prices than those which prevail on the export market. The difference varies from State to State but the difference in the returns from those two markets is in the vicinity of 60c a dozen, which is a very large gap given that eggs in various States sell for from a bit under $ 1 a dozen to around $1.27 a dozen. The effect of any export production, of course, when the returns are equalised to producers, is that the higher the volume of exports the lower the average price returned to producers. At present, if we were in what I see as the ideal situation where egg production exactly fitted domestic egg consumption at prevailing prices, average producer returns would be some 10c a dozen higher than they are now. About 15 per cent of total production is exported at prices around 60c a dozen below those prices realised on the domestic market.

Although there are some obviously unsatisfactory elements in that situation, it is vastly preferable to that which existed prior to 1975 when the broad framework for the existing marketing legislation was laid down. At that stage some 30 per cent of total Australian production was exported and there was no overriding Commonwealth legislation. The various State boards operated under the shield of State legislation alone. So at the very worst one would have to say that the existing marketing arrangements are much more satisfactory, both for the Australian egg producer and consumer, than the pre- 1965 arrangements prior to the Commonwealth’s entry legislatively into the field. This is for the reason I stated previously; that is, under present prices on domestic and export markets and the prices which have pertained on those markets for a very long time, the greater the quantity that is exported the lower the price to egg producers will be and /or the higher the prices paid by Australian egg consumers will be.

When the original legislation was passed in 1965 it was incumbent upon the States to license all poultry flocks of more than 20 birds- flocks being defined as commercial flocks if they contained more than 20 birds- to impose a limit on the number of hens that could be legally kept. The levy was struck on the basis of a maximum of $1 a bird on all those licensed hens. The proceeds which are derived from this hen levy have been used in the past to subsidise, through the State egg boards, the losses incurred on export sales. The present levy of $1 a bird has not been sufficient for some time for that practice to continue and in fact the State egg boards have been informally subsidising exports from the proceeds of domestic sales as well as from the proceeds of the hen levy. It is for that reason basically that the present proposal to increase the levy from its present maximum of $1 to $2 a bird is before the Parliament. The Opposition is not opposing the measure.

In my view, there are clearly some undesirable features built into the present marketing arrangements and the fund from which the losses on exports are subsidised. The Council of Egg Marketing Authorities of Australia trust fund is a central fund, but the control of hen numbers in the various States lies in the hands of the State egg marketing boards and ultimately the State governments. So we have what I believe is always an undesirable separation of financial liability and responsibility to control production. Not surprisingly, this system, over the 14 years that it has operated, has led to significant interstate transfers of payments and receipts.

It can be seen from a table which I will seek leave to incorporate in Hansard shortly that, for example, New South Wales has received almost $8m more from the CEMAA fund than New South Wales hen licensees paid to the fund; Victoria has contributed to the fund $3.6m more than it has received; Western Australia has paid in some $3. 8m more than it has received; and South Australia has received some $3m more than it has paid in. The greatest anomaly in proportionate terms, although not in absolute terms, arising from this arrangement affects the producers in the Australian Capital Territory, of whom there are only a few. They supply only the local market. They have paid in some $860,000 and have received no reimbursements from the fund. I will be asking some questions about that matter later. I seek permission to incorporate the table in Hansard. It shows payments into and out of the CEMAA fund since 1965 on a State basis.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows-

Senator WALSH:

-The table clearly shows that there are financial inequities between the States in the present system. I have been told by people in the egg industry that the new arrangements under this legislation will eliminate this interstate income transfer. If so, I think that it is a move to be commended. It is a movement towards bringing power and responsibility together instead of separating them, which is always desirable. However, I am not able to find in either of the amending Bills or in the second reading speech of the Minister for Science and the Environment any indication of how that objective will be achieved. The Minister’s second reading speech states:

The assurance of CEMAA provides that if any State Egg Board receives levy reimbursements in excess of its equalisation requirements -

That means to subsidise the losses incurred on exports- the excess money will be returned direct to the producers in the State on a per hen basis.

I fail to see how that assurance provides any guarantee that payments into the fund on a State basis will equal payments out of the fund on a State basis. Other sections of the Minister’s second reading speech state that the CEMAA levy and fund will be used to pay the pooling charges and research expenditure incurred within the States. That does not really affect the central question that I am asking. I can see no sure provision within the legislation or the second reading speech which guarantees this highly desirable objective that payments into and out of the trust fund on a State basis will be equalised or will at least be proportionate.

I will explain why I think that that is necessary. If each State is able to cover the total losses incurred on exports from that State, or what the Minister calls its equalisation requirement, there is no direct disincentive for that State to license an excessive number of birds in the State. The losses incurred in the industry as a whole by licensing an excessive number of birds will not be picked up by the producers and the egg boards within that State, but will be spread over all the egg producers in Australia. I trust that I can get a satisfactory answer to that question. It is certainly the belief of the egg industry producers to whom I spoke that such an equalisation of payments and receipts on a State basis will be achieved.

Senator Ryan and the honourable member for Fraser, Mr Fry, have contacted me on this matter on behalf of the poultry producers in the Australian Capital Territory. They are seeking some guarantee that the payments from the CEMAA fund to the producers in the Australian Capital Territory will be commensurate with the payments into that fund by Australian Capital Territory producers. The Australian Capital Territory producers in the past have not contributed to surplus egg production. Therefore, their argument is that they should not be compelled or required to subsidise the losses on exports from surplus stocks which occur in other States. It is a point of view which I personally think is valid. Some poultry producers in northern Queensland have also complained in the past that they do not contribute to the egg surplus and therefore they should not have to subsidise the export losses. I think that their case is somewhat weaker on these grounds: The Australian Capital Territory is the political unit which controls the number of birds which are licensed within the Territory, whereas the political unit under which the north Queensland producers operate is the whole State of Queensland. While within the context of the State of Queensland they may have a valid complaint that they are paying for the excess production but not contributing to it, I think that that argument should be pursued with the State Government of Queensland, which is the political unit controlling the allocation of hen licences in that State. The Australian Capital Territory is its own political unit for this purpose.

Senator Knight:

– Doesn’t the same apply to Tasmania?

Senator WALSH:

– There have been some complaints from producers in Tasmania also. I did not cite the Tasmanian figure; but over the 14 or 15 years Tasmania is another State which has paid considerably more into the CEMAA fund than it has received from it. Proportionately, I think that the case in the Australian Capital Territory is somewhat stronger than the Tasmanian case. The case that the north Queensland producers have against the State of Queensland is possibly also stronger; but I do not think that this Parliament is the place in which to pursue that matter.

It is rather disappointing when one looks over the statistics for egg production and exports over the last few years to find that in spite of the objective of the present marketing legislation, that is, to bring production and domestic consumption as much as possible into balance, we seem to be struck with a fairly consistent surplus of 15 per cent; that is, 15 per cent of total production is still exported. While it is probably quite feasible to eliminate those exports entirely, it seems that there ought to be considerable scope for reducing that 15 per cent to something of the order of 5 to 10 per cent. This would provide the potential for benefits to both egg producers and the Australian consumers. I am also reliably informed that in some States at least, and particularly in New South Wales, the licence to keep hens has a considerable value in itself. I am reliably informed that the value of the licence on the market per se- not the capitalised value of the sheds, et cetera- is in the vicinity of $12 a bird.

I have two comments to make about that matter. Firstly, I am a little surprised that it is so high in New South Wales when, in fact, egg prices there are the lowest of all the States. Prices are marginally lower in the Australian Capital Territory than they are in New South Wales, or were a few months ago when the last statistics which I have were produced, and considerably lower than they are in the other States. One would expect, therefore, that the capitalised value of the licence would be lower in New South Wales than it is elsewhere but instead it appears to be higher. If that is the situation it certainly suggests that the poultry producers in New South Wales are either more efficient or that, for some reason which is not readily apparent, have lower costs of production than producers in other States. Whichever it is, if the licence to keep hens has a significant market value it suggests that the price of eggs could be lower than it is. Certainly the price of eggs could be lower if domestic production and consumption were brought more into balance than they have been in the past.

The Minister rushed hurriedly into the chamber when I first started speaking and appeared a little confused. I have some questions which I would like him to answer either at this second reading stage or in the Committee stage. Firstly, what are the provisions, if any, which will, if not guarantee that the payments into and from the fund on a State basis are in balance, at least ensure that they are much closer to being in balance than they have been in the past? Secondly, will egg producers in the Northern Territory be subject to the levy? Thirdly, what guarantees, if any, can the Government give that Australian Capital Territory egg producers will receive an equitable distribution of the funds of the Council of Egg Marketing Authorities of Australia, and by ‘equitable’ I mean commensurate with their payments to that fund?

Senator KNIGHT:
Australian Capital Territory

– I take this opportunity to speak on these two Bills dealing with the poultry industry because of some problems relating to this industry in the Australian Capital Territory. The Poultry Industry Levy Amendment Bill proposes an increase from $ 1 to $2 in the annual levy per hen. The Poultry Industry Assistance Amendment Bill will allow future payments from the trust fund created by those levies to assist the industry in the Territory as well as in the States which are parties to the Council of Egg Marketing Authorities of Australia. This is to ensure that Australian Capital Territory producers are not disadvantaged in any way by the proposed increase in the levy. As has already been mentioned, over the years the Australian Capital Territory has paid into the trust fund in the vicinity of $860,000 but, in fact, has received nothing in financial terms in return. Its producers, however, have gained to some extent because of the impact of more orderly marketing and also, of course, from the research that has occurred as a result of payments out of the trust fund during the time that it has operated. Although Senator Walsh has indicated that he will in the Committee stage raise a number of problems relating to the Australian Capital Territory, I take the opportunity of the second reading debate to raise some of those problems to which he may wish to refer later but which I, as a representative of the Territory, would like to put on the record at this stage.

There are a number of problems in the poultry industry in the Australian Capital Territory which has one major producer and two smaller producers. They currently have a hen quota of 150,000 birds. One of the problems facing those producers is that the Australian Capital Territory is not a full member of the Council of Egg Marketing Authorities of Australia- it is an observer only- and I believe that this poses a number of problems to which I will refer in more detail later. Another matter is that the Australian Capital Territory does not produce a surplus of eggs. It is to be noted that it has sought an increased hen quota but has not been successful in obtaining one. The Australian Capital Territory has been the subject of what I believe can fairly be referred to as the dumping of eggs from Victoria. This has affected local producers. Another problem which faces producers in the Australian Capital Territory is that they do not benefit directly from reimbursements from the trust fund although they do benefit through the process of orderly marketing. Obviously, the practice of the Victorian Egg Marketing Board of selling eggs and cutting prices in the Australian Capital Territory contrary to the CEMAA agreement has not contributed to orderly marketing. Finally, still in relation to that point, there is the question of the reimbursement of producers in the Australian Capital Territory with some of the funds which they pay into the trust fund. That fund is used to finance administration, research and price equalisation to assist in the export of egg surpluses. The Australian Capital Territory does not produce such a surplus. As Senator Walsh has already mentioned, the Territory’s producers are looking for a reasonable and fair reimbursement from the fund of the levies which they will pay under this Poultry Industry Levy Amendment Bill which increases the levy from $1 to $2 per hen.

In view of the points I have mentioned, I believe that the Australian Capital Territory should have a seat, a full voice and full rights on the Council. I recognise the fact that the Council is seen essentially as a States organisation. That in itself is in many ways characteristic of the traditional attitudes in the States to the Territories and so often to the Australian Capital Territory. However, I think it has been overlooked to a degree that the Australian Capital Territory in relative terms has what is regarded by it as an important industry- its poultry industry. It is important to the producers and consumers of the Australian Capital Territory. Therefore, it is important to the people of the Territory that the Australian Capital Territory should have a proper and full say in the activities of CEMAA. After all, as I have already mentioned, it has contributed approximately $860,000 to the trust fund.

The Council of Egg Marketing Authorities of Australia consists of members of all the State egg marketing boards. Of course, it can be readily argued that the Australian Capital Territory is not represented on CEMAA because there is no egg marketing board in the Australian Capital Territory. That begs the question whether it is necessary for the Australian Capital Territory to have an egg marketing board in order for it to be properly represented on CEMAA. Should we not have some form of egg marketing board in the

Territory or some similar body which would ensure that the Australian Capital Territory is properly and fully represented on the Council? As I understand it the Council has agreed to the attendance at its meetings of a representative of the Department of the Capital Territory as an observer so that the views of the Territory can be considered in matters where the Australian Capital Territory is affected. My point is that there are obvious limitations in that sort of representation and that the Australian Capital Territory should have a full voice in line with that of the States on this Council so that this industry and the Territory is properly protected. I have already mentioned a number of factors which lead me to make that suggestion and 1 would like to discuss them in greater detail.

As I have indicated, the Australian Capital Territory does not produce a surplus, but it does contribute to the levy which is used for price equalisation to assist in the export of eggs which are produced by the States producing a surplus. I understand that in 1972 the hen quota for the Australian Capital Territory was set at 85,000 birds and that in 1975 this was increased to 150,000, but a more recent request by the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Ellicott) for an additional 25,000 hens has in fact been rejected by all States because of excess production. That illustrates the very point I am trying to make. Because excess production does not occur in the Territory, we in fact need an increased quota of hens to be sure that we can produce the quantity of eggs that is required by the consumers of the Territory. The States, through the Council of Egg Marketing Authorities of Australia, have rejected the Australian Capital Territory’s request for an additional quota but it is the States, not the Australian Capital Territory, which are producing surplus eggs which need to be exported and which are therefore required to be subsidised by the levy which producers in the Australian Capital Territory have to pay. For those sorts of reasons, I believe that the Territory should have a seat on the Council of Egg Marketing Authorities of Australia and a proper say in that Council. I believe that there is a case for a proper reimbursement of the levy to producers in the Territory who do not produce a surplus which requires export. I believe that a close look is needed at the problem of the disposal of surplus eggs by at least one State- Victoria- in the Territory, contrary to agreements made within the Council. I believe also that there needs to be reconsideration of the hen quota.

I have already referred to the first of those matters, that is, the question of a seat for the Territory on the Council of Egg Marketing Authorities of Australia. I would like to refer in greater detail to the reimbursement of levy contributions to producers in the Territory. As I understand it, the return to State producers has amounted over the years to about 75 per cent of the levy. Again as I understand it, Territory producers do not seek an exemption from payment of the levy, but they do want fair treatment in relation to the terms and conditions under which the States and the Australian Capital Territory pay their contributions to the levy and the basis on which they are reimbursed. As I have already mentioned, the Council of Egg Marketing Authorities of Australia, after meeting the cost of administration and research, uses the levy for the equalisation of returns on eggs by State egg marketing boards and if any egg marketing board receives levy reimbursements in excess of its equalisation requirements the excess is returned direct to the producers on a ‘per hen’ basis. The provision of the levy has been confined to the States for this purpose of equalisation, as I have mentioned. The amendment to the Poultry Industry Levy Act which we are now considering will allow the trust fund to assist the Territory as well. The Minister for Education (Senator Carrick), in his second reading speech, said:

The purpose is to ensure that Territory producers are not disadvantaged vis-a-vis other producers by the proposed increase in the hen levy maximum.

That suggests to me that they have been disadvantaged in the past. The fact that it is increasing is not the essential element in this regard; it is the fact that the levy is paid at all. This matter has been raised previously. My understanding is that action is to be taken to try to rectify the situation. In a letter dated 13 March the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) stated:

With the new maxium rate of hen levy it is possible, depending on the recommendations made by the Council of Egg Marketing Authorities of Australia (CEMAA) for reimbursement of the levy, that some States could receive more money than they require for equalisation purposes. Should this eventuate, the CEMAA has given assurances that the excess money will be paid direct to producers on a per hen basis.

In the States, any such payments will be made by the State Egg Boards. In the case of the Australian Capital Territory, the payments will be made by my Department, the Department of Primary Industry.

The letter continues:

The payments to producers could vary, however, as between States due to the extent to which levy reimbursements are required to meet losses on the export of eggs from the States.

The legislation provides that before approving any payments from the Poultry Industry Trust Fund, the Minister for

Primary Industry should take into consideration any recommendations which the CEMAA makes on this matter.

Whilst I cannot anticipate what the CEMAA will recommend, I envisage that payments to Australian Capital Territory Producers under these arrangements would be in line with the payments made to New South Wales producers, as egg prices in the Australian Capital Territory are essentially based on the New South Wales price structure.

As I have already mentioned, the Australian Capital Territory is not represented on CEMAA. It does not produce a surplus of eggs. The arrangements have been considered by the major producer in the Territory, Parkwood Eggs Pty Ltd. In a letter dated 26 March from that producer to me it is stated:

It was proposed . . .

In the CEMAA arrangements that the Minister referred to-

  1. . that payments to the Australian CapitalTerritory egg producers would be in line with the payments made to New South Wales producers.

The above proposal is completely unacceptable to ACT producers for the following reasons.

It then goes on to give a number of reasons. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the letter from Parkwood Eggs Pty Ltd which sets out those reasons.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

page 993

PARKWOOD EGGS PTY. LTD

Parkwood Road -Canberra City

March 26, 1979

Senator John Knight,

Parliament House,

page 993

QUESTION

CANBERRA. A.C.T. 2600

Dear Senator,

Further to our discussions recently re the Australian Capital Territory and Council of Egg Marketing Authorities of Australia (C.E.M.A.A.) levy collection and distribution methods, the following system was proposed at the last C.E.M.A.A. meeting in Perth on 20th and 2 1 st March.

It was proposed that payments to the Australian Capital Territory egg producers would be in line with the payments made to New South Wales producers.

The above proposal is completely unacceptable to A.C.T. producers for the following reasons:

  1. 1 ) It ties us to the massive surplus egg production which N.S.W. has, at present it is running at 17.5% surplus over N.S.W. sales requirements (see copy Egg Production and Marketing New South Wales period ending 10/2/79).
  2. The above surplus means that N.S.W. will use approximately $1.85 of its $2.00 C.E.M.A. levy to pay for its export equalisation on surplus egg production.

This means that under the new C.E.M.A. system all N.S.W. egg producers will receive a refund of 15 cents per hen for the year ending 30th June 1 980.

  1. If the Australian Capital Territory producers are to receive the same payments from the C.E.M.A. Fund, then they too will receive 15 cents per hen. The fact that the N.S.W. Egg Board uses up $1.85 on export equalisation and the A.C.T. which has no egg surplus is to pay out approximately $320,000.00 into C.E.M.A. to receive back $24,000.00 is to say the least, grossly inequitable.
  2. Let us look at what happens in another State say Western Australia, (see copy W.A. Egg Statistics February 1 979), which has approximately 5% surplus egg production to offer onto the export market and below cost of production figures.

The Western Australian Egg Board will probably require 40 cents per hen export equalisation from the C.E.M.A. fund.

This will then allow a direct payment back to W.A. Egg Producers of $ 1 . 60 per hen.

  1. It is highly disadvantageous to the A.C.T. to base its payments out of the C.E.M.A. levy on the State which has the highest export surplus together with the lowest payment back to producers.

Why not base it on the State with the lowest?

  1. At the recent C.E.M.A.A. meeting in Perth it was suggested by the Council that because the A.C.T. egg producers use the price of eggs in N.S.W. as a guide line to fix its own prices then it should receive the same payments out of the C.E.M.A. fund.

This is the most illogical statement I have heard.

  1. The above is correct with relation to price fixing guidelines but if the above is to be adhered to, then I suggest all A.C.T. egg producers should in the future base their pricefixing guidelines on Tasmanian egg prices which are approximately 25 cents per dozen dearer than the A.C.T. current prices.

This would then allow C.E.M.A. payments to the A.C.T. producers to be based on C.E.M.A. payments to Tasmanian egg producers. Tasmania’s egg surplus would be less than Western Australia’s on a percentage basis. Tasmania under the new scheme should receive back approximately $ 1.75 per hen to each of its egg producers based on the number of hens each producer keeps.

  1. All the Australian Capital Territory egg producers want is to be treated as a independant Territory not lumped in with another State for convenience.

If we are lumped in with another State the A.C.T. consumers will be subsidising egg production in other States to the tune or $300,000.00 per year.

The alternative you should fight for is equality with the other States who are all members of the Council of Egg Marketing Authorities of Australia, so that the price of eggs in the A.C.T. can remain the cheapest in Australia.

All refunds back to the A.C.T. egg producers will mean the refund can be passed on to the consumer with cheaper eggs.

No refunds mean eggs must be dearer in the A.C.T.

Please press for the equity when the Senate discuss the amendments to the Poultry Industry Levy Act 1965. In particular the new section 6aa(1) and (2) which relate to Financial assistance in the A.C.T.

The new sections read as follows: 6aa ( 1 ) The Minister may from time to time approve the making of payments out of moneys standing to the credit of the Fund for the assistance of the poultry industry in the Australian Capital Territory.

  1. Payments under sub-section (1) shall be in such amount or amounts as the Minister determines after taking into account any recommendations made to him by the Council’.

As can be seen by the above it is being left to the Minister of Primary Industry and the Council itself of which the Australian Capital Territory is not a full member but only invited ‘ to attend to air its views when the Council sees fit.

On behalf of all A.C.T. egg producers and more importantly all of the A.C.T. egg consumers, accept our sincere thanks for your efforts in the above.

Yours faithfully,

PETER J. BARTTER

on behalf of A.C.T.

Egg Producers.

Senator KNIGHT:

– Earlier when listing the sorts of problems faced by producers in the Territory I referred to the sale of eggs in the Territory by the Victorian Egg Marketing Board. I also mentioned that the Territory does not in fact produce a surplus and that there had been an agreement between members of the CEMAA that this sort of thing would not occur in the interests of orderly marketing, which is the whole purpose of the legislation that we are considering and the measures that are taken under it. I understand that in April 1978 the Victorian Egg Marketing Board started selling eggs in the Capital Territory. Despite the fact that the Territory had the lowest priced eggs in Australia on average, the Victorian Egg Marketing Board sold eggs in the Territory at lower prices than those current in the Territory. They were, I understand, also much lower than the prices being charged in Victoria. One can only assume that the purpose of cutting prices in this context was not to provide any advantage to consumers but rather to ensure that surplus production in Victoria was dumped in the Territory, to the detriment of the producers here. That was stopped by an interim order of the Federal Court of Australia. I understand that the matter is still to be finalised. I also understand that the Australian Agricultural Council has given some sort of indication to the Victorian Egg Marketing Board that the discounting it undertook in the Territory was contrary to the interests of the industry and orderly marketing in the industry.

I received another letter from the Manager of Parkwood Eggs Pty Ltd enclosing a document distributed by the Victorian Egg Marketing Board. He says that it indicates that at the moment there is a rationing of Victorian eggs in Victoria and an unlimited supply of Victorian eggs in Canberra. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the text of the document from the Victorian Egg Marketing Board.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

THE VICTORIAN EGG MARKETING BOARD

General Instruction No. 707

Agent Instruction No. 6 1 6 8th March, 1 979

Producer Agent Instruction No. 67

To all grading floors and producer agents supplying egg wholesalers

Restriction on the supply of larger eggs

In view of the high demand and the extreme seasonal reduction in the supply of larger eggs, it has been determined that only a limited quantity of larger eggs are available as compared with overall sales during the four weeks ended 16th December, 1978.

The present available percentage is as follows:

Accordingly in order to ensure an equitable distribution of larger eggs to Egg Wholesalers having regard to their customer’s normal requirements, the Board hereby instructs that effective Monday 12th March, 1979 until further notice you restrict your supply of these grades to your Egg Wholesalers to the percentage of their total requirements as shown on the list attached to this instruction.

This instruction will ensure that Egg Wholesalers being supplied by more than one location will receive their correct allocation of large grades from each supplier. The attached schedule shows the Egg Wholesalers normally supplied by you and any enquiries from other Egg Wholesalers cannot be met without the written approval of the Board.

It is also required that you restrict supplies of larger eggs to your retail customers to the following percentages (which reflects the above availability):

Supplies of larger eggs in excess of your customer’s allocations are to continued to be transferred to the Board ‘s Port Melbourne Distribution Centre.

The Victorian Egg Marketing Board

C.L. JEFFERSON Secretary

Senator KNIGHT:

– I raise this matter, which I understand has still to be settled by the Federal Court, because it demonstrates, I think graphically, one of the many problems faced by Australian Capital Territory producers. It relates to the role of the Territory on the Council of Egg Marketing Authorities and on the Australian Agricultural Council, the question of hen quotas, the Australian Capital Territory’s contribution to the Poultry Industry Trust Fund and reimbursements from that Fund.

I refer to the question of hen quotas because the hen levy scheme, and the hen quota arrangements constitute the two essential elements of the measures which are taken to ensure stability in the Australian egg industry. I have mentioned already that in the Australian Capital Territory the hen quota was set at 85,000 in 1972 and increased to 150,000 in 1975. But in August 1977, which I understand is the most recent occasion on which a request for increase has been made- although there may well have been a more recent request- the Minister for the Capital Territory sought an increase of 25,000 hens. That request was rejected completely, I understand, by every State represented on the Australian Agricultural Council. My understanding is that it was rejected because of excess production in the industry. In other words, the Australian Capital Territory, which requires more hens to meet the needs of consumers in the Territory, was refused an increase by the States because the States were producing a surplus. Yet Australian Capital Territory producers are contributing and will continue to contribute to a levy scheme which is used by those same surplus producing States to subsidise exports.

That seems to me to illustrate once again the problems of the Territory because it is not properly represented on the Council of the Egg Marketing Authorities of Australia and because in the Australian Agricultural Council the States look after their own interests, showing scant respect for the needs and interests of an admittedly small but important industry in this Territory. That I think is another matter for some concern. There is no reason why this industry in the Territory cannot supply the needs of consumers here at the lowest average price in Australia unaffected by incursions from the States provided it does so under an orderly marketing system. It should not be affected by the refusal by the States to permit producers here to have the hen quotas that they require and to ensure that there is a reasonable reimbursement from levies provided by the Australian Capital Territory producers to the Poultry Industry Trust Fund.

I take the opportunity in this second reading debate to raise those issues which are of importance to the producers in the Australian Capital Territory and which are important to consumers also. We have had for the most part a very effective egg production and poultry industry in the Territory. It has worked very effectively in the interests of consumers because prices here have been kept down. But there are a number of problems. There is the question of the reimbursement of levy payments. There is the question of surplus production by the States but not by the Territory. There is the question, as I have indicated, of the incursions to undercut at unfair prices, egg producers in the Australian Capital Territory. There is the question of the hen quota and there is the question of the proper representation, as I believe it ought to be, on the Council of the Egg Marketing Authorities for the Australian Capital Territory.

I raise these matters so that they are brought directly to the attention of the Minister. 1 ask that the problems of producers and, indeed, of consumers in the Australian Capital Territory be considered carefully by the Government and that the future role of the Australian Capital Territory in CEMAA and other authorities which may affect this industry and others be considered by the Government so that the producers of this industry- and other industries, for that matterand consumers in the Australian Capital Territory are not disadvantaged because of what often are traditional attitudes to the Australian Capital Territory often, it seems, resulting simply from an oversight rather than any intention to discriminate against the Territory. It is these sorts of oversights- if that is what they are- that I ask the Minister and the Government to consider to ensure that the Capital Territory, particularly its poultry industry, is given what I think could be described as a fair go.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– In speaking to the Poultry Industry Levy Amendment Bill- that is the Bill to which I will be confining my remarks in the main- I do so as one who had a very close association with this legislation when it first came into this Parliament and with the civil war, as one could call it, that took place in South Australia at the time. I am very pleased to be able to speak in the Senate tonight in support of this legislation. At the time of the civil war which took place around my home town of Murray Bridge I did not think that I would have the opportunity to stand up in the Federal Parliament and support an increase in the hen levy, which is what this Bill provides for. I do so with the greatest of pleasure on behalf of many poultry farmers who have suffered for many years because of parasites in the industry who wanted to capitalise and to market outside the orderly marketing arrangements.

I hope that Senator Knight will not leave the chamber just now because there are a few remarks that I want to make in answer to his speech. I say from the outset that whoever gave Senator Knight the information which he used in the Senate tonight on behalf of Parkwood Eggs Pty Ltd saw fit to give him only part of the information. He was not given the full story. He made great play of the assertion that the Victorian Egg Board dumped eggs in the Australian Capital Territory. It is quite obvious that Senator Knight did not read the speech which I made on the

Poultry Industry Assistance Amendment Bill on 2 1 February this year.

Senator Knight:

– I am sorry; I missed that one.

Senator McLAREN:

– I will have to repeat the facts. Senator Knight put up a great argument for the Australian Capital Territory egg producers. He would well know that there is only one real egg producer in the Australian Capital Territory and that he produces about 98 per cent of the eggs. That is Mr Banter of Parkwood Eggs. But the honourable senator did not tell the Senate that this same person has a poultry farm in Griffith in New South Wales and that in fact he does contribute to the Australian surplus which has to be exported. He is a contributor. People listening to the honourable senator’s argument would come to the opinion that this person does not contribute to our export surplus. I would like to enlighten Senator Knight as to the reason why the Victorian Egg Board had to bring eggs into the Australian Capital Territory. We well know that the firm about which we are talking is owned by Banters of Griffith in New South Wales. As I said in my previous speech- I was well aware of this before I came into the Senate- I equate the situation of Mr Bartter coming into the Australian Capital Territory when he did with the insurance companies which tried to use the Australian Capital Territory as a loophole to evade their responsibilities to pay income tax. Mr Gorton, as Prime Minister of a Liberal-Country Party government, had to step in and prevent this from happening. Mr Bartter endeavoured to do the same thing. He intended to use the Australian Capital Territory as a loophole to evade the bird levy and to produce all the eggs sold in the Australian Capital Territory. He would have flooded the Sydney markets if he could have got away with it. Of course, there were some very expert people on the Council of Egg Marketing Authorities of Australia and they could see what was happening. Of course, it has been the running sore with Mr Bartter ever since that he has had to pay a hen levy. He ought to pay it.

I want to put the story right. The figures I have before me show that Mr Bartter is virtually a monopoly producer in the Australian Capital Territory, with about 90 per cent to 95 per cent of production. The point is that I have been told in recent days that in fact he produces about 98 per cent. He is the one person about whom we are talking when we talk about egg producers in the Australian Capital Territory.

Senator Knight:

– Don’t leave out the other two.

Senator McLAREN:

– They are only very minor. I have not heard any objection from those smaller producers about having to pay the levy.

Senator Knight:

– I have. I talk to people here and you do not.

Senator McLAREN:

– Perhaps in the Committee stage Senator Knight will tell us how many birds these other producers have and how many eggs they produce.

Senator Knight:

– Are you suggesting they are insignificant?

Senator McLAREN:

– I am not suggesting they are insignificant. I am talking about Bartter I relate my remarks to the reason why the Victorian Egg Board saw fit to sell eggs in the Australian Capital Territory. It was not, as Senator Knight said, to dump its surplus. There was a very valid reason. The action of the Victorian Egg Board in selling in the Australian Capital Territory is really a retaliation against the actions of Mr Bartter in selling eggs from the Griffith farm in Victoria. This has been upsetting the Victorian Egg Board’s orderly marketing system. Bartters are believed to be supplying at least one million dozen eggs annually to the Victorian market. This upsets the Victorian market and also results in evasion by Bartters of the contributions which each producer should make to cover the cost of export disposal. Only a higher hen levy which cannot legally be evaded can rectify this situation. Therefore, at present Victorian producers are paying the cost of the disposal of the Victorian eggs displaced by Bartters eggs. The disservice to the Victorian market has been so marked that the Victorian Minister for Agriculture has expressed the view that the Victorian hen quota legislation should be discontinued unless there is an increase in the hen levy maximum to $2. The Victorian Minister for Agriculture is a Liberal Minister, quite at odds with his Liberal counterpart in this Senate, Senator Knight. He can see the danger of the situation in regard to what would happen to not only the Victorian eggs producers but also the producers in every other State if the levy were not increased.

Let us look at the other things that Bartters did. In November 1977 a Press report disclosed that the NSW Health Commission had closed a factory in Griffith, New South Wales, belonging to Bartters which had been sending contaminated egg pulp into Victoria. The pulp in question was reported to have massive salmonella poisoning and other bacterial infections. Large quantities of the pulp were seized and destroyed.

The contaminated pulp had been traced as a result of a number of cases of food poisoning culminating in admissions to hospitals with quite serious illnesses.

Senator Knight:

– Are you making some accusation against Parkwood Eggs?

Senator McLAREN:

– I am telling the honourable senator that the same person who owns Parkwood Eggs sent this contaminated pulp into Victoria. He is the same person who dumps about 20 per cent of his surplus eggs from his farm in Griffith into Victoria. Of course, one has to expect the retaliation from the Victorian producers.

Senator Knight:

– What is the Council doing about that?

Senator McLAREN:

-The Council of Egg Marketing Authorities of Australia is powerless to do anything. The only remedy it has is to increase the hen levy. I am very pleased that the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Sinclair, has seen fit to do it. I support him to the hilt because in effect this is going to stop these parasites from trading outside marketing boards. I am one who suffered a lot of distress over the years because of what went on in the egg industry. To put things into proper perspective I wish to quote you, Mr President, when you were referred to as Mr Laucke, the member for Barossa in the State Parliament of South Australia. I refer to the report in the South Australian Hansard when you were speaking on the Address-in-Reply on 1 1 August 1964. I wish to quote pertinent points because you, by reason of your occupation at that time as a flour miller and stock feed producer and because you were a member of parliament, knew the suffering that was being experienced by many egg producers. You were well aware of their sufferings, as I was because I was an egg producer. At that time I was the chairman of the poultry section of the Australian Primary Producers Union, which had a section at Murray Bridge. I am going to cite some of the traumas that I had to suffer there, along with the other people who were on that committee. You, Mr President, stated:

I refer now to the egg industry. As I see it, we have come to the parting of the ways, so far as the maintenance of orderly marketing procedures, as now exist, is concerned. An impossible situation has been reached. The individual State Egg Board system is just not good enough. We have the spectacle of a portion only of the egg producers in the Commonwealth playing the game so far as stabilisation is concerned. A decreasing number of producers are being called upon to provide the necessary funds for maintaining stability within the industry. These loyalists, as I call them, that is, those who adhere to the principles of stabilisation as we now have the system, pay levies to their State boards and provide an umbrella for those who do nothing at all in the way of monetary assistance to stabilisation and who evade levies by trading in other States.

That is the very thing that Mr Bartter was doing when he dumped the eggs over the Victorian border in 1977, about which I have already spoken. You continued:

I have no time for the person who takes parasitical advantage of his fellows. Therefore, if there is to be rationalisation or stabilisation of the industry it must be with all producers subscribing to a system, except, of course, those who are legally excluded through keeping only a minimum number of birds.

The egg industry stabilisation plan as proposed by the Council of Egg Marketing Authorities envisages the equalisation of returns to egg producers from domestic and export sales in order that losses incurred from exports may be shared equitably by all commercial egg producers

. In short, therefore, the council’s plan calls for legislation by the Commonwealth for a levy on commercial laying fowls.

As I said earlier, these proposals are the most constructive I have yet seen regarding the egg industry. The system as we have it now is not working as it should, and if we have nothing better offered or proposed than this particular plan then I believe we should consider adopting this approach to ensure stability within the industry without in any way causing a huge increase in production, because supply and demand would still apply were this scheme to come in, as supply and demand now governs price levels.

You, Mr President, were well aware in August 1964 of the problems that faced the poultry industry and particularly the egg producers with a surplus production. You did not use words as strong as I used at public meetings when we talked about these people trading outside the board. They are people I despise. They want the best of the cake all the time and they do not want to contribute anything to the welfare of the industry as a whole. When you made that speech you were a member of a government of which Mr Brookman was the State Minister for Agriculture. It was through Mr Brookman ‘s determination not to agree to South Australia’s coming into that plan that we had these traumatic meetings in Murray Bridge and in the mid-north of South Australia where mass hysteria was whipped up by people who were agents for these over-the-border buyers. One of these persons was Mr Stan Yoannidis, from Mount Gambier, who used to go around the country. He was a great orator and could whip people into a frenzy. He lost out.

The legislation came in only after the election of a Labor Government in South Australia in 1965 and Mr Bywaters became the Minister. He had a discussion with Mr Adermann, the then Minister for Primary Industry in this Parliament, and he gave the undertaking that South

Australia would come into the scheme. Of course, that completed the circle and every State in Australia was agreeable so Mr Adermann then introduced this legislation which Parliament is now amending. Mr Yoannidis was not satisfied so he took a series of cases to the High Court. I am pleased to say that he lost every one. He has now seen fit to have himself elected to the South Australian Egg Board. He has an egg board licence and he processes eggs in the south-east of South Australia. It was about 1 5 years ago that he went around and stirred people into a frenzy. I hope that after all these years he has seen the error of his ways. I know that many people who attended those meetings have come to Mr Bywaters and have said: ‘You were right in the first place; we are sorry we put you out of office’. You, Mr President, would well know that in 1968 Mr Bywaters, the then Minister for Agriculture, because of his interest in the industry and his determination to do the right thing, lost his seat of Murray and the State Labor Government in South Australia was defeated. Mr Bywaters has often said to me that he would do the same thing again because he had the interests of the industry at heart.

I have said before that many people in the industry, no matter in what State, give him due credit for the stand that he took at that time in 1965 in agreeing to the CEMAA plan. I want to put on federal record a copy of a speech he made in the South Australian State Parliament on this matter on 13 October 1964.I hope that in years to come when people are reading about the egg industry they will be able to read this speech and see that that man was doing something which he thought was needed; he had the courage to do that when he became a Minister. It was not until about five months after his speech was made that he became a Minister. I have shown the document to the Minister and to Senator Davidson when he was in the Chair. I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

POULTRY INDUSTRY (COMMONWEALTH LEVIES) BILL

Speech by Mr Bywaters, M.P. (Member for Murray)

Delivered in the House of Assembly, Tuesday, October 1 3, 1964

Mr BYWATERS (Murray): I support the second reading. In Committee I intend to move amendments, but I know you, Sir, will not allow me to discuss them at this stage. First, I support the plan of the Council of Egg Marketing Authorities of Australia for a bird levy to replace today’s egg levy. The obvious reason for this is that if it is fair to have a levy at all everyone who stands to gain from the egg boards should pay. I believe that every egg producer who sells on any market gains from the existence of the egg boards. If anyone doubts this and now sells on the entirely free-of-levy interstate market he should consider the attitude towards prices of the interstate buyers. When the Egg Board fixes an increase or a decrease in the egg price, so does the interstate buyer. The Egg Board fixes the ruling prices and, if there were no fixed prices, heaven help the producer. Those who market through the board pay a levy but those who sell to interstate buyers contribute nothing at present. The purpose of the C.E.M.A. plan is to ensure that all pay the levy, and this is fair. It does not prevent the interstate buyer from operating but it will make their operations less attractive as at present they have the advantage of the non-payment of the levy.

What concerns me most is that South Australian poultry farmers face severe reprisals from the larger producing States if this State does not enter the scheme. I quote from Poultry of October 2 1964:

In last week’s ‘Listen’ column we quoted a letter written by Egg Board candidate, Ken Triggs, to the Minister for Agriculture, Mr Enticknap, requesting the speed-up of legislation to enable the inspection of all eggs offered for sale in New South Wales, both local and interstate. Mr Triggs received this reply on behalf of the Minister from the Chief of the Division of Marketing (Mr C. J. King): ‘In answer to your recent inquiry I have to advise that already a public announcement has been made that State Cabinet has given approval for certain amendments to be made to the Marketing of Primary Products Act. Briefly, the proposed amendments to the Act will include a particular amendment giving authority for regulations to be made governing the marketing in New South Wales of any product declared to be a commodity’ under and for the purpose of the Act, and shall apply to any such commodity marketed in New South Wales, irrespective of whether it is produced outside or inside the State.

When translated into practical terms, this will then mean that eggs imported from other States will have to satisfy the same conditions as to grade, quality and inspection as apply to eggs produced in New South Wales. I have been advised that the Minister proposes that the Act will be amended in the present session of Parliament, which will be completed before the end of the year, and that this is included in the legislative programme. This is my understanding of the present position. I am aware of your personal interest in this matter. (Signed) C. J. King.

Mr Triggs comments further in Poultry.

This alteration to the Act will be a tremendous help to poultry farmers as it will stop interstate evasion in New South Wales and make interstate trade unprofitable. Interstate trade is only profitable because the grade and quality standards are below those in our State. Tests done by the Egg Board some rime ago on interstate eggs showed approximately half of them were underweight or second quality. My hope is that all interstate eggs coming into New South Wales will be inspected at the Egg Board grading floor closest to the border and any eggs not the correct weight or quality will be rejected. All interstate eggs that meet the New South Wales standard will be stamped by the Egg Board accordingly, so that they can easily be identified in the shop. Second-quality eggs will also be stamped accordingly.

Naturally, the Egg Board will have to charge a handling and inspection fee for doing this extra work. This will all mean that the interstate eggs will have to be as big and as good in quality as the New South Wales eggs and undergo the same Egg Board grading procedures. On present knowledge interstate trading would not be profitable on this basis. This alteration to the New South Wales Act when combined with the C.E.M.A. plan will stabilize the egg industry in Australia and enable the egg boards to concentrate on selling more eggs on the local market. After all, this should be the main purpose of the boards. It will be interesting to see how this affects South Australia’s attitude to the C.E.M.A. plan. If this scheme is successful in New South Wales, and the Victorian and Queensland Governments do the same, then South Australia could be left in an impossible position. We could then be in the position of the South Australian Government pleading for the quick introduction of the plan!

It is obvious that this will be one way to overcome (at least from the New South Wales point of view) the control of eggs into New South Wales. It will not affect the position so far as South Australia is concerned with interstate eggs coming into this State, so we will be the poorer for it. The following is an extract from a speech by Mr Noel Beaton, the Commonwealth member of Parliament for Bendigo (an area in which there are many poultry farmers and egg producers), made on April 4, 1 963, in the Commonwealth Parliament (after he referred to the situation in his district and to his concern at the necessity for the speedy introduction of the C.E.M.A. plan):

South Australia has come to regard other Statesparticularly Victoria- as almost traditional markets. The surplus of production over South Australian consumption is sold in other States, and South Australia virtually ignores overseas markets. At the present time South Australian egg pulp is being marketed in New South Wales contrary to a pulp agreement between the States. Does the South Australian board think that it will always live such a charmed life? Does it think that these excursions into the domestic markets of other States will continue to solve the problem of its surplus production? How it has dodged massive retaliation up to now is a mystery. The South Australian board and producers should be warned that they are vulnerable to such retaliation and that their refusal to support this stabilization plan will provoke an egg war which will result only in further financial loss to the hardworking poultry farmers.

I ask the South Australian producers to take a look at the economics of the situation. In 1961-62 South Australian commercial egg production was 1 1,400,000 dozen. In the same year New South Wales produced 61,600,000 dozen and Victoria produced 29,900,000 dozen. So the South Australian production is dwarfed by the big two in Australian egg production. In the same year the combined production of egg pulp by New South Wales and Victoria was 16,500 tons. The South Australian production was 1,531 tons. In fact, New South Wales and Victoria together exported to overseas markets more than twice South Australia’s total production, and those overseas markets return net prices as low as ls. a dozen. Is it not obvious that New South Wales and Victoria would lose nothing by dumping large quantities of eggs on the South Australian market? After all, eggs sell in Britain and Europe for next to nothing.

Mr Millhouse: It would make quite a mess, wouldn’t it?

Mr BYWATERS: They certainly would have a whip hand over us. What I have just quoted represents the thoughts behind many of those interested in the poultry industry in other States. I believe that if this poll is not carried, many mixed farmers who rely on the returns to any extent will be the losers. I shall briefly trace the history of egg marketing in Australia. I can remember the chaos in the industry pre-war. There were few full-time producers; it was mostly farmers who kept fowls; prices were about 4d. to 6d. a dozen. It was impossible to crack an egg into a pan; one would first crack it into a saucer, or some other container, and frequently hasten outside to bury the egg. But with the advent of the Egg Board, under war-time regulations, a stable market came about, the quality improved, and now an egg can be cracked with confidence if bearing the Egg Board brand. Since the war, with the States taking over from the Commonwealth, stability has continued for many years, although some interstate buyers have operated. This was mainly due to the Commonwealth still controlling export and a profitable market existing there. However, this market had dried up. The export market is particularly unprofitable but is still necessary to quit the surplus.

In 1 96 1 there was a terrific surplus of eggs in shell and in pulp in Australia. Two of the large interstate buyers gave a week’s notice to producers that they would no longer be buying in South Australia. The result was chaotic. These producers all sent their eggs to the South Australian Egg Board agents and the agents’ egg floors could not handle them. Most of the eggs from my district went either to Farmers Union or to Red Comb, but to the surprise of the producers they received returns from other agents. This was brought about by the stock-piling at some depots and the Egg Board ‘s rightly exercising its powers to send to other agents. The returns were poor, some farmers receiving as low as ls. a dozen.

This must be remembered: the producer who had always regularly supported the board suffered with those who previously sold in other States. While this was going on I was asked to chair a meeting of poultry farmers at Murray Bridge, at which about 400 attended. Representatives of the Egg Board attended and it was not an easy meeting to preside over. Every person there that night would have accepted a plan such as this. Unfortunately, many went out of the industry suffering loss, not only in South Australia but in every State, and to those who remained, when the surplus was used up, not only did those interstate egg buyers return but others also have come in. In the meantime, the representatives of the Egg Board met and eventually evolved this scheme known as the C.E.M.A. plan. Every State accepted the plan except South Australia. The Minister was honest enough to accept responsibility, and to show how right he was I want to quote from the newspaper Poultry.

Mr Freebairn: It has not been the subject of interstate legislation yet, has it?

Mr BYWATERS: I understand the position is that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Adermann) is prepared to bring in a Bill provided that all States agree. It will then be up to the various States to introduce their legislation for the collection of the levied. The article to which I referred a moment ago is an editorial dated August 22. It states:

Some people in the poultry industry fear that the stalling of the S.A. Minister for Agriculture (Mr Brookman) on the C.E.M.A. plan will send the plan on the rocks. If this came about, Mr Brookman could just as well set himself up as the dictator of the whole Australian poultry industry. For he, alone of all the State Ministers for Agriculture- in defiance of the S.A. Egg Board members whom he appointed, in defiance also of the two poultry farmers’ associations in his own State, and almost all organizations in other States- has taken upon himself the responsibility of holding up a plan devised by the members of all Australian egg boards as the only possible way of saving the industry from being eaten alive by the giant of interstate trade.

Poultry hopes Mr Brookman knows what board-evasion through border-hopping does to the Australian poultry industry. We hope Mr Brookman realizes that it is getting worse and that, each time it grows, it eats a little more of the profits of poultrymen who trade through boards. Forty years ago, Australian poultrymen with brand-new pool organizations were starting to suffer the ill-effects of interstate trade ( the files of Poultry prove it. )

Do we have to wait another 40 years, or months, or days, to see the wheels of the Federal Government start to close the lock on this drain on our profits forever, Mr Brookman?

Meetings were held in Adelaide, Murray Bridge, and Nuriootpa at which Egg Board members explained the scheme. These meetings were arranged by the Red Comb Society. The member for Angas (Hon. B.H. Teusner) chaired the meeting at Nuriootpa and I chaired the meeting at Murray Bridge. All of these meetings were well attended, and every meeting carried a resolution supporting the C.E.M.A. plan. From these meetings a deputation waited on the Minister of Agriculture asking him to support it at the meeting to be held in Queensland. However, the Minister did not comply with the wishes of the producers. I want to make it clear that this is not a Party matter. The Queensland, Victorian, and Western Australian Governments are Liberal and Country Party Governments and New South Wales and Tasmanian Governments are Labor Party Governments, yet all have supported it. At the last Commonwealth elections every major Party- the Liberal Party, the Country Party, and the Australian Labor Party- supported the C.E.M.A. plan. I make this clear because some opponents to the scheme has accused me of playing Party politics in this matter. The Minister has claimed that it is the big producers who want it and the small producer who does not. This is not so: it is some of the large producers who condemn the scheme. Carter Bros, in Victoria, who have over 250,000 birds and who run their own transport to New South Wales, are the greatest opponents. What does the Minister consider is a big producer: the man with 2,000 to 3,000 birds? Such a person is not a big producer he is only making a living for one person. There are 60 producers in my district with that many birds. The Minister’s statement of 20 fowls against 50 fowls as a minimum for the levy is a strange one. On the one hand he is prepared to have this apply for the State Egg Board where owners of 20 fowls have to register, but when it comes to the C.E.M.A. plan’ he suggests that all with under 50 fowls be exempt. I point out that every egg that is sold on any market helps to provide a surplus for export. It has always been recognized that 20 birds should be the minimium set.

The Minister stated that it was necessary for poultry farmers to know what they would be expected to pay. This seems reasonable, but I would point out that this will vary from year to year, according to the surplus. Taking the year 1 962-63 when 109,000,000 eggs were produced in Australia, and taking a 12 dozen eggs average per bird, this meant that 9,000,000 birds could have been levied. Taking as a home consumption price an average of 3s. 4d. a dozen, and the fact that 19,000,000 eggs had to be exported at ls. Id. a dozen, this resulted in a loss of £1,500,000, which would work out at 3s. 5d. a bird levy. These figures, however, applied only to the eggs that were sold through the Egg Board: the rest of the eggs produced and sold to interstate traders were sold on the home market. It is estimated that 50 per cent of the eggs produced are sold this way. It is reasonable to assume that in that year the price could be half of the 3s. 5d. as stated. However, next year this estimate is likely to be much higher, and I have heard that the figure of 6s. 6d. could apply, but here again this is only on the known number of eggs sold through the board.

Taking the bird levy against the present egg levy for comparison, again using the 12-dozen average, those selling to the board paying 5d. a dozen are paying 5s. a bird. Those who sell under licence for the board are paying 6/id. a dozen or the equivalent of 6s. 6d. a bird. It is apparent then that those who now pay the levy are not going to be any worse off, but rather to the contrary: when everyone bears his responsibility, the burden must be much less. It is interesting to see the present levies paid in other States as against South Australia. In 1963-64, New South Wales paid II Kd. a dozen; South Queensland paid 1 Id. a dozen; Western Australian, ls. 2Vii. a dozen; and South Australia paid 6’/4d. a dozen. For the net return (which, after all, is what mostly matters), in 1963-64 South Queensland received 3s. 6.96d a dozen: New South Wales received 3s. 7.54d. a dozen; Victoria, 3s. 9.4d. a dozen; Western Australia, 3s. 9.9d. a dozen; and South Australia, 3s. 7d. a dozen. This is an average of 3s. 8.02d. a dozen.

Mr F. N. Giles, the Assistant Secretary to the Commonwealth Minister for Primary Industry, has prepared an article supporting the scheme. This article was an answer to certain arguments advanced by Mr James Carter, who wrote an article in Poultry on June 19. Mr Giles’s article states:

Producers who sell all their eggs outside of board control (mainly interstate), although their production helps provide this export surplus, suffer no reductions in returns through this export surplus because they sell all of their eggs at the high local prices. Under the proposed C.E.M.A. plan, as all producers will be paying the levy, they will be contributing their share towards returns from the low export prices. Those producers who at present market through their board must benefit. Producers who now sell their eggs at the local price and pay no ‘pool ‘ levies to the boards, may suffer reduced returns. These mainly interstate operators, who sell quite legally, but there are many producers who sell illegally within the State.

In conclusion, I appeal to all egg producers to take heed of this: the industry is heading for extremely hard times and, if reprisals come, (and, after all, the other States have been tolerant but their patience with South Australia is wearing thin), then the commercial producer can close down, the side-line producer will have to go without this extra income, and with several million fowls having been taken out of production, we will witness a similar winter to that of 1 963 when eggs were unprocurable. It is far better to keep the industry stable and not to have this extreme glut and then extreme shortage that we have had in recent years. I support the second reading but, until I have seen the result of my amendments, I shall reserve by decision on whether I shall support the third reading.

Senator McLAREN:

– I want to quote briefly from the second reading speech of Mr Adermann when this legislation first came into the other place, when he introduced the Bill on 1 April 1965. Some people might comment that that was April Fool’s Day, but I would not make that comment. I think that it was a very significant day for all poultry farmers in Australia when Mr Adermann finally introduced that Bill. These were his opening remarks:

The Australian poultry industry, through its principal producer body, the Council of Egg Marketing Authorities of Australia, has drawn the attention of the Government to the critical economic situation that has developed in the industry, and has submitted proposals to the Government which will introduce a measure of stability into the industry- a stability which so far this industry has been unable to obtain under State government legislation.

I will not go further because anybody who wants to read Mr Adermann’s remarks of 1 April 1965 can turn up the Hansard and see that he used then practically the same words as the Minister used in the introduction of this Bill to increase the levy from $ 1 to $2. It also ought to be placed on record that the egg industry is one primary industry in Australia that has never sought a production subsidy from governments. It has always been able to stand on its own feet, and it ought to be given credit for that.

My colleague Senator Walsh made some comments when speaking to this Bill, and I have told him that I have a slight difference with him, even though the Opposition supports the Bill wholeheartedly. Senator Walsh spoke about the 15 per cent surplus and wanted to know whether it was really necessary. When this legislation was first envisaged we had to make provision for a surplus of about 15 per cent. Those of us who have been practising poultry farmers know that overnight a disease can strike the birds and wipe out up to 50 per cent of production. That happened to me when I was a poultry farmer. With the present heavy concentration of egg-laying birds in massive cage units, when a disease goes through the birds a farmer with an average peak production of 75 to 80 per cent can find that his production drops down overnight to 20 per cent. The producer can find himself in the situation that there are not enough eggs to meet demand, and it is then the consumer who has to pay through the nose to get an egg on his plate. It is for that reason that the 15 per cent surplus was built in. As Senator Walsh has said, it may well be that at the present time 1 5 per cent is a little high, but we have to realise that in recent years methods of egg production have improved out of sight. We have cage units, we have better breeds of birds, we have a better rate of production; and it may be that 15 per cent is a little high. However, I am sure that there is enough expertise in the Council of Egg Marketing Authorities to realise this and to make the necessary adjustments.

My colleague also mentioned that in some instances people are prepared to pay up to $13 a bird to buy a licence. I point out that if I had kept my poultry farm going for another 18 months after I came into this place I could have sold my licence for about $5 a bird. I had over 8,000 birds on the farm, so I lost about $40,000. However, I do not regret closing it up, because I do not believe that one can do two jobs. I was very pleased when the quota system came in, because people still in the industry who had some equity in their farms could sell out if they wanted to. At least they could sell the licences and not just close up the farms and walk away, as I did. My capital investment is rotting away on four acres of land because I cannot do anything with it. The story that egg prices are too high because people are prepared to pay up to $ 1 3 a bird for a licence has to be traced right through. We know that in nearly every State the authorities have brought about a voluntary decrease of the bird quota. A person who has constructed a poultry farm to house 25,000 birds could find suddenly that his quota has dropped by 10 per cent and he has empty cages on his farm. It would pay him to go out and pay $10, $12 or $13 to get a licence to fill those cages rather than have his plant lying idle, and he pays that amount only once. I am assured by people who are very well versed in what is going on in the industry that it is only in very isolated cases that these prices are being paid. I think it is wrong for people to believe that because some farmers are prepared to pay such high prices for a bird licence poultry farmers are making too much from their eggs. I will quote some figures which indicate that eggs are the cheapest food one can buy, cheaper even than cat food. The point is that the industry is well able to take care of itself. As I have said, it has never asked for a production subsidy.

One other point that I ought to mention is that perhaps some States did not do the right thing when the quota system was introduced. I refer particularly to the then Liberal Government in New South Wales, which did not put any ceiling on the quota. In South Australia a ceiling was imposed whereby no matter what a person was prepared to pay for a licence he could have no more than 50,000 birds in his own name. So South Australia has a ceiling, but that provision does not apply in New South Wales. The sky was the limit when the legislation was introduced under a Liberal Government. Some people say that the Labor party ought to rectify that position now that it is in government, but a lot of hardship would be caused to people who have a farm with 200,000 birds, for instance, if the limit was set at half that number. How would they be compensated for the 50 per cent that had been taken away from them? I am sure that the Wran Government is looking at these things, but it certainly will not take action to disadvantage the people already in production. Those are the problems with which we are faced.

I said earlier that I suffered some great traumas when the civil war was going on in South Australia because of Mr Brookman ‘s determination not to agree to the legislation that it was envisaged would be introduced into this Parliament. As I said, I was the chairman of a poultry organisation, and my colleagues and I had to suffer the indignity of seeing a meeting stacked by hysterical farmers, who in the main did not produce eggs but were members of the APPU, pass a motion of no confidence in what we were doing. This matter got headlines in the local Press, and we who were trying to do our best for the poultry industry and were the ones who were prepared to take on the jobs, when the others were not, suffered because of it. It was not a very happy situation. The matter was reported in the Murray Valley Standard on 4 June 1965, which is going back a long way. However, we did get some compensation, I suppose, because the next week the State officials of the organisation came to Murray Bridge and we had the pleasure of seeing in the next issue of the Murray Valley Standards, headline: ‘Nothing Inconsistent with APPU rules’. I will read the article into Hansard because I am sure that many people in the poultry industry have not yet realised the true significance of the meeting that was held in Murray Bridge. It all came about because of the legislation we are debating tonight. The article states:

In a brief statement relating to the recent annual meeting of Murray Bridge branch of the APPU the State secretary (Mr C. T. Slee) said it was the present policy of the union at both Federal and State level to support the orderly marketing of primary products.

He added that the Poultry Committee of the APPU had supported the CEMA plan because it was confident that this was the best available method of bringing some form of orderly marketing into the industry with overall benefits to the poultry-farmer.

Following the no-confidence motion in respect to the Murray Bridge Poultry Section, he had investigated minute books and attendance book of both the branch and poultry section and had not been able to find anything inconsistent with union rules in the activities of the Murray Bridge Poultry Section.

The Poultry Section appeared to have worked on a democratic basis, and if there was discontent within the section it was surprising it had not been raised before.

Of course, everything with which a member of the Labor Party is connected is always conducted on a democratic basis, and I was an active member of the Labor Party at that time. I might have been the only member of the Labor Party on that poultry committee.

Senator Puplick:

– Do you think Senator Georges believes that?

Senator McLAREN:

– He might not believe it, but I am saying it and I believe it. I am just pointing out that that is one of the things we had to suffer. In the next issue of the Murray Valley Standard this article appeared:

Poultrymen Move to Block CEMA.

Biggest and noisiest meeting.

At the biggest and noisiest meeting in Murray Bridge for many years, at least SOO of the 600 present howled down the CEMA plan for egg marketing on Wednesday night.

These people were not producers; they were town people who were whipped up into hysteria by people such as Mrs Savill, who was an egg agent, and Mr Yoannidis who did not want to pay the egg levy. Of course, this is what can happen when ill-informed people are prepared to listen to people who are concerned only with putting a dollar in their own pockets. I suggest to Senator Knight that possibly that is the case with the argument he was putting forward tonight. One individual is complaining that his pocket is being hurt and he could not care two hoots about all the other egg producers in Australia. That is all I am saying. They whip people into hysteria.

I suggest to Senator Knight that he should read the history of this legislation and look at how it came about in the first place. He should consider the public meetings which were conducted. He should get hold of the poultry farming paper which was published in New South Wales years ago. He should read the whole story and see what happened to genuine people who supported orderly marketing. He should consider the way that they were crucified and ostracised by people such as the man whose cause Senator Knight championed tonight, who are concerned only with their own hip pockets and what they can put into them. I am concerned, as is the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Sinclair, who has brought in this amending legislation, that we do something to benefit every egg producer- the family farmer, the person who makes his living on his own farm, and not the person who wants to become a great monolithic power, to have everything under his wing and to control the whole egg marketing system. I do not support such a system at all. I am surprised that Senator Knight supports that type of system.

Senator Knight:

– Who does? I will take a point of order if you are not careful. That is not what I said. I ask you to concede that. I did not suggest that one producer ought to take over the egg marketing system in Australia. That is an absurd construction.

Senator McLAREN:

– I pointed out to Senator Knight that that was the reason that the person whose cause Senator Knight was championing came to Canberra.

Senator Knight:

– Your colleague, Mr Fry, and I are both trying to get a fair deal for egg producers in the Australian Capital Territory.

Senator McLAREN:

– I think that they are getting a fair deal. There is a person here who has a monopoly in the Australian Capital Territory. What more does he want? That man has a licence for about 150,000 birds. A decent living can be made out of egg production by running 5,000 birds. Today a man and his wife, as efficient poultry farmers, could make a decent living out of 5,000 laying hens if they ran their farm properly. Here we have a man who is arguing that he should have more than 150,000 birds.

Senator Chipp:

– How many birds did you handle?

Senator McLAREN:

– If the honourable senator had been listening he would have heard me say that I had 8,000 birds on my farm. Mr President, I will not speak any longer. I think I have made my point. But I do. want to refute the argument which some people put forward that eggs are too dear at their present price. I claim that they are not too dear when one compares the food value in an egg with what one has to pay for equivalent food value in meat, cat food or anything else that one might want to buy. Mr President, rather than take up the time of the Senate- I know other honourable senators want to speak on another Bill- I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a document which compares the price one has to pay for all sorts of meat, pet foods and breakfast foods with what one has to pay for eggs and the value that one gets for each commodity. These figures were based on the prices at one of the major supermarkets in South Australia. However, in fairness to that supermarket, I think that its name should not be shown in Hansard. The figures are reliable. They were compiled by a very competent person in the egg industry and one whose word definitely can be relied upon.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

Senator McLAREN:

- Mr President, I join with you in your speech of 1 5 years ago and state that this is good legislation. At least it will stop the parasites from trying to white ant the genuine egg producers of Australia.

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

– It is surprising that this legislation should engender such heat in the Senate. Given the hour, I think we should attempt to wind up at least the second reading stage. The poultry industry legislation before the Senate embodies a scheme which is designed to give the Australian egg industry an opportunity to achieve a reasonable degree of stability. In effect, the scheme is an extension of the States’ egg marketing arrangements, which have been established for many years, to a single Australian marketing plan.

Within the framework of the scheme, State egg marketing boards remain autonomous and perform their normal function of marketing the eggs placed under their control. These boards also act in concert to ensure that the scheme operates with equity to the benefit of the whole egg industry throughout Australia. This coordination and liaison is achieved through the Council of Egg Marketing Authorities of Australia, whose membership comprises all the members of all State egg marketing boards. In conjunction with the egg production control legislation which is in operation in all States and the Australian Capital Territory, the amending

Commonwealth legislation should ensure the continuing stability of this important Australian primary industry.

The honourable senators who have spoken in this debate have spoken well in defence of the various interests that they have. Senator Knight raised several queries relating to his interests and those of his constituents in the Australian Capital Territory. He raised an important question relating to the Australian Capital Territory being afforded full representation on the Council of Egg Marketing Authorities of Australia. My understanding is that the Council is a nonstatutory body which was established in 1 962 by the State egg marketing boards to enable the egg industry to act as one body rather than as separate identities and to speak with one voice on behalf of the egg industry.

CEMAA is comprised of all members of all the State egg marketing boards, as Senator Knight knows. The Australian Capital Territory is not represented on CEMAA because there is no egg marketing board in the Australian Capital Territory. However, I acknowledge that recently, at the request of the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Ellicott), CEMAA agreed to the attendance at its meetings of an observer from the Department of the Capital Territory in order to ensure that the views of the Australian Capital Territory were properly considered on those matters which affect the Australian Capital Territory. The Commonwealth has no authority to interfere with the constitution of an industry body and, as a matter of policy, would not wish to do so. However, the present arrangements for a representative of the Department of the Capital Territory to attend CEMAA meetings should ensure that the views of the Australian Capital Territory are fully taken into account by CEMAA.

Senator McLaren certainly put some work into his address. He incorporated in Hansard in full a speech from back in 1964 and he incorporated a voluminous table to conclude his speech. We might well consider those documents. I do not think that we as a Senate should seek to incorporate in Hansard full speeches which are given in a State parliament, but Senator McLaren did show a copy of the speech to me prior to speaking and I know that he had a reason for wishing to have it incorporated. I acknowledge the points he made and, indeed, the deep interest that he has in this industry and the knowledge that he has of the industry.

Senator Walsh raised several matters and I have a note on one or two of them. The Northern

Territory producers are exempted by regulation from payment of the levy. Therefore, at present there is no need to make payments from the poultry industry trust fund to those producers. However, in the future there may be a need to make such payments. Accordingly, provisions are contained in the legislation for such payments. Senator Walsh referred also to payments from the trust fund. Payments from the trust fund will not necessarily be the same on a State basis as payments into the trust fund. Of course, that can be accepted. The method of payments from the trust fund will be approved in accordance with the legislation after the Minister has considered the recommendations from CEMAA. There are indications that CEMAA is considering a form of payment from the fund to bring those payments close to the same as the levy collections, as suggested by Senator Walsh. Already each State is assured that at least 75 per cent of the levy collection will be repaid from the trust fund.

Comment was also made, I think by each speaker, about reported high prices for hen quotas. I acknowledge that there have been reports of hen quotas being sold in some States at particularly high prices. Whether or not quotas are negotiable in the States, of course, is a matter for the State governments individually. Hen quotas may not be bought or sold in the Australian Capital Territory, though they may be transferred after approval has been given by the Minister for the Capital Territory or his department. I understand that some State Ministers are concerned at the high prices being obtained for quotas and possibly they will be examining whether such prices could be controlled in some way.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bills read a second time.

In Committee

The Bills

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– I would just like to seek some further clarification from the Minister for Science and the Environment (Senator Webster) on a couple of points that I raised. The Minister said that each State is assured of a reimbursement from the Council of Egg Marketing Authorities of Australia trust fund of at least 75 per cent of the moneys contributed by that State. The question is: How? I cannot find the answer in the legislation, and since no one has suggested that the legislation sets the matter out I assume that it is not covered by the legislation or by regulation. But I assume from the Minister’s remarks that the 75 per cent assurance is by private guarantee or by private arrangement between the Minister and CEMAA. My first question is whether it is just a private agreement at this stage unenforceable by any regulation?

Senator Cavanagh:

– A gentlemen’s agreement.

Senator WALSH:

– Yes, a gentlemen’s agreement.

Senator Cavanagh:

– It becomes a legal disagreement if someone dies or changes his mind or cannot remember.

Senator WALSH:

-Yes. I wish to ask the Minister a second question. We have been told that the levy will not be struck in the Northern Territory. I gather from the Minister’s remarks that subsequently, by regulation, a hen levy could be imposed if this is desired. Is it envisaged that such a levy will be struck before any payments are made from the CEMAA fund to Northern Territory egg producers?

Senator Webster:

– Is your point that the total levy as now envisaged will be struck?

Senator WALSH:

– No. My second question is in respect of the Northern Territory only. The Minister said that a levy will not apply in the Northern Territory initially but implied, I thought, that at some later date a levy could be imposed by regulation without the legislation being amended further. If that is correct I ask whether it is envisaged that prior to any reimbursements being made from the fund to Northern Territory egg producers a levy will be struck on those producers.

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

– I am advised that the 75 per cent reimbursement applies to the 1978-79 season and that this has been recommended by the Council of Egg Marketing Authorities of Australia and approved by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair).

Senator Walsh:

– What about next year? It is open for negotiation again.

Senator WEBSTER:

-My understanding is that that would be the position. The reimbursement would be considered again by CEMAA and it appears that the Minister’s approval is necessary. The honourable senator also asked me about the Northern Territory. I am advised that it is not envisaged that any payment would be made without the Northern Territory paying a levy. Therefore the proposition that the honourable senator has put forward is acceptable.

Senator KNIGHT:
Australian Capital Territory

– I raise just one point in respect of Australian Capital Territory representation on the Council of Egg Marketing Authorities of Australia. The Minister for Science and the Environment (Senator Webster) made the point that CEMAA is a non-statutory industry body and that the Government does not feel it appropriate to intervene. Of course, the Australian Capital Territory is not fully represented on CEMAA because there is no egg marketing board in the Australian Capital Territory. I ask the Minister whether some consideration could be given to the special character of the Territory in that the Federal Government has a particular role to play here. Presumably it would decide whether or not there would be an egg marketing board in the Territory. If there were to be such a board, presumably the Territory would be fully represented on CEMAA. I just wonder whether the Federal Government, because of its special role in the Territory, might have another look at this matter to see whether the Territory could and should be fully represented on CEMAA.

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

– I can assure Senator Knight that I will direct the attention of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) to the remarks he made about the Austalian Capital Territory. I will certainly see that his proposal is considered.

Bills agreed to.

Bills reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Readings

Bills (on motion by Senator Webster) read a third time.

page 1006

AUSTRALIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE ORGANIZATION BILL 1979

Second Readings

Debate resumed from 2 1 March, on motion by Senator Durack:

That the Bills be now read a second time.

Upon which Senator Button had moved by way of amendment in respect of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Bill 1 979:

Leave out all words after ‘That’, insert “the Bill be withdrawn and redrafted to provide-

that Annual Reports be presented to Parliament on the general operation of the Act and in particular the exercise of Special Powers under Part III, Division 2 of the Bill;

that regular periodic judicial audit be conducted into the Australian Security Intelligence Organization to ensure-

that it complies with its charter and the law;

that it does not unjustifiably infringe civil liberties; and

that it operates effectively and efficiently;

that the responsible Minister be fully informed by the Director-General of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization with respect to any matter, other than the contents of files relating to particular individuals, on which he has sought information and advice;

that the Leader of the Opposition be fully and regularly briefed on all aspects of the operation of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization, including the exercise of its Special Powers under Part III, Division 2 of the Bill;

the proper financial accountability of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization, including the auditing of its accounts by the Auditor-General, as recommended by the Hope Report;

the redefinition of the concept of ‘security’, and in particular the element of ‘subversion’, in order to narrow its scope and limit the possibility of its misapplication;

the restriction of the circumstances in which, and the times for which, warrants may be issued under Part III, Division 2 of the Bill;

that communication by the Australian Security Intelligence Organization to State authorities of security assessment information in relation to individuals be made only upon condition of adoption by such State of a Security Appeals system similar to that created by Part IV of the present Bill;

that the Security Appeals system be given retrospective operation as recommended in the Hope Report;

that no person be denied notification of the existence of an adverse Security assessment made about that person; and

that the communication of information purporting to identify an Australian Security Intelligence Organization employee or agent be penalised only when such information would endanger the safety of such person or itself be seriously prej judicial to security ‘ ‘.

Senator CHIPP:
Leader of the Australian Democrats · Victoria

– The Australian Democrats give general support to all of these Bills. In particular we would totally support the need for a responsible and efficient Australian security organisation. But we have serious doubts such as those expressed by Senator Button and the Australian Labor Party, and we are in sympathy with most of the Opposition amendments. We favour a responsible organisation. I think the situation was clearly expressed by Professor Colin Howard writing for the Melbourne Age when he said:

If unpleasant people would stop doing unpleasant things in Australia, we should not need security intelligence organisations or, for that matter, the police. But these activities do go on and the country would be foolish not to protect itself against them.

On the other hand, we do not want a Russiantype petty surveillance as described by Solzhenitsyn in the Gulag Archipelago.

There are certain features of this legislation which disturb us greatly. For example, it is inappropriate that such large sums of public money should be spent on ‘investigations’ such as those castigated by Mr Justice White in South Australia which merely lead to files on people pursuing legitimate public interest causes. The fact that these people may dissent from prevailing government views does not necessarily make them subversive. Their rights to test and inquire into government thinking is a vital part of our democratic process. One is led to some concern on these matters by the report of Mr Justice Hope, who gave specific examples of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation in fact committing indiscretions and in fact being incompetent. In fact in a quite devastating comment he said: . . intelligence assessment is no simple or routine activity but a highly skilled and subtle task. I must report that I saw little evidence in ASIO that the qualities of mind and expertise needed were recognised, or available in any large measure.

That is certainly a strong condemnation. Why is this so? Has poor directorship, ministerial or otherwise, led to this malaise? If so, it could lead to an abuse of powers. It is for that reason, if for no other, that we are concerned at the extraordinary powers given to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, the Director-General and the Minister under this legislation. It is inappropriate, we believe, for politicians and lawyers to try to assess the effects of measures such as this on little people. I was very impressed with the speech by Senator Puplick on this matter, although I am sure he will not be voting against the Government on those things with which he disagreed. As I understand it, he is trained in the law. What concerns me is lawyers, or damned lawyers, saying in this place or the other place that a particular law contains protections against abuses of power. Thai is a lot of rubbish. The worst service that anybody can do to this Parliament is to bring legalistic interpretations to it. Of course, if the police abuse their powers or if ASIO abuses its powers, Senator Puplick, Senator Durack or any other lawyer or politician, because of their training and positions, can object straight to the Chief Commissioner or to the Director-General.

My concern is that this Bill gives so many powers to ASIO agents that little people who are affected by it have no such redress. They are terrified by authority. They are terrified of retribution or reprisals if they make a complaint. Quite recently three young people aged about 1 7 or 18 living in a house in Melbourne said that they were raided by the Victorian police at 4 a.m. one Saturday. When the police officers were asked to produce a warrant they produced a piece of paper, which was probably a warrant, but they gave the young people no opportunity to look at it. It was found that the warrant was several months old. In fact the police raided the house looking for a person who was wanted on criminal charges but who had left those premises three months previously. When the police went in the young people complained and the police officers said, ‘Do not give us a hard time; we have had a hard night too’. They were incredibly rough with furniture and with the young people. I said to the young people, ‘Did you not complain?’ They looked at me with some incredulity as if I were not in touch with reality. They said: Why complain? How would we know that we would not have reprisals levelled against us?’ These are the sorts of things in this Bill which worry us. If we as politicians or lawyers have our civil liberties infringed, we can fight against that, but the little people, with great respect, cannot. They do not have that facility.

We think that too great a responsibility to protect individual freedoms is imposed by the Bill as it stands. We ask: Why is this Bill being rushed through with the haste with which it is being rushed? The Freedom of Information Bill, a vital Bill, is quite properly being given full consideration, largely due to the work of Senator Missen and others. I do not care if the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) says, ‘Look, the Hope report came out many months ago; there has been a long time for public discussion’. That is true, but the Hope report contains generalisations on recommendations. We are not debating the Hope report tonight. We are debating a piece of paper which, if passed by the two Houses, will become law and operative for all citizens. This is the finite stage; this is the definitive stage. This legislation allegedly will put Mr Justice Hope’s recommendations into words which will be binding on all citizens of the country. Therefore, we say that it has been hastily constructed for reasons I will try to give in the short time remaining. The same applies, with great respect, to the Labor amendments. That is no criticism of the Labor Party.

What chance does the Opposition have in the short time allotted to it other than to draw up amendments (a) to (k)- nearly a dozen amendments- most of which I agree with? One of them is patently absurd. Amendment (j ) states that no person should be denied notification of the existence of an adverse security assessment made about that person. Generally speaking, I would agree with that but if an adverse security assessment is made about a person reasonably suspected to be a KGB agent do we have to say to him, ‘There is an adverse report about you; we are not quite sure about it yet, but have a look at it’? I do not blame the Labor Party. All I am saying is that I am blaming the Government for trying to rush this thing through. We as parliamentarians and as senators ought to be hearing from civil liberties groups, from the Law Institute and from the Bar Council about the possible infringements of civil liberties that are contained in this legislation.

I give just a couple of examples of the reasons that we are concerned about in this legislation. In clause 5(1) domestic subversion is defined in paragraph (c) as: . . activities directed to promoting violence or hostility between different groups of persons in the Australian community so as to endanger the peace, order or good government of the Commonwealth.

That could mean anything. That could be levelled against the Committee for Defence of Government Schools- DOGS. Paragraph (b) of that sub-clause could be directed against me because I have dared to try to challenge the decision of the Government by marching in the streets to oppose the mining and milling of uranium. A literal interpretation of that definition of domestic subversion could well involve members of Parliament. Another provision that deeply concerns us is that connected with search warrants and listening devices. Clause 24(1) states, in part:

Where, upon receipt by the Minister of a request by the Director-General for the issue of a warrant under this section, the Minister is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that there are in any premises any records without access . . . the Minister may, by warrant under his hand . . .

What are reasonable grounds? It may be that a lawyer understands what they are. But have they been tested? Are they in the Bill? They are not. I agree that in some circumstances listening devices should be attached to certain people’s telephones and recordings should be made. But I would be happier to know the circumstances under which that can be done so that individual rights are not unduly infringed.

Senator Cavanagh:

– It need not be attached to a telephone. It can be in the meeting.

Senator CHIPP:

-I agree with that. But are people’s rights protected? I suggest that in terms of the Bill they are not protected. It is for those reasons that we would support any move to have this Bill delayed so that it can be given more mature consideration and so that we can listen to more debate on it. As a final example I cite clause 25(3) which states, in part:

Where, upon receipt by the Minister of a request by the Director-General to the issue of a warrant under this section -

That is a search warrant- authorising the use of a listening device in relation to a particular person, the Minister is satisfied that:

  1. that person is engaged in, or is reasonably suspected by the Director-General of being engaged in, or of being likely to being engaged in, activities prejudicial to security;

So it goes on. Without trying to be absurd, my understanding is that if the Minister is persuaded by the Director-General to authorise the use of a listening device, one could be put in the confessional if a devotee of the Catholic faith, for example, is going to confess some act against the security of the country. Perhaps that might be carrying the example to absurdity, but lawyer friends with whom I have discussed this matter say that under this legislation that situation is not impossible. I would like to have spoken longer but as usual the ways of the Senate are mysterious. When one is told that he is to speak at 8.30 he can reasonably be certain that it will be about 10.21. Therefore, the Australian Democrats support the purpose of the Bill but have the same concern as the Australian Labor Party about many provisions in it. We criticise very strongly the undue haste with which the Government has brought in this legislation as distinct from a consideration of the Hope report.

Debate interrupted.

page 1009

ADJOURNMENT

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! It being 10.30 p.m., under sessional order I put the question:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

page 1010

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

High Court of Australia (Question No. 1118)

Senator Evans:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 24 November 1978:

Will the Attorney-General provide an extended table relating to cases heard by the High Court in each year from 1973 to 1977 and from 1 January to 23 November 1978, showing in each instance: (a) the name of the case; (b) when the appeal or application for a hearing by the High Court was lodged with the Registrar; (c) the date(s) on which the case was heard; (d) the names of the Justices participating; and (e) the date on which judgment was handed down.

Senator Durack:
LP

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

The information sought by the honourable senator is not readily available from any central or statistical source. A proper reply would entail a careful perusal of all the Court’s files in each of its Registries for the six years mentioned. In view of the magnitude of the task and the fact that State officers would necessarily have to be engaged on the work in all States other than New South Wales and Victoria, I am not in a position to provide the information requested.

Darling Downs Institute of Advanced Education (Question No. 1132)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 20 February 1 979:

Are the students in the external non-qualifying course provided by the Darling Downs Institute of Advanced Education counted for funding or other purposes for that Institute.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

Volume 2 of the Tertiary Education Commission’s Report for 1 979-8 1 Triennium, which was tabled in the Senate on 2 1 September 1978, includes enrolment statistics for each college of advanced education. Only students enrolled in courses approved by the Tertiary Education Commission under Section 13 ( 1 ) (a) of the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act, 1978 are included. These statistics are the basis for the recommendations made by the Commission. All of the courses approved under this section of the Act, for the Darling Downs Institute of Advanced Education, are courses leading to formal advanced education awards.

Programs of continuing education may be approved by the Commission under Section 13 (1 ) (b) of the same Act and colleges of advanced education may spend part of the recurrent funds provided under the Act on such programs. Generally, a limit of 0.5 per cent of total recurrent funds is the maximum which any college may apply to such programs and fees may be charged to cover other costs.

Departure Tax (Question No. 1 155)

Senator Colston:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 20 February 1979:

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

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

  1. None.
  2. Not applicable.

Qantas Airways Ltd: Employees’ Superannuation Rights (Question No. 1172)

Senator Walsh:

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

  1. 1 ) What conditions apply to the superannuation rights of Qantas employees who leave and then subsequently resume employment with the airline.
  2. Has any exception been made to these rules from 1969 to 1978; if so:

    1. what are the names of the employees for whom exceptions were made;
    2. on whose authority was each exception granted; and
    3. was one of the exceptions a Ms A. Waller.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Any employee who is classified as a member of general staff, having left the company and subsequently rejoined, must await the completion of twelve months accredited service prior to admission to the Qantas Airways Ltd, Staff Superannuation Plan. Aircrew are deemed to be members from the date of commencement of duties.
  2. (a), (b) and (c) No member of Qantas staff involved in the administration of the Staff Superannuation Plan can recall any exception being made to the above rule.

Departmental Approaches by Lobbyists (Question No. 1233)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 2 1 February 1 979:

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

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

In the field of housing and construction many bodies and organisations which in some circumstances could be regarded as lobby groups participate in the work of various advisory and consultative committees. There is on-going contact, both formal and informal, between such bodies and my Department and where discussions are of a substantive nature they are normally recorded on an appropriate file.

Mr Peter Clyne (Question No. 1237)

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 2 1 February 1979:

  1. Did an article in the Sydney Sun, 18 February 1979, report that Mr Peter Clyne refuses to pay income tax.
  2. 2 ) Has Mr Clyne been in conflict with the Austraiian and overseas governments because of his failure to meet his incurred financial obligations; if so, why does he still possess an Australian passport.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes, such an article did appear.
  2. Mr Clyne was issued with a passport on 17 January 1 978 following his discharge from bankruptcy.

Drug Smuggling (Question No. 1269)

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 2 1 February 1979:

  1. 1 ) Does the Australian Government automatically cancel the passports of all Australian citizens convicted of drug smuggling.
  2. Was this step taken in respect of Alison Moses of Toorak, Melbourne, who was imprisoned for six months for such an offence.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. No.
  2. Alison Moses is not an Australian citizen and the question of cancelling her passport does not therefore arise.

Commonwealth Bank: Private Agencies (Question No. 1273)

Senator McLaren:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 21 February 1979:

  1. 1 ) Where in Australia is there an official Commonwealth Bank branch as well as a Private Agency other than an agency conducted by a Post Office.
  2. What are: (a) the reasons for the existence of the Private Agencies; and (b) their business hours.
  3. What is the nature of the banking business conducted at Private Agencies.
Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question on the basis of information supplied by the Managing Director of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation:

  1. 1 ) 478 branches of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation throughout Australia have private agencies of the Commonwealth Savings Bank of Australia attached. Of these branches, 1 99 are in country areas. There are 1 ,385 private agencies in all. Most country private agencies and some private agencies attached to metropolitan branches are in locations distant from a branch.
  2. (a) The agencies provide service to customers of the Commonwealth Savings Bank in locations that are convenient to such customers.

    1. Agencies are generally open during the agent’s normal hours of business.
  3. The agencies accept deposits and pay withdrawals on Savings Bank accounts. Repayments on housing loans made by the Commonwealth Savings Bank, and by some State Government housing authorities, are also accepted.

Liquor Clearances from Bond (Question No. 1281)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 21 February 1979:

What quantity of: (a) whisky; (b) rum; (c) vodka; (d) brandy; (e) gin; and (0 other spirits, was cleared from bond in each month during 1977 and 1978.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

The Australian Statistician has advised that information on clearances from bond as such is not readily available from the ABS. However, information is provided on monthly quantities, in litres of alcohol, cleared for

imports;

excise. of whisky, rum, vodka, brandy, gin and other spirits, for 1977 and 1978.

Excise clearances are defined as the quantity of locally produced spirits cleared by Customs during each period, i.e. the quantity of locally produced spirits on which excise duty was paid.

Import clearances are defined as the quantity of imported spirits cleared from Customs’ bond together with spirits cleared directly for home consumption on arrival, during each period.

Details for the period July to December 1978 are preliminary and subject to revision.

Oil Exploration Permits: Great Barrier Reef (Question No. 1283)

Senator Mason:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 2 1 February 1979:

  1. 1 ) Which mining permits for oil exploratory purposes exist on the Great Barrier Reef.
  2. 2 ) Who are the holders of these permits.
  3. When are these permits due for renewal.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2 ) There are six offshore petroleum exploration permits in force in the Queensland offshore area. Four permits, Q/4P, Q/5P, Q/6P and Q/7P, which are off the central coast and fall within the Great Barrier Reef Region as defined in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act, are held by Australian Gulf Oil Company. Permit Q/ 1 1 P, which is in Torres Strait only partly extends into the Great Barrier Reef Region and is held by Gulf Interstate Overseas Ltd. Permit Q/ I0P, held jointly by California Asiatic Oil Company and Texaco Overseas Petroleum Company, is outside the Great Barrier Reef Region in Torres Strait.
  2. The conditions of these permits were suspended in 1971 pending the outcome of the Royal Commissions on Great Barrier Reef Petroleum Drilling. The permits were due for renewal in 1974 but decisions on the applications for renewal are still pending.

University Enrolments (Question No. 1286)

Senator Button:
VICTORIA

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

  1. 1 ) What are the first-year enrolment figures for all Australian universities, for both full-time and part-time students, in each year since 1 969.
  2. What are the total enrolment figures for all Australian universities in each year since 1 969.
  3. What percentage of students complete their degrees in the minimum time allowed.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. I ) and (2 ) The table below provides the information requested.

Source: ABS University Statistics 1969 to 1972 and 1976 to 1977.

Universities Commission statistical collections 1973 to 1975.

  1. Includes enrolments at the Royal Military College Duntroon and Royal Australian Naval College, Jervis Bay.
  2. Due to a definitional change the series of data for the years 1969 to 1973 is not strictly comparable with the series beyond 1973. Data for 1969-73 indicate the number of students who enrolled for the first time at any Australian university for a bachelor degree course; data from 1 974 indicate the number of students who enrolled for the first time at a particular university for a particular bachelor degree course.
  3. Includes external enrolments.
  4. Data on students commencing their first bachelor degree during 1978 are not yet available.

    1. Sufficient information is not collected to enable an answer to be provided to this question.

Wool Shipments to Europe (Question No. 1363)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 28 February 1 979:

  1. 1 ) What was the quantity of wool shipped to Europe on the ABC Lines vessels.
  2. In accordance with answer to part (6) of question number 2378 on the House of Representatives notice paper was the Minister for Primary Industry or the Minister for Transport given complete details of the size, nature and legal implications of the shipment. If so, was the advice given in writing and to whom and on what date or dates.
  3. Is it correct that the Australian Wool Corporation agreed to make payments to certain members of the Australian Council of Woolbuyers equivalent to all or part of the savings made on the shipment of wool on the ABC Lines as against the Conference Lines operating on the Australia to Europe trade.
  4. Was the notion that the Australian Wool Corporation should pay all or part of the payments to members of the Australian Council of Woolbuyers the Corporation ‘s suggestion or some other organisation’s suggestion. If the latter, who made the suggestion.
  5. Has the payment been made to members of the Australian Council of Woolbuyers, and if so, what was the total amount paid. If it has not been paid, when will it be paid.
  6. Is the payment being made direct to members of the Australian Council of Woolbuyers or is it being made through some other body and if so what is the name of that body.
  7. Was the approval of either the Minister for Transport or the Minister for Primary Industry sought for such payments to be made and if so, when.
  8. If specific approval was not sought, was either Minister informed prior to the payment being made and if so on what date.
  9. If it is correct that the payment has been made or is to be made by the Corporation to members of the Australian Council of Woolbuyers, does it imply that the shipment of wool on the ABC Lines was a breach of the agreement with the Australia to Europe Shipping Conference and if so does it mean also that the shipment was more than a trial as described in answer (9) of question 2378 and that if future shipments are undertaken while the Australian Wool Corporation is a signatory to the contract with the Conference that the precedent exists for further payments to be made to members of the Australian Council of Woolbuyers.
  10. 10) Was the wool shipped on the ABC Lines owned by the Australian Wool Corporation or members of the Australian Council of Woolbuyers. If owned by the AWC was it purchased at auction or through the LOPS scheme.
  11. 1 1 ) What was the actual savings in the rate of freight and what is the refund per bale to be made back to the Australian Council of Woolbuyers.
  12. On what basis was it decided that the payment if made or to be made should be made to the Australian Council of Woolbuyers instead of direct to the woolgrowers from whom the corporation had bought the wool.
  13. Was the decision made as a result of discussions between the Australian Wool Corporation and representatives of the Australian Council of Woolbuyers and if so which representatives of the ACW and on what date.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Seventy-eight thousand three hundred and forty-five farm bale equivalents have been loaded by ABC Lines on behalf of the Australian Wool Corporation. I do not know what quantity of wool has been shipped to Europe on ABC Line vessels by other exporters.
  2. The Minister for Primary Industry was informed by the Department of the proposed arrangements in writing on 20 September and 14 November 1978. The advice included references to aspects such as contractual obligations under the conference arrangements. Complete details of the nature and size of total shipments will not be available until the trial is completed.
  3. I have been advised by the Corporation that its decisions regarding negotiations between the Corporation and other members of the Wool Commodity Group (Australia) and the Australia/Europe Conference Lines are commercially confidential. However, such decisions have fully taken into account the Corporation’s obligations to all parties to the conference agreement.
  4. This notion was one of the various options which occurred to the parties involved.
  5. No payments have been made to members of the Australian Council of Woolbuyers by the Australian Wool Corporation in connection with this trial and of course could not be until the final results are known by the Corporation.
  6. See (5) above.
  7. No. (8)I understand that the Corporation would inform me if payments were to be made.
  8. Prior to the signature of the current shipping agreement between wool shippers and the Australia/Europe Conference, the parties to the agreement met and jointly discussed and reviewed the ABC proposal. I am assured that the conference has always been of the firm opinion that it is not in breach of the Wool Agreement and that all arrangements made are within the terms of Clause 6 of the Agreement and that no precedent has been set or intended by the ABC Lines trial.
  9. The wool for the trial shipped by ABC Lines was owned by the Australian Wool Corporation. The Corporation wool was purchased at auction. I have no knowledge whether members of the Australian Council of Woolbuyers have shipped wool on ABC Lines on their own account.
  10. Ascertaining the actual savings in freight forms a major purpose of this trial and the financial outcome will not be known for some time. The question of refunds has not yet been determined and the Corporation would regard such a matter as being confidential to the parties concerned.
  11. 12) and ( 13) See (3) and (5) above.

Funding of Political Parties (Question No. 1368)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 28 February 1979:

  1. 1 ) Did an article in the Melbourne Age, 23 February 1979, headed ‘Election Funding and the Question of Reform ‘ state that the Liberal Party has set up a sub-committee of its Federal Executive to report on overseas methods of public funding for political parties and that the National Country Party has also asked its organisation to review the matter.
  2. What is the latest information available to the Chief Australian Electoral Officer on the forms of funding of political parties practised by Governments in various parts of the world.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. On the basis of the information available to me, the situation with regard to the funding of political parties practised by Governments in various parts of the world remains as given in answer to Question No. 1746 in the House of Representatives on 8 November 1977 (Hansard, pages 3105-6).

However, the following recent developments in the United Kingdom and the United States of America, as reported to me, may be of interest to the honourable senator

United Kingdom-

No legislative action has been taken on the Houghton Committee’s recommendations (Hansard, page 3105, 8 November 1977) which included a proposal that annual grants be paid to political parties to assist them in carrying out their functions outside Parliament. In 1 975 Parliament approved a limited scheme to help pay for the parliamentary expenses of opposition parties.

United States of America-

In 1978 there were further unsuccessful attempts to extend public funding to congressional election campaigns (Hansard, page 3 105, 8 November 1977). At present public funding is limited to Presidential campaigns. The matter is expected to be raised again in 1979 but in so far as it relates to subsidies to candidates, rather than political parties, it is not strictly relevant to this question.

Rural Adjustment Assistance (Question No. 1416)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 7 March 1979:

Is the Nareeb Pastoral Company eligible to receive a loan under the provisions of a section of the Schedule to the States Grants (Rural Adjustment) Act 1976 which states: ‘(d) Companies will not be eligible for assistance (the assistance refers to loans) unless the Authority, having considered the shareholdings and being satisfied that the shareholders are bona fide primary producers relying primarily on the income of the company for their livelihood, considers it appropriate to provide assistance.’; if so, is the Prime Minister’s wife- a shareholder in the Company- a bona fide primary producer relying primarily on income from Nareeb for her livelihood.

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

The question is hypothetical.

The Rural Adjustment Agreement between the Commonwealth and the States as scheduled to the States Grants (Rural Adjustment) Act 1976 sets out general principles for the operation of the Rural Adjustment Scheme, but gives the State Rural Adjustment Administrations full authority to decide on individual applications in the context of the general principles. The State is not required to disclose details of individual applications to the Commonwealth.

The eligibility of a pastoral company to receive rural adjustment assistance would be decided by the State Rural Adjustment Administration after examining all aspects of the case, including the structure of the company.

Political Advertising (Question No. 1419)

Senator Chipp:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 8 March 1979:

  1. 1 ) Will the Minister undertake to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, and consult with his colleagues on necessary amendments to other Acts, so as to ensure that standards of honesty and accuracy, applicable to other forms of advertising, are applied to political advertising and enforced with the same penalties.
  2. Will the Minister consult with his colleagues in the State Governments to ensure application of the same standards to political advertising in the State Election campaigns.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. Assessment of the content of political advertising along the lines suggested by the honourable senator appears essentially to be a matter for the subjective judgment of the electorate- a judgment which, along with other relevant factors, is obviously taken into account at the polling booths.
  2. The question of the content of State electoral laws is one for State Governments.

Legal Aid for Pensioners

Senator Durack:
LP

-On 21 February 1979 Senator Sibraa asked me the following question, without notice:

I direct my question to the Attorney-General: Will those pensioners eligible for legal aid in the alleged New South Wales social security frauds be able to brief their own counsel with whom they have been working for many months in actions before the Supreme Court and be granted legal aid to retain them?

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

I am informed by my Department that legal aid will be provided by the Australian Legal Aid Office to any person who has been charged in relation to the social security frauds matter and who is able to comply with the legal aid guidelines which I published in October 1978.

Export Finance and Insurance Corporation

Senator Durack:
LP

-On 22 February 1979 Senator Archer asked me as Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources the following question, without notice:

As it has been reported that the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation has a current underwriting liability in Iran in the order of $25m, will the Minister advise whether the Corporation has yet prepared a preliminary estimate of likely losses? If not, when will such an estimate be made available?

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

It has not been possible for the Corporation to accurately quantify the extent to which its contingent liabilities in Iran will become actual liabilities. The extent to which claims become payable will be directly related to the rate at which normality returns to Iran’s commercial and banking sectors. There have already been encouraging signs that conditions are improving and the resumption of oil exports can be expected to assist the situation. A prolonged delay in a return to normal commercial and banking conditions could, however, involve EFIC in paying claims to the order of $5m by 30 June.

Medical Practitioners

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

-On 28 February 1979 (Hansard, page 335) Senator Young asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Health, a question, without notice, concerning the registration in Australia of overseas medical practitioners.

The Minister for Health has provided the following information:

From the information available to me, it is a gross exaggeration to say that one in three doctors in Australia do not live here. The best estimates available indicate that the figure would be approximately 10 per cent and that even this figure would include a substantial number of Australian doctors who are undertaking advanced training or research overseas and who intend to return to Australia on completion of their training and research.

In any event, the fact that a doctor who is living overseas is registered in Australia does not guarantee admittance to Australia unless the doctor is an Australian national. In cases where doctors are not Australian nationals but are registered in Australia and wish to immigrate, not only must they satisfy the usual immigration requirements relating to good character and health, et cetera., they must also produce evidence of having a firm job offer within Australia.

Therefore, the position in respect of the registration of overseas medical practitioners, whilst potentially serious, is by no means as severe as has been suggested by some sources. Nonetheless, because it is a matter for concern I arranged for it to be specifically considered by the Committee of Officials as part of its examination of medical manpower supply. I will be tabling the Committee’s report in Parliament in the near future.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 27 March 1979, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1979/19790327_senate_31_s80/>.