Senate
1 May 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 1447

DEATH OF THE HON. FRANCIS EUGENE STEWART, M.P

Senator CARRICK:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

- Mr President, it is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death on 16 April 1979 of the Hon. Francis Eugene Stewart, M.P. I seek leave to move a motion of condolence.

Leave granted. .

Senator CARRICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

-I move:

Mr President, we were saddened to hear during the recent recess of the death of the Hon. Frank Stewart, a long-standing and highly respected member of the House of Representatives. Frank Stewart died suddenly on 16 April. He was born in Belmore, Sydney, on 20 February 1923 and was educated at St Mary’s Cathedral College. Before entering the Parliament he worked in the State Department of Transport for 14 years. This period was interrupted by four years in the Australian Imperial Force during World War II. He served in New Guinea and achieved the rank of sergeant. In 1953, Frank Stewart won a byelection in the Sydney metropolitan seat of Lang which he represented continuously until it was abolished in 1977. He then contested and won the new seat of Grayndler which generally coincided with the area of his former division.

During his 26 years as a Federal member Frank Stewart served with characteristic conscientiousness on several parliamentary committees. He was an active member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Printing from 1959 to 1969 and the Joint Committee on Parliamentary and Government Publications from 1 962 to 1 964. He held the position of Temporary Chairman of Committees from 1964 to 1969. More recently, he served as Deputy Chairman of both the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure and the Select Committee on Tourism over the past three years. In addition, he represented the Parliament and his Government on numerous international conferences.

During his term in government Frank Stewart held ministerial appointments including Minister for Tourism and Recreation and Vice-President of the Executive Council. He also assisted the Treasurer and other Ministers in their portfolio responsibilities. As Minister for Tourism and Recreation in the Labor Government he demonstrated his ability as a capable and hard-working administrator and as a man with a sharp sense of his responsibility to this Parliament.

Frank Stewart was widely respected for his integrity and resolution in holding to his political convictions. He has been described and recognised as an adherent of what is described as the old school’ of the Labor Party. He was a highly principled and deeply religious man, a Roman Catholic who actively pursued moral causes. All honourable senators will recall the force and conviction he brought to the consideration of these matters. Though many members of the Parliament may have disagreed with him at times, I believe the overwhelming number of his parliamentary colleagues on both sides had a respect and, indeed, an affection for him. I think we all feel a great deal of sadness at the loss of a colleague who distinguished himself as a parliamentarian, a Minister and a dedicated member of his party.

Those of us who were privileged to be present at St Mary’s Cathedral and at the graveside in the final services to him experienced a most eloquent tribute to him by a cross-section of people from all walks of life who obviously came to acknowledge the man, his service, his friendship, his warmth and the journey that they had walked with him. I, as a New South Welshman, was privileged to know him for a very long time. Our acquaintanceship transcended party lines. I believe we are all the poorer for his loss. On behalf of the Government I extend to his widow and family our sincere sympathy at the passing of a very fine Australian.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– On behalf of the Opposition I wish to support the remarks which have been made by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick). Most of us knew Frank Stewart personally and are familiar with his very long parliamentary record. Any man or woman who spends as many years in this Parliament as Frank Stewart spent will almost certainly occupy senior positions and positions of great responsibility. Certainly it was Frank Stewart’s lot to be actively involved in so much of the work of this

Parliament, especially during his period as a Minister from 1972 to 1975.

Probably Frank would wish to be remembered most in that context for the work he did in the area of recreation and the promotion of sporting facilities, both of which were very dear to his heart. My experience of working with him as a fellow Minister was that he had a very astute mind, particularly in his role as Minister assisting the Treasurer. One of the unfortunate aspects of government is that people who are involved in Treasury matters need to be tough, and Frank Stewart was one of those people who had a very good understanding of such matters and a very capable memory. He could recall detailed matters at Cabinet meetings, and I remember that on many occasions he had to speak on behalf of the public purse when our hearts were in support of a particular measure and we needed somebody like Frank Stewart to bring us back to reality. That is my particular recollection of him.

Something should also be said- Senator Carrick has already referred to it- about the manner in which Frank Stewart was so committed to certain issues. No doubt to a very large extent this was the result of his very deeply held religious convictions of which we are all aware, and even though we disagreed on many things he never wavered in his convictions, and that is a great attribute, particularly for those in this place. I am sure that all of us who knew Frank are the better for it. We of the Australian Labor Party have lost an excellent and trusted colleague and the Parliament has lost a very competent and honest man. I am sure I speak for the Opposition and the whole of the Senate in extending sympathy to Frank Stewart’s wife and family.

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

- Mr President, the remarks that have been made in commendation of the former member for Grayndler and Minister for Tourism and Recreation in the Labor Government have the full endorsement of all National Country Party senators. Frank Stewart had an impressive parliamentary record extending over 25 years. He was engaged in the service of his country for all of his working life- in the Second Australian Imperial Force, in the New South Wales Public Service and in the Federal Parliament. His sudden death afflicts with a sense of bereavement and loss those of us who came to know him well and to respect him as a man of principle, of integrity, and of outstanding sportsmanship. Honourable senators will recall that in the recent Senate versus House of Representatives tennis match Frank Stewart had been playing well and favourably for his side of the Parliament. We acknowledge the fine quality of the game that he played. Those qualities to which I have referred and which won him many friends on both sides of the Parliament and outside the Parliament go on record to his credit. My colleagues and I respected him as an unyielding and fair fighter for the cause that he espoused. I pay tribute to Frank Stewart as a true Australian and as an upholder of the dignity and traditions of this Parliament. On behalf of my colleagues, I extend to Mrs Stewart and her son and daughters our deep sympathy and trust that they will be given strength to bear their burden of sorrow.

Senator CHIPP:
Leader of the Australian Democrats · Victoria

– I associate my Party with the sympathy extended to the family of Frank Stewart who died tragically at the young age of 56 years. Like Senator Carrick and other honourable senators who have spoken, I pay tribute to him for being a deeply religious man, a very happily married man and a loving and successful father. I speak particularly today as a personal friend of Frank Stewart. That friendship extended over 17 years. For some reason, close personal friendships among politicians are relatively rare. They are even rarer between politicians of different parties. Frank Stewart and I had an incredibly close relationship, although on most social issues we disagreed pretty vigorously. He was deputy leader of a delegation which I had the honour of leading to South East Asia in 1 967. As a member of that delegation, he behaved as one would expect Frank Stewart to behave- with total loyalty and dignity and with a charm and sense of humour that he introduced at the right time and at the right place.

I have referred to the tragic death of one so young. Like Senator Webster, I recall playing tennis with Frank Stewart. There was a time when he and I played tennis at lunch time three days a week while the Parliament was in session. Unhappily, he let that lapse in latter years. It is ironical- I think that he would want me to say this today- that during the many times we were away together or had a drink or a cup of tea together, we both agreed very vigorously on one point: The insane way in which men and women are treated in this Parliament in regard to the hours of sitting. They are imprisoned virtually from 9 a.m. to 1 1 p.m. on the three days that Parliament meets. He said often, and I agreed with him: ‘Why cannot we get some sense into this business and sit right through to 7 p.m. or 7.30 p.m. on sitting days to allow us to lead some sort of civilised life while we are in Canberra?’

I also pay tribute to his work as Minister for Tourism and Recreation. As I once held that portfolio, I know the total respect in which Frank Stewart was held by the Chairman of the Australian Tourist Commission, Mr Alan Greenway, with whom Frank Stewart developed a very close personal friendship. I would like to pay a tribute to Frank Stewart’s integrity on a rather contentious issue. When he was Minister for Tourism and Recreation he showed that he was a man of the highest integrity. It is my belief that after a meeting of the Executive Council at which Frank Stewart was present, the late Rex Connor asked Mr Whitlam whether he could continue his overseas search for $2 billion. This was after that meeting had cancelled Mr Connor’s authority to do this. In my view, Mr Stewart believed that he heard Mr Whitlam say that if any overseas money was offered he would reconvene the Executive Council and obtain fresh authority. I make it perfectly clear that I am not saying Mr Whitlam said that but J know that Mr Stewart believed he said it. Mr Whitlam denied this in the House of Representatives and Frank Stewart believed- mistakenly or correctly I am not stating- that his Prime Minister had misled the Parliament.

Frank Stewart was one of the most loyal party people ever to come into the Parliament. He had a personal affection for Mr Gough Whitlam but, notwithstanding that, he decided to put everything on the line and he informed the GovernorGeneral that he believed that his Prime Minister was misleading the Parliament. I think it would have taken a lot of guts to do that, but Frank Stewart did it. He made himself unpopular with his colleagues, but I think he grew in esteem and everybody respected his integrity in taking the action he took. We of the Australian Democrats extend our sympathy to his wife and children.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I support the motion moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick) and supported by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Wriedt), the Leader of the National Country Party (Senator Webster) and Senator Chipp as spokesman for the Australian Democrats. At the outset, Mr President, I want to say how much I appreciated your asking me to be your representative at Frank Stewart’s funeral. ( think it fair to say that the presence at that funeral of so many people from such a wide cross-section of the community says much more than words could say about the high regard in which Frank Stewart was held by the people of the city of Sydney.

I knew Frank Stewart and was associated with him long before he became a member of parliament in 1953. I knew him when he was a footballer, a very good footballer, with the Canterbury-Bankstown Rugby League Club. He played as lock forward for that club between 1946 and 1951. He and his brother, Kevin Stewart, who is now the Minister for Health in the New South Wales Parliament, became joint patrons of that club in 1971. Frank Stewart would would have been pleased to know that today his club heads the Sydney premiership table.

I knew Frank Stewart in our early days in the Labor movement, when he was President of the Zone 3 Regional Conference of the Australian Labor Party, the conference that was representative of the southern and Illawarra areas of Sydney. At that time I was the Secretary of the Barton Federal Electorate Council of the Labor Party. I knew him, of course, for the 1 7 years that I served in this Parliament with him. I knew him in the time between 1972 and 1975 when we were Ministers together. I knew him also when he and I were back benchers after the defeat of the Whitlam Labor Government. In particular, it was in the period between 1 972 and 1 975, when I represented him in the Senate and when he represented me in the House of Representatives, that we became very close associates.

As has been said by those who have spoken earlier, Frank Stewart was a fighter for all of the things in which he believed. Many people will remember him for many things. I remember him for the loyalty that he gave to his party. Whilst I am not a member of his faith, I remember him also for the loyalty he gave to his Church. I particularly remember him for the way in which he always stood in the Cabinet, in the confines of the Parliamentary Labor Party and in the Parliament itself for the protectionist policies of the Australian Labor Party and for the rights of the workers of Australia. He firmly believed in the right of all Australians to work. He firmly believed in the protectionist policies of the Australian Labor Party. He believed in protecting Australian industries, and he believed in protecting the jobs of Australian workers.

I also remember him, as many younger members of the Australian community will remember him, for his contribution to sport. I point out that in the Big League magazine published by the New South Wales Rugby Football League for the period 25 April to 1 May was a long article headed ‘League Loses a Good

Friend: Death of Frank Stewart, M.P. ‘. Mr President, I seek leave to have that article incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The article read as follows-

Australia has produced few men who have made a greater contribution to sport than the late Frank Stewart.

Mr Stewart died suddenly last Sunday week after having played squash.

It was tragic that a man who did so many beneficial things for sport in general should have passed away while exercising.

To the general public Mr Stewart was well known as a Federal Parliamentarian noted for fighting for what he believed was right and never being swayed from his honest beliefs.

Rugby League took pride in the fact that Mr Stewart was a product of the code and that his earliest sporting knowledge had been gleaned by playing the game.

He and his brother Kevin, now one of the most highly respected Ministers in the State Government, were encouraged in their football by their father, Frank, senior.

Mr Stewart, snr., was a top administrator with Canterbury Rugby League Club and a prime mover in the establishment ofthe Leagues Club in 1957.

He subsequently was chairman of directors of the Leagues Club for many years.

Frank, junior, was first grade lock for Canterbury and in a five year playing career from 1946 to 1951 he figured in 72 games in all grades.

In 1951 he ended his playing career to concentrate on politics.

His big chance to really assist sport came when he won the portfolio of Recreation and Tourism when the Whitlam Government was swept to power in 1972.

Mr Stewart knewthat previous governments in Australia had downgraded sport and persistently denied it financial aid.

With sport coming under his ministerial portfolio he quickly set about rectifying this.

He instituted a National Advisory Council for Sport, set up a department of sport and arranged for the various sports to have national coaching programs sponsored.

Fares were made available for all sportsmen travelling to Australian championships in other States.

With Australia’s amateur sportsmen handicapped so greatly by lack of international competition, Mr Stewart made it possible for official teams going overseas for world championships to receive aid.

Thus Australia was started on the road back to prominence in many sports in which there had been a decline because of rising cost of competition.

One of Mr Stewart’s greatest contributions was the recognition that Olympic and Commonwealth Games teams should be adequately supported and not unfairly restricted in size.

This had been the practice over the years and Mr Stewart abhorred the sight of world championship class sportsmen and women having to take blankets around football grounds to beg enough money for their fares so they could try for medals for Australia.

He pledged that this would never happen while he was Minister and he not only kept his word but paved the way for Government aid for future Games teams.

For the 1974 Commonwealth Games in Christchurch Mr Stewart saw that all air fares were covered.

He did not believe in the overseas idea of governments completely financing and completely controlling Games teams.

Mr Stewart’s recognition of amateur sport won him wide acclaim and appreciation from sport leaders.

Mr Bill Young, chairman of the NSW Olympic Council and the Australian Commonwealth Games Association, said Mr Stewart’s passing was a major blow to Australian sport.

Mr Stewart’s philosophy that all sport was good and that all should be encouraged has changed the whole trend of Government thinking, ‘ said Mr Young.

His appointment as virtual Sport Minister in 1 972 was one of the greatest boons ever to sport in this country.

He certainly will be missed sportsmen throughout the nation and many as yet not even born ultimately will benefit from Frank Stewart’s appreciation of sport. ‘

Mr Stewart and his brother, Kevin, were appointed jointpatrons of Canterbury- Bankstown in 1 97 1 .

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It is fair to say that Australia has produced few men who have made a greater contribution to sport and to the sporting life of Australia than did Frank Stewart. As Mr Bill Young, the Chairman of the New South Wales Olympic Council, has said, Mr Stewart’s appointment in 1972 as the Minister responsible for sport was one of the greatest boons to sport in this country.

It is well for all of us in this Parliament to ponder the thought that Frank Stewart came into the Parliament at the young age of 30 years. He died at the comparatively young age of 56. Therefore, nearly half of his life was spent in, and in the service of, the Australian Parliament. Maureen, his wife, has lost a good husband; his children have lost a proud father; the Parliament has lost one of its staunchest advocates; and we of the Labor movement have lost a great fighter and a good mate. I support the motion.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

-I rise to support briefly the sentiments that have been expressed in relation to the passing of Frank Stewart. My colleague, Senator Douglas McClelland, dealt largely with the role that Frank Stewart played in the sporting firmament. I thought it very significant that Australia retained its No. 2 slot in international hockey after its performance last week in Perth. I think that Don Chipp will agree with me that most of us in this place are oriented towards the major football codes of rugby and Australian rules. However, when Frank Stewart became a Minister, grants were made to hockey, soccer, archery and lesser sports. All of these sports received incentives. For instance, a grant was given to the sport of hockey so that our hockey players could participate in overseas competition. This assistance has resulted in Australia maintaining its high standing in the hockey world. That action summed up Frank Stewart’s approach. His advice to his children was for them to diversify their sporting activities. He did not like quitters. He expected people to give all that they had and if sometimes he was on the losing side he never squealed.

Perhaps I can relate an anecdote to the Senate. A traditional cricket match was played in 1958-59 between the New South Wales Parliamentary Labor Party and its Federal counterpart. Some executive members, including Doug McClelland, who was not in the Senate at that time, and me, were conscripted into that traditional match that was played at Sydney Cricket Ground No. 2. I well recall the dilemma that some of us faced with Dr Evatt as an umpire and with Clive Evatt and Pat Hills opening the bowling. I found myself shanghaied into opening the batting with Frank Stewart, a remarkably fit man and a man who, as Don Chipp would appreciate, could steal singles. He badgered Evatt whenever there was a doubtful decision or whenever there was a dispute whether one had made one’s ground. The State people made only 120 runs. Tough as Frank Stewart was, when we had 75 runs on the board- he had 60 and I had 1 5, all of which were taken in singles- he looked at me and said: ‘Well, we have got close enough. Let the other bastards get the rest of the runs and if they do not they do not deserve to win’. He had taken competitiveness to a stage where he expected the rest to pull their weight. To me that is an anecdote that describes Frank Stewart in full. I think it is on that basis that we all pay tribute to a man who said what he thought. He gave all he had, whether in sport or in politics.

Senator WHEELDON:
Western Australia

– I wish to associate myself with what has been said about the late Frank Stewart. As a member of this Parliament, he was conspicuous for a number of reasons. He was a highly principled man who subscribed to a basic Labor philosophy which came, I believe, from very deeply held moral principles. They were very largely the principles of the Roman Catholic Church, but they were not only the principles of that Church. He had very strong views about what was proper moral conduct and what constituted immoral conduct. In my view, he worked to secure political objectives insofar as they accorded with those moral precepts to which he held. At the same time, despite holding these very strong opinions- opinions which he was prepared to put forward strenuously without any regard to whether they would advantage or disadvantage his own career- he was not a person who bore personal grudges against those who were of a different opinion.

I had known him for 14 years. I first came to know him 14 years ago when I was elected to the Senate. It was a time when within the Parliamentary Labor Party there were much sharper ideological disagreements than there are at present and he and I were at that time at different ends of the spectrum within the Labor Party. In latter years we tended to agree more. I do not know whether this was because of his moving to the left or my moving to the right, or both, but during the whole of this period there was never any personal animus in anything which Frank Stewart did. Indeed, I became even more closely associated with him during the period of the Labor Government when, to my surprise, in 1975 I found that he had been appointed as the Minister assisting me as the Minister for Social Security and the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation. I faced this situation with some trepidation because Frank Stewart was both older than I and senior to me in service in the Parliament and in the Ministry. But no one could have been more helpful, more co-operative or of greater assistance than Frank Stewart was. This was despite his many other duties as Minister Assisting the Treasurer in which, as Senator Wriedt has said, he performed work which can be described only as invaluable in the Federal Cabinet and in the portfolio which he had to manage. He was a man of very great courage and was an asset and credit to this Parliament. Although no doubt his wife and his children must be feeling very great grief at his early death, I believe at the same time they should be very proud that they had such a fine man as a husband and as a father.

Senator MCAULIFFE:
Queensland

-I too would like to associate myself with the expressions of sympathy which have been made by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick) and by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Wriedt). Frank Stewart was a man of great moral and physical courage. In all issues, once he had arrived at a decision, he always remained resolute and firm. He never knew what it was to take a step backwards. He always stood his ground. In fact, as other honourable senators have pointed out, he was well credentialled as an outstanding rugby league player with the Canterbury-Bankstown Club. He played the game hard but clean. He never asked for any quarter and he certainly never gave any quarter. He came from a family that has made a most illustrious contribution to the political and sporting life of the community. His brother Kevin is the present Minister for Health in the New South Wales Government. Another brother, Jack, is the Chairman of Directors of the Cronulla Leagues Club.

Frank Stewart had a most illustrious political career. It can be truthfully said that he has left a scratch on the mirror of time. He has been described as an old-style Labor man. I think I know what people mean when they use that term, but Frank Stewart had no time for those who wanted to put labels on members of the Australian Labor Party. He used to say: ‘Why are they herded into pens like sheep and tags put on the pens?’ Frank Stewart’s philosophy and approach to the Labor Party was that one was not left, right or moderate, or bore some other tag or label- one was either a member of the great Australian Labor Party or one was not a member. I do not propose to repeat his achievements as a member of the Cabinet because that has already been done eloquently by my colleagues Senator Wriedt, Senator Douglas McClelland and Senator Wheeldon. But in conclusion I would like to say that Frank Stewart will always be remembered for his achievements. He will always be remembered as a true and loyal friend. To his wife, Maureen, and his family I express my deepest sympathy.

Senator DAVIDSON:
South Australia

-I would like to join in the tributes to Frank Stewart, and I do so from my position as President of the organisation within the Parliament that is known as the Parliamentary Christian Fellowship. Frank Stewart was an enthusiastic and valued member of that organisation. We appreciated his regular and continued support, as well as his personal involvement. It will be very well understood that because of his membership of that organisation we came to know Frank Stewart in a particular and very valuable way. He was a man who had the courage of his convictions and who knew what he believed. He held very strongly to his Christian beliefs, which he maintained throughout and in all aspects of his parliamentary life. With others I served with Frank Stewart on the parliamentary Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act. At a meeting of the Committee held in Adelaide only last week, the Committee placed on record a tribute to the life, work, principles and understanding of Frank Stewart. We are glad to have been associated with him in the world of parliament. I join in the expressions of sympathy to his family.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

-I wish briefly to associate myself with the condolence motion and to state what I think most people know, namely, that I was a personal friend of Frank Stewart. Maybe I should say that I was a mate of Frank Stewart. When I say that I speak mostly of the old days when people in the Labor movement and elsewhere used to class their colleagues as mates, even though on many matters they did not agree, because when matters were in contest and we found ourselves challenged we had a mate to assist us and to take up the cudgels. We found Frank Stewart to be such a mate.

As has been mentioned, in Cabinet we found Frank Stewart most courageous in putting forward those submissions which had to be put forward, not only from his own department but also, on behalf of the Treasurer, from the Treasury. He served as Minister Assisting the Treasurer under, I think, three important Treasurers. He had direct contact with some very important people, such as Fred Wheeler. He was very knowledgeable about Treasury matters. Often Treasury submissions were hotly contested and I can remember on more than one occasion saying to Frank Stewart: ‘Frank, if you continue in this way you will have only two votes in this Cabinet and they will be yours and mine’. Nevertheless, he did what he believed he should do. He was a mate to a lot of us.

I recall how I first met Frank Stewart. When I came into the Senate I was associated with him on a repatriation committee of our Party. He, Lance Barnard, Tom Uren, other members of the Party and I were the people who formulated what we should do for servicemen and soldiers if we became a government. Frank Stewart, being a man who had served in the Army in the Second Australian Imperial Force, was most dedicated to assisting those who served in the forces. I simply say that most of us- his personal friendswill miss him. We were greatly shocked by his passing. We will miss him today because we used to meet almost every day to confer and sometimes to contest. I, with other senators, express to Maureen, her son and her daughters my great sympathy on the death of a great friend.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

-I wish to add a few words to what has been said, not only to associate myself with the motion of condolence- I think every honourable senator is associated with that motion, irrespective of whether he or she speaks to it- but also because I had a personal association with the late Frank Stewart since I came into the Parliament in 1 962. Frank Stewart was one of my earliest travelling companions. In 1 964 we went on a trip to Pakistan, India and Ceylon. He was very helpful to me, a new recruit to overseas travel in those times, and saved me many a dollar by acquainting me with the methods of trading with Asian people. I very much appreciated that. We created a friendship.

Unfortunately, for most of our lives our political ideologies were at opposite ends within the Party. Hostilities were apparent from time to time, but I always had an admiration for Frank Stewart’s capability, dedication and energy. When we were companions in the Cabinet I recognised that Frank Stewart had these qualities. Whatever our disagreement may have been in the past, I acknowledged that he was sincere in trying to advance the Australian Labor Party’s ideology and operations throughout Australia. I think from that time on we had a close relationship and I can say that we ended up being very great friends.

It was with regret that I learned of his passing within two hours of that sad event. I extend my sympathy to his wife and family whom I have known over the years. It is unfortunate also that such an untiring worker with such great principles should have to leave us so early in his life.

Senator HARRADINE:
Tasmania

-It is difficult for us to realise that when we leave this place today Frank Stewart will no longer be with us, that no longer will we be able to exchange pleasantries and ideas with a man of great and high principle. I say that advisedly because the news on Easter Monday of Frank Stewart’s death was a great shock to me, as I am sure it was to every member of the Senate. But, in the light of the fact that Easter is a time of celebration in Christendom, it was fitting that it should be the time when Frank Stewart was called. He also went through a dark period politically and came out on top.

For many years he was ostracised because he took the view that his personal, basic, religious motivation should not be repressed in the public arena, and in so doing he incurred the ostracism of many people. He incurred that ostracism because anti-Catholicism unfortunately is becoming the anti-Semitism of the trendy Left. Those people who would ostracise the person who desires to express in the public arena the deeply thought-out principles which govern his personal life must understand that Jews and Christians have a common spiritual heritage and that ultimately, this type of attitude will not prevail.

His last major speech in the House of Representatives was in the abortion funding debate. He was forthright and logical in his submission. I know, as do some other senators and certainly some members of the House of Representatives, that in respect of that debate Frank Stewart came under a great deal of pressure from a section of the Labor Party which threatened the use of that section’s numbers unless he changed his view. Frank Stewart stood steadfastly against that sort of approach.

He made a lasting contribution to sport and recreation. A number of people in sporting organisations have told me what a tragedy it is that Frank Stewart has passed away. He of all Ministers, without exception, was the one who realised that the health of the nation depended upon physical fitness through sport. As we all know, he was largely responsible for a number of initiatives in that area. He was a true sport.

Recently as part of the Senate team Senator Kilgariff and I took to the tennis courts. On an adjoining court Frank was doing his part to make the tournament the success it was. He was a sportsman to the last. He was a true mate. He gave me a great deal of personal support in some dark times. I say to his wife and family that I pay tribute to their husband and father for the service he has given to Australia. I support the motion that has been moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick), seconded by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Wriedt) and supported by other honourable senators.

The PRESIDENT:

– I invite honourable senators to signify their assent to the motion by standing in silence.

Question resolved in the affirmative, honourable senators standing in their places.

page 1453

DEATH OF THE HON. SIR DAVID BRAND, K.C.M.G

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

- Mr President, it is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death of Sir David Brand, a former Premier of Western Australia, on 15 April 1979. The Hon. Sir David Brand, K.C.M.G., was Western Australia’s longest serving Premier. He retired from the State Parliament in August 1975 after having served as Premier for just under 12 years. He represented the State electorate of Greenough for some 30 years. Sir David had a distinguished parliamentary career, having been elected to the State Parliament in 1945. He was Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Tourists from 1959 to 1 97 1 , and Leader of the Opposition from 1 97 1 to 1972. He was first appointed to the Ministry as Junior Minister for Housing, Local Government and Forests in 1949. From 1950 to 1953 he was Minister for Works and Water Supplies and from 1957 to 1959 he was Leader of the Opposition.

His period of office in the State Government coincided with Western Australia’s great development in the l’960s. In 1968 he led the State to financial independence and freedom from the tag of being a mendicant State. One of the highlights of his career as Premier was the establishment of the oil refinery at Kwinana. Other accomplishments included development of the State’s iron ore resources, the sealing of the Eyre Highway to the South Australian border and the opening up of the north-west of the State. His achievements were all the more remarkable because he had to leave school at the age of 14 years. He was knighted in 1 969. Sir David served in the Second Australian Imperial Force from 1939 to 1942. In April 1940 he sailed with the 2/11 Battalion for Libya and a year later was wounded in Greece. After his discharge in 1942 he served in the Volunteer Defence Corps until 1945.

Unfortunately, Sir David did not enjoy good health after he retired from Parliament, and he died in his sleep early on 15 April. He was a most distinguished leader of the Liberal Party in his State, where his many colleagues will be saddened by his loss. I was privileged to know him for a considerable number of years. He was a man of simple attitudes and a man, like Frank Stewart, of firm principles. I think he could be adequately described as a quiet man, a true gentleman. On behalf of the Government, I extend to his widow and family sincere sympathy on the passing of an outstanding Australian.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– On behalf of the Opposition, I wish to be associated with the remarks made by Senator Carrick. I did not know Sir David Brand personally but I understand that his reputation was that of a man of great sincerity and great humanity. He possessed that great attribute of some politicians of being able to draw support from sections of the community outside his own party. As Senator Carrick has mentioned, he was an exserviceman who served overseas during the Second World War. I think he also became one of the first Liberal members of an Australian parliament.

It is quite apparent that during his period as Premier of Western Australia there was very great economic growth in that State and the State’s position in the Commonwealth was strengthened considerably. On behalf of the Opposition, I extend sympathy to his widow and family.

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

- Sir David Brand ‘s name is one of the foremost amongst the names of Australia ‘s great Premiers. In addition to that, he had the remarkable personal achievement of having left school at the age of 14 to work in Kalgoorlie and then, before turning 20, having served with distinction overseas in the famous 2/11 Infantry Battalion. With that background he went almost directly into the Western Australian Parliament, destined to become one of his State’s and Australia’s most successful and respected leaders. He had a flair for politics as well as deep sincerity, humility and extraordinary ability. Twelve years after entering Parliament he became Premier and, for the next 12 years, Western Australia enjoyed a period of unparalleled development and progress. That was largely due to his foresight and drive as Premier. My colleagues in the National Country Party join me in extending to Lady Brand and her family our deep sympathy in their great loss.

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) It was my privilege to know well and to work closely with Sir David Brand for many years, both in the State Parliament for a period and, particularly during his latter period as Premier, in the Liberal Party organisation in Western Australia. Sir David Brand was a natural leader of men. It is one of those attributes which are very difficult to describe. It was something that one felt very keenly and warmly in dealing with him and understanding him, but it is difficult to put into words. He showed this natural flair for leadership in all of the walks of life in which he engaged. He had a great and varied experience of life and people and he showed it in all areas. He showed it as a soldier and, as Senator Carrick has said, as a local member for his constituency for 30 years. He showed it in the Parliament and in the Government, and, of course, he finally showed it as the leader of the people of Western Australia who obviously felt, regardless of their political allegiances, a great affection for him and loyalty to him. He had that great power of evoking loyalty and affection from people in all walks of life.

Others have spoken of his great public record. I do not want to add to that, but simply to say that it was based on very sound political judgment and very great determination. He was very much the Leader of the Government for nearly 12 years- a record term as Premier. It was a coalition government and a government which embarked on very considerable endeavours in Western Australia. Naturally, there would have been conflicts and tensions during that time. Sir

David Brand was very firmly the leader of his team. He led with quiet determination and sound judgment and by the exercise of his great flair for leadership. In his latter years as Premier his health deteriorated, and I believe that when he left office as Premier and shortly afterwards retired as leader of his Party in the State Parliament he had literally burnt himself out through his endeavours in service to his State and the people of Western Australia.

He remained a member of parliament for a time, but even after he retired from Parliament he was still very active in public life and was in great demand to attend functions and to speak at them. He was active also in charitable pursuits. All this, I think, was an expression of his own great love of people and interest in them, and arose from the warmth of the response of so many people to him and to his character. Above all, Mr President, I remember him and always will remember him as a very human person, one with whom it was always a great pleasure to have a chat, brief though it may have been. After doing so, somehow or other one always felt more enlightened, with more understanding of problems which one might have had and which he was always happy to discuss. I feel keenly a great sense of personal loss at his passing and I express sympathy, as I am sure the Senate will, to his widow and family.

Senator CHANEY:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

- Mr President, I should like to join other senators in paying tribute to the late Sir David Brand. Sir David was a most unusual politician. I think it would be fair to say that he was respected by all his fellow Western Australians and regarded with affection by most. He was unusual in the warm relationship that existed between him and the electorate that he served. Like Senator Durack, I was active in the Liberal Party for most of Sir David ‘s career and had a good deal to do with him. My closest contact with him was after he ceased to be Premier and became Leader of the Opposition in 1972, when I contested a by-election for a State seat and did a lot of campaigning with him. I have always remembered the extraordinary warmth of the reception that he received wherever we went in that electorate of Ascot. I noted that we received that warm reception from both those who were prepared to support us and those who were not. I think that was one of Sir David Brand ‘s valuable qualities.

He had many qualities, of course- he had great ability- but the particular one I should like to leave on the record is that he had a sense of decency which was understood by the people who came in contact with him. I have always been attracted by the test which George Orwell placed on both governments and politicians when he required common decency of them. I believe that if that test was applied to Sir David Brand he would always come through in a most positive manner. He made politics a profession of which I think one could be proud. Perhaps few of us in politics can say that. I join other senators and the Senate itself in expressing sympathy to Lady Brand and to his family. I also express some gratitude that we had Sir David Brand and that he chose to serve his community in the way that he did.

Senator THOMAS:
Western Australia

-I wish to be associated with the remarks which have been made on the passing of Sir David Brand. He was a close friend of mine for a number of years after I moved from South Australia to Western Australia and took up residence and bought a farm in his electorate of Greenough. It was a mark of his majestic attitude and of the great politician he was that he made one feel that he knew each person he met personally and very closely. I remember that the first occasion on which I met him was at a country show at which we were exhibiting sheep. It was in 1965, the year after I went to Western Australia. Along with many hundreds of other people I met him briefly at that show. At another show about a fortnight later he remembered my name and we carried on quite a conversation. He also remembered the name of my brother and almost every word we had said two or three weeks before.

Another mark of his greatness in public life is the fact that, although he was brought up in a little place called Isseka where our farm was situated, later moved to Mullewa and after that was a storekeeper in Dongera before he entered politics, each of those three centres regards him as its own. If anyone wants to start an argument amongst those three districts around Geraldton, he needs only to claim Sir David Brand as his own. As the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Wriedt) mentioned, he was the first elected Liberal member in Australia. He was very proud of that fact and reminded his friends and colleagues of it on many occasions. I remember one memorable occasion when he was opening a country show in his electorate. Things had not been going too well in the farming areas. There had been a drought. Farmers are renowned for their ability to complain and this occasion was no exception. To try to deflate the feeling which was then prevalent he waved his arm in a grand manner and said: ‘Look at all these magnificent cars; you cannot be doing too badly’. He appreciated the subsequent burst of laughter because his car was the closest and most apparent.

He was a great man. The words that come to mind to describe him are ‘kindly’, ‘warm’ and quiet’. During the record time that he presided over Western Australia as its Premier there was never any skerrick of suspicion about his character or behaviour. It is sad that that cannot be said about some other people. I wish to be associated with the remarks that have been made. I extend my sympathies to his wife, Lady Brand, and his family, whom I know quite well. He is certainly going to be missed in the area in which I live and the whole of Western Australia will be the poorer for his passing.

The PRESIDENT:

– I invite honourable senators to stand in silence as a mark of respect for the late Sir David Brand.

Honourable senators having stood in their places;

The PRESIDENT:

– I thank the Senate.

Senator CARRICK (New South WalesLeader of the Government in the Senate)- I suggest that the sitting of the Senate be suspended until 8 p.m. this evening as a mark of respect to the deceased.

Sitting suspended from 4.29 to 8 p.m.

page 1456

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

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

– I inform the Senate that the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) left Australia on 21 April 1979 for the United States of America and Canada where he will attend a meeting of Commonwealth Health Ministers, and for Switzerland where he will attend the 32nd World Health Assembly. He is expected to return on 20 May 1979. During his absence Mr Fife will be acting as Minister for Health. I also inform the Senate that the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar) left Australia today to visit the Philippines and South East Asia. He will attend a meeting of the Asian Development Bank in Manila. He is expected to return on 1 1 May 1 979. During his absence Mr Groom will be acting as Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs.

page 1456

BUSINESS OF THE SENATE

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

– by leave- It will interest honourable senators to be aware of the legislation which the Government will be seeking to have the Senate pass during the remaining weeks of the sittings. With a reasonable grouping of related measures in cognate debates, it can be expected that just over 20 Bills or groups of Bills remain for passage before the winter recess. These include the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Bill, the National Railway Network (Financial Assistance) Bill, the Prices Justification Amendment Bill, the Passports Amendment Bill, and the Tasmanian Native Forestry Agreement Bill, which are already before the Senate, and the Norfolk Island Bill and Remuneration Tribunals Amendment Bill shortly to be introduced.

Also, there are the following Bills which have been introduced in the House of Representatives: Four wine grape industry Bills, two wool industry Bills, two Appropriation Bills and the Customs Amendment Bill. Other pieces of legislation include a number of bounty proposals, several machinery measures and other necessary legislative proposals, including supply and customs tariff validation measures. Honourable senators will be advised of the details of those Bills in due course. It will be clear, however, that reasonable progress will have to be made if the autumn sittings are not to be prolonged beyond the end of this month.

For the information of honourable senators, I have had circulated a revised schedule of proposed sittings of Estimates committees. On Thursday next, it is intended to adjourn the Senate at approximately 12 noon to permit Estimates committees to meet. Estimates Committee F will meet in the Senate chamber, Committee D in Senate committee room No. 1 and Committee E in Senate committee room No. 5. Shortly I will circulate to all honourable senators the suggested program of legislation week by week, so that we can comprehend, as we did so well last year, the kind of task before us and, indeed, so that we can see the whole of the program. We will need to finish our consideration of the ASIO Bill with reasonable expedition if we are to tackle our program realistically. I acknowledge the cooperation of all honourable senators in the past. I seek it now.

page 1456

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

– Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:

Metric System

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

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

And your petitioners as in d duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Archer and Webster.

Petitions received.

Indexation of Pensions

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate and the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives 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-.1-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 unemployment 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 Guilfoyle, Hamer, Scott, Carrick and Peter Baume.

Petitions received.

Metric System

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 plan to obliterate the traditional weights and measures of this country does not have the support of the people;

That the change is causing and will continue to cause, widespread, serious and costly problems;

That the compulsory tactics being used to force the change arc a violation of all democratic principles.

Your petitioners therefore pray:

That the Metric Conversion Act be repealed to ensure that the people are free to utilise whichever system they prefer and so enable the return to imperial weights and measures wherever the people so desire;

That weather reporting bc as it was prior to the passing of the Metric Conversion Act;

That the Australian Government take urgent steps to cause the traditional mile units to be restored to our highways;

That the Australian Government request the State Governments to procure that the imperial and metric systems bc taught together in schools.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Hamer and Peter Baume.

Petitions received.

page 1457

PENSIONS INDEXATION BILL 1979

Notice of Motion

Senator CHIPP:

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

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Social Services Act 1947, the Repatriation Act 1920 and the Seamen ‘s War Pensions, and Allowances Act 1 940 in relation to indexation of pensions, and for related purposes.

page 1457

INDEXATION OF PENSIONS

Notice of Motion

Senator HARRADINE:

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

That the Senate calls on the Government to introduce sixmonthly indexation of repatriation and social security benefits, in particular, pensions and family allowances.

page 1457

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1457

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT IN VICTORIA

Senator WRIEDT:

– My question, which is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, refers to the dramatic decline in employment in the private sector in Victoria over the past 3 years. Is the Minister or is the Government aware that the rate of decline in employment in the private sector in that State is twice the rate of deterioration for Australia as a whole? If the Government is aware of this fact, will it indicate what steps it has taken to improve the position of the training of apprentices in Victoria? Can the Minister indicate what policies the Victorian Government may have adopted in order to alleviate the problem?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I am not aware of the asertion that Senator Wriedt makes and I will seek out the figures. I think they will show that unemployment trends in other States have been significantly worse than in Victoria. I fancy that, for example, South Australia has had a chronic decline of industry in recent times- a very serious decline of industry. I think that the nature of the question, therefore, is not unconnected with immediate future events. The Fraser Government, unlike its predecessors, has recognised the severe decline in apprenticeships. It is fair to say that there was a severe neglect of training in the technical and manual arts in those years and nothing was done about it. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations initiated a whole series of undertakings for the upgrading of apprenticeships.

I was asked what the Premier of Victoria is doing about creating job opportunities. One knows, for example, that he has attracted, against the great envy of a Labor led State, considerable new overseas investment and industrial growth in Victoria. Indeed, the infrastructure financing has indicated that Victoria under a Liberal Government is and will be a very good place to live in. I will seek an answer to the original question and let the honourable senator have the information.

page 1458

QUESTION

CRICKET TELECASTS

Senator MAUNSELL:
QUEENSLAND

– Will the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications inform the House whether the Channel 9 group is prepared to provide the cricket broadcasts free of charge to the Australian Broadcasting Commission for those areas not covered by commercial television stations? If so, what is the cost involved and what are the technical difficulties in preventing the people of the outback from receiving a fair go with the viewing of major sporting events? Is the Minister aware that the reputation of the ABC as a truly national entity in the area of television and radio is under severe test by the general public?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I have some information on this matter because honourable senators have expressed interest in it in the past. The recent publicity about test cricket will no doubt have interested many of their electors. My understanding is that there are still negotiations current between Channel 9 and other commercial stations about the transmission of cricket programs. It is thought that if those negotiations are successful there will be a relatively small number of viewers who will not have access to them. I understand that 2 to 4 per cent of actual sets will fall into this category.

Senator Maunsell:

– They are the people about whom I am concerned.

Senator CHANEY:

- Senator Maunsell has just interjected that they are the people about whom he is concerned. They are also the people about whom other honourable senators who represent remote areas will be concerned. My understanding is that it has been suggested that if the negotiations with commercial stations are successful Channel 9 would be prepared to make the programs available free of charge to the Australian Broadcasting Commission in areas which cannot receive them on a commercial station. Therefore, on my understanding, the answer to the first part of Senator Maunsell ‘s question is yes. I cannot give him a detailed answer to the second and third parts of his question, which related to the costs and the technical difficulties which might stand in the way of the ABC being able to take up that offer.

I understand the last point the honourable senator made in his question that in the past the ABC has been accepted by people as being a source of access to national sporting events. No doubt a good deal of the high standing of the ABC in the eye of the public is related to the service which has been provided. I will refer the honourable senator’s specific question about cost and technical difficulties to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, who in turn will have to make inquiry of the Australian Broadcasting Commission.

page 1458

QUESTION

VICTORIAN FAMILY COURT DELAYS

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

-I refer the AttorneyGeneral to recent criticisms of the delays in the Victorian Family Court due to inadequate staffing and to the threat, as foreshadowed by some of the critics, of a breakdown in the system of the Family Court in Victoria. Does the Attorney-General agree with his predecessor, Mr Ellicott, that the appropriate ratio of counsellors to judges in the Family Court is two to one? Does he further agree with the Victorian Bar Council and the Law Institute of Victoria that an immediate appointment of at least four judges is required as a matter of urgency and that the present allocation of administrative staff in Victoria is grossly inadequate to cope with the demands placed upon staff? If he accepts that the numbers of the various types of court staff referred to are inadequate when will the Government move to provide further staff and judges?

Senator DURACK:
Attorney-General · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

-The adequacy of numbers of judges and staff and the problem of delays in the Family Court in Victoria or anywhere else in Australia are matters to which I give fairly regular attention. I have certainly considered the problems in Victoria which have been referred to in the question and which have been mentioned in statements made by the Victorian Bar Council and the Law Institute of Victoria in the last couple of weeks. I made some statements in relation to them.

I do not accept the proposition that the appointment of more judges is necessarily the solution. It is a matter which I have discussed on a considerable number of occasions with the Chief Judge of the Court and with the Senior Judge in Victoria. The view put to me has been that the main priority is the appointment of additional counsellors, particularly for custody and access matters, and additional registrars to deal with property claims. The object is that if more settlements can be effected by having additional court officials, the need for the appointment of further judges may be avoided. I agree that a ratio of about two counsellors to one judge is ideal.

Senator Primmer:

– Would you agree that it is about time some of them in Victoria got off their tails and did some work?

Senator DURACK:

– The fact of the matter is that some delays have to be accepted in these courts and, indeed, in all courts. There is a limit to the resources of the community and the resources of government that can be devoted to any area of public interest and concern. The amount of resources that can be made available to the Family Court has to be looked at in the overall context of the allocation of resources and the willingness of people to pay extra taxes. Perhaps Senator Primmer wants us to increase taxes so that we can afford to appoint unlimited numbers of judges and court staff to deal with the problems. The honourable senator should indicate whether that is what he wants. I would be interested to know whether that is the solution of the Parliament. As far as the problem of the Family Court in Victoria is concerned, I am looking at the question of how we can obtain further counsellors and deputy registrars. But this matter will have to be looked at in the context of overall government staffing policies.

Senator BUTTON:

-Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question. I ask the Attorney-General whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that, on a per capita basis, the Family Court in Victoria is the worst staffed court in Australia in terms of administrative staff and judges. Does that fact and the tragic matter of delays in the Victorian court affect his feeling about the need for urgency?

Senator DURACK:

– I am not aware of the point about per capita being brought to my attention. I do not know what the capita is. Does it relate to the Victorian population, applications before the court or defended matters before the court? I think the important thing is not so much the question of population but the question of business before the court.

page 1459

QUESTION

METRIC SYSTEM

Senator LEWIS:
VICTORIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Science and the Environment, deals with metric conversion. Has the Minister received representations from heavy engineering, diesel engineering, automotive engineering, electrical engineering and marine engineering companies, manufacturers, building contractors, public accountants, canners and even pineapple farmers all seeking retention of imperial measurements in parallel with metric measurements on the grounds that total conversion is inflationary and, in some cases, ruinously uneconomic? Will the Minister acknowledge that there may be some merit in following the lead of such metric countries as France, Holland, Germany, Italy and Japan where no legal restriction is imposed on the use of imperial measurements or on the importation of imperially measured products?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-The matter of conversion to metric measurement in Australia has beset the community now for some years. At the outset of the decision to adopt the metric system in Australia there was no doubt that as we progressed along the line and became further involved difficulties would be encountered by the community. I believe that those difficulties have not been great. I think the Senate should be particularly proud that the advice on metric conversion came to the Government from a Senate select committee. Of course, this was a little before Senator Lewis’s time. Senator Laught from South Australia headed a committee which came to the conclusion that Australia should convert progressively to the single system of measurement, that is, the metric system. The matter was debated at the time in the Senate. The decision was made on economic grounds. At the time major areas of the world were converting and some had already converted. It was obvious that there would be a metric world.

The honourable senator will be interested to note that over 98 per cent of the world community lives in countries which have converted or are converting to the metric system. If that be the case I doubt that even someone from the Western District of Victoria would say that we should not convert. Only five small countriesthe Yemen Republic, Brunei and some othersare not converting to the metric system. Tonight I have spent a little longer than usual on this answer because in the interests of some of my constituents I have just presented a petition asking that we hold to the imperial system. The honourable senator mentioned a whole series of groups, including heavy engineering companies and diesel engineering companies. I think that the honourable senator and the Senate would be interested to know that the way the Metric Conversion Board went about its program was to ask various sectors of industry, including the heavy engineering industry, to advise their own industries on how they should convert or on what problems were involved.

The honourable senator asked me whether some of these people have written to me. I receive regularly letters which protest about the difficulties, but I think that the letters that come to me are in the main from those States which have not fully converted- Victoria and New South Wales. If one goes to South Australia, one finds that the retail industry has fully converted and that no question arises as to difficulties in that State. But when we have a dual system in which a retailer may advertise goods in his window at so much a pound when his scales read in kilograms, it is very difficult for the consumer to be fully aware of how much he is buying. In the interests of keeping the answer short, might I ask Senator Lewis to discuss this matter with me later.

page 1460

QUESTION

SOCIAL SECURITY

Senator GRIMES:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-I ask the Minister for Social Security whether her attention has been drawn to the statement made last Sunday by the Victorian Minister for Community Welfare Services, Mr Dixon, that the Liberal Party in Victoria, if re-elected, would index State family assistance payments on a six-monthly basis? In view of the fact that many of these payments are paid by the States for six months and then are passed on to the Commonwealth, I ask the Minister whether she was consulted before this statement was made? I ask her further whether she can give us some enlightenment as to what circumstances make twice-yearly indexation so attractive to the Victorian branch of the Liberal Party but so impossible for the Federal branch of the Liberal Party?

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

– I noticed the statement by the Victorian Minister, Mr Dixon, with regard to indexation of State payments through his Department. It was not a matter for prior consultation with me, nor could I claim to have been consulted prior to his statement being announced. It is within the authority of any government to make decisions such as that announced by Mr Dixon with regard to the indexation of the payments that are made and that Government feels itself competent to make commitments of this kind. In the Budget of last year the present Federal Government announced that annual indexation would be applied to its pensions and benefits. I do not claim to relate the decisions to each other, but I noticed the statement of Mr Dixon, and obviously he spoke on behalf of his Government.

page 1460

QUESTION

RIVER MURRAY SALINITY

Senator MESSNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for National Development been drawn to a report in today’s Adelaide Advertiser noting the decision of the

Labor Government in New South Wales to increase basic water allotments for irrigation along the River Murray? Does this mean that this trend is likely to lead to a further build-up of salinity in the River Murray, on which South Australia depends for drinking and other purposes? Will the Government investigate this matter and make appropriate inquiries to ensure that the already deplorable quality of Adelaide water is not further worsened by such an irresponsible and unilateral action on the part of the Wran Labor Government, which amazingly seems to disregard the interests of another State governed by a party of its own persuasion?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– My attention has been drawn to the decision, referred to by Senator Messner, of the New South Wales Government. 1 will certainly refer the matter to the Minister for National Development because, if his attention has not already been drawn to the decision that has been made, I think it would be important that he also should have his attention drawn to itIt certainly appears to be somewhat strange that unilateral decisions of this kind which have potentially serious effects on the salinity of water in South Australia should be made. I am sure that the Minister will be interested and concerned. I will ask him to consider the matter and provide a reply to Senator Messner as soon as possible.

page 1460

QUESTION

UNION SECRET BALLOTS

Senator EVANS:
VICTORIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations. I refer to statements made by the Victorian Premier that if re-elected a Victorian Liberal government would legislate for secret ballots to be held at union meetings considering strike action. The Minister will doubtless be aware of the Bureau of Statistics estimates that more than 50 per cent of all employees in Victoria are employed under Federal awards and that all but four unions in Victoria are registered under the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act. I ask the Minister: Is it not the case that such Victorian legislation would in effect take over from the Commonwealth Government the responsibility it presently has for the regulation and control of these Federal unions and their meetings? If so, what is the Government’s attitude to such a takeover? Will it sit back and allow the federally registered unions in Victoria to be controlled by a Victorian State government and parliament?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I am certainly aware of the statement made by the Victorian Premier. I thought that it was a very interesting initiative in the field of industrial relations.

Senator Button:

– That is an interesting thing to say when your Minister says that it is unworkable.

Senator DURACK:

– That is Senator Evans’s view and he referred to some statistics. I have no means of checking whether the statistics would have the impact that Senator Evans claims. I will refer the question to the Minister for Industrial Relations, ask him to investigate the claims made by Senator Evans and to provide an answer to the Senate as soon as possible.

page 1461

QUESTION

ECONOMIC ACTIVITY

Senator MacGIBBON:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. In view of the recent Press comments about the outlook for economic activity, can the Minister inform the Senate of the latest economic indicators relating to national gross domestic product? Will he confirm whether these and other indicators support the Government’s basic economic strategy?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– In recent times there have been a wide range of publications, including Treasury and Bureau of Statistics publications, which all show healthy indications of growth and development for the future. The indicators show that production in most industry groups was up significantly in the three months to March. Car and station wagon registrations were up by 6.3 per cent, seasonally adjusted, in the eight months to March. Manufacturers have expressed confidence of increased production and sales. Farm incomes are estimated by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics to rise by 100 per cent during 1978-79 with great flow-on effects. Private dwelling approvals were up in the three months to February. The value of loans approved was also high in January. Unemployment decreased in March. Seasonally adjusted numbers of employed picked up in all principal industries in the three months to January. Pretty well all the indicators show that there is a healthy result. I think that the Australian Financial Review this morning indicated that there were further indications or vindications of the accuracy and effectiveness of the Government’s economic policies.

page 1461

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT IN VICTORIA

Senator RYAN:
ACT

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs. It follows a question asked earlier this evening with regard to apprenticeship opportunities in Victoria. Is the Minister aware of a recent article in the Australian Financial Review which stated that for the year ending June 1979 Victoria faces a 10 per cent overall decline in new apprenticeships compared with a national decline of 5 per cent, a 33 per cent decline in new building apprenticeships compared with a national decline of 20 per cent and a 5 per cent decline in new metal trades apprenticeships compared with a national increase of 2 per cent? What are the reasons for this decline in overall national apprenticeship intake numbers? Is the particularly disastrous decline in apprenticeships in Victoria a result of Victorian Government policies or of Federal Government policies?

Senator DURACK:
LP

- Senator Ryan referred to a number of statistics. I shall refer her question to the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs.

page 1461

QUESTION

AIR NAVIGATION REGULATIONS

Senator PETER BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. For how long have the revised air navigation regulations now been in force? Assuming that the period is around three years, is the Minister able to advise the Senate of the number of prosecutions or other disciplinary actions which have been instituted during that period for breaches of the air navigation regulations?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– In fact there are many air navigation regulations, but I assume that Senator Baume is referring to the regulation which concern the tariffs and conditions for the carriage of passengers and cargo on international airlines operating to and from Australia. That regulation was amended in April 1 976. If that is the one to which he refers, I can advise him that to date no prosecution has been instigated by the Department of Transport–

Senator Peter Baume:

– No prosecution?

Senator CHANEY:

– Yes, no prosecution has been instigated by the Department of Transport, although in 1978 a High Court action was brought against the Department by the Australian Union of Students following the investigation by the Department into the Union’s activities, but the Court found on the action in favour of the Department. I am advised that continuing action is being taken by the Department in preventive enforcement, but it is expected that, as the new air arrangements for lower air fares are progressively introduced with other countries and as capacity is more aligned to actual demand, the opportunity for discriminatory practices in fact will diminish.

page 1462

QUESTION

KAKADU NATIONAL PARK

Senator MULVIHILL:

– I direct a question to the Minister for Science and the Environment and refer to the concept mentioned by Mr Justice Fox of Kakadu National Park reaching stage 2, which would have included river catchment regions and would have embraced the Gimbat and Goodparla pastoral leases. I ask the Minister: Notwithstanding the accession to statehood by the Northern Territory, does he, through the Commonwealth Attorney-General, have the power to control these leases, or is he under extreme pressure from the Northern Territory Government to sabotage this vision splendid?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-There is no concept of sabotage as far as I am concerned or as far as I am aware at the present time, but I recognise that any member of parliament needs to be aware of that possibility at any time. The Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry, in its second report, recommended that:

Consideration bc given to the resumption of Goodparla and part or all of the Gimbat, with a view to their incorporation in the park.

That is referring, as the honourable senator mentioned, to the Kakadu National Park. Within the past fortnight I saw and was most impressed by some of the Gimbat and Goodparla area. In my opinion, that area certainly should be included in the Kakadu National Park. The land occupied by Gimbat and Goodparla was included in land retained by the Commonwealth under section 70 of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act for the purpose of a national park. That was achieved by notice in the Commonwealth Gazette of 29 June 1 978. As a result of this retention the land occupied by the two lessees became vested in the Commonwealth, and the interests in leases held from the Northern Territory immediately before the acquisition became interests in leases held from the Commonwealth on the same basis as they were held from the Territory.

The Commonwealth Government is yet to complete its considerations of whether Gimbat and Goodparla should be included in the Kakadu National Park. If the Government decides that Gimbat and Goodparla are to be included in the Park, the Government could then acquire the pastoral leases and title to the land could be vested in the Director, who is responsible for the Kakadu National Park. But the honourable senator can well imagine that this is a matter which needs consideration both by the Northern Territory Government and the Northern Land Council which, of course, played a major contributing part in determining the basis of the Kakadu National Park. But I will take the honourable senator’s interests into account in future discussions.

Senator MULVIHILL:

- Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question. I put it clearly to the Minister that my information is that at the moment the Gimbat pastoral station is in receivership. So I take it that the time to move in would be now. I also take it that when the Minister says that the situation is being considered, such consideration will not take too long. If the Government waits too long we will find that the people with financial difficulties have been bailed out of trouble and it will be more difficult to acquire the station.

Senator WEBSTER:

– During my time as a member of this Parliament I have had some experience in bailing out, so I can speak on this matter. The honourable senator has accurate information. If he were to fly to the Gimbat pastoral station he would find that it is run down. My understanding is that the Gimbat pastoral lease was held by one of the Gunn families. I am not certain of this information, but I believe that at present the lease is held by a group called Partnership Pacific. As I say, I do not know whether that information is correct but that is what I have been advised. I have already informed the honourable senator that the title is vested in the Commonwealth, As to whether both the Gimbat and Goodparla leases should become part of the Kakadu National Park, I believe it would be a retrograde step if some pastoral activity were not carried out on both those stations.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Is there not over-stocking in the Territory at this point in time? You are going to intensify it.

Senator WEBSTER:

-A great many buffalo, which were introduced to the area, are roaming over that part of the country at present. They are causing a great deal of harm to the Kakadu National Park area. My view is that those good people who are already controlling the area should remain in control and should ensure that those stations are managed correctly.

page 1462

QUESTION

RHODESIA

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, concerns the recent elections in Rhodesia where a 64 per cent turnout in a free vote gave Bishop Muzorewa a majority in the new multi-racial Parliament. I ask the Minister: What steps will Australia take to support the new majority party and to encourage the peaceful development of a multi-racial society in Rhodesia? Furthermore, will Australia do all it can to discourage further guerrilla warfare with its consequent bloodshed and tragedy in Rhodesia?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The current conditions in Rhodesia must be of concern to all Australians. I think that I should give to Senator Young and to the Senate some of the background as the Government understands it. In doing so, I should indicate at the outset that the Government remains deeply concerned about the continuation of conflict in Rhodesia. The essential first step towards a peaceful and lasting settlement is the achievement of a ceasefire and an end to the bloodshed. This cannot be attained unless all the disputing parties agree to it and all make concessions. The absence of moves towards a peaceful settlement will serve to add to the suffering of the people of Rhodesia and to make resort to a military solution more likely. In this event, Western interests in southern Africa will be at risk in the face of increasing East European and Cuban assistance to elements in the Patriotic Front. We have a clear stake in urging compromise and concession so as to prevent moves towards further violence and political extremism.

The new administration to be established following the elections represents the culmination of the internal agreement as signed in March last year. These developments clearly are an advance on the previous situation. However, whilst there is now to be a black Rhodesian Prime Minister and many more black Rhodesians in the political arena than previously, under the new Constitution white Rhodesians will almost certainly retain a disproportionate level of influence in the Parliament, the Cabinet, the Army, the Police and the Public Service.

We need to be cautious in judging the elections and in assessing whether they are likely to lead to a peaceful settlement. One of three black Rhodesian members of the former transitional administration, the Reverend Sithole, has made allegations of what he called gross irregularities in the elections, and has called for investigations. Another of the members, Chief Chirau, has also expressed reservations about the conduct of the elections. The Government will not at this stage pass final judgment on the elections or on the new administration. It would like, among other things, to hear the views of those who observed the elections, including the three members of the Australian Parliament. If the new leadership in Salisbury moved quickly and determinedly to try to negotiate an agreement with the external parties- for example, to work towards new elections under arrangements that all parties can accept- we would welcome this development.

In these circumstances, we regard the elections as a constructive step towards a lasting settlement. Clearly the guerilla war can be ended only if both sides, the newly-elected administration and the Patriotic Front, agree to negotiate. We hope that both sides will commit themselves to that path. The Government, therefore, supports the efforts of the United Kingdom and the United States to look for opportunities to bring the internal and external Rhodesian parties together to discuss a settlement.

page 1463

QUESTION

TERTIARY EDUCATION: VICTORIA

Senator ROBERTSON:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I preface my question to the Minister for Education by referring to pages 199 and 200 of the Tertiary Education Commission’s report of September 1978 which, in reference to technical and further education funding for Victoria for 1 979, said:

Because Victoria’s forward planning has not yet matched its requirements for new and replacement accommodation. Council is recommending rather less for capital grants than would be warranted on the basis of need.

In addition, the Tertiary Education Commission gave the Victorian Government until March of this year to produce a firm program which would incorporate realistic target dates for action to provide new places and overcome deficiencies if Victoria was to receive adequate funding for 1980. I ask the Minister when it is anticipated that the Victorian technical and further education strategy plan will be completely finalised to the point where it is entirely acceptable in all details to the Commission.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– To understand that comment in the report one must know, as I suspect Senator Robertson does, that in Victoria technical education is carried out somewhat differently from that in other areas. For example, in its secondary system of education there are technical high schools, so it has a different set-up altogether. My understanding is that Victoria is making the kind of progress that the report hoped would be made to update and move forward. A great deal of progress is being made in technical education improvement and reform in Victoria and that, of course, has been essentialy at the initiative of this Federal Government.

Senator ROBERTSON:

– I would just refer to the final part of my question, which asks whether it is anticipated that there will be a strategy plan, and when we might see it.

Senator CARRICK:

– I cannot indicate when it would be available, but I will seek that information and let the honourable senator know.

page 1464

QUESTION

CRICKET TELECASTS

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– My question to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications is along the lines of that asked earlier by Senator Maunsell. I preface it by saying that it has been reported in the media that the Packer Channel 9 agreement now effectively beats the bush’ and that, other than for a small percentage of outback people, 96 per cent of citizens will view the cricket series through arrangements made by the Packer group with commercial television stations. Commercial television has not reached as far into many areas of the outback as has the Australian Broadcasting Commission, and in the case of the Darwin commercial television station- despite the fact that agreement has been reached with the Packer group- the situation is more complicated because the microwave link is owned by Telecom Australia and leased to the ABC. I ask: Having in mind that the people of the outback are more often than not deprived of communication facilities that more populous areas take for granted, will the Minister take up the matter on behalf of outback people to ensure that they too can participate in the viewing of this national sport?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

-Senator Kilgariff very properly asked me and the Government to bear in mind that the people of the outback are often deprived of facilities which the more populous areas take for granted. That is certainly true in my own State of Western Australia. I know it is true in areas of Queensland and the Northern Territory in particular. The position with regard to the broadcasting of cricket in the Northern Territory may well be unique. For this reason I am sure that the Minister will certainly ask the Australian Broadcasting Commission to examine the specific problems which relate to the Territory to see whether anything can be done. What precisely the position will be will not be known until the outcome of the discussions which are presently taking place between the commercial stations. I will pass on the question to Mr Staley and seek an approach to the ABC of the sort envisaged by the honourable senator’s question.

page 1464

QUESTION

TELEVISION LICENCES

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Is the

Minister for Education aware that the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, in renewing the licences of commercial television stations in Sydney, has expressed criticism of children’s program arrangements by the commercial stations and has said that it intends to lay down guidelines for commercial stations to follow in the future? Has he also seen criticism by one of his colleagues from New South Wales of the activities of the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal? Is the Minister aware that at present there are two vacancies on the Tribunal? In view of the Tribunal’s criticism of programs for children, particularly educational programs, will the Minister be prepared to discuss with the Minister for Post and Telecommunications the appointment to the Tribunal of someone with special interest in the educational welfare of the younger generation of Australians before hearings for other licences in Australia take place?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– My only knowledge of statements from the Tribunal is of those that I have read in the Press. I do not have an immediate responsibility for licences and their renewals. At the moment, what I have read is my only source of information. My recollection is that I have seen criticism by the Tribunal that stations have not given special and appropriate attention to children’s viewing. Indeed, a standing committee of this chamber had something very relevant to say in that regard. All Australians would be vitally interested in the matter because television itself is such a compelling medium. The answer, therefore, to the first part of the question is yes.

Senator Douglas McClelland also asked whether I had seen criticism or comments from a colleague about the activities of the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. That question is far too ambiguous. I have not. I will need some clarification in that regard. The honourable senator asked whether I am aware that there are two vacancies on the Tribunal. I believe that there was one vacancy and that there has been a resignation recently. Therefore, I assume that there are now two vacancies. I will bring the remainder of the question to the attention of my colleague the Minister for Post and Telecommunications and discuss the matter with him.

page 1464

QUESTION

WANNIASSA AND CHARNWOOD HIGH SCHOOLS

Senator KNIGHT:
ACT

-Has the Minister for Education seen the report in the Canberra Times today to the effect that Wanniassa High School and another new high school at Charnwood in the Australian Capital Territory will not open in 1980? Is that report accurate? If so, can the Minister provide further background information, particularly as to the action of the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority in this situation?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– Not only have I seen the report but also, as it concerns my portfolio, I have a copy of it. The report is based on a Press release of yesterday’s date by the Acting Chief Education Officer of the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority, Mr Brian Peck. It is an accurate report. The Authority itself is, of course, charged with administering education in the Territory. As I understand it, the Authority made the decision regarding Charnwood and Wanniassa high schools without dissent. It made that decision on what it considered were good educational grounds. The Authority has before it the responsibility to take into account expected enrolment rates and the trends of population in various areas and, in view of those enrolment rates, whether an area would have a sufficient school population not only to accommodate a small number in a school but also to justify the range of choice of teachers which would provide

ACT GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS-

good education. If a school population, particularly a high school population, is small, clearly it cannot have the teaching staff to provide the options, and no doubt the Authority had that in mind.

I am advised by the Schools Authority that a study of the enrolment projections in Australian Capital Territory government secondary schools indicates a period of relative stability over the coming years. There will be some enrolment growth in the newer developing areas and a substantial decline in enrolments in older areas. The Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority is studying these projections to determine the level of enrolments at which new secondary schools will open and the minimum level of enrolments for established high schools and colleges. For the information of honourable senators, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the enrolment projections prepared by the Authority.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

page 1466

QUESTION

RHODESIA

Senator WHEELDON:

-My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and follows the question asked earlier tonight by Senator Young concerning the election in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe. As I understood the Minister’s answer, it was to the effect that the Government did not believe that there would be peace in that area until such time as all parties agreed and that Australia should show caution in dealing with this matter. Are we to take his statement that there will not be peace until all parties agree to mean that even if it were established that a majority of eligible citizens within Rhodesia/Zimbabwe voted in the election and that a majority voted for the party of Bishop Muzorewa, the Australian Government would not accept that government as a valid one as long as any group of armed insurgents was prepared to bring down that government? Insofar as he said that we should show caution in this matter, did he really mean caution or did he mean procrastination until such time as the Government has discovered what is the policy of the United States Administration on this question? Will the Minister not agree that in relation to this matter the Government and other Western governments will need to say soon and quickly whether or not they believe that a valid election has been held? Can we expect that a

statement will be brought down in the Parliament by the Minister for Foreign Affairs before the Parliament rises for the winter recess?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I will direct the latter part of the question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs to see whether a statement can be brought down. The intervening weeks will be critical ones in which to make a determination on this matter. I do not think that it is a question of procrastination. If it is, all the Western nations that have a concern to see real and lasting peace and to prevent the devastating terrorism that has occurred are following the same kind of judgment that Australia is following. Without any cynicism, I ask: Am I to take it that Senator Wheeldon is advocating an early acceptance or endorsement of the new regime and that that is Australian Labor Party policy?

Senator Wheeldon:

– No, I am not advocating Labor Party policy.

Senator CARRICK:

– The honourable senator interjects with such vehemence, and I think has indicated his own subjective judgment to which he is entitled, that one wonders whether that is the case. My understanding is that there is considerable division within the Labor Party on this matter, and I say that in fairness. This is one of the most complex matters that we face and any loose statements on it could be provocative. One can hope only that Australia ‘s role will be to see whether we can bring together elements, other than those of the newly elected government, to obtain some kind of compromise so that lasting peace can be achieved. 1 think a cautious approach is absolutely necessary at the moment. A study over the immediate weeks ahead is necessary for a true understanding and I will certainly ask my colleague whether he will be able to give a thoughtful statement on the matter before the Senate rises for the recess.

Senator WHEELDON:

– I ask a supplementary question of the Minister. Am I to take the Minister’s answer referring to real or supposed differences within the Australian Labor Party to mean that the Government’s approach to this very important question is going to be a part of an attitude of scoring cheap political points over the Labor Party or is it seriously going to come up with a resolution of a problem of vital interest to world peace and to the future lives of young Australians?

Senator CARRICK:

– Let me deal with the rhetoric. What I said in answer to two questions, both to Senator Wheeldon and to Senator Young, was that the Government is going to take a constructive and thoughtful approach so that the result will be one which will be of lasting benefit for Africa and the world. If in the journey of what I said Senator Wheeldon was stung by the fact that there are real divisions on the matter in his own party, is it wrong to indicate that on a matter such as this there will be, of course, deep divisions of thought in both the Labor Party and in the community? That is the spirit in which I indicated it.

page 1467

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I refer the AttorneyGeneral to the progressive policy initiative which was foreshadowed recently by the Premier of Victoria in the field of industrial relations whereby he proposes introducing secret ballots under certain circumstances before strikes can be authorised in that State. Is it a fact that the Commonwealth Government has also recognised public concern in this vital area, as indicated in a speech by the Minister for Finance in Perth on 23 April? Has the Attorney-General noted that Mr Robinson said, among other things, that the Government will ask the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission not to hear cases in which any type of industrial action is continuing and to recommend a return to work in those circumstances? Mr Robinson also said that alternatively the Commission could order a secret ballot to determine -

Senator Cavanagh:

– I raise a point of order. Is this a question seeking information or is it giving information on what the Minister said in Perth?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The information leading up to the question must be brief. The honourable senator should seek information, not give it.

Senator JESSOP:

– I repeat: Has the AttorneyGeneral noted that Mr Robinson said that the Government will ask the Arbitration Commission not to hear cases -

Senator Cavanagh:

– I raise a point of order.

Senator JESSOP:

– I am asking a question.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Thank you, Senator Cavanagh. I have taken the point that you raised a moment ago. The facts are that in leading up to a question an honourable senator may give an elucidation of it but he must be very brief. Senator Jessop, you may not give information, but you may elucidate to gain the reply that you are seeking.

Senator Cavanagh:

– On that point of order–

The PRESIDENT:

– I have ruled on your point of order, Senator Cavanagh.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Yes, but the question is: Has the Minister noted the remarks of Mr Robinson in Perth?’ We do not want to know what Mr Robinson said. We all read it.

The PRESIDENT:

– That is up to the honourable senator who is asking the question. There is no point of order. I call Senator Jessop.

Senator JESSOP:

-Thank you, Mr President, I ask again whether the Minister is aware that Mr Robinson said that alternatively the Commission could order–

Senator Keeffe:

- Mr President–

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! No further points of order.

Senator Keeffe:

– It is a different point of order.

The PRESIDENT:

– I must hear you, Senator Keeffe.

Senator Keeffe:

– I am sorry, but it looks as though the honourable senator is using the forms of this Parliament to attack Mr Hamer in Victoria on the eve of an election, and I think that is quite out of order.

The PRESIDENT:

– Put your question. Senator Jessop.

Senator JESSOP:

– I will. Can the Minister say whether the message delivered by the Minister for Finance, Mr Robinson, in Perth has been transmitted to the Arbitration Commission that alternatively the Commission could order a secret ballot to determine the real attitude of members of a union to industrial action being pursued?

Senator DURACK:
LP

- Senator Jessop has asked a question about the value of secret ballots as a tool for resolution of industrial problems. I have not seen the speech by my colleague, Mr Eric Robinson, to which the honourable senator has referred. However, the account of it that has been given accords with many aspects of Government policy. The position, as I understand it, is that the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission does in fact have a power to order secret ballots. Whether or not that fact has been drawn to the Commission’s attention recently, I cannot say. I will refer the question to the Minister for Industrial Relations and ask him to let the Senate have an early reply.

page 1468

QUESTION

MINERAL EXPORT GUIDELINES

Senator WRIEDT:

– My question is directed to Senator Webster in his capacity as Leader of the National Country Party in the Senate. Will he explain to the Senate the attitude of his colleague, Mr Anthony, to mineral export guidelines?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-The Leader of the Opposition would obviously know that I do not represent Mr Anthony in matters related to his portfolio, lt is quite ridiculous for the Leader of the Opposition to ask me such a question.

page 1468

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE

Senator HAMER:
VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Defence: Is it a fact that the Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration did not investigate the Department of Defence on the grounds that at the time- 1975- the Department was in the throes of reorganisation? Did the Royal Commission recommend that a review of the Department of Defence be conducted by an independent body after several years of experience of the new organisation? Has the Government accepted this recommendation? If so, when will the independent review be carried out, it being borne in mind that the organisation has now been in force for three years, and who will be the members of the independent review body?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

- Senator Hamer has asked a question in four parts. The first part was: Did the Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration omit to investigate the Department of Defence? The answer is yes. The Commission also concluded that there was so much that was distinctive about the administration of defence and military affairs that, if it were to deal with it, a more detailed and comprehensive study than would be possible in reasonable time would be necessary. The honourable senator further asked: Did the Royal Commission recommend that there should be an independent review? Again, the answer is yes. The Commission recommended that, after a few years of experience of the present pattern of defence administration, an independent body be appointed to undertake a thorough study of the effectiveness of structural arrangements and their possible relevance to other fields of Government responsibility.

As to the final parts of the question, in as much as the Commission did not set out to investigate the organisation and structures of particular departments, it does not necessarily follow that an independent inquiry analagous to the Commission would be the most suitable way of examining the command of administration aspects of the Australian Defence Force and working relations between it, the Department of Defence and the Minister for Defence. Different parts of the organisation either have already been reviewed or will be reviewed in a continuous program covering the three services in the Department. The Government will nevertheless consider a more comprehensive review at an appropriate time.

page 1468

QUESTION

MINERAL EXPORT GUIDELINES

Senator WRIEDT:

-Will the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources explain to the Senate the attitude of Mr Anthony to the mineral export guidelines enunciated by Mr Anthony?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-The attitude of the Minister for Trade and Resources is the same as that of the Government. This attitude was expressed following a meeting in Perth last week. There are to be talks, without prejudice to the details of the existing guidelines, in relation to their future application and, generally, the exercise by the Commonwealth Government of its export powers. I think that in recent days there has been a good deal of misunderstanding of the possession of powers by the Commonwealth Government over exports, the surveillance of exports and the actual guidelines promulgated some months ago by the Minister for Trade and Resources. They relate to a specific method of exercising those powers in particular areas of export contracts. The guidelines were issued as draft guidelines.

It was always intended- I have answered questions here on this matter on a number of occasions- that there would be discussions with the industries concerned and with the States. As I have said, those discussions are to take place without prejudice to those existing guidelines. I am pleased to see that the Premier of Western Australia has indicated his willingness to take part in those discussions.

page 1469

FAMILY LAW AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Assent reported.

page 1469

AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

The PRESIDENT:

– For the information of honourable senators, I lay on the table a document entitled ‘ Resolutions Adopted at the Australian Constitutional Convention, Parliament House, Perth, 26 to 28 July 1 978 ‘.

page 1469

PARTICULARS OF PROPOSED ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURE

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I lay on the table explanatory notes of departments and authorities relating to the estimates of proposed additional expenditure for 1978-79. A list of departments and authorities from which notes have been received has been circulated to honourable senators.

page 1469

EDUCATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– Pursuant to section 9 of the Education Act 1970, 1 present the annual report of the Education Research and Development Committee for the year ended 30 June 1978. I seek leave to make a brief statement relating to the report.

Leave granted.

Senator CARRICK:

– In recent years the extent of public debate about education has increased noticeably and invariably one of the outcomes of such debate has been a call for more research into identified problems; in many cases it is implied that much of this research ought to have been done already. Clearly, this is not a reasonable criticism. To have such information already available the research community would have to anticipate the debate by at least two years. However, I am pleased to be able to comment that the Education Research and Development Committee has enjoyed a measure of success in this crystal ball gazing exercise. I cite a few of the more notable instances: I understand that the Committee has provided the National Inquiry into Teacher Education with more than 30 research reports and that several more will be available within a few months. In addition, the Committee will itself present a general submission adopting a forward looking predictive emphasis. The Williams Committee of Inquiry into Education and Training also benefited from data gathered through ERDC research funding initiatives as did the House of Representatives Select Committee on Specific Learning Difficulties. The ERDC has continued its support for research activities in these areas and it will give close attention to the recommendations of the Williams Committee report in determining future developments.

In early 1977, the Committee appointed an expert and ongoing group to advise it on strategic research thrusts in the area of multicultural education; ERDC is thus well prepared to respond quickly to the Galbally report recommendations concerning research into aspects of multicultural education. Finally, a report of a study group which ERDC commissioned to examine the feasibility of a scheme of national assessment of educational progress, together with the Committee’s evaluative comments on the report and the concept, provided a substantial basis for discussion at a recent meeting of the Australian Education Council. The report contains details of 127 in-progress research activities and 156 reports and papers written during the year. Because they address such a wide range of educational matters, it seems likely that honourable senators will find individual topics to be of particular interest, for example, the School and Work Report by C. Blakers described on page 25 of Fensham, Powell and Anderson’s report concerning the social composition of tertiary students and the effect of the abolition of fees, on page 32, and the report on future trends in medical education in Australia by Sheldrake et al, at page 43. Accordingly, I commend the report to the perusal of the Senate.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-I move:

Briefly, I concur with the observations of the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) about the work of the Education Research and Development Committee. Unfortunately, I have not had the opportunity of perusing the report to which the Minister refers. I believe many honourable senators will have had the chance of reading, for example, the Fensham, Powell and Anderson report concerning the social composition of tertiary students, which is a very important report. I think in an earlier debate in this place the Minister described this report as reaching conclusions which might be slightly premature, an observation with which I respectfully agree. But nonetheless it is a very significant and important piece of work in terms of the aspirations of the Government in regard to the abolition of tertiary fees. Similarly, the report by Mrs Blakers, which I think was largely a work commissioned by the Australian Council of State School Organisations, contains some very valuable material which is important in relation to that aspect of the debate. I am not prepared or able to make any observations about Dr Sheldrake’s report on medical education in Australia. 1 think it is important, however, that the work of the Education Research and Development Committee be recognised. While I do not share the Minister’s view, which I find profoundly optimistic, that the Committee has had success in crystal ball gazing, which I think is an almost impossible educational task, it is important that this work is being done. The Opposition likewise commends the work of the Committee to the Senate. I ask leave to continue my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1470

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SELECT COMMITTEE ON TOURISM

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– For the information of honourable senators, I present the text of a statement by the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr Lynch) concerning the House of Representatives Select Committee on Tourism, together with details of the Government’s responses to the recommendations of the Committee’s final report.

page 1470

QUESTION

SIXTY-FIFTH REPORT FROM THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

-Mr President, I present the 65th report from the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, relating to regulations under the Superannuation Act and certain Defence Force financial regulations.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I ask leave to make a short statement relating to the report.

Leave granted.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Some years ago, the Committee gave an undertaking to the Senate that it would report upon all regulations involving retrospectivity in payment of moneys extending beyond two years, and unless exceptional circumstances were established to the Committee’s satisfaction, such regulations would be the subject of a recommendation for disallowance. The basis of that undertaking was that, although the Acts Interpretation Act prohibits retrospective regulations prejudicing persons’ rights or imposing liabilities, retrospective regulations involving the payment of sums of money with long periods of retrospectivity should more properly be made in the form of substantive legislation so as to allow Parliament to review the need for the retrospective expenditure. This principle has been supported by the Senate in the past. This report deals with a number of regulations under the Superannuation Act and the various Acts relating to the Defence Force which are retrospective for two years or more. The Committee has concluded that the retrospectivity of all of these regulations was caused by exceptional circumstances, and the report therefore does not recommend disallowance of any of the regulations.

In relation to the regulations concerning the Defence Force, the Committee reports that, while there were exceptional circumstances contributing to the retrospectivity of the regulations in question, there were some delays which appear to the Committee to have been unjustified. In relation to the regulations under the Superannuation Act, the retrospectivity of these regulations is authorised by the Superannuation Act 1976. The relevant section of that Act imposed a time limit within which the retrospective regulations may be made.

The report draws attention to another aspect of the regulations under the Superannuation Act which in the opinion of the Committee ought to be considered by the Senate. Some of the regulations contain substantive legislation in the form of provisions modifying provisions of the Act in their application to certain eligible employees. These provisions in the regulations are also explicitly authorised by the Act. The report observes that provisions in Acts allowing amendment or modification of Acts by regulation are not as unusual as might be thought, but such provisions are usually confined to minor matters of detail. Examples from Acts of Parliament are cited in the report. The Committee expresses the opinion that while provisions allowing amendment of Acts by regulation are not necessarily objectionable in themselves, the Senate should closely srutinise such provisions in Bills to ensure that they are granted to governments only when there are good reasons for doing so. The report draws attention to the reports of the Standing Commmittee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs relating to the delegation of parliamentary authority and the scrutiny of Bills. I commend the report to the Senate.

page 1471

AUSTRALIAN 1988 BICENTENARY

Ministerial Statement

Senator CARRICK (New South Wales-

Minister for Education)- I seek leave to make a statement relating to the Australian 1988 Bicentenary and to move a motion to take note of the statement.

Leave granted.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I seek leave to have the statement incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The statement read as follows-

The year 1988 will be the bicentenary of the first European settlement in Australia. In June 1 978 the Premiers Conference agreed that there should be a major commemoration of Australia’s bicentenary. Following this decision there has been consultation between the Commonwealth, the States and the Northern Territory to devise and agree on a framework of administrative arrangements by which an Australian Bicentennial Authority can be established.

The Authority will be responsible for the planning and staging of this historic commemoration. As befits a national endeavour of this kind, the commitment to it will be completely bipartisan. The Authority, therefore, will be a joint organisation of 17 members- seven appointed by the Commonwealth, seven appointed by the States and the Northern Territory, two members drawn respectively from the Government and the Opposition in Federal Parliament, and with a chairman appointed by the Commonwealth. I am pleased to be able to announce that Mr John Reid has agreed to serve as the Chairman. His work and reputation will be known to many members. He is a businessman and administrator of outstanding calibre. I am in no doubt that under his experienced and forceful guidance the Authority will be established on a sound, business-like footing and that he will handle the task he has been given with distinction.

The Authority will be established administratively as a company incorporated in the Australian Capital Territory. There will be companion legislation of a general kind to identify the status and role of the Authority and guarantee its autonomy and continuity. Such an arrangement will confer an appropriate degree of independence and flexibility so that the Authority can cope with changing requirements during the next decade. The structure envisaged will enable the Authority to operate expeditiously in a business-like way and will facilitate such operations as licensing, franchising and normal commercial agreements. At the same time, the Authority will be accountable to the Parliament through the Minister for Administrative Services, who will consult, as necessary, with the appropriate Minister in each of the States and in the Northern Territory.

The Authority’s accounts will be subject to audit by the Auditor-General. Any appropriation by the Parliament for the purpose of the Authority will be subject to the normal parliamentary scrutiny. The Authority will also be required to submit an annual report to the Parliament. The memorandum and articles of association of the Authority and, as appropriate, the companion legislation will give effect to the Government’s wishes in this regard.

The Authority will have both advising and operational roles. In its advising role it will be required at an early date to make recommendations in relation to a ‘theme’ and a ‘focus’ for the celebrations and on the matter of international participation. Generally it will be empowered to do all things necessary for the successful prosecution of the role given to it by governments and the objectives specified in its charter. The charter will be expressed in an appropriately drawn memorandum and articles of association designed to provide the desired wide ambit of activity and authority within the administrative framework I have indicated- subject, of course, to the decisions of Governments in relation to policy.

The bicentenary will be a most important event for Australia. Deep in any human community is consciousness of its origins and identity and its hopes and resolutions for the future- a consciousness to which it will want to return and dwell upon at particular moments in its history. The marking of a bicentenary is one such time. It will be a time for calling to mind the achievements throughout this country and by its people over two centuries. It will be a time to reflect upon our developing and changing national identity, as a united community transformed in a remarkable way by the migration programs of the years since World War II.

It will be a time for weighing the opportunities and the challenges that lie ahead and for considering our place in the world community. It will, as I have said, be a matter for the Authority to propose for the consideration of governments a theme and a focus for the celebrations and, in doing this, it will need to draw upon the ideas of highly imaginative and creative people within our community. It will be for the Authority to recommend the concrete programs by which the commemoration will find expression. In the drawing of these programs and for their discharge the Authority will, as far as practicable, be seeking to devolve responsibility and initiative to State, municipal and local governments. As well, the Authority will be seeking to involve all sections and members of the community individually and collectively. It will look to encourage initiatives at the grass roots. Within these programs there will no doubt be a strong emphasis on history. This must under-pin any such commemoration.

We are now embarking on an exciting and challenging project for the nation.

Senator CARRICK:

-I move:

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I want to make some brief remarks about this matter. If my memory serves me correctly, the Labor Government which was in office between 1972 and 1975 first developed the concept of an Australian 1988 Bicentenary arrangement. In about 1974 the then Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, wrote to the Chairman of the World Expositions Organisation to firm up such a proposal. I might say that it is regrettable that in recent times there has been a lot of unfavourable publicity about the bicentennial administrative arrangements. This is because of the appointment by the Government of its special advisor, a Mr Harry M. Miller, who, of course, in recent weeks has resigned from that position. I do not wish to dwell on that subject other than to say that had his appointment continued it must have been quite obvious that there could not have been a bipartisan approach to this subject.

I note that it is proposed to appoint as chairman Mr Reid, a businessman of some note in Sydney, who I know is connected with the Hardie asbestos company. There is no doubt that he is a businessman and an administrator of some note. Unfortunately, there has been some three years delay in much of the lead up work connected with the establishment of this organisation. I suggest that people with experience of world expositions- there are many in this country- should be approached on behalf of the nation to give their expert advice on this subject. I immediately call to mind Mr Jack Neary, O.B.E., who is a former vice-chairman of the

Australian Broadcasting Control Board. He was the commissioner-general of the American bicentennial arrangements and did an excellent job for Australia in the time that he occupied that position. There is Mr Noel Flanagan of the Australian War Memorial and Mr Bill Worth who, for many years, was Australia’s representative on the world expositions organisation. Also, there is Mr Kevin Jacobsen, a former commissioner of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. They are all men with expert experience and with entrepreneurial experience.

They are all men who could contribute substantially to the functioning administration of such an organisation. I believe their expert knowledge should be harnessed and people of that nature should be immediately invited to go to places where expositions have been held in recent times, particularly those in which Australia has been involved. I immediately call to mind that Australia was involved in recent years in expositions at Spokane in Washington, America, and in Okinawa. They would be able to find out the real and practical problems that are involved in staging expositions of this nature. I commend the Government for putting the administrative arrangements into the hands of an authority to be know as the Australian Bicentennial Authority. Had the Government made that arrangement with the Silver Jubilee organisation it would not have got itself into the trouble that it did. I trust that the 1 7 members of the joint organisation to be appointed will represent a wide cross-section of the Australian community to ensure the success of the bicentennial arrangements. I note that it is intended that four of those members will be members of this Parliament. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1472

DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY

Ministerial Statement

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) I seek leave to make a statement on behalf of the Minister for National Development (Mr Newman) on the development and implementation of a national energy policy and to move a motion to take note of the statement.

Leave granted.

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I seek leave to have the statement incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The recent disruption of oil supplies from Iran has brought energy policy into sharp focus. It is timely to review the action taken by this Government in formulating and implementing its energy policy. In addition to this review, the Government will shortly be presenting an energy policy discussion paper which will canvass future energy needs and options. A secure and ready availability of energy is an essential pre-requisite for the well-being of the Australian community- it is essential to underpin our standard of living, our transport industries, our industrial development, our agricultural and mineral industries, and a wide range of commercial and trading activities. This Government has an active, well integrated and well co-ordinated energy policy. It is a successful policy. Our policy has the immediate aims of ensuring secure and stable supplies of energy and reducing Australia’s dependence on imported oil, and a longer-term aim of developing a diversified energy base which minimises dependence on liquid fuels.

The Government’s energy policy statement of November 1977 outlined six main objectives designed to achieve these broad goals: Firstly, to move crude oil prices in the direction of international levels; secondly, to restrain the average rate of growth of energy consumption, particularly in liquid fuels; thirdly, to achieve the highest degree of self-sufficiency in liquid fuels consistent with the broadly economic utilisation of our energy resources; fourthly, to develop our economic oil and gas reserves; fifthly, to encourage individual major energy projects to meet overseas demand for energy minerals which will provide an adequate return to Australia; and, finally, to increase energy research and development substantially.

We have pursued these objectives actively through hard but effective decisions on pricing and tax policy, encouragement of exploration and development, support for major energy development projects, stimulation of energy research and development, pursuit of energy conservation and interfuel substitution, and active international co-operation. This Government sees itself in a leadership role in energy policy. It is carrying out that role positively and energetically. Australia is a federation and many of the powers concerning energy rest with the States. A recognition of this fact does not imply a division of approach on energy policy- rather it highlights the role of the Commonwealth in providing leadership and ensuring close co-operation and liaison with the States.

Let me spell out the initiatives we have taken. I will do this in some detail because it is important to bring together the many initiatives we have taken and to indicate the integrated and coordinated approach we have to energy policy.

The Pricing Framework

Fundamental to the achievement of the Government’s energy policy goals has been the use of the market framework. Australia is an energy rich country, with major reserves of coal and uranium and substantial reserves of natural gas. However, our reserves of petroleum are limited and it is of the highest importance that the price of petroleum products to which both producers and consumers react reflects a realistic value for those products. Realistic pricing has a number of desirable consequences.

Firstly, it encourages conservation of scarce resources and helps correct unsatisfactory usage patterns which result from the maintenance of artificially low prices for petroleum products; secondly, it promotes the usage of competitive energy sources, mainly natural gas and coalbased electricity; thirdly the relative economics of alternative energy projects such as coal liquefaction, shale oil, and solar power can be seen in an accurate perspective which allows more realistic decisions to be made about financing their development; and fourthly, and perhaps most importantly, realistic pricing acts as a major incentive to increase oil exploration activity and to maximise the exploitation of existing fields.

In accordance with this approach, the Government’s 1977 Budget provided for the price of indigenous crude oil from known fields to move in the direction of import parity, and provided for the return to producers to reach at least 50 per cent of import parity by 1980-81. The Government has announced that it will review the position before June 198 1 to decide upon the further progression to import parity for known fields. The policy was immediately successful, leading to an increase in recoverable oil of 1 15 million barrels from developed fields or fields under development in Bass Strait. In addition, about 300 million barrels of recoverable oil, which probably would not have been economic at former prices, can now be recovered. Other discoveries now under evaluation in Bass Strait may contain in excess of a further 300 million barrels. In short, our pricing policy has already led to an increase in reserves of some 600-700 million barrels, equivalent to about three years’ consumption.

In the 1978 Budget the Government further developed pricing policy for indigenous crude oil. This did not affect the scale of prices to producers, as laid down in August 1977, but, through an effective increase in the crude oil levy, increased the price of indigenous crude oil to refiners and consumers to the import parity level, as determined by the Government every six months. As well as the energy policy advantages I have already mentioned, the crude oil pricing policy brings a substantial return to the community in the form of revenue to the Commonwealth. The levy alone will bring close to $ 1300m in the financial year 1978-79. The levy brings about a realistic climate for energy conservation, substitution and research. This money is used to pay for social services, education, defence, health and all the other expenditures incurred by the Commonwealth in its Budget. It undoubtedly reduces tax incidence- revenue would have to be raised anyway if not through the oil levy- whilst improving conservation of petroleum.

Petroleum Exploration

Our policies have resulted in petroleum exploration being pursued actively to ensure that petroleum supplies are increased. The 1960s and early 1970s were optimistic years for Australian petroleum exploration, especially as a result of early successes in Bass Strait and the indications of favourable prospects on the North West Shelf. Under Labor this momentum was lost and exploration came to a standstill. This Government’s fundamental objective has been to restore the confidence of the petroleum industry, to get exploration moving again. We are succeeding.

The Government’s initiatives include important taxation concessions for the industry, such as making petroleum exploration and development expenditure deductible against income from any source, faster write-off provisions for petroleum development expenditure and a shareholder rebate scheme for offshore petroleum exploration and development.

The recovery in exploration confidence under this Government is reflected in the number of exploration wells drilled in 1 978 and proposed for 1979. In 1978, 52 wells were drilled, more than double the number drilled in each of the previous 3 years. This compares with the decline from 100 wells in 1972 to only 19 wells in 1 976- when the loss of confidence and cessation of exploration planning during the Labor period became fully and starkly apparent. As a result of this Government’s initiatives, Australia is now seen as a stable and attractive area for investment of risk capital in petroleum exploration and over the next 5 years a minimum of $500m is committed for pertroleum exploration, both onshore and offshore. This year, industry sources predict that between 83 and 143 exploration wells will be drilled (onshore 60-97, offshore 23-46). Even if only the lower estimate is reached, this will be the highest level for 7 years. Offshore, a total of 62 exploration permits are currently in force, 28 of which have been granted in the last two years, including 8 since August 1 978. This compares with only 2 offshore permits granted during the Labor period. Consideration is presently being given to the allocation of a further 20 offshore permit areas around Australia. Onshore, there are approximately 70 current exploration permits.

The improved outlook for petroleum exploration is especially demonstrated by the fact that companies are prepared to face the difficulties and enormous costs of exploring the Exmouth Plateau. The Plateau, lying up to 600 kilometres off North Western Australia, at water depths from 600 to 3000 metres, is generally regarded as offering our best chance for a further major oil discovery. This exploration effort is one of the most intensive deepwater undertakings anywhere in the world, with companies operating on the frontiers of current technology: a single well will cost around $10m. Drilling of the first well there commenced last month. Of the world’s 10 deepwater drilling rigs, up to 3 will be operating on the Plateau this year.

Australia currently has a self-sufficiency in crude oil of about 70 per cent. A few years ago it was expected that by the 1980s our selfsufficiency would drop to as low as 25 per cent. However, as a result of the Government’s encouragement of exploration and development, and our pricing policy, our self-sufficiency outlook has improved dramatically. It is now predicted that by 1985 we will be producing 50 per cent of our crude oil requirements, a figure far higher than anyone would have ventured to suggest up till recently. Of course, self-sufficiency will be even further enhanced if, as we hope, additional major oil discoveries are made. Despite some limits to oil prospectivity and high risks we have succeeded in creating the climate necessary to attract scare capital and resources into major and accelerated exploration programs. Under Labor exploration ground to a halt.

Energy Development Projects

Active encouragement is being given to major energy projects to ensure security of energy supplies for future domestic use and for export. A sound policy framework is essential if there is to be a flow of necessary projects in the future. We have provided that framework. It is working successfully. Investment in mining and manufacturing, including energy has grown strongly under this Government. We have reversed the serious downward trend in real capital expenditure, which was occurring in the mid 1970s. We have done this through the establishment of a sound economic climate, the restoration of sensible economic management, the application of specific policies such as the investment allowance, a reasonable approach to foreign investment and the encouragement given to the petroleum and mining industries through the taxation system.

Based on figures published by the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, the average annual rate of growth in real private investment in mining and manufacturing, which includes important parts of the energy industries, will be 12.5 per cent between 1976 and 1 980. The growth in the previous four years, 1 972 to 1 976, was negative and averaged minus 8.5 per cent per annum.

Let me outline the major energy projects underway. Development expenditure for Bass Strait totalling $780m has been announced and further development now under consideration is expected to raise this total to over $ 1 billion. In addition, development programs are in progress Or planned for Barrow Island and Dongara ($18m this year), Cooper Basin ($53m for 1978 and 1979), and other localities. Of the Bass Strait developments so far announced, development of the Snapper gas and condensate field is in progress and production is due to commence in 1981- the total cost for a platform and pipeline will be $160m. The platforms for the Tuna and Mackerel oil fields have been completed; production from Mackerel has commenced and development drilling from the Tuna platform is under way- the total cost for these two fields will be $180m. Australia’s first subsea completion has been installed for the Cobia oil field, with further development, involving a platform, estimated at over $200m. Development of the West Kingfish oil field has commenced, and the cost is estimated at $ 1 90m. In addition, a third gas treatment plant is proposed for construction at Longford, at an estimated cost of about $50m.

Another major energy development is the North West Shelf natural gas project. This project is currently the subject of detailed study by the companies concerned, at a cost of $50m, and their decision on the project’s future is expected towards the end of this year. During the Labor period, progress on the North West Shelf project was delayed by at least 2-3 years. However, this Government recognised the national significance of the project and has provided the framework which will enable development to take off: measures introduced include foreign investment approval, approval for the export of LNG derived from 53 per cent of known reserves from the North Rankin, Angel and Goodwyn fields and several important taxation concessions, namely, extension of the investment allowance by two years; the inclusion of gas liquefaction plant as an allowable capital expenditure under the petroleum mining provisions; and the introduction of the shareholder rebate scheme for offshore petroleum.

The petroleum refining industry has embarked on or announced important refinery expansions in Brisbane, Sydney, Geelong and Perth. Refining investment increased by $80m in 1 977 and an estimated $75m in 1978. A proposal for a $130m refinery at Matraville in Sydney is being actively investigated. One encouraging feature of refining expansion has been moves by several companies to increase catalytic cracking capacity, which will lift production of transport fuels vis-a-vis fuel oil production. The level of capital investment being made clearly reflects the confidence of the Australian refining industry in the Government’s policies. Not only has the Government stimulated development of our energy resources through sound economic and assistance policies- we have also supported the sourcing of loans overseas for major energy projects of national importance. This is particularly important in regard to the construction of major electricity schemes which are basic to the future industrial development of our country.

Five of the twelve major projects approved for special borrowing by the Loan Council last year related to the provision of electricity. They were: the Loy Yang Power Station in Victoria ($343m); Eraring electricity project in N.S.W. ($200m); power station projects in Queensland ($130m); hydro-electric power development in Tasmania ($75); and power supply integration in the Pilbara area of W.A. ($1 1 lm). All of these projects received Commonwealth support. These projects for power generation are of major significance from the viewpoint of energy policy. Australia has abundant sources of solid fuels in the eastern States suitable for power generation and soundly planned and timely installation of new power generating capacity is essential to facilitate the transfer of demand for energy from liquid fuels to electricity derived from solid fuels or hydro-electric resources. A ready availability of electricity generating capacity will also facilitate the establishment of new industrial development projects of a nature consistent with the Government’s objectives towards mineral processing and industry policy generally.

As an overall energy-rich nation Australia has the opportunity to attract those industries which have a relatively high demand for energy. For instance the continued provision of electricity based on our abundant coal supplies is an important comparative advantage to Australia when major international industry investment decisions are taken. The major expansion now underway of aluminium smelting capacity in Australia would not be possible without supplies of relatively cheap electricity. The value of our support for major electricity projects can be seen from recent industry announcements. Yesterday Alcoa of Australia Ltd announced plans to proceed with a $350 million aluminium smelter project in Australia. This means that with the $85 million expansion of Alcoa’s Point Henry plant and the $500 million smelter project at Gladstone, almost $1 billion is committed to the expansion of aluminium smelting in Australia.

We recognise that the possession of substantial energy and mineral resources gives us great opportunities for the future development of industries based on the processing of our mineral resources. This Government has commenced major studies in collaboration with the State Governments and with Japan to investigate and pursue opportunities for increased raw materials processing in Australia. The energy aspects of these studies are of basic importance. Moreover, energy processing projects themselves represent significant investment opportunities- oil from shale, oil from coal and methanol from gas, are all realistic and attractive prospects made possible by our policies. Through our management of the economy, we have established the economic climate for major investments such as these to proceed; through our support of energy R D & D we are establishing the technological basis on which major new investment projects will be based in the 1980s and beyond. The long and impressive list of major projects I have referred to is ample proof of the success of our policies. That success will continue in the future with major new energy projects based on the realisation of new technological possibilities.

Energy Research and Development

One of the major objectives announced by the Government in its energy policy statement of November 1977 was that ‘energy R&D would be substantially increased’. This Government recognised that we must move to develop the energy technologies suited to Australia ‘s needs in the remaining years of this century and beyond. Energy research and development is the foundation on which investment in alternative fuels for the future will rest. We are determined to encourage that investment. We established in May 1978 the National Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Council (NERDDC). Its role is the development and co-ordination of energy R D & D in Australia. Its primary task is to recommend to me those projects which should be assisted under the National Energy Research Development and Demonstration Program. This Program is a completely new initiative. Its aim is to provide Commonwealth Government financial support to stimulate increased energy R D & D in this country. No similar program, or anything even remotely resembling it, was seen to be necessary by the Labor Government when it was in power.

At the time of the 1 978-79 Budget the Government announced that funds totalling around $ 1 5 million would be made available for this Program to encourage a major expansion of energy R D & D activity. There is also a separate commitment to a total of about $3.8 million for the joint Australia/FRG feasibility study on coal to oil. These commitments represent almost a doubling of previous Commonwealth expenditure on energy research. A total of $ 16.6m was spent by Commonwealth Authorities on energy R & D in 1976/77. A doubling of support for energy research in one year is a very real achievement which has given tremendous stimulation to our energy technologists who are eager to pursue the challenges of the future.

Based on the recommendations of NERDDC, I have approved 1 77 grants for 1 978-79 totalling almost $ 10 million. Since November 1 978 I have issued in all six statements giving details of approved grants. A summary showing major areas supported in 1 978-79 is given below:

Coal Conversion, $2. 6m; Coal Mine Site Technology, $2.6m; Technology of Coal Utilisation, $1.5m; Solar Energy, $0.9m; Power Alcohol from Biomass, $0.6m; Fossil Fuel Resource Assessment, $0.5m; Electric Vehicles, Batteries and Improved Motor Vehicle Performance, $0.3m; Wind Energy, $0.2m; Nuclear Waste Management and Fusion Research, $0.2m; Other Projects, $0.5m.

When other energy research expenditures by private enterprise and Universities are taken into account, more than $40 million will be committed to energy research in 1978-79. NERDDC has already invited applications for the 1 979-80 Program. In assessing applications NERDDC is guided by Government priorities. Our highest priority clearly is to ensure a satisfactory availability of liquid fuels. The Government’s priorities for energy research are set out in this document which I will table here today. These priorities aim primarily at meeting the objectives of:

More effective use of existing oil and gas resources by enhanced conservation including the development of systems of higher thermal efficiency; increased availability of indigenous liquid and gaseous fuels particularly oil by improved techniques of discovery, exploration, assessment and recovery; production and use of synthetic liquid fuels, particularly those derived from a non-petroleum feedstock; substitution of more abundant energy sources for liquid fuels in fixed installations.

We intend to make the best use we can of energy research resources available within Government Authorities and I have set in train a major review of the research and development programs of the AAEC Research Establishment at Lucas Heights. The Research Establishment is significant by world standards and represents an important asset to the nation in terms of facilities and skilled manpower. Although the Establishment will continue to be the main centre for research and development into nuclear energy in Australia, we are evaluating the scope for broadening its research activities against the background of the co-ordinated National Energy R&D Program now being developed through NERDDC. In some overseas research laboratories, such as Harwell in the UK, scientific facilities and expertise originally set up for nuclear research are being utilised to the benefit of energy research and development activities in other fields. That prospect is being examined here. The review is being conducted by a sub-committee of NERDDC. Its report will be completed by the middle of this year. In developing new technology in the energy R D & D field it is important that regard is given to the mutual benefits of co-operating with other countries. I will outline later important steps that we have taken to ensure that Australia takes full advantage of the benefits available in this way.

However, I will comment now on the arrangement this Government has entered into with the Federal Republic of Germany to study coal conversion possibilities in Australia. The Commonwealth and the State Governments of

Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria are participating in a joint oil-from-coal feasibility study with the Federal Ministry for Research and Technology and a group of German companies. The study will examine the conversion potential of Australian coals to liquid fuels and report on the feasibility of establishing commercial plants at sites in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. On the basis of the agreed schedule of work, the study is expected to be completed by June 1981. The joint study will cost about $3.8 million. The study is based on the concept of a plant using the combined hydrogenation, gasification and Fischer-Tropsch technologies and having production capacity of 2.9 million tonnes per annum of liquid fuels, notionally comprising a production stream of 45 per cent gasoline, 45 per cent distillate and 10 per cent LPG.

The study is a practical one. It is well planned and it is being carried out in close co-operation with the State Governments concerned. It will establish a basis for investment decisions running into billions of dollars. A single major coal conversion plant is estimated to cost $2-3 billion. The joint study is complementary to the $2.6 million domestic program of coal liquefaction research currently funded by the Commonwealth. The two major elements of this program concern hydrogenation studies with emphasis on con.tinous reactor work, catalyst investigations, solvent regeneration and product evaluation being undertaken primarily by ACIRL and BHP, and flash pyrolysis studies, including product tar hydrogenation and char utilisation being undertaken by CSIRO.

Finally on energy R D & D, let me lay to rest once and for all the thought that we need to match the per capita expenditure levels of other countries. It is quite unrealistic to suggest that all countries should achieve the same average level of research expenditure. In any country energy research must be related to the energy resource endowment and outlook. Australia is an energy rich country. We do not have to match the research expenditure levels of energy deficient countries. If other countries spend enormous amounts on research into nuclear power generation, should we feel required to do the same just to reach some arbitrary figure? That would be nonsense. The only comparison of any value is performance within Australia. Let me repeat that our initiative on energy R D & D in last year’s Budget has almost doubled the previous level of Commonwealth Government support. That is an achievement which speaks for itself. It is laying a foundation for the future which will prove of immense value to the Australian community in assuring secure energy supplies.

Energy Conservation

Another major objective stated in the November 1977 Energy Policy Paper was ‘to restrain the average rate of growth of energy consumption, particularly in liquid fuels’. If Australia is to achieve and sustain a satisfactory level of self-sufficiency in oil supplies in the 1980s and 1990s we must take effective steps now to restrain the rate of growth of oil consumption in the medium to long-term.

Realistic pricing of petroleum is fundamental to conservation. There are promising signs of success already as recent statistics for 1 978 show: Total consumption of petroleum products in 1978 was 0.75 per cent less than in 1977. The average annual growth in consumption between 1972 and 1977 was 3.8 per cent; consumption of fuel oil and diesel fuel for industrial use reduced by 2 per cent and 20 per cent respectively against 1977 levels; motor spirit consumption increased by only 2.7 per cent during 1978 compared with 5 per cent in 1977.

We intend, however, to reinforce our pricing policies by informing and educating the community, particularly motorists, of ways in which our scarce liquid fuels can be used more effectively. We must change deeply ingrained community attitudes to make progress. We are pursuing this objective actively in conjunction with the States.

After consultation with the States the Government provided $50,000 in its 1978-79 Budget for a preliminary study to establish a plan for a national publicity campaign to save oil. I received the consultant’s study report on 28 February 1979. The report recommends that a publicity campaign should run over five years. The total cost proposed by the consultants over that five year period is $17 million. The $17 million figure, which has been widely commented on in the media, is the consultant’s estimate. No decision has been made on the proposal. None of the Governments concerned has any commitment to that figure. I believe a worthwhile program can be achieved for much less.

On this question of costs, the potential benefits of conservation must be understood. If a publicity campaign results in reducing our oil consumption by only two per cent, that annual saving would be equivalent to discovering a field the size of the Tuna field soon to begin production in Bass Strait. The exploration and development of the Tuna field has cost in the order of $100 million. The consultant’s report was discussed in the Australian Minerals and Energy Council on 9 March. The States are generally receptive to the concept of a jointly funded campaign to save oil but agree that consideration should be given at this stage only to the first year of the program. I am hopeful that a co-operative program will be launched in October 1979 -which coincides with the proposed IEA Energy Conservation Month.

I have also set in train a major review of ways in which we can take action within the Commonwealth Government to show a lead in conservation of liquid fuels. One of the prime possibilities for reducing our dependence on liquid fuels is to encourage interfuel substitutionspecifically the greater use of readily available indigenous resources in place of petroleum products derived from crude oil.

Our pricing policies and specific initiatives have encouraged very significant fuel switching. Natural gas is replacing usage of fuel oil, particularly in the Sydney market; LPG is replacing usage of motor spirit, particularly in the Melbourne market.

In past years cheap fuel oil had a virtual stranglehold on the Sydney industrial market and without an industrial base load, commercial and domestic sales of gas could not be priced cheaply enough to gain significant penetration. Again, the 1978 oil pricing decision reversed this anomalous situation. Most fuel oil reached its appropriate market price almost immediately and industrial gas sales in the Sydney area will now be 80 per cent higher in 1979 than they were in 1978. By the end of this year natural gas will have displaced 600,000 tonnes of fuel oil in the Sydney area. That represents a saving of about one half of the previous demand for ‘inland’ fuel oil in New South Wales.

Let me now outline what we have done on LPG- we are well past the stage of thinking about proposals. On 29 November 1978 I announced that the Government had decided to guarantee that 5 years ‘ notice would be given of any change to the present relationship between LPG road tax and motor spirit excise, whereby any increase in the rate for LPG is only half that for motor spirit. This gave an important assurance that the LPG road tax differential would not be reduced after mortorists had converted.

The Government also decided that 100 Commonwealth vehicles in Victoria would be converted as a demonstration program and that an LPG Task Force, comprising representatives of the State and Commonwealth Governments and the Transport industries, would be established. The measures I announced have been successful. They have been acted on widely and welcomed by fleet owners and private motorists alike. They have also been shamelessly plagiarised by the Opposition spokesman on energy.

Let me briefly give you some indication of the consumers’ response so far. One Melbourne supplier of LPG conversion equipment has reported a 30 per cent growth in demand for equipment over last year. Victoria now has 127 outlets and new sites are planned for Brisbane and Sydney. Many towns outside of the large seaboard cities are also getting LPG outlets and growth in LPG demand is occurring there- for example, many Canberra taxis are converting to LPG. Finally, a new automotive gas engine for buses and trucks has now been put on the market by Rolls Royce.

We place a high priority on conservation of scarce petroleum supplies. Our pricing policy for crude petroleum is fundamental to this- it is bringing results. It is also bringing good results in fuel switching away from petroleum to other indigenous energy sources. It will be more productive and less costly in the future to conserve scarce petroleum and use what we have wisely than it will be to find and develop new oil fields. This fact needs to be recognised much more clearly by the Australian community.

Co-ordination of Energy Policy

The Government has set up appropriate institutions for the implementation and co-ordination of its energy policies. The National Development portfolio was established in December 1977 and given explicit responsibility for ‘national energy policy, including planning and research into coal, oil and gas, uranium, solar energy and other forms of energy’. Co-ordination of these responsibilities occurs through the National Energy Office within the Department of National Development.

The Government has two major advisory bodies to assist in the formulation and implementation of energy policy. The first of these is the National Energy Advisory Committee (NEAC). The second is the more specialised National Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Council (NERDDC). In addition, there is close co-ordination with the States through the Australian Minerals and Energy Council (AMEC). I indicated earlier that this

Government recognises the role and importance of the State Governments in energy matters. Through AMEC, we have close and effective liaison. We pursue liaison on energy matters in a whole-hearted way. Under Labor consultation with the States became moribund. It was this Government which established proper consultation with the States on energy matters.

International Energy Co-operation

National energy policies do not function in a vacuum, they inevitably affect, and are affected by international energy situations and movements. The Government is well aware of these interactions and has actively sought to foster international consultation and co-operation over the widest possible range of energy matters. Of outstanding importance in this regard has been the Government’s decision to join the International Energy Agency. The International Energy Agency is without doubt the most important forum for international consultation and cooperation on energy matters between the major industrialised nations.

I outlined in detail, during my statement to the House on 8 March, the advantages that Australia would derive from its membership of the IEA. These advantages, including our participation in the Emergency Oil Sharing System, our involvement in the full range of long-term energy cooperation activities and our enhanced opportunities to promote the export of energy resources, amply justify the Government’s decision to join the IEA.

We do not, however, see the IEA as the only forum for international co-operation in the energy field. The Government has also been active in multilateral organisations in our region. Australia was prominent in establishing the Commonwealth Regional Consultative Group on Energy at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Regional Meeting last year. The Group has India as its convenor and at the inaugural meeting of the Group in New Delhi in October 1978, it was agreed to undertake two activities: The establishment of a regional data bank on alternative energy technologiesAustralia agreed that an existing CSIRO facility would be developed for this purpose; organisation of a workshop on the applications of renewable energy resources at the village level. This workshop will take place in India in June.

Australia has also been active in the energy work of the Natural Resources Committee of the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP). The Government has negotiated agreements to Facilitate bilateral cooperation in energy research and development. These agreements provide opportunities for us to tap into major research projects overseas, to spread the value of our research dollar and to avoid duplication of research.

In the field of coal there is an Information Exchange Agreement with the U.K. and we have also secured two Agreements with the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Bureau of Mines, covering a wide range of coal mining and utilisation matters. Under our Memorandum of Understanding with the U.K. National Coal Board, coal research co-operation is already underway in two areas. Since June 1978 Australia has participated in work at the NCB Coal Research Establishment at Stoke Orchard on a joint program of production and utilisation of coal extracts. An Australian coal mining research program at Collinsville in Queensland is being supported by NCB through the supply of hardware for gas monitoring which must be carried out as part of the mining exercise.’ A Victorian Government proposal for joint development of technology for the conversion of brown coal to liquid fuels is being discussed with the U.S. Department of Energy. An official Australian solar energy delegation has just returned from the U.S.A. The Delegation dealt with the prospects for implementation of co-operative projects on solar collector development, solar systems for industrial-process heat and systems for heating/cooling of buildings. As a result of this visit there are good prospects of increased co-operation with the U.S. on solar energy research.

We have also established an understanding with Japan for co-operation between our countries on energy research and development, including co-operation on utilisation and liquefaction of coal, utilisation of solar energy including heating and cooling, and energy conservation. We have reached agreement with New Zealand on exchanging information on energy policies and activities, particularly those related to research and development and conservation. On the R&D side, co-operation will be concentrated on New Zealand ‘s research into methanol as a petrol blending material and our research into brown coal technology. A similar arrangement with PNG is under discussion.

All of these activities show our strong interest in pursuing international co-operation, in gaining access to the best international technology and in sharing our knowledge and skills with other countries, particularly developing countries. Our initiatives for substantial international co-operation on energy matters have been developed and implemented in little more than 12 months. The Opposition made no progress in this field over three years.

Short-Term Oil Supplies

This statement is essentially about this Government’s approach to longer-term energy policy but in view of current community interest in oil supplies in the wake of the disruption in Iran, I would like to make some comments on this aspect. First, let me repeat what I have been saying since mid-February- there are no grounds for concern about the immediate outlook for supply of petroleum products to the Australian market. This outlook extends to a least May-June on current information.

The IEA concluded at its Governing Board meeting in Paris last week that the outlook for the balance of 1 979 has not altered because there is still considerable uncertainty as to future production levels in major OPEC countries; political stability in Iran remains fragile and there may well be compensatory drops in oil production in other countries. The position is being watched closely. We have re-activated the GovernmentIndustry Oil Supplies Advisory Committee and it is meeting regularly to keep the situation under review. Commonwealth and State officials are also meeting regularly to monitor the position.

I will take this opportunity to comment on the IEA’s decision recently to pursue a reduction in world oil demand in the order of 2 mb/d, corresponding to about 5 per cent of IEA consumption. Australia has endorsed the IEA objective and I believe we can achieve our contribution to it without major difficulty. IEA members agreed that contributions to the achievement of the objective could be made in a number of ways- it is not simply a matter of cutting back on petroleum or energy consumption. There is flexibility in contributing to the objective. In Australia, an accelerating trend to petroleum conservation associated with our pricing policies, short term increased indigenous oil production and interfuel substitution appear adequate to fully meet our commitment.

The increase in production from the Bass Strait, recently announced by the producers, is equivalent to an increase of 3.8 per cent in total oil availability. The increase in daily production is equivalent to about 1 0 per cent of our daily import requirements. This improvement, together with the accelerated switch from oil to natural gas in the Sydney area, and the more widespread use of LPG in fleet vehicles referred to previously, will meet our obligations to the IEA objective. Moreover we are considering, in a prudent way, what other steps might be appropriate if in fact the world oil supply situation should worsen and higher short term conservation objectives should become necessary.

A range of short-term measures is under examination with the States and oil companies. They fall into two categories: technical measures designed to increase fuel supply, and measures which would reduce demand. I emphasise that implementation of these measures is not intended at this stage- but prudence warrants careful advance investigation of their relevance and value. The measures under study include a possible decrease in octane ratings (which could result in a saving of 1 per cent-l’/4 per cent of crude oil supplies) and a temporary increase in the lead content of petrol in Victoria, Tasmania and metropolitan N.S.W. (which could increase the supply of petrol by about 3 per cent).

We have weathered the problem well because we had sound long-term policies in place. For instance, without the encouragement we have given Bass Strait production through our pricing policy, there would have been little chance of increasing domestic oil production. Without our pricing policy there would have been little chance of bringing about the sharp change from fuel oil to natural gas in the Sydney market which is occurring.

Conclusions

Let me sum up. We have a co-ordinated and integrated approach to energy policy. We have assessed our energy resources and identified the supply and use of liquid fuels as the prime area for concentration of policy effort. As a short-term objective we have acted effectively to increase supplies of petroleum by realistic oil pricing policy and by encouraging petroleum exploration and development. The net result to date is that we have the highest self-sufficiency in oil supplies we have ever had and we have coped with the Iran problem better than most other countries.

As a longer-term basis for policy to ensure security of supplies in the necessary time frametowards the 1 990s- we have expanded research and development into alternative fuels. This research will establish the basis for secure energy supplies over the longer-term. Our overall energy resource endowment is strong and our responses to the energy problems, both short and longterm, have been energetic and sound. Our policies, through their effectiveness in the short-term, have won the time needed to pursue transition from our current oil dependence to a more diversified and balanced use of other energy sources, without disruption of our way of life.

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I table a document entitled ‘National Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Program- Priorities and Relativities for research and development support grants’. That document was referred to in the statement. I move:

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– The statement which the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Durack) has just had incorporated in Hansard was made in the House of Representatives by the Minister for National Development, Mr Newman, on 5 April. It purports to be an energy policy. Indeed, on the first page the Minister asserts that this Government has an active, well integrated and well coordinated energy policy. The Minister claimed that it was a successful policy. Only a Minister as insensitive as Mr Newman could have made such a statement about this document at that time. It is supremely ironic that on the very day the statement was delivered in the House of Representatives, one which purported to demonstrate a well integrated and co-ordinated energy policy, the import parity pricing policy, which is the Government’s substitute for an energy policy- it does not have an energy policy; it has a crude oil pricing policy- was buried.

On 5 April, Senator Durack, on behalf of the Minister, told us that the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries premium, which has been running recently at about $4 a barrel, would not be incorporated in the pricing determination of Australian crude oil on 1 July and that the 9. 1 per cent OPEC increase on 1 April, and any subsequent increase on 1 July, would be considered by the Government before the end of June. We were told that the Government would consider whether those increases would be incorporated in the price of domestic crude oil. This policy, which was to have been the import parity pricing for Australian crude oil and was supposed to have been the greatest thing to hit the country since the merino, was buried on 5 April 1979. It lasted just eight months which, at least, is five months longer than the Government’s car industry policy which lasted until 1976 and was to have lasted until 1984. The document contains such profound observations as this one which is found on page 9:

Of course, self-sufficiency will be even further enhanced if, as we hope, major oil discoveries are made.

The Minister said that self-sufficiency will be enhanced if further major oil discoveries are made. That is an example of the profundity which the Minister expresses in this statement. His ignorance is almost unbelievable. Having explained the Government’s intention to have more vehicles currently burning petrol converted to natural gas he said on page 26:

The measures I announced have been successful. They have been acted on widely and welcomed by fleet owners and private motorists alike. They have also been shamelessly plagiarised by the Opposition spokesman on energy.

If this Minister was marginally less uninformed, or ill-informed- at least his Department should have told him- he would know that the 1977 Labor Party policy incorporated the very proposition which he claims the Opposition plagiarised from him in March of 1979.

Senator Button:

– He was making a cheap political point. That is all he was trying to do. He is ignorant about it.

Senator WALSH:

– Yes. It is an excellent example of the ignorance and the inadequacy of this particular Minister. If he had delved back a bit further into the 1 975 Labor Party platform he would have found it there as well. On page 5 of his statement he again displays his ignorance in this claim:

  1. . our pricing policy -

That is, import parity pricing for new oil discoveries- has already led to an increase in reserves of some 600-700 million barrels, equivalent to about three years consumption.

He said ‘our pricing policy’, mind you. That pricing policy which the Minister claims as his own is the pricing policy introduced in September 1975 by the then Labor Government. All of the 600 million to 700 million barrels of oil which have been added to reserves have been discovered in Bass Strait, and insofar as import parity pricing for new discoveries is an incentive to explore for oil, that incentive has existed since 1975. 1 know that oil company touts such as Messrs Froggatt and Charlton have been running around the countryside trying to con people into believing that import parity pricing for new discoveries dates from the 1978 Budget. The oil companies have an obvious vested interest in attempting to mislead the public into believing that the massive windfall gains which a couple of oil companies received as a result of the 1 978 decision were synonymous with import parity pricing for new discoveries. In fact, the incentive has applied since 1975. The massive handouts to oil companies which this Government gave in 1 977 and 1 978 added no new incentive to oil exploration over and above the incentive which has been in existence since 1 975.

This pathetic novice who is currently the Minister for National Development is, of course, highly embarrassed. He lurches along in the shadow of Paul Keating, the honourable member for Blaxland, trying desperately to be noticed. He is trying to show that he is capable of discharging the important job which has been allocated to him and is capable of matching Paul Keating in the area of either policy conception or policy presentation. The document before the Senate represents the Minister’s pathetic attempt to achieve some sort of equality with the excellent document which Paul Keating put out a couple of weeks before the Minister’s report was presented. He must be a serious embarrassment to the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). If people feel inclined to waste sympathy on the Prime Minister for being saddled with a novice in such an important policy area, I suggest that they cast their minds back to the reasons that the Minister for National Development was put in the ministry in the first place. The Fraser Government had to have a Tasmanian Minister. By far the most competent and experienced Tasmanian politician in this place, and the only Tasmanian politician at that time fit to be a Minister, was of course Senator Rae, but he was excluded from the Fraser Government because he was a supporter of Mr Snedden. Insofar as it was the Prime Minister’s pique towards Senator Rae which was responsible for Mr Newman being in the ministry, and that is the reason Mr Newman was appointed, it serves the Prime Minister right. He will have to cop him; he will have to live with him.

No sensible person could accept the Government’s glib assurance that it has a considered energy policy when as recently as the week in which the policy was presented a contradication emerged. Speaking on behalf of the Minister for National Development, Senator Durack said that import pricing parity would not necessarily apply from then on. However, the Prime Minister made a speech on 2 April, only three days before that statement was made, in which he said that some countries had attempted to insulate their economies from movements in international oil prices resulting in their using an excessive amount of the world’s energy. He said that Australia could not stave off the necessity of adjusting to the reality of international oil prices. So the Prime Minister contradicted Mr Newman that very week. Mr Newman even contradicted himself in a statement delivered on his behalf by

Mr Viner in Perth on the same day, 2 April. He said that the Government’s pricing policy in respect of oil and gas was that crude oil prices should reflect the value of oil in the Australian and world markets. That was on 2 April. On 5 April, the following Thursday, Senator Durack announced in the Senate on Mr Newman’s behalf that import parity pricing was dead, that the OPEC premium would not be considered at all, and that the 9.1 per cent OPEC price increase of 1 April and any subsequent increase would be considered by the Government when it determined the domestic crude oil price for the second half of this calendar year. Just to set the record straight, Mr Newman, in a statement which was issued on 29 December 1978, stated:

We will calculate on I July a price which will reflect the price of light Arabian crude as set last December.

He continued:

The OPEC decision to increase the price of Arabian light crude oil by an additional 3.8 per cent on 1 April 1979 and 2.3 per cent on I July 1979 will be taken into account-

I emphasise the words ‘will be taken into account’- in the next 6 monthly determination to be made for 1 July.

There was no hedging and there were no qualifications whatsoever. It was the Government’s policy that the OPEC posted price would determine the price of Australian crude oil and that on I July it would incorporate any increases before 1 July and an increase which became operative on 1 July. That was buried on 5 April, that is, on the very day that the Minister had the audacity to bring down a statement saying:

This Government has an active, well integrated and well co-ordinated energy policy.

Instead of having an energy policy it in fact had a crude oil pricing policy which was designed to raise revenue and which it buried on that very day.

A couple of other points should be made. The Minister spoke of a well integrated and well coordinated energy policy and of a successful policy. Like a man shouting down a well, he hears his own voice. What is the Government’s policy in respect of the pricing of natural gas? As Mr Keating eloquently pointed out in his paper, the Victorian Government is producing base-load electricity from natural gas priced at 20 per cent of opportunity cost and is talking about producing simultaneously synthetic oil from brown coal. Research by this Government is both underfunded and misdirected.

In spite of the well known reality that nuclear power will not be economically viable in this country this century- Sir Charles Court’s hallucinations notwithstanding; everyone knows that nuclear power will not be viable on purely economic grounds this centry- more money is devoted to nuclear research than to solar research. Solar energy is now being used in domestic water heaters. The technology has already been developed for the production of electricity via a chemical thermo-union process with the use of ammonia gas. It has been developed by researchers at the Australian National University on a grant of $100,000. What is the Government’s research policy in relation to energy? It is to spend more on research into nuclear power, which we will not be using this century, than it is willing to allocate now for solar energy research.

The excuse stated a month ago by the Minister for dropping import parity pricing was that the OPEC cartel is exploiting a world shortage of oil. Where has this fellow been since October 1 973? In October 1973 the OPEC cartel decided that it would exploit a world shortage of oil, that it would manage supplies and that it would quadruple prices. It did that. That was the excuse which the Government used for its policy in the 1978 Budget on import parity pricing for domestic crude oil. The Government said that that was the real price of oil and that was the price which we must pay. The full impact of that decision finally began to seep through into the Government’s consciousness. More significantly, the impact certainly seeped into the consumer price index and pushed up inflation. That is the reason inflation is now moving up and will continue to move up for at least the rest of this calendar year. The Government finally has backed away from its import parity pricing policy. The pathetic excuse given by the Government is that the OPEC cartel is exploiting a shortage of oil which has been the case for the last 5 l/i years. At last the Government has come to realise what has been happening.

The Minister’s statement boasts of the $l5m which is being spent by this Government on energy research but it neglects to mention that the expenditure of that sum is spread over three years. The Minister boasts about the 64 exploration permits issued in the last 12 months compared with 34 issued under the Labor Government. He boasts about the 52 exploration wells which are actually being sunk at the moment compared with 69 in 1973 and 54 in 1974. This is not exactly a spectacular achievement. In Canada 3,000 exploration wells are in the process of being sunk compared with 52 in Australia.

Of course there was a slump in exploration in 1975, 1976 and 1977. The reason for that slump was the dispute in the High Court of Australia over the Seas and Submerged Lands Act. Immediately after the decision on the Seas and Submerged Lands Act was handed down in 1975, the then Labor Government introduced a policy of import parity pricing for new oil discoveries only, which this Government carried on and which is about the only rational component of its entire energy policy. However, the Minister seems to be unaware of this part of the Government’s policy when he claims that import parity pricing for old oil is responsible for some recent increase in exploration.

An excellent document was prepared by the Honourable Paul Keating and presented by him at the end of March. This document sets out the general attitudes of the Labor Party towards energy policy. The very favourable publicity that that document received was responsible for this pathetic novice who occupies the job that Mr Keating would hold if Labor were in government bringing out this quick cut-out and paste-up job on 5 April which has been presented to the Senate tonight.

Senator Button:

– They are in an awful mess.

Senator WALSH:

– Yes, they certainly are. 1 will not attempt to summarise here the 65-page document which Paul Keating presented. But its major points are worth repeating and hopefully some of the more enlightened Government members might even take some notice of them. The first major point in the document was that import parity pricing or opportunity cost pricing should apply for all new discoveries of oil and gas. Of course, that has been policy ever since 1975 although the Minister is either unaware of it or he chooses to ignore it. Oil company touts like Messrs Froggatt and Charlton seek to mislead the public, no doubt quite deliberately, and to pretend that this policy dated from the 1978 Budget and was synonymous with the windfall gains which accrue to their vested interest by pricing old oil at the import parity price.

Mr Keating’s second point was that geologically, there is more prospect in Australia of finding natural gas than oil and that gas is the best raw material for a liquid fuel substitute for petroleum, much cheaper and simpler with present or foreseeable technology than either ethanol from crops or synthetic oil from coal. What is the Government’s policy on that matter? Does it endorse the Victorian Government’s current actions of generating base load electricity from natural gas, which is technically and economically by far the best substitute raw material for liquid fuel, while the same Government talks about producing synthetic oil from brown coal? Could there be a more devastating example of common sense being stood on its head? This Government, which controls enormous reserves of brown coal which is suitable for the generation of base load electricity and totally unsuitable for the production of synthetic oil, burns natural gas to produce electricity and talks about turning brown coal into synthetic oil.

Senator Young:

– Are you talking about Victoria using natural gas for electricity? When did the Victorian Government use natural gas for electricity?

Senator WALSH:

– The Victorian Government will use it in Newport. Has the honourable senator not heard about that?

Senator Young:

– That is on standby in case of a breakdown.

Senator WALSH:

– It is fuelled by natural gas. The honourable senator apparently does not know any more than his Minister. What is the attitude of this Liberal Government- it presumably has some affiliations with the other Liberal Party which is about to lose government in Victoria- to the scandalous waste of the ideal raw material for a liquid fuel substitute? The Victorian Government has compounded its initial mistake. I was at a factory at Ballarat a few weeks ago which produces French fries. A waste product from the process is a starch-rich slurry of potato peelings. This is dumped out of town. It bubbles away, ferments and stinks a bit. The locals have kicked up a fuss. The factory is going to install a closed fermenter to convert the starch into methane gas. In my innocence, not being fully aware of the absurdities of the energy pricing policy in Victoria, I said: ‘I guess that you will be using the methane which you have produced for your own industrial heat in the plant’. The manager said: ‘Oh no, we are just going to burn it off; flare it on the spot’.

Senator Button:

– They are doing that at the Carrum sewage farm in Victoria. The waste is all over the place in Victoria.

Senator WALSH:

– I am informed that this is done all over Victoria. Liquid petroleum gas, the manager said, was cheap because the Victorian Government not only supplies it at 20 per cent of opportunity cost but also transports it out and sells it at the same price in Ballarat as in Melbourne. This is a perfect example of what is going on with a well integrated and well coordinated energy policy. I do not know whether

Senator Young has any intention of speaking in this debate, but if he is to follow me perhaps he will give us an idea of whether he thinks the production of methane as part of a waste disposal process- the methane is flared off instead of being used in the factory- is a demonstration of co-ordination and integration. It is a quite rational decision for the company to make because of the Victorian Government’s irrational energy pricing policy.

I will run quickly through the other points of Mr Keating’s policy. He makes the point which I have made at somewhat greater length, I suppose, that we will suffer from the absence of a coherent national energy policy with States running off in different directions without any lead being given by the Federal Government to what the States should be doing. Mr Keating stated that energy research is both under-funded and misdirected. The funds go to nuclear research for which there is no foreseeable commercial application. Very little goes to solar research. Finally he said that far too much emphasis had been placed on securing greater oil supplies relative to reducing consumption. High prices will have some effect on consumption in the longer term but they must be used in conjunction with more direct action; for example, direct regulations controlling motor vehicle size and design. What is the policy of this Government on that aspect? The paper presented by the Minister is silent on this point.

Last Friday I attended a seminar in Cobar in western New South Wales. The honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Cotter) on behalf of the Minister read another paper. He told us of the things that should be done regarding motor cars and public transport. He mentioned all the things that would be required if we were to have an effective energy conservation policy. He then said: ‘ We will not do it. We do not believe in interfering with people’s freedom’. So the Government cannot make up its mind whether it even wants a rational energy conservation policy.

We were told also by Mr Newman, through Mr Cotter, how unwise it was for governments to tamper with natural market prices. On the next page he was boasting about what a great idea it was to tamper with the natural market price of fuel in inland centres by subsidising the freight costs. The Government obviously cannot make up its mind on that either. He also told us yet again that import parity pricing was the greatest thing to hit Australia since the merino, but he added that it would of course be administered flexibly. By that he meant that the recent OPEC increases would be- and this was his wordconsidered’ by the Government and would not flow automatically into the price determination for domestic crude oil. There we have three demonstrations of doublespeak, and they are just the three that I remember. I do not have the complete speech; it was riddled with them. It was just another rehash of the incoherent and nonintegrated view presented on behalf of the Government by this Minister and is exactly the same as the veiw which was presented tonight.

Senator Young:

– What if OPEC agreed to the Iranian proposals for a 15 per cent increase in crude oil prices?

Senator WALSH:

-What if who does?

Senator Young:

-If OPEC-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Honourable senators should direct their remarks through the chair.

Senator WALSH:

– Import parity pricing is not my policy; it is the policy of the Government. Government members are the ones who will have to defend it, unless they keep backing away from it. This paper, this apology for a policy, this quick cut-out and paste-up attempt to answer Paul Keating is, I repeat, the product of a pathetic novice who is in the ministry only because Mr Fraser would not have Senator Rae and who is attempting to be noticed while he walks or stumbles along in the shadow of Paul Keating. It is an insult to the Parliament to have presented a document such as this and to have called it an energy policy.

Debate (on motion by Senator Durack) adjourned.

page 1485

PASSENGER VEHICLE EMISSION CONTROLS

Ministerial Statement

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

– by leave- I present a statement by the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) relating to passenger vehicle emission controls. As it is 14 pages in length I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted. 77te statement read as follows-

Passenger vehicle emission controls have already been debated in Parliament as a matter of public importance. The purpose of this statement is to inform Parliament in clear terms of the Commonwealth Government’s views on this matter. In addition to transport portfolio considerations, the statement reflects the responsibilities of, and advice from, my colleagues the Minister for Science and Environment (Senator Webster), the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt), and the Minister for National Development (Mr Newman). Over the past decade, the Commonwealth, the States and the Territories have had a continuing involvement in the development and implementation of vehicle emission controls. The first Australian Design Rules on passenger car emission control- ADR 26 and ADR 27- were agreed by the Australian Transport Advisory Council in 1971 with the objective of helping to arrest the deterioration of air quality experienced in major urban areas in Australia in the late 1960s. These rules came into effect in 1972 and 1974 respectively.

A more stringent rule, ADR 27A, covering exhaust emissions of oxides of nitrogen as well as carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons and evaporative fuel emissions, was subsequently agreed by ATAC for introduction in 1976. Although it was recognised at the time that the immediate response to ADR 27A would be engine modifications which would increase fuel consumption, this factor was outweighed by environmental considerations and the expectation of further technological development. However, with the deterioration in the world energy situation, fuel consumption has assumed far greater significance. I will comment on this most important issue later. ATAC discussed ADR 27A in July 1977 and February 1978. It was agreed to defer introduction of the third stage of ADR 27A until January 1981 to permit a more detailed examination of the issues involved. Implementation of the third stage was again discussed by ATAC in July 1978 and February 1979.

At their February meeting, ATAC Ministers had before them a number of studies dealing with the problem of vehicle emission controls. These studies included the interim report by the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences, a report on photochemical smog in the Sydney region which had been prepared by the New South Wales State Pollution Control Commission and a report on emission levels and fuel consumption prepared by the Commonwealth Department of Transport. At the February meeting, the Commonwealth proposed that ATAC abandon the third stage of ADR 27A, in particular because of the fuel penalty involved, and take urgent action on other more effective measures to control vehicle emissions. This latter proposal was based on the view that significant improvements with regard to hydrocarbon emissions seemed to be achievable at lower cost and with advantage from both the fuel conservation and emission control viewpoints.

The Commonwealth also indicated that it was not opposed to adequate, properly justified controls on vehicle emissions and was not backtracking in respect of improvements secured to date. Nevertheless, the Commonwealth considered that ATAC should review the strategy and approach followed up till now and should examine the lessons to be learned from the wide range of problems encountered with ADR 27A. ATAC Ministers agreed to resume discussions at a special ATAC meeting in Sydney in April 1979 following a more detailed examination of the reports referred to. There are a number of issues which must be considered in relation to emission controls in general and ADR 27A in particular. At the outset, however, 1 must emphasise that the Commonwealth Government is committed to protect the health and the environment of the Australian people. State governments obviously have a particular responsibility and concern because air quality in major urban areas requires special attention. However, all governmentsState, Territory and Commonwealth- must also, in the national interest, have regard to the effects of proposed measures, not only on health and the environment but also on impacts on the consumer, industry, resources and the economy.

At this point, some general background would be appropriate on the origins of the problem, its extent and its effect on health. Photochemical pollution- or ozone- is, in general terms, the result of the reaction of sunlight with hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen. In urban areas, about 40 per cent of these hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen come from passenger cars. The problems we are trying to deal with are localised and appear to be exacerbated by geographical features and weather conditions. Among various atmospheric pollutants of potential health concern, ozone has been widely considered and its levels can be taken as being representative of oxidant levels as a whole. It is also recognised that ozone does have certain health effects depending on the level of concentration.

Attempts to relate the onset of specific health effects to varying levels of ozone in the atmosphere have been made but the difficulty of associating a particular health effect to a specific air pollutant is immense. The Commonwealth is concerned that any association between health incidents and photochemical pollution should be adequately researched and established before a causal relationship is assumed. It is important that long term air quality goals should not be seen as levels capable of immediate achievement since these goals are generally much more stringent than the prescribed levels which have been adopted by some countries as a basis for legislation. The World Health Organisation level of 0.06 parts per million for ozone must be seen in this context.

At present, Sydney seems to be the city in Australia with a photochemical problem of significance. It should be pointed out that Sydney’s experience with photochemical pollution does not parallel that of Los Angeles, which experiences higher levels. Tokyo does have a photochemical problem similar to that of Sydney but is also subject to a higher level of air pollution from other sources. As far as Sydney is concerned, the trend towards increased photochemical pollution experienced in earlier years may have been largely arrested. The situation appears to have improved marginally between 1976 and 1977. The best assessment we can make at this stage is that, even if no additional controls are placed on cars or other sources of hydrocarbons, photochemical pollution in Sydney should remain more or less at current levels until about 1985. After 1985, the situation could be expected to deteriorate unless additional controls are implemented. The trends for other urban areas appear to generally follow this assessment, albeit at a lower level.

I think it will be evident from the foregoing that we are all facing considerable difficulties because of inadequate data on air quality and trends. 1 will return to this aspect later. However, the general shape of prospects facing urban areas with regard to aid quality is particularly important when the national costs of passenger vehicle emission controls are considered. A variety of estimates have been made, with the magnitude depending on the assumptions used. One recent estimate has put the additional costs of the system currently in force in 1978 at between $80m and $10Om per year rising to $ 1 50m. These are costs that are met by all motorists in Australia to meet localised problems. Controls must therefore be cost effective and, in the Commonwealth view, a strategy to control photochemical pollution through limitations on hydrocarbon emissions is the preferred approach. Incidentally, this is also the view endorsed by the Organisation’ Ibr Economic Co-operation and Development and the course proposed by the New South Wales SPCC. If it does prove impossible to agree on realistic uniform motor vehicle controls, the Commonwealth does not believe that costs of unique control measures which States might wish to implement for particular areas with higher pollution should be imposed nation-wide.

This latter consideration also raises the question of developing different emission controls for vehicles used in urban and non-urban areas. The Commonwealth, on behalf of ATAC, has requested information from the motor vehicle industry on the costs of what is called a two car approach. The industry’s response will be made available to the States and Territories as soon as it comes to hand. Obviously the two car concept has to be closely examined, including the possibility of additional in-service regulation in areas with higher levels of pollution.

I would now propose to comment on some detailed aspects of the third stage of ADR 27A. I think it is important that this Parliament has the basic facts. I turn first of all to the matter of inservice durability of emission control systems. Inservice durability is of fundamental importance in controlling photochemical pollution. There is no doubt, on the basis of recent studies, that a significant number of present ADR 27A vehicles are not meeting prescribed standards because of the in-service problems with emission control systems. Overseas and Australian studies have indicated a number of factors which contribute to in-service deterioration. These include the ease with which control systems can be maladjusted, the low incentive to both the service industry and owners to maintain these control systems in accordance with manufacturers’ specifications as well as the deterioration of the engines themselves through time. The facilities and skills available to the service industry also need to be looked at. In-service durability must be improved if air quality levels are to be adequately controlled. A critical issue here, which applies to present and future controls, is whether levels should be initially more stringent or whether relatively lower levels can be achieved more effectively over the service life of the vehicle. The Commonwealth considers that the latter approach is more cost effective and should be addressed as a matter of priority. The Commonwealth reiterates its view that levels of control currently achieved should not be reduced or abandoned. However, efforts must be made to overcome problems associated with the present Rule.

ADR 27A was developed from a rule adopted by the United States of America. Although Australian studies have confirmed that ADR 27A has significantly reduced emissions from motor vehicles, experience has highlighted many problems not apparent at the time of introduction.

The basis of ADR 27A, which requires every vehicle to meet prescribed standards and has the built in difficulty of relating test performance to everyday use, is now being seriously questioned. With respect to operations and procedures, the Rule is cumbersome and has little practical relevance in assessing vehicle performance in service Vehicle certification under the Rule is complex, costly and time consuming and this is important when we consider the need for a properly balanced allocation of available resources for the administration of the Australian Design Rule system. Most of the rules relate, of course, to the road safety field. Following its implementation, ADR 27A did increase fuel consumption of vehicles on a comparable weight basis. The Commonwealth does, however, agree that more than sufficient time has been expended on the fuel consumption debate associated with controls in force as of today in Australia. What is important now is to consider fuel consumption in the context of future emission controls.

Recent events have highlighted the uncertainties surrounding future oil supplies and the essentiality of energy conservation. Australia cannot afford to waste liquid fuel and every opportunity must be taken to reduce consumption. Transport is recognised as an area where significant savings can be achieved and increased vehicle energy efficiency is critically important. Although there is a trend towards smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles, fuel consumption of vehicles generally has to continue to improve. The Commonwealth considers that, given sufficient lead time, manufacturers will be able to increase their efforts to produce vehicles with both improved emission performance and better fuel economy. Fuel consumption of present vehicles has improved with technological development of emission controls, but implementation of the third stage would seriously interrupt this improvement. Technically, the third stage of ADR 27A can be met but at an estimated fuel consumption penalty of 3-5 per cent. This could cost the nation additional crude oil in the order of from 200,000 to over 300,000 tonnes per year by 1985. Moves that were judged to be in the community’s interest when oil was $2 a barrel must be reconsidered with oil at $14 a barrel and future supplies uncertain.

Estimates indicate that potential improvements in air quality as a result of the third stage would be marginal. Vehicle exhaust emissions of hydrocarbons could be reduced by up to about 14 tonnes per day in Sydney by 1985. This would represent less than 2 per cent of the total projected emissions in the Sydney area in 1985. In any event, such improvements may well not be realised because the design solution which manufacturers generally indicate they will adopt te meet the third stage is susceptible to maladjustment in service. Even if hydrocarbon exhaust emission requirements were made more stringent relative to other emissions under the third stage, there are indications that the fuel penalty would remain. Implementation of the third stage will have little effect on in-service difficulties and there is no doubt that the more stringent initial test required by the third stage has little relevance to durability and in-service deterioration. To proceed further with an unsatisfactory rule simply compounds these difficulties.

Although aware of the view that every additional control assists in pollution abatement, the Commonwealth cannot support the approach when, on a national basis, the costs far outweigh any potential benefits of the third stage of ADR 27A. The Commonwealth therefore believes that all these considerations clearly indicate that there is no need or sufficient justification to proceed with the third stage of ADR 2 7 A. However, this cannot be considered in isolation from more practicable immediate and future arrangements to which I will now refer.

In the foregoing, principal issues and problems associated with air pollution controls have been identified. In developing a framework for future action, it is clear that a number of steps must be taken to improve the implementation, administration and durability of emission control systems in the context of realistic health, environment, transport and energy objectives. The third stage of ADR 27A is of no significance in this broader context. Practical and effective solutions must be found to meet the problems I have described. A program for immediate action and a future strategy are both necessary. Steps can be taken now towards assisting air quality through means more effective than the third stage of ADR 27A in line with the preferred hydrocarbon control strategy. We would propose that, in addition to the further development of controls on other sources, urgent work should commence to investigate more stringent, cost effective evaporative controls associated with the passenger vehicle.

New South Wales SPCC estimates, based on a 6 gram SHED test for evaporative hydrocarbon emissions from motor vehicles, indicated a reduction of 30 tonnes of hydrocarbons per day in Sydney by 1985. Latest advice indicates that some of these savings may already be accruing with some current model vehicles. Such controls will, ofcourse, also conserve energy. Evaporative controls which reduce vehicle hydrocarbon emissions by 30 tonnes per day in Sydney could, on a national basis, save up to 40,000 tonnes of crude oil each year.

Much has been said about durability and inservice problems. The Commonwealth proposes that urgent attention be given to improving, as far as practically possible, the durability and inservice performance of ADR 27A vehicles. Although a sufficient period for design maturation of present controls should help, consideration should also be given to in-service returning programs, to the development of systems less susceptible to maladjustment, to industry and technical training courses and to publicity to increase community awareness. To take one example of the effectiveness of such measures, overseas experience suggests that a properly organised in-service returning program could lower hydrocarbon tailpipe emissions in Sydney by up to 26 tonnes per day by 1985. Consideration must also be given to simplifying the administration of the present Rule. lt is essential to begin the long term task of developing adequate, co-ordinated air quality monitoring as a basis for all measures proposed for implementation. This has been highlighted by many bodies including the Senate Select Committee on Air Pollution, the Australian Environment Council, the National Health and Medical Research Council, as well as ATAC. The Commonwealth has been developing cooperative programs with the States, including the establishment of a National Air Quality Data Centre, and we will be considering further cooperative arrangements to get the facilities required to develop an adequate data base on air quality. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisatoin is also involved in meteorological and associated photochemical work. The Commonwealth, in co-operation with the New South Wales SPCC, is also implementing an emissions study of Sydney peak hour traffic to provide baseline information for future assessment and action. There is a need to upgrade vehicle emission testing facilities and the Commonwealth will give this priority attention, again in co-operation with the States.

The Commonwealth believes that, at the national level, assessment of air quality data must be examined in the context of agreed air quality guidelines. At present, the Commonwealth and the States face particular difficulties without guidelines in the assessment of pollution abatement measures.

The Commonwealth sees a need to define air quality guidelines for Australia with respect to health. In addition, the Commonwealth sees value in the definition of practicable and realisticair quality objectives for Australian cities which would be based on broader environmental considerations. City air quality objectives which might be defined should be practicable of achievement, take into account all sources of air pollution and be developed in a way to minimise differences between States. The basis for an improvement in air quality is better air quality information and the establishment of air quality guidelines and objectives.

The Commonwealth is of the view that adequate data is essential to facilitate a proper assessment of national emission control measures. The Commonwealth believes that present air quality data, although scant, indicates that action would be required on a number of points to prevent any increase in photochemical pollution levels in our major cities after 1985. The Commonwealth is therefore prepared to give a firm undertaking to examine the upgrading of passenger vehicle emission controls for implementation in 1985. Such controls would, of course, need to take into account projected pollution levels as well as other controls implemented in the meantime.

Several ideas have been advanced for a 1985 Rule and the Commonwealth proposes that these be examined in detail. ATAC and Australian Environment Council should be in a position at their early 1981 meetings to consider requirements for 1985 standards and the development of a new vehicle emission rule to implement such standards. I should make it clear at this point that the Australian Minerals and Energy Council must be consulted in the development of future emission controls in so far as energy implications are concerned.

Any such measures must be adequately justified and be cost effective. They must be assessed for energy implications. There must also be equitable attention to all sources of hydrocarbon emissions. There is also a need to actively consider alternative or complementary approaches to vehicle emission controls. These would include traffic management and use of public transport to ease traffic densities in areas prone to photochemical pollution. Alternative fuels such as LPG should also be given earlier examination.

Finally, it will be noted that this statement has not covered lead emissions. Work is proceeding in Commonwealth and State Councils on various lead questions and the Commonwealth believes that this work should be expedited. Although not directly relevant to the special ATAC meeting in April, lead issues will form an important and integral part of future motor vehicle emissions strategies in terms of protection of health and the environment and vehicle and energy costs and efficiency.

In conclusion, the Commonwealth reiterates its desire for continuing co-operation between the Commonwealth, States and Territories in a proper and balanced assessment of air quality data, air quality guidelines and objectives and emissions standards and controls.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I move:

Senator MASON:
New South Wales

– As a senator for New South Wales and especially for the city of Sydney, I feel that I could not allow the statement to the Parliament by the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) on passenger vehicle emission controls to pass without some comments. The first is that the statement sticks in my craw; I find it very hard to swallow. Indeed, my hackles rise at some of the assertions made in it because they seem to me to be a follow-up to what has been a policy of gradualism in this Parliament over the past year to make the Australian people believe through several statements, Dorothy Dix questions and the like that even the air they and their children breathe must be foul and polluted in the interests of a spurious, false and rather ignoble cause. That cause is set down in the Minister’s statement in these words:

Australia cannot alford to waste liquid fuel and every opportunity must be taken to reduce consumption.

Of course, there is nothing spurious, false or ignoble about that sentiment as it stands if one could feel that the Government and those who lie behind the Government are sincere about it, but I suggest that there is ample evidence that they are not. This is why I want to speak briefly on this subject. The assertion that Australia cannot afford to waste liquid fuel and that every opportunity must be taken to reduce consumption is made in a country where we still have running around cars- and some of us are riding in themwhich are capable of the princely performance of 8 miles to the gallon, which 1 am assured a Ford LTD does.

Vehicles produced recently in our country, which have been the subject of tremendous publicity and media campaign, have been shown to give fuel consumption as low as 14 miles to the gallon- considerably lower than that of vehicles made by the same maker in the past. What we might call the big three manufacturers which were supposed to give us a motor industry which would give tremendous exports, assist our defence industry and so on have not lived up substantially to any of these claims. They are now producing vehicles which will use up what rare resources of petrol we have just as fast as the vehicles can damn well get through it. I suggest that this Government shows no sign of doing anything whatsoever about that situation although it lies in the hands of the Government to do something. Responsible governments in other countries have done something already. To make pious statements that we cannot afford to waste liquid fuel, while we permit this kind of industry to go on, is hypocritical to say the least.

The Government could contribute more by its influence. I suggest that this Government has a diminishing influence on our cities. It is perpetuating chaotic traffic conditions in our inner cities which are causing a massive use of petrol on a scale which is frightening to contemplate. Publictransport systems in this country are in chaos and are getting worse. In most countries it is now considered reasonable to have some limitation on speed in order to reduce consumption of petrol. This limitation has been introduced by governments which sincerely feel that.

I was in New Zealand earlier this year where I drove a car. I tell honourable senators that when one drives a car in New Zealand one has to be very careful not to break the regulation that one must not drive at more than 50 miles an hour. The basic reason for that rule is to conserve petrol. It has had valuable spin-offs. The accident rate has fallen substantially as a result. However, I see no indication whatsoever of any initiatives. One hopes that the Government of this nation will give that initiative for a reduction in maximum speeds on our highways. There is no attempt to check on blatant gas-guzzling cars. 1 return to this point: Surely by now the Government might say that it is considering that it will negotiate with State governments with a view to applying penal registration costs on the worst of these offenders. I assume that the Government does not have that in mind and that it does not care. I asked a question regarding this matter some weeks ago. Very little information was given and none has been forthcoming since. I suggest it is time that the Government made a statement to the Australian people on the subject if only to test the water and to see what the Australian people feel about the matter. Most people now do not drive gas-guzzling cars. Most people have cars which are frugal because that is all they can afford to drive. I think it is grossly unfair for us to say that we will cut down on emission controls to save petrol when we permit that kind of situation to continue. There is no real encouragement in this country of the manufacturer or importer of thoroughly conservational cars. Cars have been designed and built which are capable of enormous mileages to the gallon. When most of those cars come to Australia they are knocked by a prohibitive import tax. We do not want those sorts of cars here, it would seem. We want cars that will cut out our supplies of petrol as fast as they possibly can!

In the statement the Government is really saying that the long-suffering people, and their children, in our cities will carry the can for this assertion that Australia cannot afford to waste liquid fuel. Nobody else will carry that can. People who want to drive a car that does eight miles to the gallon will be able to continue to do so. I point out that among the victims of this kind of policy which seeks to sanctify and perpetuate pollution in our cities are our children. There is already good evidence that lead pollution has an association with hyperactivity in children. Research on this aspect has been done overseas. Statements have been made by reputable scientists in this country. I have yet to see a comment on that matter from the Government. If there has been one, perhaps members of the Government would oblige me by bringing it to my attention. But 1 doubt that there has been one because I have not yet seen one.

There are many ways by which the Government can bring down the level of pollution. These are not my ideas; they are ideas which are well established throughout the world and of which the Government should be well aware. I think that the real point about the statement is that it is a failure because it does not see the need for the matter of pollution control to be associated with the overall traffic, fuel and motor vehicle problem. All these issues are closely associated. I suggest quite briefly a number of possible initiatives for the Government to take. I have no doubt that the Government already knows about them, but I suggest that they are worth reviving at this stage. The first is that at least the beginning of an approach towards electric vehicles should be made in this country. For instance, suitable trade vehicles might be encouraged through tax reductions or subsidies for short-range work around the streets of our cities. Honourable senators who have recently been in London will note with relief that for some years the milk carts which go around London have been electric. Electric vehicles are quiet, non-pollutant and thoroughly conservational. 1 do not know why there has not been an encouragement of this sort of beginning to the introduction of electric car technology in our own cities. There again, there is no real reason for a good electric vehicle not being developed and made in this country for short-range running in the cities in most regards, including commuting. I am aware of the work being done at Flinders University. I would like to see the Government perhaps giving that a little more attention and seeing an electric vehicle not only as providing a solution to a problem of fuel conservation but also as providing a solution to a problem with our total environment in our cities and perhaps as making a much greater contribution towards community health than the Government realises. There is very little doubt that the motor car running around the cities constitutes a major health hazard.

I return to an earlier point, namely, the fact that cars with smaller engines are less pollutant, even if they are petrol-driven cars. The bigger the engine capacity of a car and the more gas it guzzles, the more pollution it spews forth into the environment. Those great monsters contribute far more than they ought to contribute to trouble in our society. It is possible to have engines with a lower octane rating. I suggest that to do so would be a return to sanity. We ought not to consider that the prime requirement for a car is that it should be something which will squeal its tyres and get off at the traffic lights faster than anything else and then slow down to five to seven miles an hour through our city traffic. Cars with a lower octane rating work extremely well. They are better cars; they last longer; they have a better engine than cars with very high compression ratios. Here again, that means that there is a significant drop in the lead content of the petrol used- a significant drop in the problem of controlling dangerous emissions. 1 suggest that, rather than adopting the strange, round-about, cart-before-the-horse approach outlined in the statement, the Government should look at some of these more sane and realistic methods.

Senator Walsh mentioned that he thought that natural gas was a better proposition than fuel ethanol, of which honourable senators will know I am something of a sponsor, although I do not believe in any way that it is the answer to all our problems. However, I am delighted to see that CSR Ltd and Fielders Bakeries, both private enterprise organisations are going ahead now with a major program of ethanol production from cassava, as is being done in Brazil. This will mean a great deal in Australia’s future. It will be another aspect of self-sufficiency in energy for us. But it has another plus, namely, that because of the higher octane rating of ethanol the additive of 20 per cent ethanol to petrol significantly lowers the need for leading and significantly lowers the dangerous emissions of that new fuel, which in Brazil is being called ‘petral’, a word which 1 suggest we could conveniently adopt here. Petral is a better motor spirit than petrol. It is much less pollutant and much safer. I raise two other very brief points concerning the statement. The first is on page 4 of the statement and reads:

The Commonwealth is concerned that any association between health incidents and photochemical pollution should be adequately researched and established before a causal relationship is assumed.

This is just another example of the sort of logic we are getting on things. It is the same sort of logic we got on 2,4,5-T whereby unless the chemical actually kills somebody, destroys somebody, unless it actually damages fatally a great many people, it is okay. That is what this statement is saying. It is saying: Let us do it this way round. Let us assume that photochemical pollution does not do any harm. After a lot of long, leisurely experiments, after a lot of people are dead, or have cancer or after enough people are dead or have cancer, let us assume that there is a causal relationship. To the Australian Democrats, that is like waving a red rag at a bull. A government which takes that attitude is not being honest with or sincere with the people who put it in government.

The only other point I want to make is on page 6 of this statement and concerns the two car concept. The idea is that there will be different emission controls for vehicles used in urban areas and those used in non-urban areas. Well that is fine. Apparently the logic is that if a person is driving his car in the country, whatever pollution comes out of that car will be fairly widely dispersed anyway and furthermore, if the driver happens to be a farmer, then such pollution would not matter very much. I would probably go along with that. I would say that that was a reasonable supposition. But it is also a naive supposition. It assumes that people in this country are so dumb and so unintelligent that they will not realise that if they were to go out of Sydney to K atoomba or out into the suburbs to buy a car, that car would have a different type of emission control. How is the Government going to stop those people from bringing that car back into the city? 1 suggest that that whole paragraph on the two car approach is so naive as not to be worth anybody’s serious consideration. Mr President, I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

-by leave- I am concerned at the fact that this document which, as we have been told, is a 14-page document, has been incorporated in Hansard. I have not had time to read the document and to find out what is in it. Therefore, even if I knew about emission controls on motor cars and the effects of motor car pollution, I would be unable to debate the question fully. But I notice that as a consequence of the Australian Transport Advisory Council meeting, New South Wales decided that it would not defer the third stage of its emission control program and neither would South Australia. Mr Virgo, the Minister for Transport in South Australia, said that the health of Australian citizens was more important than the expense to this country of motor vehicle emission control. From what I have had time to read of the document, I notice that there is this important difference between the attitude of the South Australian Government and that of the Federal Government. On the first page of this document there is this statement:

Although it was recognised at the time that the immediate response to ADR 27A would be engine modifications which would increase fuel consumption, this factor was outweighed by environmental considerations and the expectation of further technological development.

Honourable senators can see that whilst it was recognised from the start that such engine modifications would increase fuel consumption, at that stage of the AT AC meeting it was considered that environmental considerations outweighed any increase in fuel consumption. The Federal Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) goes on to say in the statement:

However, with the deterioration in the world energy situation, fuel consumption has assumed far greater significance.

So fuel consumption is the main thing and the health of Australian citizens is a secondary consideration. There we see the important difference between the Federal attitude and the State attitude to this question. 1 ask honourable senators in all humility: Which is the more important function? Is human health more important than lowering fuel consumption?

Senator Webster:

– What model car do you drive?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– One that is possibly polluting the air.

Senator Webster:

– What are you doing about it?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I think the honourable senator should bring in restrictions prohibiting me from using it; but on the score of economy I do use it.

Senator Webster:

– What about the health of the people, senator?

Senator CAVANAGH:

-The Minister, in the exercise of his responsibility to the citizens of Australia, should perhaps restrict my use of such a car, which may be killing the citizens around it, but he is doing nothing. He is saying that my right to use that car with an excessive exhaust emission is justified on the grounds of greater fuel economy- no matter how many citizens may be polluted in the process.

Senator Webster:

– I was just trying to establish whether you were genuine in what you were saying.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– It is not a question of whether I am genuine. What I am pointing out is that the South Australian Minister of Transport believes that the health of the citizens of that State comes before the question of petrol consumption. The Minister says quite the reverse in his statement.

Senator Webster:

– I only wondered what Mr Virgo had said to you about your car.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-Earlier the Ministers had agreed that the environmental consideration was the important thing. The question of increased fuel consumption had been raised and, according to the statement, had been seen as outweighed by environmental considerations and the expectation of further technological development. The statement continues:

However, wilh the deterioration in the world energy situation, fuel consumption has assumed Tar greater significance.

The health of the citizen does not matter; fuel consumption has become the important question. I will comment on that most significant issue later.

Additionally on page 2, the statement reads:

At the February meeting, the Commonwealth proposed that ATAC abandon the third stage of ADR 27A. in particular because of the fuel penalty involved, and take urgent action on other more effective measures to control vehicle emissions.

There we have it: The health of the people is to be sacrificed- on the score of the fuel savings involved.

As far as I have read the document, we are told at page 3 that a number of issues must be considered in relation to emission controls in general and ADR 27A in particular. The statement continues:

At the outset, however, 1 must emphasise that the Commonwealth Government is committed to protect the health and the environment of the Australian people. State Governments obviously have a particular responsibility and concern because air quality in major urban areas requires special attention. However, all Governments- State. Territory and Commonwealth- must also, in the national interest, have regard to the effects of proposed measures, not only on health and the environment but also on impacts on the consumer, industry, resources and the economy.

Therefore, more than health and the environment is to be taken into consideration. ‘We poison you by permitting air pollution in return for the achievement of greater fuel economy’. That is what the statement is saying. I have not read further to seek justification for such glaring statements, but surely we have not degenerated to the stage that we believe this capitalist economy is all we should protect and not give a damn about the health of the citizens of Australia.

When we discuss this statement we should give consideration to, and certainly not condemn, the views of those States which find that pollution is a problem and which consider the health of their citizens as being more important than achieving fuel economies.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I seek leave to make a statement on the same matter.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted?

Senator Webster:

– May I just say–

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Does the Minister object? Is leave granted or not?

Senator Webster:

– I wish to make a comment.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I have sought leave to make a statement. With respect, Mr President, leave is either granted or it is not granted.

Senator Webster:

– The honourable senator is breaching what is a convention in the Senate.

The PRESIDENT:

– I am wondering whether the Minister desires to explain something. He may wish to clarify the situation for honourable senators. I call the Minister for Science and the Environment.

Senator WEBSTER (Victoria-Minister for Science and the Environment)- In a situation like this an Opposition senator normally seeks the adjournment of the debate. That is what Senator Mason did. We overrode that situation and gave Senator Cavanagh the right to speak. Normally a motion is moved so that the debate on a statement such as this can be resumed on another day. When that is done honourable senators at least can read the statement. That opportunity has not been given them as yet in this case. I suggest that we adjourn this debate until honourable senators have been able to comprehend the document. We could then debate the statement, as is the normal process.

The PRES DENT- Senator Mason sought leave to continue his remarks and leave was granted. Normally, in such cases the debate is then adjourned. However, every honourable senator has the right to seek leave to make a statement. That was done by Senator Cavanagh and leave was granted. Senator Douglas McClelland now seeks leave to make a statement. ls leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I appreciate the opportunity that has been given to me by the Senate to make a few comments on this matter. As a senator representing New South Wales I feel that my State and, in particular, the capital city of that State is most affected by the statement that has been put down in the Senate this evening by the Minister for Science and the Environment (Senator Webster). If anyone is in any doubt in that respect I merely reiterate the remarks that appear on page 4 of that statement. It reads:

At present, Sydney seems to be the city in Australia with a photochemical problem of significance, lt should be pointed out that Sydney’s experience with photochemical pollution docs not parallel that of Los Angeles, which experiences higher levels. Tokyo docs have a photochemical problem similar to that of Syd ney but is also subject to a higher level of air pollution from other sources. As far as Sydney is concerned, the trend towards increased photochemical pollution experienced in earlier years may have been -

I emphasise those words- largely arrested. The situation appears to have improved marginally between 1 976 and 1977.

That was two years ago. The statement continues:

The best assessment we can make at this stage is that, even if no additional controls arc placed on cars or other sources of hydrocarbons, photochemical pollution in Sydney should remain more or less at current levels until about 1985. After 1985, the situation could bc expected to deteriorate unless additional controls arc implemented. The trends for other urban areas appear to generally follow this assessment albeit at a lower level.

This ministerial statement is saying that because of fuel and economic difficulties the great metropolis of Sydney should continue to put up with its existing pollution problems at their present level until 1985. Perhaps in 1985, or at some time between now and then, certain controls might be implemented which might improve the situation. Unless those controls are implemented the situation will deteriorate. Frankly, I think that this is a scandalous statement by the Government insofar as it relates particularly to the health and welfare of the people of Sydney. It appears to be a statement that should have been put down in this Parliament in February and not in May because at page 2 the Minister states:

At the February meeting, the Commonwealth proposed that ATAC abandon the third stage of ADR 27A, in particular because of the fuel penalty involved, and take urgent action on other more effective measures to control vehicle emissions. This latter proposal was based on the view that significant improvements with regard to hydrocarbon emissions seemed to be achievable at lower cost and with advantage from both the fuel conservation and emission control viewpoints.

Then in the first paragraph on page 3 the Minister states:

ATAC Ministers agreed to resume discussions at a special ATAC meeting in Sydney in April 1 979 -

I remind the Senate that that was last month- following a more detailed examination of the reports referred to.

That special meeting was held in Sydney last month, but in this document that has been put down by the Minister there is no mention of the result of that special meeting. Indeed, the result of that special meeting was that the New South Wales Minister for Transport, the Hon. Peter Cox, the New South Wales Minister for Planning and Environment, the Hon. Paul Landa, and the South Australian Minister for Transport, the Hon. Geoff Virgo, all agreed that notwithstanding the Commonwealth’s decisions on this matter they would proceed immediately with the implementation of the third stage of ADR 27A. There is not one word in this document about the result of the special meeting held in Sydney last week or about the decision of those three State Ministers.

It is a scandalous state of affairs that in a document which is already out of date before it hits the Parliament the Government relies on the situation that Sydney’s experience with photochemical pollution does not parallel that of Los Angeles and that Tokyo has a photochemical problem similar to that of Sydney but is also subject to a higher level of air pollution from other sources. Having moved around a great number of cities throughout the world, 1 suggest that the two most polluted cities in terms of photochemical pollution are Los Angeles and Tokyo. However, this document states that whilst Sydney might be equal to or slightly better than Los Angeles and Tokyo, the Commonwealth Government need take no action until 1985 when the situation can be expected to deteriorate unless additional controls are implemented. In other words, the Commonwealth should allow the existing shocking state of pollution in Sydney to continue at this stage and not worry about it until 1985. Today 1 received an answer from the Minister about the pollution of the waterways of Sydney. I intend to say something about the pollution of the waterways of Sydney at another stage. I suggest to the Government that it should look urgently at the situation at the Holsworthy defence establishment, the Bankstown aerodrome and the Lucas Heights establishment because Government supporters, through a lack of administration and a lack of concern, have been responsible for the problems confronting the oyster farmers of the Georges River of New South Wales and the pollution of Botany Bay, as instanced in the answer given to me today in response to Question No. 949.

Having read the document that has been presented to the Parliament today by the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, I say that a scandalous state of affairs exists insofar as the Commonwealth’s attitude towards New South Wales, particularly the great capital city of Sydney, is concerned. I commend the New South Wales Minister for Transport, the New South Wales Minister for Planning and Environment and the South Australian Minister of Transport for standing up to the arrogant attitude that is being adopted by the Commonwealth of saying as far as the great city of Sydney is concerned that the status quo should continue until 1985 and that if by then the situation appears to have deteriorated further additional controls might need to be implemented. This statement makes no reference to the discussions that took place in Sydney last month among the various Ministers. lt refers to discussions that took place in February. It says that the Australian Transport Advisory Council Ministers had agreed to resume discussions at a special ATAC meeting in Sydney in April 1979 following a more detailed examination of the reports referred to. There is nothing in this statement about that additional special meeting in April 1979. I believe that the Commonwealth Government stands condemned for its callous disregard for the interests and welfare of the people who live in Sydney in particular.

page 1495

PARLIAMENT HOUSE CONSTRUCTION AUTHORITY ACT 1979

Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it concurs in the resolution agreed to by the Senate on 5 April relating to the Parliament House Construction Authority Act 1979.

page 1495

NORFOLK ISLAND BILL 1979

Bills received from the House of Representatives.

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion ( by Senator Webster) agreed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of the Norfolk Island Bill 1979 and the Remuneration Tribunals Amendment Bill 1 979 being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole.

Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay.

First Readings

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

Second Readings

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

– I move:

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

Leave granted.

The speeches read as follows-

Norfolk Island Bill 1979

As announced in May 1978, the Government believes that it should try to develop for Norfolk Island an appropriate form of government involving the Island’s own elected representatives, under which the revenue necessary to sustain that Government will be raised internally by its own system of law. This Bill provides a framework within which that object can be achieved. It is therefore a landmark in the history of Norfolk Island. It will confer on the Island residents the opportunity to become increasingly involved in their own affairs. As honourable senators will be aware, this Bill was first introduced into the Parliament in November last, and its further passage was deferred to provide an opportunity for public discussion and for the Norfolk Island Council to indicate any views that it may have on particular matters. As a result, a number of changes have now been incorporated in the Bill. In particular, I draw the attention of honourable senators to the preamble of the Bill which outlines the legislation and other formal acts which have determined the status of Norfolk Island since 1843, reflects the Government’s appreciation of the special character of Norfolk Island and its history and people, and signifies the Parliament’s intention that the Island achieve internal self-government over a period of time with consideration being given to extending the level of internal self-government conferred by this Bill within a period of five years.

Under the Bill, wide powers will be exercised by an elected Legislative Assembly and an Executive Council of Norfolk Island comprising the executive members of the Legislative Assembly who will have ministerial-type responsibilities. The Bill also contains provisions that will ensure the preservation of the Commonwealth’s responsibility for Norfolk Island as a Territory of the Commonwealth. As honourable senators will recall, the Royal Commission into Matters Relating to Norfolk Island, under Sir John Nimmo, presented its Report in October 1 976. That Report, which contained 74 recommendations, has been closely examined and has served as a focal point for much of the public discussion on the future of Norfolk Island, particularly on the Island itself. Although, as a result of this discussion and its own consideration, the Government has departed from the Report’s recommendations in certain respects, the Report remains a valuable document and must be taken into account in any debate on the matter. I am sure both sides of the Parliament and the public are grateful to Sir John for the careful and thorough way in which he reported on these matters.

In determining its policies on the main issues, the Government has had special regard to the attitude of the Norfolk Island Council and residents of the Island, and to the need to take account of the structure of the Island’s economy, its historical background and its way of life that has in a number of important respects preserved the tradition of the Pitcairn Islanders. In broad terms, the Bill constitutes the Administration of Norfolk Island as a body politic and equips the Territory with responsible legislative and executive machinery to enable it to run its own affairs to the greatest practicable extent. The Government intends to review these arrangements over the next five years and to increase the scope of the Legislative Assembly’s powers as may be appropriate.

Before turning to the more detailed provisions of the Bill, I would inform honourable Senators that the Government has decided that Australian taxation and Australian social service benefits should not be extended to the Island. Indeed, it is the Government’s intention as expressed in clause 18 of this Bill that a law of this Parliament should not extend to Norfolk Island unless a special provision to that effect is made in the law.

There is a system of social service benefits applying on the Island at present. Needy people can apply to be placed on a list and, if approved, they become eligible for a weekly payment and for free hospital, medical and pharmaceutical services. The Government does not believe that the services provided need be at the same level, or cover the same range, as mainland social service benefits. However, it is firmly of the view that any benefits available on the Island should be as of right. The Government will retain the executive and legislative responsibility for social service benefits, but it intends to determine appropriate social service benefits and their levels after consultation with the Norfolk Island Council. The capacity of the Island to pay for these benefits will be of fundamental importance.

There is a dearth of reliable statistical information on which to assess the capacity of the Island’s economy. The Government believes that, in order to make decisions about such matters as the Island’s revenue potential and the nature and level of social welfare benefits, it is necessary to have much more information on the economic strengths, weaknesses and potential of the Norfolk Island economy. For these reasons. Professor R. C. Gates, Vice-Chancellor, New England University and Professor M. Treadgold, Professor of Economics at that University, were commissioned to report on the capacity of the Norfolk Island economy. Their report is expected in the near future. Another matter on which I would touch at this time is the question of Parliamentary representation. After lengthy discussions with the Norfolk Island Council, the Government has decided that no immediate steps should be taken to provide representation for the residents of the Island, but will review the question at a later date.

I now turn to the provisions of the Bill. Part I provides for the usual preliminary matters of commencement and interpretation. It also repeals the Norfolk Island Act 1957 and the Norfolk Island Act 1963. Part II deals with matters of administration. The Administrator will still have the responsibility to administer the government of the Territory as a territory under the authority of the Commonwealth. At present he does so in accordance with the tenor of his commission and in accordance with such instructions as are given to him by the Minister. Provision is made in this Part for him to act in accordance with the tenor of his commission and in accordance with such advice as is given to him by the Executive Council in relation to a wide range of matters over which the executive members of the Legislative Assembly have authority. These are listed at Schedule 2 of the Bill. Certain other matters of particular sensitivity or national importance, over which executive members have authority, are subject to veto by the Administrator. These are listed in Schedule 3. Part II also provides for the establishment of a body politic by the name of the Administration of Norfolk Island.

An Executive Council of Norfolk Island to advise the Administrator on all matters relating to the government of the Territory will be set up under Part III. The Council will consist of the persons for the time being holding executive office, that is, the executive members of the Legislative Assembly. The number of, and designations of, executive officers will be determined by the Legislative Assembly from time to time, and members of the Assembly will be appointed to those offices by the Administrator acting on the advice of the Assembly. The Administrator may terminate such appointments on the advice of the Assembly or, in exceptional circumstances, on his own initiative. It is also provided that the Administrator will be entitled to attend meetings of the Executive Council, shall preside when he is present, shall convene all meetings, and shall convene a meeting when requested to do so by at least three members of the Executive Council. Any member of the Legislative Assembly is entitled to attend all meetings of the Council.

Part IV deals with the legislation-making process. lt also provides for continuation of existing laws and for amendment and repeal of those laws, In discussion with the Norfolk Island Council, the Minister undertook to table in the Parliament a list of Commonwealth Acts extending to or applying in Norfolk Island. I now present a document on this matter and seek leave to have in incorporated in Hansard. The list is believed to be exhaustive but it is possible that there are other Acts which apply. The Legislative Assembly will have power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Territory. This power is not limited to those matters in respect of which executive members will have executive authority as specified in Schedules 2 and 3. Every proposed law passed by the Assembly will be presented to the Administrator for assent. The Administrator shall assent or withhold assent to all such proposed laws which in his opinion make provision for matters listed in Schedules 2 or 3. In all other cases he shall reserve the proposed law for the GovernorGeneral’s pleasure. Where a proposed law is in relation to a Schedule 2 matter he will act in accordance with the advice of the Norfolk Island

Executive Council. If Schedule 3 matters are involved, he will act in accordance with the instructions of the Minister.

Where the Administrator reserves a proposed law for the Governor-General’s pleasure, the Governor-General shall assent or withhold assent to all or part of the proposed law. The Governor-General may disallow a law assented to by the Administrator within six months of assent. Reasons for withholding assent to any law shall be tabled in the Legislative Assembly at the first opportunity. In accordance with standard constitutional practice, any proposal to dispose of or charge any public moneys will require a message of the Administrator to the Assembly before it can be considered.

The Governor-General may, by message of the Administrator, introduce a proposed law into the Assembly. In such cases, where the Assembly does not within 60 days pass the proposed law or amends it in a manner considered unacceptable, the Governor-General may make an Ordinance in the same terms as those of the proposed law so introduced. In cases of urgency or for other special reason, the Governor-General may make an Ordinance without first introducing it to the Assembly. These powers do not extend to Schedule 2 or 3 matters. The Governor-General will have power to make Ordinances authorising the expenditure of the public moneys of the Territory in cases of urgency. This is to deal with a special case, for instance where the Assembly holds up a budget and there are no funds available to carry on the public service. Where the Governor-General exercises his powers as I have just described, the Ordinance shall be laid before each House of Parliament within 15 sitting days. If it is not so laid it shall be void and of no effect. Either House may within 15 sitting days disallow all or part of such an Ordinance. Ordinances made by the Governor-General will prevail over enactments made by the Assembly where they are in direct conflict but in other cases will operate concurrently.

Part V of the Bill deals with the Legislative Assembly. At present there is a Norfolk Island Council of eight elected members which may consider, and tender advice to the Administrator, concerning any matters affecting the peace, order and good government of the Territory. This Council will be abolished and replaced by a Legislative Assembly of the Territory consisting of nine elected members, with the wide powers that I have described earlier. Provisions for qualifications for election, filling of casual vacancies, dates for elections, meetings procedures, election of a President and Deputy President. minutes of proceedings and the making of standing rules and orders are included in this Part. Under Part VI which deals with finance, it is provided that there shall be a Public Account of Norfolk Island consisting of all public moneys of the Territory, available for the purposes of the government of the Territory. This will preserve the existing financial arrangements for public moneys. Receipt, expenditure and control of public moneys, including investment, shall be as provided for by enactment. The Minister for Finance will be empowered to lend money to the Administration or a Territory authority. The Treasurer will be empowered to approve borrowings from other sources and to guarantee repayments by the Administration of such borrowings.

Part VII provides for the continuation of the judicial system which was set out in the Norfolk Island Act 1 957. Reference in that Act to appeals to the High Court has been omitted because such appeals now lie to the Federal Court of Australia under the provisions of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976. Before a person is appointed to the Supreme Court the Minister is to have regard to the comments of the Norfolk Island Executive Council.

Part VIII ensures the continuation of present laws regarding employment and appointment of officers, grants of land and audit by the AuditorGeneral, provides for the Governor-General’s power to grant pardons, remit sentences and make regulations, and ensures that the exclusive powers of the Legislative Assembly, as set out in Schedule 2, will not be able to be altered in any way without the consent of the Assembly. The Part also provides that the remuneration payable to members of the Legislative Assembly and the Executive Council may be determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. There are transitional provisions under Part IX for the first general election of the Assembly, existing appointments of Administrator, Acting Administrator and Deputy Administrator, certain proposed Ordinances, laying of Ordinances before Parliament, the validity of existing Ordinances, preservation of existing contracts, and the transfer to the Administration of the Public Account of Norfolk Island. 1 would take this opportunity to express the Government’s appreciation of the work done by the members of the present Norfolk Island Council who took up office in July last, and those of the previous Council, towards the preparation of suitable legislation for the future government of Norfolk Island. I also wish to express the Government’s confidence in the political and economic future of the Territory of Norfolk Island. The process of responsible government which will be set in train by this Bill is a very important step forward for the Territory in managing its own affairs.

As will be clear to honourable senators, the success of the arrangements now proposed will depend greatly on the maintenance of close cooperation between the Commonwealth Government and the Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly. On many important matters, of which financial and public service arrangements are leading examples, the only workable method of proceeding is by way of consensus. Thus, it is intended that in practice there will be only one fiscus and one public service to serve the needs of the Administration as a whole. As honourable senators will know, this Bill has been the subject of long and frequent discussions with members of the Norfolk Island Council. Their suggestions have been fully considered and, to the greatest practicable extent, given expression in the Bill. The Government intends that the dialogue between the Commonwealth and the elected representatives of the people of Norfolk Island will continue, with the object of advancing progressively towards the internal self-government of the Island. It is in this spirit and in the belief that the necessary spirit of co-operation will prevail and be reinforced over the years that I now commend the Bill to the Senate.

Remuneration Tribunals Amendment Bill 1979

This Bill provides for certain amendments to the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973 consequential upon the passage of the Norfolk Island Bill 1978. Clause 2 of this Bill provides for the Act to come into effect at the same time as the Norfolk Island Act. The Remuneration Tribunals Act currently provides for the Remuneration Tribunal to make determinations in respect of an office of member of a legislative assembly of an internal Territory and any office in or in connection with such an assembly that can be held only by a member of that assembly. Norfolk Island, being an external Territory, is accordingly not covered by the Remuneration Tribunal Act as it now stands. However, Clause 66 of the Norfolk Island Bill makes provision for the Remuneration Tribunal to determine remuneration for members of the Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly and has effect subject to the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973. Consequently, to enable the Remuneration Tribunal to cover Norfolk Island it is necessary to amend the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1975 and clause 3 of this Bill removes the limitation of that Tribunal’s jurisdiction to only internal territorial legislative assemblies by specifically including the Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Mcintosh) adjourned.

page 1499

ADJOURNMENT

Thursday Island Radio Service- Australian Broadcasting Tribunal- Broadcasting and Television- Statewide Building Society- Industrial Relations Bureau

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! It being 10.30 p.m., in conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator COLSTON:
Queensland

– Toward the end of last year I made a visit to Thursday Island. It was not the first time that I had been on Thursday Island. On the occasion that I visited it last year, I was informed by some local residents that a radio service was about to begin. I thought that this was very good news because the people on Thursday Island cannot normally tune in to mainland radio stations, especially during the day. This means that Thursday Island residents find it very difficult to keep up with current events. They cannot listen to news broadcasts very well. The information given to me that a radio service was about to begin seemed to be a forward step for Thursday Island. On my return from that visit last year, I asked a question in the Parliament to ascertain when the service would begin. I will quote the question that I asked and the answer that was given to me. I asked:

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

I think that it is worth while recounting to the Senate the answers that I received. The answer to the first part of the question was:

The following work in relation to the Thursday Island broadcasting station remains to bc carried out:

Installation of transportable equipment shelter, with transmitters pre-installed. which will bc shipped to site in January.

Construction of combining system, which is about to commence, and modifications to radiator schedule for January.

The answer to the second part of the question that I asked, relating to when the radio service would be available to residents of Thursday Island, was:

Completion of works mentioned in ( I ) should allow radio broadcasts to commence by the end of April 1979.

During the parliamentary recess and after Easter, I visited Thursday Island again. It was not quite the end of April, which was the time suggested by the answer to that question that the radio service would be available but I took the opportunity of taking a small transistor radio with me in the hope that the radio service would be operating and that I would be able to obtain news broadcasts while I was on Thursday Island. I was most surprised when I stepped onto Thursday Island, because one of the first questions which was directed to me was: ‘Where is your radio station?’. The question was put to me because apparently the radio station or the radio service is nowhere near completion at this stage. At least, it was not one week ago when I left Thursday Island. This does not surprise me greatly because there were major disruptions on Thursday Island and in the tropics in the early part of this year due to the weather conditions, lt may be because of those events that the radio service is not on schedule.

Nevertheless, I sent a copy of the answer to the question that I had asked following my visit last year to the people on Thursday Island. Eventually, it appeared in the Torres News. The Torres News is not a widely circulated newspaper- it has a circulation of only about 600- but it is widely read in the Torres Strait area. It was because of the report in the Torres News that the people of that Island thought they would have a radio service by about now. But they see, of course, that it is not near completion. This evening I wish to ask some questions about this radio service. I do not expect immediate answers but I would ask for the answers to be supplied as promptly as possible so that the people on Thursday Island will know when the service may commence. My first question is: When will broadcasts begin from this service on Thursday Island? Secondly, will there be facilities for local broadcasts or will this radio service be a relay station? For the benefit of people who live on islands in Torres Strait nearby to Thursday Island I ask: What will bc the effective range of the broadcasts from this Thursday Island radio service?

My reason for asking this question is that it may mean that some islands to the north of Thursday Island will also receive the service. I do not expect to receive answers tonight but I hope that they will be soon forthcoming so that the people of Thursday Island and people in the Torres Strait area north of Thursday Island will know what service they will get and when to expect it.

Senator PUPLICK:
New South Wales

– I want to take a few moments this evening to make some remarks now that the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal has concluded its hearings in Sydney and prior to the opening of the hearings in Melbourne. I wish to draw the attention of honourable senators to the farce which the Broadcasting Tribunal has come to represent and the way in which the bipartisan attitude has pervaded discussion of broadcasting in Australia. The bipartisan agreement about the role of the public in the participation of the determining of broadcasting matters has been put out of the window by the attitude and activity of the Broadcasting Tribunal. This Tribunal is not some mere fly by night organisation. It is not something that exists on a shoestring.

The running costs for its hearings approach a figure of $3m provided out of Commonwealth revenue. The costs to the television stations appearing before it on matters regarding the renewal of television licences were estimated at a figure of around $50,000 by Channel 7. The Broadcasting Tribunal has turned the concept of public participation into a total farce. It is time that either the Broadcasting Tribunal was completely abolished and replaced with something thai will properly deal with public participation or was substantially overhauled, or that the membership of the Tribunal was changed. I certainly believe that the latter is a most important thing. Mrs Janet Strickland, who resigned from the Tribunal, said in a report in the National Times for the week ending 1 4 April:

The whole thing was a sham for mc. Here wc were systematically throwing the public out of a public inquiry . . The Tribunal is discredited and public accountability is a joke. 1 simply don’t want to be associated with it any further.

One would have thought that the whole concept of public participation in the hearings for the renewal of these licences before the Tribunal would have meant that people who had a point of view would have been allowed to put it, not necessarily as witnesses for cross-examination but that at the very least their written submissions would have been accepted. Yet at the hearing in Sydney, when the Tribunal came to the applications of people to make submissions regarding the Channel 9 licence, 32 of the 43 written submissions were not even admitted. The Tribunal in determining who was going to put in submissions before it as far as Channel 7, Channel 9 and Channel 10 in Sydney were concerned, admitted three groups only as participants in each of the inquiries. Only the Festival of Light, the Australian Labor Party and the Federation of Parents and Citizens Associations were allowed to appear in all three inquiries. Some groups had done an enormous amount of work. One group called the People’s Commission claimed that it had systematically analysed the programs of Channel 9. It had a monitoring analysis of Channel 9’s programs of over 300 hours covering a four-month period. Its submission was taken by the Tribunal to be irrelevant. The Tribunal had not studied it in great depth; it simply said: ‘This is irrelevant’. Despite the fact that 300 hours of painstaking analysis had been undertaken, the submission was dismissed by the Tribunal. How can anybody believe that there is any way in which that could be regarded as public participation?

The Tribunal exists as a very cosy in-house arrangement. Two of the three members of the Tribunal, as it now is, who have had remarkable experience in the commercial television field, conduct a dialogue with members of the industry who appear before them on the old boy, buddybuddy system, complete with the swapping of in’ jokes, ancient reminisences of how it was in the old days and remarks such as ‘Hasn’t it changed a bit since then?’ The public, of course, not privy to these ‘in’ jokes and innuendoes, has no idea of what is going on, and no attempt is made by the Tribunal to explain what is going on. I sat through the Tribunal hearings in Sydney whenever I could. I sat through the hearings of the Tribunal for the granting of frequency modulation licences in New South Wales, and this was an attitude which was absolutely apparent. That is the attitude that two of the three members of the Tribunal adopt. The third member of the Tribunal takes a somewhat different approach to the questioning and the examining of witnesses who come before him. The third member of the Tribunal, Mr Keith Moremon, broke a two-week silence during these hearings to respond in fairly startled fashion, when somebody told him that Gene Autry movies were being shown, with the remark: ‘Gene Autry, the singing cowboy?’ Those words constitute the whole of this participation in terms of questioning or comment in two weeks of a public inquiry. It is under these sorts of circumstances that one can be forgiven for wondering just how seriously the Tribunal takes public participation.

I believe that the Tribunal has been quite derelict in its duty in examining a number of matters that came before it. I sat with great interest through the questioning by the Tribunal on matters such as religious broadcasting, political broadcasting, the views on section 116 of the Broadcasting and Television Act regarding the limitations of political broadcasting, and sponsored broadcasting. With one of the television stations the Tribunal managed to cover religious broadcasting, political broadcasting and sponsored broadcasting in a space, according to my watch, of about four minutes.

It has no doubt been drawn to the attention of honourable senators that to a large extent the Tribunal has been intimidated by the appearance before it of some of the most eminent Queen’s Counsel at the Bar in New South Wales, Queen’s Counsel who have raised with the Tribunal Chairman the question that his decisions or the decisions of the Tribunal may well be subject to an appeal to the High Court of Australia. One of these eminent gentleman, Mr Shand, in making submissions on behalf of Channel 7, was reported by the Sydney Morning Herald of 14 March in these terms:

Public submissions to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal’s hearing into the licence renewal of ATN Channel 7 would turn it into a forum for public views on the Australian media generally.

He argued that the Tribunal could take into account only matters which would give the Tribunal grounds to refuse a licence. In other words, such things as general program standards, local content or advertising were not directly relevant to that hearing. Similarly, Mr T. E. F. Hughes, Q.C., appearing for Channel 9 said that the Tribunal had ‘clearly committed an error’ in the exercise of its jurisdiction by treating public submissions as material it was bound to consider. I would have thought that if there were anything that a tribunal- allegedly dedicated to public participation- was bound to consider it would be public submissions. But despite this and despite the overwhelming weight of evidence put before the Tribunal that television licences should, perhaps, be renewed only on the basis of having certain conditions attached to them, the three major Sydney television stations have had their licences renewed for the three-year period without any conditions attached to them. This is a move which one industry cynic has called ‘thrashing them with a feather’.

The attitude which the stations took towards the Tribunal is perhaps equally revealing. In the report which the Tribunal prepared in July 1977 entitled ‘Self-Regulation for Broadcasters’ it was at pains on page 2 1 to indicate what it called the promise of performance as one of the principal things to be taken into account when dealing with licence renewals. The promise of performance requires a television station to give certain undertakings to the Tribunal. The Tribunal is to judge, at some later stage, whether those undertakings have been, in fact, complied with. The self-regulation report elevates the promise of performance into something of very considerable stature. In fact, Professor Richard Harding in his book Outside Interference when commenting on the role of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal said:

The key concept in the Tribunal ‘s strategy for the future is that of the Promise of Performance.

What son of promise of performance did we get? The Canberra Times of 77 March 1979 stated:

Channel 7’s promise was given to the tribunal yesterday by Mr Edward Thomas, general manager of Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd, which is making application.

The licensee undertakes during the period of renewal to comply with the requirements of the Broadcasting and Television Act, the regulations, the program standards and any orders or directions which the tribunal may lawfully give’, Mr Thomas said.

After a brief pause, a tribunal member, Mrs Janet Strickland, asked, ‘ls that it, Mr Thomas?’ and he replied. That’s if.

Indeed it was. That was it. That was what the television stations thought of the Tribunal ‘s key concept of promise of performance. The Tribunal, I think, ought to recognise that the television stations’ responsibility goes a great deal further than the mere matters of programming. It goes very directly to the content of programming. In the Report of the Royal Commission on Television presented to this Parliament in November 1954, the Royal Commission, at paragraph 499, stated:

We are strongly of opinion that the licensee of a commercial television station must accept responsibility for all programs transmitted by the station, and cannot delegate this responsibility to an advertiser or to anyone else.

So quite clearly, the Royal Commission was under the impression that the television stations had a far wider responsibility in these matters. The whole ethos of public participation was spelt out in the self-regulation report. The report at paragraph 3.2 stated:

There has been no continuously operating mechanism by means of which the public could bring direct influence to bear on these decisions.

That was in relation to decisions about the renewal or issue of licences. At paragraph 4. 1 the report stated:

The electro-magnetic spectrum is both a public utility and a scarce national resource. For these reasons a licence to broadcast should be seen as a public trust which entails obligations as well as privileges.

At the moment the Tribunal is busy handing out privileges without having any concept of what obligations are involved. In fact, the powers of the Broadcasting Tribunal are extensive. I will review quickly the way in which it has come to have these powers. The Broadcasting and Television Act from 1942 until 1973 provided in section 16 that recommendations would be made by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board to the Minister who would then have the right to issue licences. The matter was left very much in his hands. In fact, the Minister could give directions about the hours of broadcast and advertisements. By the amendment of the Act in 1 976, the Tribunal was established. After further amendment in 1977, the Broadcasting and Television Act, in section 1 6 now lists the powers of the Tribunal thus:

  1. ) The functions of the Tribunal are-

    1. To grant, renew, suspend and revoke licences;
    2. To determine the standards to be observed by licencees in respect of the broadcasting or televising of programs:
    3. to determine the conditions subject to which advertisements may be broadcast or televised by licencees; (0 To determine the hours during which programs may be broadcast or televised by licencees . . .

It goes on to indicate the way in which the Tribunal can issue licences with some degree of qualification. The then Minister for Post and Telecommunications, Mr Eric Robinson, drew attention to this in his second reading speech on 13 October 1977. In describing those powers of the Tribunal, he said:

In general, these procedures allow for a high degree of public and industry involvement in the Tribunal’s decisionmaking processes.

Mr Eric Robinson later stated:

The Minister will initiate the calling oflicence applications as part of the planning process and then refer the applications received to the Tribunal for determination. In inviting applications, the Minister will provide specifications for the particular licence. These will indicate the nature of the service to be provided, the areato be served, the purpose of the licence, and other technical matters. These specifications will become, upon grant of the licence, conditions of the licence, in addition to the conditions set by the Tribunal pursuant to its powers.

He was quite clearly indicating that the Tribunal has the power to impose conditions on licences if it is so minded. In the National Times of 7 April 1 979, Senator Ryan is quoted as saying:

The fault is with the Government forgiving the Tribunal a job but no power to perform it. 1 submit that, in fact, the Tribunal has those powers and is able to exercise them if it is so minded. In an interview on Four Corners on 1 1 March 1979, Mr Gyngell admitted this. The interviewer asked him:

Why didn’t the Tribunal take action against commercial stations in Adelaide when they actually admitted breaches of broadcasting standards?

MrGyngell replied:

I think it was a matter of interpretation and I think that it is rather difficult for me to talk on behalfof other members of the Tribunal but from a personal point of view, how did you quantify those breaches that they had made? They were breaches of a standard, they were not breaches of the Act and I believe that the promise of performance and the dialogue that we had during that inquiry led us to believe, or certainly led me to believe that they were sufficiently chastened to make rapid steps and to take giant steps, in all cases, with a promise of performance, to be ina state where we could really look at it in 1 982.

Again, reliance is placed upon the promise of performance. We have seen what the promise of performance means to at least one of the television stations in Sydney. We know that Ministers and the Tribunal have this power. I was a great supporter of the action taken by the former Minister for the Media, Dr Cass, who was prepared to put TVT6 Hobart off the air for a period in 1975 for consistently and deliberately breaching standards. I do not see why this sort of attitude should not be supported. I believe that there are a number of matters in the Act and a number of areas in the administration that need to be cleared up. I would like to see a system in which the Broadcasting Tribunal adopts one of the ideas which has been adopted in the past by the Independent Broadcasting Authority of the United Kingdom. The Independent Broadcasting Authority has some real teeth. I quote again from that part of Professor Harding’s book which contains a very good discussion of this matter. At page 1 66 he writes:

If standards are breached, sanctions may be taken against the companies during the franchise period. In addition, a franchise may not be renewed if overall performance is judged to be unsatisfactory. Thus, in 1968 Redilfusion lost its franchise because of unsatisfactory performance. The year before, TWW had lost its franchise to a new group, Harlech Television, not on account of any sins of commission but because it was thought that Harlech was likely to do even better.

We ought to have the Act sufficiently clarified so that if the Tribunal, or whatever other body has this role, is of the opinion that the television station concerned is not providing programs and broadcasting of a sufficient quality, it can transfer that licence to somebody else and so that it does not find itself in a situation where eminent Queen’s Counsel say: ‘All you can do is renew the licence unless you can prove a breach of the Act.’ That situation is not satisfactory. The Act needs to be amended. The half-hearted response of the Tribunal, as reported in yesterday’s Australian, was that there will be new guidelines on children’s television, but that they will not be enforceable guidelines. The Tribunal said, in effect: They will sort of be suggestions, and if you are very good something might be done about them. If you want to tell us exactly what we can do with our guidelines on children’s television that is up to you. Anyway we do not have a chance to do anything about it for the next three years ‘. 1 believe that the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, Mr Staley, has certainly recognised this problem. On 4 April, in answer to a question asked in the House of Representatives, he indicated quite clearly in these terms:

  1. . there may be a need to review some aspects of the procedures which were decided upon and instituted in the Broadcasting and Television Act.

For instance, he ought to be prepared to appoint to the Tribunal, as Senator Douglas McClelland suggested today, people with expertise in particular areas. It is certainly true that the Act provides for the appointment of associate members. The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal’s annual report for the period to 30 June 1977 drew attention to that provision. The report states:

The Act also provides for the appointment of up to six Associate Members. Associate Members may be appointed for the purposes of the Tribunal’s functions relating to public inquiries. At the time of the writing this report no Associate Members had been appointed.

I believe that a range of associate members ought to be appointed and called upon to do specific tasks when specific matters are before the Tribunal. I believe that there ought to be the rapid appointment of the other two members to the Tribunal, and that their appointment should be made after the position has been publicly advertised.

In the next couple of years the Tribunal will be facing a number of significant new developments. It cannot possibly face them if it carries on in the way in which it is doing so at the moment. For instance, it will be facing the question of the development of ethnic television for Australia. The report of the Ethnic Television Review Panel entitled ‘An Ethnic Television Service for Australia’, which has recently come into the hands of members and senators, will undoubtedly be seen as something which charts a particular course. But is it necessarily the right course? For instance, in the Australian of 2 1 April there appeared an article which dealt with the remarks of Mr Frank Galbally. He stated that he believed that ethnic television, which was due to begin experimental broadcasts on the following Sunday, would eventually go commercial to offset high running costs. Although ethnic television has a budget of $550,000 for the period to 30 June to produce approximately 33 hours of television programs, it may well be that it will have to develop in a commercial sense. Because of the way in which the Tribunal is behaving at the moment, I believe that it does not stand a prayer of being able to grapple with the issues of ethnictelevision on a commercial basis. There will be the question of the ownership and control of commercial FM radio, which presumably the Tribunal will deal with. The Green report into broadcasting, presented in September 1976, was particularly anxious that further developments of licences of one sort or another should not be allowed to fall into the hands of people whose cross-media ownership was already substantial. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table which shows the principal interests of groups with cross and multiple ownership of Australian media.

Leave granted. 77ie- document read as follows-

Senator Button:

– That document is out of date.

Senator PUPLICK:

-This is the table printed in the back of Professor Harding’s book. It is the most up-to-date that I was able to get hold of at the time. The Green report indicated that it believed that stations and owners of stations should, if necessary, be forced to divest themselves, even retrospectively, of some of their interests. At page A 121 of the Green report it is stated:

Accordingly, those companies which now hold excess television interests should be required to dispose of such interests over a period of time to be determined by the Tribunal, and under such arrangements as are proposed by the Tribunal and approved by the Minister.

The Green report clearly contemplated people in fact divesting themselves of some of their holdings. I for one make it quite clear that if any legislation comes into this Parliament which says that commercial FM licences should be granted only to people who are the existing holders of broadcasting licences, I would certainly vote against that piece of legislation. I think the Government will have to consider very carefully the way in which it introduces commercial FM licences. I do not think the Tribunal, given its previous record, has any way in which it will be able to handle this. There will be problems when cable television comes on. There will be problems when the domestic satellite arrangements are such that there is scope for a large number of additional television stations. It is ironic that the television industry is one of a few industries where the quality of the product has declined with the growth of competition. I do not want it to be assumed that the commercial stations are the only villains and that the Australian Broadcasting Commission is no villain of this piece. I think there needs to be a systematic and in-depth inquiry into the ABC. It may well be that the Commission could find itself required to meet some of the standards which the Tribunal is currently laying down as far as commercial stations are concerned.

In conclusion I say that there are going to be great new directions in broadcasting and communications. The British Report of the Committee on the Future of Broadcasting, presented in March 1977, had this to say:

Good broadcasting depends on talent- the talents of the men and women who make the programmes and for which there is no substitute. But it also depends in part on the way broadcasting is organised; and those who point out that the output of individuals is to some extent conditioned by the structure of the industry in which they work, are not in the wrong. We do not believe that the present structure of broadcasting, which was devised to meet the needs of the 1 960s, will be adequate to meet the demands of the 1980s. In our view the present structure could not ever adapt enough to meet the increase in the demands for new services which society may make in the next 1 5 years.

The same is true in Australia. There are still people who resist public participation. That august journal, the Daily Mirror, on 6 March, in commenting on the number of people appearing before the Tribunal, has this to say in its editorial:

Now Mrs Janet Strickland has resigned from the tribunal because she believes not enough public participation has been allowed.

Really? We thought everybody, with the possible exception of the Bandywallop Drum and Fife Band, has been allowed to have a say.

That is typical of the reaction of media of that sort to an important element of the Tribunal’s policy. I suppose it is not surprising that commercial stations have become what they are.

Senator Button:

– Is not the problem that they own a television licence? Do you expect any other criticism from newspapers?

Senator PUPLICK:

-No, senator, I thought I made it clear earlier. That is what I regarded as one of the absolutely inherent problems of cross media ownership; that in fact you do not get adequate comment by the media on each other or on different aspects of the media because they are all protecting the same interest. Sir John Reith, in his book Into the Wind, commented funnily enough in 1935 when Prime Minister Lyons was asking him what was going to be the future of commercial radio broadcasting. Reith wrote as follows:

The Australian Broadcasting Commission was in an unfortunate position: he ( Lyons) was uncomfortable about the privately owned B class stations on which advertising was permitted. He was more uncomfortable at the end of the conversation. I said that unless he did something now he would bc sorry later: the B class stations would become so powerful that no one would touch them.

He went on to say:

A year later Menzies told me I had been quite right about the B class stations getting beyond control.

That was more than 30 years ago so the writing has been on the wall for a considerable period of time.

I apologise for having detained the Senate for so long on this occasion and at this hour. I think that broadcasting is an area we get little opportunity to discuss. Broadcasting Bills rarely come before us and yet broadcasting, in its various forms, affects all of us. lt affects and does something to shape the society in which we live. Unless the Government is prepared to put a little more teeth into its legislation and to appoint to the watchdog positions people who are more committed to the concept of public broadcasting, we will get the sort of broadcasting system we deserve and we will be largely responsible for the fact that it is far below the standard that we ought to be demanding.

Senator PRIMMER:
Victoria

-I wish to raise a matter which is of concern to me as a senator from Victoria. It has come to my attention that a well known building society in Victoria recently had to suspend a senior employee for receiving secret commissions. I believe that this former employee was receiving a commission for making funds available to individuals who were not bona fide depositors of that society. I also believe that the Victorian fraud squad has carried out intensive investigations into the matter and that as a result of its work an indiviual operating outside the building society was arrested on 9 March 1979. On that date a man by the name of Geoffrey Leo Patterson, who operated a company called Patvin Pty Ltd with a registered office at 226 Bay Street, Port Melbourne, was arrested and charged with obtaining financial advantge by deception. It is alleged that the amount involved was at least $50,000. My information is that the charge did not mention the relevant building society.

I believe that on 19 March 1979, before a closed court hearing of the Melbourne Magistrate’s Court, one Geoffrey Leo Patterson applied to have his passport returned and that that request was denied. It does appear that the fraud squad prepared a report on the activities of a senior employee of the building society some three months ago and that that report was referred to the Attorney-General and recommended that charges be laid. The name of the building society concerned is the Statewide Building Society and I understand that the person concerned is called Niall.

Senator Button:

– That is the big one, is it not?

Senator PRIMMER:

– I understand so. It is of concern to me that the Victorian State Government has delayed laying charges against this person until after 5 May because of possible embarrassment to the Liberal Party. As I understand it, the auditors of Statewide Building Society are Day, Neilson, Jenkins and Johns, chartered accountants, and that the Jenkins concerned is Mr Glynn Jenkins, Liberal Member of the Legislative Council for Geelong.

Senator Button:

– What about the directors? Is not Senator Hamer a director of this company?

Senator PRIMMER:

– I understand that could well be so. I quote from the auditors report of the Society for the year ended 30 June 1 978:

The regulations relating to the administration of the society have been observed.

That is the Statewide Building Society. On my information this would not appear to be so and I believe a lot of people in Victoria have a vested interest in knowing why there has been a delay in bringing this matter to court.

Senator TATE:
Tasmania

– I should like to bring to the attention of honourable senators the activities of a Federal agency in my area of the north-west coast of Tasmania which put in jeopardy the Tasmanian orcharding industry during the recent recess. The events that I shall outline will sound incredible. However, I emphasise that the agency concerned, the Industrial Relations Bureau, sought to exert itself in relation to the industry most sensitive and most vulnerable to disruption and dislocation during the autumn and particularly during April. lt is well known that the orcharding industry in Tasmania has had its fair share of problems. Reconstruction has occurred over the past few years on a much reduced basis compared with the industry’s great heyday during the 1950s and the early 1960s. But by sheer hard work, by seeking to maintain markets in the European Economic Community against all the odds, by seeking to create new markets in east Asia and by achieving good working relations between growers and employees in the orchards, a recovery is well under way. The magnitude of the present operation can be seen when honourable senators understand that last year about 1,067,000 cases of apples were exported overseas and about 1,020,000 cases were exported interstate. Yet hallway through a very short seven-week picking and packing season an officer of the Industrial Relations Bureau walked into the orchards of the Mersey Valley, which is about six miles from office, and served ultimatums on eight growers requiring them to pay 14c per hour more to packing shed employees. Honourable senators can imagine the consternation that this caused growers and employees of the industry which at that time was three weeks into the season. It was a critical time during the season.

Some weeks earlier the Australian Workers Union, which is the responsible union, circulated to growers as a service and as was its practice a memorandum of the obligations of growers under the fruitgrowing industry award, as it is generally called. This method of alerting growers to the requirements of the award was an established practice. The Tasmanian Stockowners and Orchardists Association knew and approved of this method of alerting growers to their obligations and the growers appreciated the practice. There is a good relationship between the AWU and growers. Indeed, 95 per cent of growers are quite happy to deduct union dues from employees’ wage packets. The employees also are quite happy with this sytem.

On the basis of the memorandum which was circulated at the beginning of the season by the AWU, growers were paying their employees in the sheds $3.78 per hour. Notwithstanding this harmonious, no-dispute situation, an officer of the Industrial Relations Bureau came in and grossly misread the award. After a cursory glance at the books and without talking to the employees or the growers in the Mersey Valley, he served ultimatums, mistakenly called notices to comply, on eight orchardists. As I have said, this was done without any consultation with, let alone any courteous notification to, the AWU or the Tasmanian Stockowners and Orchardists Association. Unilaterally, off its own bat, the IRB created friction and industrial disharmony, the very situation which it was allegedly created to prevent.

It has been claimed by Liberal apologists in my State that this was the isolated act of some inexperienced employee, but the facts as they have emerged show that it was the corporate act of the Industrial Relations Bureau acting through a very experienced employee. From conversations with Mr Rob MacLaughlin, the southern organiser of the AWU, the IRB knew two weeks before these events I have outlined that the AWU sent this memorandum to growers. The IRB officer concerned, who operates out of Burnie, has been on the industrial scene for some 20 years, so he is no rookie acting in an over-zealous manner. This was an IRB operation. The fact that it was an IRB operation has been confirmed by the Bureau’s stubborn refusal to admit error well beyond the point where any reasonable man would have admitted that an officer in the field had somehow got the award wrong. He did get it wrong. Eventually the ultimatums were withdrawn.

If I am correct in seeing the IRB’s persistence with this creating of turmoil and conflict as deliberate, certain questions arise: Why did the IRB select the most isolated and smallest growing area of the State for this try-on? I say ‘smallest growing area’ because only 35,000 cases are sent overseas from the Mersey Valley and some 73,000 cases are sent interstate. We should compare these figures with those of the great growing areas- the Huon and Geeveston areas in southern Tasmania- from which something like 981,000 cases are sent overseas and 832,000 cases are sent interstate. Was the area selected because the Mersey Valley is a long distance from the AWU office in Hobart? The AWU office in Hobart is only a short drive from the more concentrated and larger orchards to the south of Hobart in the Huon and Geeveston areas. Was it hoped that the north-west growers would succumb quickly in order to ensure a smooth passage through the season so that the IRB could confront growers, employees and the union in the other areas of Tasmania with a fait accompli?

Why did the IRB, allegedly created in order to ensure compliance with awards, completely bypass at least the spirit of the fruit industry award? It by-passed the spirit of the agreed procedures for settling disputes. The IRB was deliberately creating a dispute situation. It was saying that employers were refusing to pay, as they were bound to under the award, their employees an extra 14c an hour. Under the award there are well known, common procedures for dealing with disputes. Committees of reference can be established. Conferences can be called around a table. None of these procedures was availed of by the IRB. Instead, it unilaterally threatened employers in the Mersey Valley and did not comply with the spirit of the procedures laid down in the award to deal with disputes. No consultation took place around the table. This in itself shows, I believe, that the IRB had been given its head by a government which is keen to create industrial unrest, to exacerbate industrial unrest and to cause industrial unrest in order to justify its laying the blame for the ills in our economy at the feet of the unions.

Unfortunately, the target of the IRB operation- the Australian Workers Union in Tasmania- proved to be too well known to the Tasmanian public for its integrity, its fairmindedness and its genuine concern that there be employment in the orcharding industry not only this year but also in years to come, and too well known for the respect that it had obtained on both sides of the industry, to be a target that would fall to this operation mounted by the IRB. Anyone who knows anything about industrial relations in Tasmania, and no doubt elsewhere, will know that the personalities and attitudes of union officials as they become known over the years are very important to the harmony of any industrial situation. Pat McNally had built up the AWU’s presence in the orchards in previous years. At the moment Bob MacLaughlin, the southern organiser of the AWU, and John Butler, the State Secretary, have established credibility as men of their word. It was only that credibility and that integrity which held the situation together in our orchards over the recent recess.

That brings me to the final question which I pose, to which I seek an answer and which, I admit, probably contains the only plausible explanation for this misguided- I use the term advisedly- operation mounted by the IRB. The fact that the question probably contains the answer does not make it rhetorical. As 1 say, I would be obliged to have an answer. Was this operation designed to undermine the credibility of the AWU amongst the workers and, for that matter, the employers in the orcharding industry in Tasmania? Was it designed to weaken the support which the union had amongst employees in the industry so that membership might fall away with all the consequences that has and all the ramifications that entails for voting strength on other bodies to which the AWU is affiliated? Can there be any other explanation for the IRB adhering obstinately over a period of almost three weeks to a misinterpretation and misapplication of a clause of the award which made it appear that the union was remiss in not pressing for the extra 14c per hour which is allegedly payable under the award?

The ultimatum, which was due to expire on Friday, 20 April, was withdrawn unreservedly at the last moment, but there was no generous or even fair acknowledgement of the correct attitude taken by the AWU to the award and no admission of error on the part of the IRB. That is surely the least we could have expected from an honourable and well-motivated Federal agency. It is not forthcoming. The conclusion can be only that the IRB in its Tasmanian operation at leastand I am speaking as a Tasmanian senator- has acted dishonourably and was ill-motivated. In short, I believe that two or three weeks ago we in Tasmania were confronted with a misguided attempt to create questions on behalf of its members as to the integrity and efficiency of a moderate and well-regarded union- the AWU. This was done with no regard whatever for the disruption to our orcharding industry which may well have ensued had the matter not been exposed to the public by the Tasmanian media. A Federal agency was prepared to jeopardise the present and future position of our orchards to exhibit its prowess as an operator in the field of industrial relations. Therefore, I certainly do not regard it as an overreaction on my part to have sent a telex to the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Street) on 12 April. I will not read the whole of it to the Senate, but in the last paragraph when summing up I put this to the Minister:

I suggest it would be in harmony with your often stated objective of achieving good relations between employer and employee, that you withdraw the IRB from the Tasmanian industrial scene.

I expected every Tasmanian Federal politician to be as worried as 1 was by the activities of this Federal agency. Therefore, I wrote to each Tasmanian member of the Federal Parliament on 20 April calling on them to join with me in approaching the Minister for Industrial Relations. I quote from the last paragraph of that letter which reads as follows:

I therefore call on you to join with me in approaching the Minister for Industrial Relations. Mr Street, in order to obtain the early withdrawal of the Bureau from Tasmania.

I believe that this proposal merits a non-partisan support, in the same spirit as was shown by the orchardists and shed hands in their united rebuttal of the lRB’s uncalled for intervention in their good working relationship.

Needless to say, my colleagues in the Labor Party have indicated their support for that call. Senator Harradine indicated his support.

Senator Button:

– You are going to put them right out of the island, are you, Senator?

Senator TATE:

– That is what we are aiming to do. Senator Button will not be surprised to know that those Liberal members of Parliament who deigned to answer- and at this stage I have received no reply from Senators Archer and Townley or from Mr Hodgman- have taken the line that the whole matter is due to the intemperate actions of one officer of the Bureau. 1 regard that as a most cowardly attack on a public servant who is unable to reply. But apart from that, I have already indicated, I believe, the falsity of that dichotomy between an officer and the IRB. The fact is that that officer was an experienced officer of the IRB and his action obtained its unequivocal support until the bitter end.

Even if the Minister perhaps rejects my call for the withdrawal of the IRB from Tasmania- and at present I am still awaiting a reply from him to my telex- I believe that the people of Tasmania have had well demonstrated to them the true colours of this Industrial Relations Bureau. Tasmanians will be well positioned to make a sound judgment on this creature of the Fraser Government as it flexes its muscles, taking its cue from the Cabinet in the weeks and months to come. I believe that as Australians everywhere become aware that this Industrial Relations Bureau is operated to a program destructive of and not conducive to industrial harmony they will join Tasmanians in calling for its utter removal from our midst.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I propose to address myself briefly to the remarks made by Senator Tate. He spoke at some length about a problem that he sees as one that could have serious consequences. Of course, I am unable to judge the nature and degree of the consequences in the circumstances. It is true that notices were forwarded to some orchardists by the Industrial Relations Bureau in the terms that Senator Tate has mentioned. However, he took the matter up with the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Street). I am informed that the Minister replied to Senator Tate, although I gather from something that he said that he might not have received that reply.

Senator Tate:

– I did receive a telegram but not specifically answering the request.

Senator DURACK:

– I think the position is that the matter is being investigated. The Minister has indicated that any action on the notices that had been issued had been stayed by the Director of the Industrial Relations Bureau pending further examination of the application of the award and the question of the respondency of the orchardists to whom the notices were addressed. As I understand it, investigation of these matters is still proceeding. I regret that I am unable on behalf of the Minister tonight to add anything further than has been indicated in the reply to which I have referred. Tonight Senator Tate has thrown further light on the whole subject. I will draw the Minister’s attention to what he said and I hope that an early answer will be able to be provided.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– I want to comment briefly on the matters raised by Senator Colston and Senator Puplick. Senator Colston spoke on the problems of the radio service at Thursday Island. He kindly concluded his remarks by saying that he did not expect or want answers tonight. I am happy to comply with that direction from Senator Colston, but I will of course refer the matters which he raised to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, Mr Staley, to seek answers to the specific questions which he asked in the Senate tonight.

Senator Puplick raised serious questions about public participation in broadcasting and the public accountability of television stations. Many of the points which he raised are matters which I would also have to refer to Mr Staley for his consideration. Senator Puplick, in his comments, indicated that Mr Staley- I think in answer to questions in the House of Representativesindicated his own concern about some of the matters that Senator Puplick raised tonight. I merely comment that it is perhaps easy to forget that the implementation of Government policy on the concept of public accountability by broadcasters is a very new concept and new ground is being broken in this area. To some extent therefore we are witnessing a process of evolution. That evolution has been evidenced by the fact that there have been some changes in the procedures followed by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal in the two major hearings in Adelaide and in Sydney. I understand from the Minister that the Tribunal will be trying further to clarify procedures which are to be followed in the Melbourne licence hearings which are the next hearings to be undertaken.

Senator Button:

– I think Senator Puplick ‘s point was that we had reached only the ape stage of evolution.

Senator CHANEY:

– It is far too late to try to match witticisms with Senator Button, Mr President, so I shall simply acknowledge that contribution to the debate and say that the Government is aware of the concern which has been expressed from a number of different quarters- by broadcasters, members of the public and people who are concerned about broadcasting generally- about the licence renewal hearings. These are matters which certainly are receiving attention from the Minister for Post and Telecommunications and the Government. I shall commend Senator Puplick ‘s speech to the Minister for his consideration.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 11.31 p.m.

page 1510

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Aborigines: Wages Paid on Reserves (Question No. 483)

Senator Cavanagh:

asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice, on 25 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) Has the Attorney-General inquired into the allegations raised in Question No. 3 1 7, dated 4 April 1 978; if not, why not.
  2. Are all Aboriginals working on reserves being paid $10 per week less than the award wage under the arrangements by the Federal Government to employees, such as workers under the NEAT Scheme, as stated by Mr Porter, the Queensland Minister for Aboriginal and Islander Advancement, on the ABC program ‘Monday Conference’, dated 22 May 1978.
  3. Are officers of the Attorney-General’s Department conducting an inquiry as to whether the Queensland Government’s arrangement is in breach of the law.
  4. Has the Attorney-General consulted with the Queensland Minister for Aboriginal and Islander Advancement regarding the Constitutional and legal propriety of the arrangement.
  5. 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.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) No. No allegations were raised in Question No. 3 1 7 of a kind warranting an inquiry by me.
  2. to (5) The Government has taken all necessary steps to ensure that Aboriginals as well as all other Australian citizens, working in employment to which its industrial legislation applies, are employed at wage rates and under conditions which are prescribed in the relevant awards and determinations. Industrial Relations Bureau inspectors monitor the observance of these awards and determinations and investigate complaints lodged by parties to them. As far as the NEAT Scheme is concerned, I am advised that Aboriginals and Islanders being assisted under that scheme are employed under exactly the same conditions as all other persons receiving NEAT assistance. I am informed that there are at present 25 Aboriginals or Islanders receiving NEAT assistance on four reserves in Queensland at Bamaga, Thursday Island, Palm Island and Yarrabah. In all cases where NEAT assistance is provided on reserves, the Department of Employment and Youth Affairs takes steps to ensure that the total wage paid to each trainee is no less than that prescribed for the occupation in the appropriate Commonwealth or State award which would cover the occupation outside the reserves.

Commercial Radio Licence for Western Suburbs of Sydney (Question No. 913)

Senator Ryan:

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

  1. 1 ) Was the public hearing for a commercial radio licence in Sydney’s Western Suburbs in November 1977 conducted under the principal Act, the Broadcasting and Television Act 1 942, before subsequent amendments were in force.
  2. Did the Tribunal delay announcing its decision until proclamation of the amended Act gave licensing power to the Tribunal.
  3. Why did the Tribunal significantly delay announcing its decision on this licence.
  4. Was the Tribunal denied information, evidence and opinion necessary to make a considered decision under the new Act, because the hearing was held under the Principal Act before amendment.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Tribunal conducted the public hearing into four applications received for the grant of a licence for a commercial broadcasting station to serve the Western Region in Sydney from 22 November to 1 December 1977 under the provisions of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1 942.

The Broadcasting and Television Amendment Act 1977 (No. 160 of 1977) which was assented to on 10 November 1977 came into effect from1 January 1978.

  1. and (3) The public hearing did not conclude until 1 December 1977 and it is the normal procedure for the individual members of the Tribunal to study the transcript of the proceedings of the hearing prior to holding a meeting to make a decision on the grant of a licence. There was no significant delay in the Tribunal’s announcing its decision which was made at a meeting of the Tribunal held on 2 January 1978.
  2. No.

Qantas Airways Ltd: Flights over Syria (Question No. 952)

Senator Chipp:

asked the Minister represent ing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 24 October 1978:

  1. 1 ) Does an agreement exist with the Syrian Government for Qantas to overfly Syrian Territory and to land in Damascus; if so:

    1. when was such an agreement signed
    2. where was such an agreement signed
    3. who were the signatories for Australia/Qantas, and
    4. were the Australian signatories members of the Minister’s own Department; if not, what positions did they hold.
  2. Before the agreement was either signed or initialled, from whom was authority obtained to agree to the terms of the agreement.
  3. Was any attempt made, at the time the agreement was authorised, to acquaint the person whose authority was required, or was that person acquainted, with the Syrian regulations in relation to visas and, in particular, that any person of the Jewish faith of any nationality was not permitted through Syrian air space on any flight, or to be in a plane which landed in Syria.
  4. If the person who authorised either the signing or initialling of the agreement was aware of the matters set out in the previous paragraph, did he refer that matter to the Minister: if not, why did he agree to, or permit, that agreement to be initialled or signed.
  5. If the person who authorised either the signing or initialling of the agreement was not aware of the matters referred to in paragraph (3), why did he not make his own inquiries us to the terms and conditions in which entry was permitted.
  6. Was the Minister informed of the agreement with the Syrian Government; if so, when; if not, what are the criteria for categorising those Qantas agreements which require Ministerial approval, authorisation or ratification, and those agreements involving Qantas which need no such approval, authorisation or ratification.
  7. When did Qantas flights over Syria commence.
  8. When did the first Qantas flight land at Damascus en route to Sydney or Melbourne from London.
  9. When did the first Qantas flight land at Damascus en route from Sydney or Melbourne to London.
  10. Did Qantas direct its reservation clerks to discourage Jews from travelling on flights over Syria; if so:

    1. what was the nature of such discouragement; and
    2. how did the Qantas reservation clerks ascertain, in the first instance, whether a proposed passenger was Jewish or otherwise.
  11. Arc there agreements between Qantas and any other nation which prohibit entry to Australian citizens on the grounds of race or creed.
  12. Will the Minister table the agreement between Qantas and the Syrian Government, and all related correspondence.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. There is not an ‘Agreement’ as such between the Syrian Government and Qantas. The Syrian Government has granted Qantas a permit to overfly Syrian territory and land in Damascus. This permit was granted on February 26, 1970 and is renewable each year. Overflight is conditional upon landing once in each direction at Damascus. (2) From the then Director General of Civil Aviation.

    1. No.
    2. and (5) The then Director General of Civil Aviation was not aware of any Syrian restrictions.
    3. Yes. The Minister was notified in April 1970 of the permit granted to Qantas by the Syrian Government.
    4. January, 1952. (8 )QF 732, 31 March 1970.
    5. QF749, 30 March 1970.
    6. 10) (a) As a service to passengers Qantas reservations staff were instructed to inform intending passengers of the Jewish faith that Syrian regulations were understood to refuse entry in transit to persons holding Israeli passports, Jewish passengers of any nationality and holders of passports valid for Israel or containing a visa for Israel. This instruction was based on information contained in the IATA Travel Information Manual (TIM) which as you will be aware from the Prime Minister’s statement of 20 October 1978 has been repudiated by Syria.
    1. Indications such as name and requests for special (kosher) meals.

    2. ) No.
    3. 12) In the light of the answers given above to Question1, I do not feel that tabling of the documents requested would now serve any real purpose. The permit specifies only overflight and mandatory landing provisions applicable to Qantas Airways Ltd.

Pensioners Hearing Aid Service (Question No. 1131)

Senator Colston:

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

  1. 1 ) Where in each State and Territory arc there full acoustic facilities at which pensioners may obtain a hearing aid service.
  2. In which centres in each State and Territory are full facilities made available on a part-time basis and what is the number of.days per year on which those facilities are made available.
  3. 3 ) What has been the increase or decrease in (1 ) and ( 2 ) since 1 1 November 1975.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1 to 3 ) Full-time acoustic facilities for supply of hearing aids are located at the following twenty-four centres:

NSW-Sydney, Chatswood,* Parramatta, Fairfield.* Newcastle, Gosford,* Wollongong.*

ACT-Canberra.

Victoria- Melbourne, Moonee Ponds, Dandenong, St Kilda,* Box Hill.*

Queensland- Brisbane, Mt Gravatt,* Redcliffe,* Toowoomba,* Townsville.

SA- Adelaide, West Lakes.*

WA-Perth.

Tasmania- Hobart, Launceston.

NT- Darwin.

Full facilities are available on a part-time basis at the following sixteen locations (i.e. permanent accommodation and equipment). The number of days per year on which these facilities were available at each centre during 1978 is shown in brackets.

NSW-Lismore ( 75 ), Tamworth (24), Albury* (25 ).

Victoria-Geelong (104), Ballarat (83), Bendigo (60), Morwell* (39), Frankston* (7).

Queensland- Rockhampton (25), Southport* (38), Ipswich* ( 12), Inala*( 12).

Tasmania-Burnie (45), Bellerive* (50).

NT-Alice Springs (30), Nhulunbuy* (7).

An increase in the number of days visited were at Lismore (50), Albury (25), Geelong (52), Ballarat (22). Bendigo (18), Morwell (39), Frankston (7), Rockhampton (2). Southport (28), Ipswich (12), Inala (12), Burnie (31). Bellerive (50), Alice Springs (2), Nhulunbuy (7), while there was a decrease in the number of days visited at Tamworth ( 1 ).

In addition, regular visits are made to the following nonmetropolitan centres using transportable equipment and part-time facilities:

NSW-Grafton ( 12), Coffs Harbour ( 12), Nowra ( 12), Bowral (8), Bega* (4), Armidale ( 1 2 ), Dubbo (9), Orange (24), Bathurst (9), Wagga (25), Cootamundra* (5 ),

Port Macquarie (5), Taree (5), Kempsey (5), Goulburn* (12), Broken Hill (17).

Victoria- Mildura (16), Warrnambool (27), Shepparton (18), Wangaratta* (12), Traralgon (6).

Queensland- Maryborough (10), Bundaberg (14), Nambour ( 10), Gympie ( 10), Cairns (35), Mackay ( 15), Mt Isa* (6), Warwick ( 12). Charters Towers (2).

SA-Mt Gambier (13), Loxton (7), Port Pirie (18), Whyalla (14), Port Lincoln (5).

WA-Kalgoorlie (7), Geraldton (5), Albany (6), Bunbury (9).

Tasmania- Queenstown (15), King Island* (5), Devonport (29), Scottsdale (2), Flinders Island* (2), St Marys(2),St Helens(3).

NT- Tennant Creek ( 5 ), Katherine (2 ).

In non-metropolitan centres using transportable equipment and part-time facilities there was an increase in the number of days visited at Grafton (8), Coffs Harbour (7), Nowra (10), Bowral (6), Bega (4), Armidale (9), Dubbo (1), Orange (8). Wagga (20), Cootamundra (5), Port Macquarie (4), Taree (3), Kempsey (3), Goulburn (12), Broken Hill (6), Mildura (15), Warrnambool (24), Shepparton ( 14), Wangaratta ( 10), Mt Gambier (5), Maryborough ( 1 ). Bundaberg (7), Nambour (5), Gympie (7), Mt lsa (6), Warwick (5), Geraldton (1), Queenstown ( 1 ), King Island (5), Devonport (18), Flinders Island (2), St Marys (2), St Helens ( 2 ), Tennant Creek ( 5 ), Katherine ( 2 ).

There was a decrease in the number of days visited at Bathurst (6), Cairns (18), Mackay (7), Kalgoorlie (3), Albany (4), Bunbury (3). Loxton ( 1 ). Port Pirie (2).

The number of days visited remains constant at Port Lincoln and Scottsdale.

Centres which have been introduced since November 1975. There has been no reduction in the number of centres since that time.

Community Youth Support Scheme (Question No. 1136)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 20 February 1979:

Did the Sunday Sun. 7 January 1979, report a statement by Mr Trevor Ives, a former director of the Community Youth Support Scheme (CYSS) at Redcliffe, that CYSS had become a ‘coffee shop-type hideaway to keep jobless kids out of sight of the voters’: if so. is there any evidence which shows that Mr Ives’ statement is not correct.

Senator Durack:
LP

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

I am advised that the Sunday Sun of 7 January 1979 reported a Mr Trevor Ives, described as a former director of the Community Youth Support Scheme (CYSS) at Redcliffe, as saying that CYSS had become ‘a coffee shop-type hideaway to keep jobless kids out of sight of the voters’.

I am also advised that, in a letter published in the same journal on 21 January 1979, the Chairman of the Redcliffe CYSS Committee described Mr Ives’ reported comments as an insult to the work of the Committee and without any foundation of truth.

Mr Ives was a former project officer employed on the Redcliffe CYSS project and was the moving force behind the establishment of a coffee shop at the project to facilitate contact between the project and the young unemployed. The coffee shop was discontinued following Mr Ives’ departure from the project.

The current situation is that the Redcliffe project is providing practical vocationally-oriented activities for the local young unemployed to improve their ability to obtain jobs. The project enjoys strong community support, is attracting participants at a satisfactory rate and, of those leaving the project, many are doing so to take up employment.

The project is considered to be meeting successfully the aims of CYSS, namely the provision of community support to young people experiencing unemployment with a view to maintaining and improving their job readiness and sense of purpose.

Departure Tax (Question No. 1142)

Senator Colston:

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

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

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

  1. Three.
  2. Under the terms of the Government’s decision in respect of departure tax outlined in Parliament on 24 August 1978, persons leaving Australia except in certain circumstances are required to pay a departure tax.

Ministers are not exempt from this requirement. Ministers travelling on official business are fully entitled to have the charge paid officially. If they travel privately they would pay the departure tax as a personal charge.

Although the visits referred to in ( I ) above were official visits I have as it happens elected to pay the departure tax personally on each occasion.

Departure Tax (Question No. 1148)

Senator Colston:

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

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

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

  1. 1 ) Twice.
  2. Yes.

Departure Tax (Question No. 1166)

Senator Colston:

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

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

– The Minister has supplied me with the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) Nil.
  2. See answer to question 1.

Breast Cancer (Question No. 1171)

Senator Peter Baume:

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

  1. 1 ) What is the incidence of breast cancer in Australian men and women compared with the incidence in American mcn and women.
  2. Has the incidence of breast cancer in Japanese men decreased in comparison to American men.
  3. 3 ) What work is under way to try to identify any environmental factor which might help protect against this particularly common form of cancer
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Because of the incompleteness of incidence data, it is better to infer incidence from mortality statistics. In 197S, the latest year for which U.S. statistics are available, mortality was 0.3 (males) and 29.4 (females) deaths per 100,000 population per year. The rates in Australia in 1975 were 0.2 (males) and 23.9 (females) deaths per 100,000 population per year. It thus appears that breast cancer incidence in Australia is a little lower than that in the United States.
  2. There is a publication, ‘Comparison of age-specific mortality from breast cancer in males in the United States and Japan’- Moolgavkar S. H., Lee J. A., and Hade R. D., which shows that breast cancer mortality in Japan is about one-quarter of that in the United States, but the disease is so rare in males that it would be difficult to conclude that there were different secular trends in incidence in these two countries.
  3. 3 ) The 1 978 Directory of On-going Research in Cancer Epidemiology, published by the International Agency for Research on Cancer and the German Central Cancer Registry, refers to studies relating to breast cancer and use of or exposure to the following environmental factors: air pollution, aromatic amines, arsenic, asbestos, industrial chemicals generally, oral contraceptives, cosmetics, diet, drugs, dyes, insecticides, radiation, smoking, socio-economic factors, stress, urban/rural residence, vinyl chloride, virus infection and water pollution.

Primary Industry Bank (Question No. 1178)

Senator Walsh:

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

  1. 1 ) How many loans have been made by the Primary Industry Bank of Australia for commercial fishing ventures in each month since its establishment.
  2. ) What is the total value of loans advanced by the Bank for such ventures in each of these months.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) A classification by industry of PIBA refinance loans, covering loans approved in the financial year 1978-79, is expected to be published later this year.

In the meantime, PIBA has advised that, to the end of February 1979, it had approved 17 loans totalling $ 1.27m for fishing projects. The Bank has suggested, and I have agreed, that monthly figures would best not bc made publicly available because of the risk of disclosing amounts related to particular loans.

Ministerial Meetings with Business Consultants (Question No. 1180)

Senator Walsh:

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

  1. 1 ) On what dates since 10 December 1 977 has the Prime Minister or members of his personal staff met representatives from: (a) Canberra Liaison Pty Ltd; (b) Cramb Tariff Services Pty Ltd: (c) Peter Cullen Pty Ltd; (d) Dunkley International Ltd; (e) Ronald C. Fisher Trade Consultants Pty Ltd; (f) Denis M. Gilmour and Associates Pty Ltd; (g) International Public Relations; (h) Macintosh, Parkes and Associates; (i) Eric Walsh Pty Ltd; and (j) Eric White Associates.
  2. What organisations was each firm representing on each occasion.
  3. What was the name of each person present on each occasion.
  4. Where did each meeting take place and what was its duration.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) to (4) It is in the ordinary nature of Government business that representations are received in writing and by personal calls from a vast number of business organisations and private individuals. Some who approach the Government on specific issues may employ the services of agencies to assist them. That in itself does not change the nature of the request, nor the consideration given to any genuine representations by the Government.

There is therefore no particular reason why representations by particular agencies such as those listed in the honourable senator’s question should be recorded or particularly noted, and as far as I am concerned no record is kept for such purpose. If representations were made they would normally be passed to the appropriate Minister or Department handling the particular subject.

Ministerial Meetings with Business Consultants (Question No. 1204)

Senator Walsh:

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

  1. I ) On what dates since 10 December 1977 has the Minister or members of his personal staff met representatives from: (a) Canberra Liaison Pty Ltd; (b) Cramb Tariff Services Pty Ltd; (c) Peter Cullen Pty Ltd; (d) Dunkley International Ltd; (e) Ronald C. Fisher Trade Consultants Pty

Ltd; ( f) Denis M. Gilmour and Associates Pty Ltd; (g) International Public Relations; (h) Macintosh, Parkes and Associates; (i) Eric Walsh Pty Ltd; and (j) Eric White Associates.

  1. What organisations was each firm representing on each occasion.
  2. What was the name of each person present on each occasion.
  3. Where did each meeting take place and what was its duration.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

– The Minister has supplied me with the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

No special arrangements are made to record approaches by professional agencies. As such agencies are not accorded any special treatment, there is no reason why there should be such special arrangements.

Departmental Approaches by Lobbyists (Question No. 1207)

Senator Walsh:

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

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

Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: 1 am informed that officers of my Department would in the normal course be expected to record a significant approach regarding departmental business from any member of the public, whether direct or through some professional agency. The Department has no special procedures for dealing with approaches by professional agencies as against any other.

Commonwealth Loans to Land Commissions (Question No. 1235)

Senator Rocher:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

  1. 1 ) What is the total amount borrowed from the Commonwealth by: (a) the New South Wales Land Commission; (b) the South Australian Land Commission; (c) the Victorian Government on behalf of the Victorian Urban Land Council: and (d ) the Western Australian Government on behalf of the Western Australian Urban Lands Council.
  2. ) What is the rate of interest charged in each case.
  3. Over what period is: (a) interest on borrowings; and ( b ) principal, repayable to the Commonwealth in each case.
  4. Have any payments of principal or interest been made by any of the borrowers and received by the Commonwealth to date: if so, how much has been paid by each borrower.
  5. How much accrued interest has been allowed to accumulate and remain unpaid by each borrower.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. (a) $16,959,000; (b) $52,730,000; (c) $23,669,000; (d) $20, 1 76,000.

    1. 2 ) The rate of interest charged is the long term bond rate applicable at the time of each advance. This has varied between 8.5 per cent and 10.5 per cent p.a. over the period in which the loans were made available.
    2. (a) 30 years; (b) 30 years.
    3. No. The relevant Commonwealth-State agreements provide for deferment of repayments of principal and interest for the first 10 years of each loan, during which time interest accrues and is capitalised at the long term bond rate applicable at the date of capitalisation.
    4. 5 ) Accrued interest at 5 December 1 978 was:
    1. New South Wales-$4,655,000
    2. b ) South Australia-$ 1 7,320,000
    3. Victoria-$6,9I3,000
    4. Western Australia-$5,937,000.

Trans-Australia Airlines (Question No. 1241)

Senator Colston:

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

  1. Did the Sunday Mail 10 December 1978, report a statement by a Trans-Australia Airlines (TAA) ‘spokesman’ that, for the Christmas Season, ‘despite the extra services and larger aircraft, seating was still barely available’.
  2. ) Was a TAA aircraft not in use due to a deliberate management decision at this time; if so, is the Minister satisfied that the aircraft should have remained withdrawn from service.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes. However, TAA advises that the statement was incorrect as seating was freely available over the Christmas season. TAA further advise that the erroneous report arose from a misunderstanding whereby the word ‘barely’ was mistakenly substituted for the word ‘freely’.
  2. ) Yes; TAA considered that it was not necessary to bring this aircraft back into service as its fleet capacity was adequate to meet traffic demands. This is shown by the network passenger load factors achieved by TAA over the period;

Qantas Airways Ltd (Question No. 1243)

Senator Colston:

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

Is Qantas required to return the government a dividend not less than the long term bond rate, as claimed in the Bulletin, 23 January 1979; if so, when was this directive issued; if not, what dividend return is required of Qantas.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

Qantas’ Financial Directive is currently under review. When this review has been completed it is intended that the revised Financial Directive will be made public.

Prime Minister’s Visit to India (Question No. 1274)

Senator McLaren:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

  1. 1 ) What was the total cost to the Australian taxpayer of the recent visit to India by the Prime Minister.
  2. What is the name of each person who accompanied the Prime Minister.
  3. 3 ) What was the reason for each person ‘s accompanying the Prime Minister.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The air travel cost is expected to total $36,640.I paid for the fares of my children. All members of the party were guests of the Government of India and other costs have not been finalised.
  2. My wife and I, my daughters Angela and Phoebe and my son Hugh were accompanied by the following persons-

Personal Staff-

Mr Peter Hand, Senior Private Secretary

Mr Petro Georgiou, Senior Adviser

M r Alister Drysdale, Press Officer

Mr John Wilson, Adviser

Miss Kathy Gebert, Personal Secretary

Miss Amanda Crothers, Personal Secretary to Mrs Fraser

Miss Cheryl Cartwright, Steno.secretary

Miss Amanda Bayliss, Assistant Private Secretary

Consultant Physician-

Dr John Ray

Officials-

Mr A. J. Ayers, Deputy Secretary, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet

Mr W. G. N. Orr, CVO, MBE, ED, Deputy Director of Ceremonial, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet

Dr R. A. Gordon, Policy Planning Section, Department of Foreign Affairs

Security Officers-

Detective Inspector G. Davidson

Senior Sergeant E. Curtis

Senior Constable J. Taplin

  1. 3) Mrs Fraser and the members of my family made the visit at the invitation of the Prime Minister of India. We were invited as special guests at the Republic Day celebrations and to see something of India ‘s cultural heritage and contemporary achievements. I had wide-ranging and useful discussions with Prime Minister Desai and other senior Government Ministers on matters of mutual concern.

The officials were selected on the basis of the contribution they could make to the visit discussions or its organisation.

Liquor Clearances from Bond (Question No. 1281)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 2 1 February 1979:

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

Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Treasurer has advised that some corrections should be made to the tables given in my reply to the honourable senator’s question on 27 March 1979. The following revised tables are provided:

  1. preliminary

Family Medicine Program (Question No. 1290)

Senator Sheil:
QUEENSLAND

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

  1. 1 ) What is the total amount of money which has been granted to the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners and its Family Medicine Program by the Department of Health since the first grants were made by the Federal Government.
  2. ) To what extent has the use of this money been audited by the Commonwealth.
  3. Have any cost effectiveness studies been conducted regarding the use of tax-payers’ money by this College.
  4. What circumstances justified the initial grants of money to this particular group, and why have these expenditures been continued by the present Government.
  5. Have similar amounts of money been given to any other professional bodies; if so: (a) how much; and (b) over what periods of time.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) During the years 1973-74 to 1977-78, inclusive, Commonwealth expenditure on the Family Medicine Program totalled $ 1 7.289m. In 1978-79, $4.746m has been made available for the Program.
  2. Under the conditions of approval attached to Community Health Program grants to national projects such as the Family Medicine Program, the recipient organisation is required, each year, to provide my Department with a statement of income and expenditure and a balance sheet. The statements are to be audited by an independent public accountant, and certified by a responsible officer of the organisation that the purposes and conditions of the grant have been complied with. In addition, the recipient organisation is required to furnish quarterly statements of expenditure of the grant. The Family Medicine Program has complied with these requirements.

It should be noted that, within approved financial allocations to the Family Medicine Program, specific amounts are allocated for specific purposes. This involves a relatively large number of budget items and sub-items. Funds may be transferred between items only with the specific approval of my Department and there are limitations on transfers between sub-items. Thus, there is considerable continuing Commonwealth control over the utilisation of funds within the Family Medicine Program budget. The financial operation of the Family Medicine Program is also subject to examination by the Auditor-General’s Office, within that Office’s overall program.

  1. The objectives of the Family Medicine Program, as described below, are such that it is impracticable to apply cost-effectiveness measures, as such. Rather, it is appropriate to consider whether the Program ‘s objectives continue to be relevant and, if so, whether they are being achieved. During each of the first five years of the Program, justification for the funding of the Program, and for the expenditures proposed in each annual budget, were closely considered by the former Hospitals and Health Services Commission. Since the Commission was abolished, these functions have continued to be carried out by my Department.

When approving the 1978-79 grant for the Family Medicine Program, I also approved an overall review of the Program, commencing with a review of the reorientation sub-program, which is directed towards objective (b) outlined in part (4) of my reply.

The review of the reorientation sub-program is well under way and review of other aspects of the Family Medicine Program has commenced.

  1. The initial grant to the Family Medicine Program in 1 973-74, and the grants in the following four financial years, were approved on the recommendation of the former Hospitals and Health Services Commission. The original objectives ofthe Program may be summarised as follows:

    1. to encourage recently graduated medical practitioners to enter family medicine;
    2. b) to provide an opportunity for more mature graduates (mainly women) to enter or re-enter the practice of family medicine;
    3. to encourage medical graduates to practise family medicine in areas which were under-served by family practitioners and thus to improve the distribution of family medicine services; and
    4. ) to up-grade the standard of family medicine by providing post-graduate vocational training in that branch of medical practice.

I am advised that the funding of the Family Medicine Program was commenced on the basis that it was desirable to pursue the achievement of these objectives. To date, funding of the Program has continued on the same basis. However, as previously outlined, the degree of achievement, and continued relevance, of these objectives are currently under review.

  1. Similar Community Health Program grants have not been made to other professional organisations such as the specialist colleges in medicine. However, the Family Medicine Program is basically a program of post-graduate vocational training in family medicine as a particular branch of medical practice. In that context, the expenditure of public monies on the Program is paralleled by other forms of public expenditure incurred in the training of post-graduates in other branches of medical practice.

English Language Courses: Child Care Facilities (Question No. 1333)

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 27 February 1 979:

  1. 1 ) How many English language courses for migrant women have child care facilities.
  2. How many migrant women have attended English language courses at which child care facilities are provided.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. and (2) Statistical information of the specific kind sought by this question is not readily available. The following information is indicative. During 1977-78 over $128,000 was provided from Adult Migrant Education Program funds for child care. The Office of Child Care funds some child care workers in the ACT to care for migrant children while their parents attend English classes.

No English language courses in the Adult Migrant Education Program are restricted to women only. However nearly all the persons enrolled in the community day classes and in the Home Tutor Scheme are women. About 53 per cent of the persons enrolled in full-time and in part-time day classes are women.

Child care facilities are provided free at each of the 12 migrant hostels. For example, ofthe 375 persons presently enrolled in such courses at Westbridge Hostel 203 are women. Thirty five of them use the child care centre (for 59 children ) while they attend classes.

Assistance with child care is also provided as a pan of the full-time courses conducted in most States over the Christmas/New Year vacation period (January and February).

The patterns of other arrangements in the States and mainland Territories are as follows:

New South Wales: Some community day classes have a paid child minder while others have volunteers and still others have developed co-operative arrangements. The number of classes with those kinds of arrangements varies during the course of the year. Child care facilities have been built into the new centre at Cringilla. That centre has been jointly funded by the Commonwealth and New South Wales.

Victoria: The Adult Migrant Education Service in that State advises that 24 of the 119 community day classes have paid child minders and 20 of the classes have a variety of voluntary arrangements.

Queensland: Child minding is available at the migrant education centre in Brisbane as well as at Wacol Hostel.

South Australia: Child care facilities are available at The Village’ education centre in Adelaide and at one country and five suburban locations where English language classes are conducted.

Western Australia: Six suburban classes have paid child minders while a nearby child care centre may be used by persons attending courses at the Perth migrant education centre.

Tasmania: There are no special child care arrangements in conjunction with English language courses for migrants.

Northern Territory: There is a withdrawal room for children and parents at the Darwin migrant education centre.

ACT: Child care facilities for day-time classes are available at the Narrabundah Adult migrant education centre, Canberra TAFE College, Kaleen High School, Copland College and Wanniassa High School. Persons attending classes at Woden Valley High School and Woden Valley Hospital also have access to child minding facilities. Facilities arc also expected to be available shortly at the Lyneham Annex of Canberra TAFE College. The Program in the ACT includes classes in Queanbeyan and child care facilities are provided there for classes at the Council Chambers.

Unemployment in the Northern Territory (Question No. 1387)

Senator Robertson:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 28 February 1979:

  1. 1 ) Has the level of unemployment in the Northern Territory reached alarming proportions.
  2. Are many of the unemployed young people.
  3. ls unemployment among young people being associated with teenage crime, as indicated by an article in the Northern Territory News, 16 February 1979, entitled Mini crime wave”.
  4. What action, apart from current training schemes, is being contemplated by the Government to overcome this serious problem.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s questions:

  1. I ) The results of the latest Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) monthly labour force survey showed that, during

February 1979, there were an estimated 2,200 persons who were unemployed and looking for full-time work in the Northern Territory. This represented 5.3 per cent of the Territory’s full-time labour force. By comparison, an estimated 381,100 persons were unemployed and seeking full-time work for Australia as a whole during February 1979 - representing 7.0 per cent of the full-time labour force.

  1. The ABS does not provide estimates of unemployed young people in the Northern Territory as the survey results are subject to sampling variability too high for most practical uses. However, Commonwealth Employment Service (CES) data on persons registered as unemployed showed that, at end-February 1979, 24.2 per cent of all persons registered for employment with the CES in the Northern Territory were juniors, i.e. under 21 years of age. This compares with a figure at the same date of 41.3 per cent for Australia as a whole.
  2. My Department is not aware of any conclusive research that has been done showing that unemployment among young people is associated with teenage crime and I am not prepared to speculate as to whether a correlation exists or not.

Commonwealth Hostels in New South Wales (Question No. 1391)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 6 March 1979:

  1. 1 ) How many:

    1. male adults;
    2. female adults;
    3. males under 1 8 years of age; and
    4. females under 18 years of age, live in each Commonwealth Hostel in New South Wales.
  2. How many persons in each of the above categories arc in receipt of:

    1. unemployment benefit;
    2. pre-employment special benefit; or
    3. the living allowances, equivalent to unemployment benefit for attending full time English Language classes.
  3. How many males and females under 18 years and living in Commonwealth Hostels in New South Wales:

    1. are attending school or other educational institutions; and
    2. are in employment.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

(2)-

Unemployment Benefits (Question No. 1401)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 1 March 1 979:

  1. 1 ) How many people, in each State, whom the DirectorGeneral ruled ineligible for unemployment benefits during the Christmas-January shutdown, and who had no entitlement to holiday pay, applied for and (a) received; and ( b) were refused, special benefit.
  2. If the information is not available in the Department, will the Minister require that information be kept in the future, in order to assess the effect that such a drastic ruling ofthe Director-General of Social Security, issued for the first time in 1 977, has on the starvation levels of Australian families over the holiday period.
  3. Will the Minister undertake to: (a) advertise widely the eligibility for special benefit of workers refused unemployment benefit in these circumstances, and (b) make the details of special benefit provision available to trade unions which, because of the Government ‘s refusal to do so, take responsibility for the welfare of their members.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The information is not available.
  2. The Social Services Act provides that, in order to qualify for unemployment benefit a person must, among other things, be unemployed. Where a person is employed at the start of the close-down for the holiday period and is told to report back for work at the end of it, he is not considered to bc unemployed. This view is bused on a legal opinion that a person on leave is not unemployed, for the formal reason that his employment continues during the leave, and that this would bc true of a period of leave without pay.

There was no change of policy in 1977. Clarifying instructions were issued to remove any uncertainties about the position. In this connection please refer to Senate Hansard of 25 May 1978 pages 1903-1905.

  1. Special benefit is granted at the discretion of the Director-General under Section 124 of the Social Services Act in circumstances where-

    1. a person is not entitled to a pension or unemployment benefit; and
    2. by reason of age, physical or mental disability or domestic circumstances or for any other reason, he is unable to earn a sufficient livelihood for himself and his dependants.

In determining eligibility for special benefit consideration is given to the following factors-

  1. whether the applicant has any money;
  2. if he is without any money, the circumstances which have led to this situation; and
  3. the time which has elapsed since the applicant had money available to him.

In the type of case mentioned any payments received by an employee at the commencement of the close down such as pay for work performed and holiday pay are divided by the weekly amount of unemployment benefit the employee could receive if he was entitled to it. This will determine the period for which it will generally be considered that there is no entitlement to special benefit. Benefit may be paid for the remaining period of the close down subject to conditions as outlined above. Information concerning eligibility for special benefits is available from all offices of the Department of Social Security.

Community Youth Support Scheme (Question No. 1405)

Senator Cavanagh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 1 March 1 979:

  1. 1 ) Has a limit of $ 1 ,000 per annum been set on the travelling allowance paid for Community Youth Support Scheme projects in South Australia by the Community Youth Support Scheme State Committee.
  2. Is this amount often insufficient to cover the travelling costs incurred by some Community Youth Support Scheme project officers in carrying out their duties.
  3. Are the Community Youth Support Scheme project officers expected to cease all travelling if the travelling allowance will be exceeded, thus restricting their work in the community.
  4. Will the Minister review the travelling allowance limit set by the South Australian Community Youth Support Scheme State Committee so that Community Youth Support Scheme project officers working in areas where greater travelling is required, such as areas of high youth unemployment, arc granted sufficient funds to compensate for travelling expenses incurred in carrying out their work.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes. The South Australian State CYSS Committee has set a general maximum limit for travelling allowance of $500 for a 26-wcck project and $ 1 ,000 for a 52-week project.
  2. No. The South Australian Committee is of the view that the general standard of travelling allowance is sufficient bearing in mind the experience of all projects in the State and the need to ensure that best use was made of available funds in the interest of equity between projects.
  3. The responsibility for the proper management of approved project funds rests with Local CYSS Committees. It is expected that the allocation for travelling allowance, as with other funds allocated to a project, is expended in such a way so as to preclude the early exhaustion of funds approved for the duration ofthe project.
  4. No. State CYSS Committees are independent bodies, appointed by the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, charged with the responsibility for assessing applications for CYSS grants and the overall control and management of all CYSS projects in the State. Accordingly, the South Australian Committee is the appropriate body for determining the disbursement of CYSS funds in that State. Decisions of State Committees arc based on the availability of funds, the relative merits of proposals put forward by Local CYSS Committees and the needs of unemployed youth in the local communities.

National School Library Cataloguing Pilot Scheme (Question No. 1409)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 1 March 1979:

  1. 1 ) How much money has been committed to the National School Library Cataloguing Pilot Scheme of the Australian Schools Commission.
  2. 2 ) What are the extent and status ofthe scheme.
  3. 3 ) What priority does the scheme enjoy.
  4. ls it likely to be stopped in future, due to restrictions on funds.
  5. What steps are being taken to promote the success of the scheme.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) In 1978 the Schools Commission provided to the Australian School Catalogue Information Service (ASCIS) a total of $76,750 from its Special Projects Program. In 1979 a further $97,500 has been allocated and to complete the feasibility study in 1980 it is expected that an additional amount of $16,000 will be required. In total therefore it is expected that the project will cost $190,250 and of this amount $ 1 74.250 has already been allocated.
  2. The project is designed to test the feasibility of implementing a national card catalogue service for all Australian schools. A steering group, representative of all potential users in a national scheme, has been appointed to monitor ASCIS and when the pilot project finishes in March 1 980 this group will make recommendations to the Schools Commission on whether a national scheme should be established. Participation in ASCIS is now restricted to all schools in South Australia and Tasmania and fifty selected schools in Queensland; however all State and Territory government school systems receive copies of the fiche files in return for providing catalogue information for the files.
  3. The Schools Commission has given high priority to funding this project in 1978 and 1979 and is committed to funding it until March 1980.
  4. Any decision to continue funding of a national scheme beyond March 1980 will depend upon the findings of the feasibility study. If the ASCIS project proves successful then the Commission will consult with all education authorities likely to participate on ways of funding for a national scheme.
  5. Since ASCIS is an uncompleted feasibility study no attempts have been made to promote the success ofthe project. All education authorities have been kept informed about the development of ASCIS through their representatives on the Steering Group.

Tertiary Education Institutions: Overseas Academics (Question No. 1410)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 1 March 1979 :

Has the Minister or the Tertiary Education Commission enunciated any policy relating to the employment in Australian universities and colleges of advanced education of overseas academic personnel.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

No. Universities and colleges of advanced education are autonomous institutions, responsible for their own academic affairs, including the selection and appointment or academic staff, lt will be appreciated that to maintain the quality of their teaching and research, universities and colleges must be free to select the best qualified staff available for academic positions. I understand that it is common practice to advertise academic positions both locally and overseas. Conversely, Australian academics are able to seek and obtain positions in overseas institutions.

Unemployment Benefit: Coffs Harbour Area (Question No. 1421)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 7 March 1 979:

  1. 1 ) How many applications for unemployment benefit were: (a) received; and (b) granted, in the Coffs Harbour area of the Department of Social Security during each month since July 1978.
  2. How many applications for special benefit, by (a) single claimants: and (b) married claimants, were: (i) received; and (ii) granted, in the area during each month since July 1978.
  3. How many counter cheques were signed in the area during each month from July 1 978, for people who qualified for special benefit on hardship grounds.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

Statistics or claims Tor unemployment benefit received and granted arc maintained on a weekly basis. The following statistics relate to claims received and granted by the Coffs Harbour office of the Department of Social Security during the four or five weekly period most closely approximating each calendar month:

Primary Industry Bank (Question No. 1423)

Senator McLaren:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 20 March 1979:

  1. 1 ) How much more than the $40m which has actually been lent has been approved for lending from the Primary Industry Bank of Australia.
  2. ) When will the $80m available to the Primary Industry Bank of Australia at 7.8 per cent average interest rate be exhausted.
  3. When this $80m is exhausted, will the Primary Industry Bank of Australia cease issuing loans.
  4. If not, will additional money at 5 per cent be made available from income equalisation deposits; if not, how will the Primary Industry Bank of Australia avoid having it charge higher interest rates to borrowers.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) I am advised by the Primary Industry Bank of Australia that, to end February 1979, refinance loans totalling $86.2 m had been approved.
  2. and (3) The Commonwealth has placed on deposit with PIBA $30m from the Income Equalisation Deposits Trust Account at an interest rate of 5 per cent per annum. The Bank’s main source of funds is expected to be the public borrowing market. PIBA is currently seeking subscriptions from individual and institutional investors to its first issue of transferable deposits. In line with usual commercial practice, PIBA will bc aiming broadly to match its funds intake from the current issue and from future market borrowings with the rate at which loan drawdowns are made. The question of PIBA ceasing to lend does not arise. Given that the results of PIBA’s current approach to the market are not yet known, it is not possible to confirm either $80m figure referred to by the honourable senator as the amount of funds available to the Bank or the average interest rate of 7.8 per cent per annum, lt is also relevant to note that the bank has access to funds other than Commonwealth deposits and market borrowings (e.g. shareholders’ funds).
  3. The question of the form and level of any future Commonwealth financial assistance to PIBA is one for consideration by the Government at the appropriate time.

Primary Industry: Staff Exchange Programs (Question No. 1429)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 20 March 1 979:

  1. 1 ) Which members of Staff of the Minister’s Department and of the Statutory Authorities for which he is responsible have taken part in exchange programs with private sector companies.
  2. What was the position of each staff member (a) before: and ( b ) after, his or her period in the private sector.
  3. Which companies did each work for and for what period.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Some staff members have been on exchange with other Government organisations but so far there have been no exchanges with private sector companies.
  2. Not applicable.
  3. Not applicable.

Air Navigation Charges (Question No. 1431)

Senator Colston:

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

Do Trans-Australia Airlines and Ansett Airlines of Australia pay airport charges at every stop whilst overseas airlines do not, as stated in the Gold Coast Bulletin, 8 March 1979.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

Both the domestic and international airlines pay air navigation charges on a monthly basis for every flight made within Australia. In addition, international airlines on overseas flights have to pay for each arrival and departure to and from an Australian airport.

There arc also landing fees levied by some Australian local authorities at their own aerodromes but these charges are minor as compared with the air navigation charges. No international airline operates to an Australian airport that is locally owned.

Dairy Projects Factory in Vietnam (Question No. 1436)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1979:

  1. 1 ) How much money had been committed to the Dairy Projects Factory in Vietnam by 23 January 1979.
  2. What progress has been made in the construction of the Dairy Projects Factory in Vietnam.
  3. What was the cost of this construction.
  4. What is the value of the equipment already purchased for the factory that: (a) has arrived in Vietnam; (b) is on the water: and (c) is still in Australia.
  5. 5 ) What is the resale value of the equipment that remains in Australia.
  6. How many Australian personnel were involved in the project in Vietnam as at I January 1979.
  7. How many Australian personnel currently involved in the project arc still in Vietnam.
  8. How many Vietnamese are being trained for the project.
  9. What was the consultancy fee for the project.
  10. 10) What portion of the fee has already been paid.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. Funds committed to the project at 23 January 1979 totalled $2,463,087.
  2. Site preparation had been completed and the erection of construction service buildings was at an advanced stage.
  3. The Memorandum of Understanding for the project provided that site preparation and construction service buildings were the responsibility of the Vietnamese Government. No details of the cost of these works are available.
  4. (a) $671,586.

    1. There are no items en route to Vietnam.
    2. $ 1,297,462.
  5. The resale value of the equipment which remains in Australia has not been determined. An assessment is currently in progress to determine how the equipment might best be utilised and/or the most economical method of disposal.
  6. Two experts, normally resident in Vietnam, were assigned to the project.
  7. None.
  8. Six Vietnamese counterpart personnel who have completed a 6 month training course in Australia departed for Vietnam on 23 March 1 979.
  9. The consultancy fee was $ 165,000 over two years.
  10. 10) 5132,330.

Primary Industry Bank (Question No. 1442)

Senator Walsh:

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

How many loans have been made in each State by the Primary Industry Bank of Australia: (a) up to $10,000; (b) between $10,000 and $20,000; (c) between $20,000 and $30,000; (d) between $30,000 and $50,000: (e) between $50,000 and $ 1 00,000; and ( f) over $ 1 00,000.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

To provide the full details sought of loans refinanced by the Primary Industry Bank classified by State and amount would, particularly at this stage of its operations, impose on the Bank a very heavy administrative burden.

The Bank has, however, advised that, of the 1,210 applications approved to end February 1979 for amounts totalling $86.2m, 88 per cent by number and 72 per cent by value involved loans of less than $100,000.

Consideration is being given to the question of publication, on a regular basis of statistics showing lending by PIBA in the ‘less than $100,000’ and in ‘$100,000 and above ‘categories.

Primary Industry Bank (Question No. 1443)

Senator Walsh:

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

What is the total amount of loans made by the Primary Industry Bank of Australia to borrowers in each of the following industries in each State: (a) dairy; (b) wheat; (c) wheat and sheep: (d) sheep: (e) fishing; (f) sugar; (g) cattle: (h) vegetable: (i) poultry: (j) tobacco; (k) wine and brandy; (I) fruit: and (m) other.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

To provide the details requested of loans refinanced by the Primary Industry Bank classified by State and industry would, particularly at this stage of its operations, impose on the Bank a very heavy administrative burden.

It is expected that much of the information sought will become available later this year when PIBA will be providing to the authorities a classification by State of loans outstanding as at 30 June 1 979 in the following industry categories:

mainly sheep grazing

b ) mainly wheat growing

mainly cattle grazing

d ) mainly pig raising

mainly dairying

f ) fishing

other.

Consideration is being given to the question of publication of such information at the appropriate time.

University of Queensland (Question No. 1446)

Senator Colston:

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

Did the University of Queensland Vice-Chancellor’s 1978 report state: ‘We have acute accommodation problems in Psychology, Education, Law, Student Services, Computer Science and many other departments’; if so, when can the University of Queensland expect to receive funds to provide this necessary accommodation.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

The Vice-Chancellor of the University of Queensland in his report for 1978 included reference to accommodation problems of the University. The Tertiary Education Commission has been informed of these problems through submissions to the Universities Council. Funds for university building projects arc provided annually on the recommendation of the Tertiary Education Commission. In 1979 funds arc available for design work on a building for the Psychology Department of the University of Queensland. The advancement of this project to a construction program will depend not only on the level of funds available at the time but also on the priority accorded to it by the Universities Council and the Tertiary Education Commission. A sum of $165,000 is also available in 1979 to meet the University’s share of the cost of teaching facilities at the Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane. The grant for minor works and site services of the University was increased in 1979 from $436,000 to $500,000 at December 1977 cost levels- an increase of 14.7 percent.

Reserve Bank of Australia: Cheque Accounts (Question No. 1447)

Senator Colston:

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

Are members of the public able to operate cheque accounts on the Reserve Bank of Australia; if so, what conditions must be complied with before an individual person can operate a cheque account on the Reserve Bank of Australia.

Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Treasurer has provided, on the basis of information supplied by the Reserve Bank, the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

In addition to being the banker for the Commonwealth and some State Governments, the Reserve Bank conducts accounts for banks, authorised short-term money market dealers, overseas central banks. Government agencies, international financial institutions, and for the customers of its Rural Credits Department. Apart from the accounts of serving and retired members of the staff of the Bank and their spouses, the Bank does not conduct cheque accounts for individuals.

Commonwealth Police: Alleged Removal of Medical History Cards (Question No. 1448)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 2 1 March 1979:

Did Commonwealth Police at one time remove all Dr White ‘s patient history cards, as claimed in the Sunday Mail, 18 March 1979; if so, what measures have been taken to ensure that such an occurrence is not repeated, in view ofthe suggestion by Dr White’s husband that ‘these cards are a patient’s private property, and their absence could have put a patient’s life in jeopardy ‘.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

I am advised that the Commonwealth Police did not remove all Dr White’s patient history cards, only those associated with the investigation then in hand. The Deputy Crown Solicitor has advised that medical record cards are not privileged documents. If seizure is warranted during a police investigation then due process must follow.

I am further advised that the claim that the absence of the cards could have put a patient’s life in jeopardy is without foundation because:

1 ) legible copies of the cards were given to the doctor the next day;

legible copies of background papers were given to the doctor within three days;

the officer conducting the investigation undertook, and was in fact available, to return the cards and documentation immediately if an urgent medical necessity arose before copies could be made.

Commonwealth Hospital Bed Subsidy (Question No. 1450)

Senator Grimes:

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

Will the Minister for Health make a commitment that he or the Government will not. now or later, use the withdrawal or $16 per day Commonwealth funding as a mechanism for controlling the number of hospital beds in the States.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

The Minister for Health has no statutory power to control the numbers of private hospital beds in the various States. The States have the primary responsibility for licensing or registering premises as private hospitals. Under the Health Insurance Act ( 1 973 ), the Minister may approve premises as hospitals and determine the number or beds to which the approval relates. However, this approval is only in relation to payment or the Commonwealth Government’s $ 16 per day bed subsidy. It is normal practice for Commonwealth approval to be given where the beds have been licensed or registered understate legislation.

Commonwealth Hospital Bed Subsidy (Question No. 1454)

Senator GRIMES:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

May the Commonwealth define the number or private beds for which it will provide subsidy, or which will bc recognised for the payment of health insurance benefits.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

It is not clear whether the honourable senator refers to beds in private hospitals or to private beds (i.e. beds in which medical services arc provided by private doctors) in recognised hospitals.

If the former, then the Minister for Health has power, under the Health Insurance Act 1 973, to approve premises as private hospitals and to determine the number of beds to which the approval relates. The Minister’s approval governs the eligibility for such beds to attract payment or the Commonwealth ‘s $16 per day bed subsidy, lt is normal practice Tor Commonwealth approval to be given where the beds have been licensed or registered under State legislation. Hospital benefits organisations arc required under the National Health Act to pay hospital benefits in respect or such approved beds occupied by insured patients.

In the case or private beds in recognised hospitals (i.e. public hospitals, the agreed net operating costs or which arc shared by Agreement between the Commonwealth, State and Northern Territory Governments) these beds do not attract the $16 a day bed subsidy. However, us with private hospitals, hospital benefits organisations arc required to pay hospital benefits for insured patients who occupy such beds.

Administrative Services: Appointment of Co-ordination Officer (Question No. 1455)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 2 1 March 1 979:

Has Mr Bruce Montgomery been appointed Coordination Officer in the office of the Minister for National Development; if so:

what will his duties be;

b) what are his qualifications for this position; and

what will his salary be.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

Mr Bruce Montgomery has been selected for appointment as State Co-ordination Officer in Tasmania and will be attached to the staff of the Minister for National Development, who has been nominated by the Prime Minister as having special responsibilities Tor Government Liaison in Tasmania.

With respect to the specific points raised in the question:

Although under the control of the Minister for National Development Mr Montgomery will also be responsible for assisting all Ministers in their dealings with matters affecting Tasmania and for keeping the Government in touch with public reaction to Government policies and programs.

His appointment is being made to ensure the best possible communication and understanding between the Commonwealth and the Tasmanian Government, particularly in view of the special Commonwealth arrangement for assistance to Tasmania.

Mr Montgomery has had wide experience in media work and was considered the most suitable applicant.

The salary of the position is $20,591-21,306. In addition, the occupant receives Ministerial Staff Allowance of $4,673 per annum but overtime is not payable.

Unemployment Benefit Survey (Question No. 1456)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 20 March 1 979:

Was the 1977 survey on the areas and extent of abuse or unemployment benefit, which was commissioned during the work or the Myers Committee on unemployment benefit administration, ever completed; if so: (a) what were its findings; and (b) what is its status.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

The Myers Inquiry into Unemployment Benefit Policy and Administration asked the Department to undertake a survey to gauge the extent or abuse of unemployment benefit to identify areas in which abuse was occurring.

Unemployment benefit surveys are being conducted on a continuing basis, but there is no specific report that is publicly available.

Alleged Social Security Frauds (Question No. 1458)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 2 1 March 1979:

  1. 1 ) How many members of the Greek community in Sydney who were charged with alleged Social Security frauds have been (a) granted; and (b) refused, legal aid.
  2. What are present limitations on the legal aid granted to members ofthe Greek community.
  3. 3 ) What are the present limitations on the provision of legal aid to enable such persons to retain their own barristers and solicitors in the courts.
  4. What is the cost to date of legal aid granted to such persons.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Aid has been granted to 9 1 applicants and refused to 1 9. There are 26 applications at present under consideration.
  2. Pending the outcome of preliminary proceedings in the Court of Petty Sessions, aid was limited to solicitors ‘ costs and disbursements. Once a date has been fixed for committal proceedings against a person charged, legal aid may be granted to that person for those proceedings in accordance with the Means and Needs Test and Contributions Guidelines, dated 30 October 1978, under which the Australian Legal Aid Office operates.
  3. Persons to whom aid has been granted may retain their own legal representatives.
  4. $172,500 has been committed to date for legal aid granted to the persons concerned.

Aboriginal Land Rights in the Northern Territory (Question No. 1459)

Senator Robertson:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 21 March 1979:

What action does the Federal Government intend to take, following the Minister’s discussions during the weekend of 17-18 March 1979 with members ofthe Northern Territory Government, to protect the rights of Aboriginal people and uphold the intent ofthe Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. both of which have been put in jeopardy by the Northern Territory Government’s action in extending the boundaries of Darwin, Katherine, Alice Springs and Borroloola.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

As a result of discussions between the Northern Territory Government, the Federal Government, and the Aboriginal Land Councils in the Northern Territory, an undertaking has been given by the Northern Territory Government to consult with Aboriginal Land Councils regarding any land claims which may have been affected by the extension of town boundaries. With regard to Borroloola, the Northern Territory Government has deferred any action in relation to the declaration of a town area within the Sir Edward Pellew Group of Islands until such time as negotiations have been conducted with the Borroloola community. These negotiations have already commenced and the Federal Government is hopeful that these talks will lead to a situation which satisfies all the parties concerned.

Trade Commissioner Service: Kuwait (Question No. 1463)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 2 1 March 1 979:

  1. 1 ) Who is the Trade Commissioner appointed to Kuwait.
  2. What are the details of the staffing of the Kuwait office.
  3. What benefits does the Australian Government expect to receive from the setting-up of the Trade Commissioner’s office.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Trade Commissioner appointed to Kuwait is Mr H. M. G. Daniel. He is also Charge d ‘Affaires of the Australian Mission in Kuwait.
  2. The staffing at Kuwait is one Trade Commissioner, one Trade Officer, one Secretary/Stenographer together with eight locally-engaged support staff.
  3. The opening of the post in Kuwait in 1978 was undertaken to capitalise on the substantial potential for Australian exports offered by that market. Since 1974, Australia has improved her trading position from sixteenth to that of eighth major supplier. Kuwait has the most developed infrastructure of any country in the Arabian peninsula and a per capita income of over $12,565 which is claimed to be the highest in the world. In February of this year, Australia held in Kuwait a most successful trade display organised by the Department of Trade and Resources; orders totalling $A3m were written at the display itself and prospects were reported by exporters of an additional $A30m over the next twelve months. These orders are in addition to the established trade.

Indo-Chinese Refugees (Question No. 1465)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 2 1 March 1979:

  1. 1 ) Has Australia resettled 16,474 Indo-Chinese refugees since April 1975.
  2. Is it expected that this figure will rise to 32,000 by June 1980.
  3. 3 ) Where are the refugees located.
  4. How many have obtained jobs.
  5. How many are in receipt of unemployment benefits or other Government benefits.
  6. How many children are included in the total of IndoChinese resettled refugees.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. A total of 16,474 Indo-Chinese refugees had been resettled in Australia between April 1975 and 26 January 1 979. At 23 March 1 979 the total stood at 1 8,2 1 5.
  2. Yes.
  3. , (4) and (5) Separate statistics for Indo-Chinese refugees, other than those still resident in migrant centres, are not maintained.
  4. Thirty-seven per cent of the Indo-Chinese refugees who arrived between April 1975 and December 1978 were aged 15 years or younger.

Commonwealth Police Vehicles (Question No. 1469)

Senator Colston:

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

Have any Commonwealth Police vehicles carried a Commonwealth Police identification and also carried Queensland number plates since January 1979; if so:

how many vehicles were involved and does this mean that part (3) of the answer to Senate Question No. 1242 (Hansard, 20 March 1979, page 792) was to some extent incorrect: and

what is the point of issuing Queensland number plates to a vehicle which is clearly marked as a Commonwealth Police vehicle.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. Commonwealth Police operate their vehicles in two modes, viz:

    1. 1 ) for plainclothes duty;
    2. for uniformed and general duty including diplomatic and consular duty.

In December 1978 one of the vehicles used for plainclothes duly was also used intermittently for diplomatic and consular duties. In January 1979 it was fitted for fulltime use on such duties. The fact that Commonwealth number plates should then have been substituted for the Queensland plates was overlooked until the vehicle was serviced. The changeover occurred on 19 February 1979.

  1. see (a) above.

Migrant Community Services (Question No. 1489)

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 28 March 1979:

  1. Has the Galbally Implementation Task Force consulted with migrant groups in the Australian Capital Territory: if so, with which groups has it consulted; if not, when will it consult with migrant groups in the Australian Capital Territory.
  2. Will the Minister: (a) make available an analysis of the 1976 census data which relates to the non-English speaking migrant population of the Australian Capital Territory; and (b) instruct his Department to prepare a detailed report on existing community services as they relate to migrants in the Australian Capital Territory and make it available to the public.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has supplied the following answer to the honourable senators question:

  1. 1 ) The Galbally Implementation Task Force met with ACT migrant groups, voluntary organisations providing services to migrants, and ACT government officials on 24

January 1979 to discuss implementation of the Galbally Report in the ACT. Representatives from the following ACT groups attended:

Organisation-

Scandinavian Ethnic Communities Council

Ethnic Communities Council

India-Aust. Assoc. of Canberra

Portuguese-Australian Club

Good Neighbour Council

Ethnic Broadcasters Council

Greek Orthodox Church

Greek Orthodox Community

Lithuanian Community

Indo Chinese Refugee Organisation

Chinese Association of Canberra

Vietnamese Association

Pakistan Aust. Friendship Association

Sikh Cultural Society

Ukrainian Association of ACT

Italian Community

Croatian Community

Bangladesh Association

Canberra Multicultural Task Force

Jewish Community

Philippines-Australian Association

Australian Hellenic Educational Progressive Association Ladies Auxiliary

Cambrian Society

There have been further consultations with some of these bodies and further consultations will be held with relevant ACT ethnic organisations to deal with matters of specific interest arising from the Galbally Report.

  1. (a) The Australian Statistician has advised that the data currently available on the non-English speaking population of the Australian Capital Territory have been supplied to the Parliamentary Library and that more detailed material will be published in May (Census Bulletin No. 2).

    1. The migrant community of the ACT is served by several Government Departments besides the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, as well as by a number of non-government agencies and enterprises, such as three of the major banks which conduct migrant advisory services.

The Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs currently provides welfare services to migrants and refugees through its Bailey Arcade office in Civic and general immigration functions at the CML office in University Avenue. The Telephone Interpreter Service, which may also arrange for community interpreting, is located in the Benjamin Offices, Belconnen, where the translation of documents can also be arranged.

Recent initiatives in the ACT include the appointment of a Migrant Settlement Council for the ACT and the opening of the Telephone Interpreter Service. Among projects under consideration are the opening of a Migrant Resource Centre in 1979 and a proposal to extend migrant services in the region by creating an ACT Regional Office of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs.

Under funding programs arising from the Galbally Report, local ethnic organisations may receive migrant project subsidy funding this financial year and applicationsfor Grants-in-Aid are invited.

The Department’s Migrant Welfare Service has for some years produced a basic directory of services to migrants in the ACT. The Department is reviewing the adequacy of information available about services in the ACT which migrants may use. Special entries in the telephone directory arc being considered.

Proposed Australian Federal Police Force (Question No. 1497)

Senator Chipp:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 29 March 1979:

  1. 1 ) ls the Commonwealth Police Officers’ Association concerned about the effect of the proposed Australian Federal Police Force on the career prospects of its members.
  2. Will those members of the existing Commonwealth Police Force who arc allocated to the proposed Protective Service Component suffer disadvantages in pay. promotion, conditions and status, as compared with other members.
  3. Will these disadvantages amount to a breach of the conditions and understandings upon which these officers joined the Commonwealth Police Force; if so, will the Minister take steps to compensate the officers thus disadvantaged: if not, and if the officers’ concern is without foundation, will the Minister clarify the situation.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Association ‘s concern is a matter of public record.
  2. No. Assurances that jobs, career prospects and terms and conditions of employment of members would not be at risk have been given, as was made clear to the Senate by Senator Chaney ‘s answer to a Question Without Notice from Senator Baume on 20 March 1 979 (Hansard pages 726-7).
  3. Sec answer to (2).

Herbicide 2,4,5-T (Question No. 1509)

Senator Mason:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 29 March 1979:

  1. 1 ) Who arc the members of the Special Working Party of the National Health and Medical Research Council, referred to in an answer by the Minister for Social Security to my Question without Notice of 8 March 1979, and the Minister for Health’s subsequent answer to the Question (see Hansard, 8 March 1979, page 628, and 20 March 1979, page 796).
  2. What affiliations do these members have with other organisations in both the public and private sectors of the community.
  3. What arc the educational and occupational qualifications of these members.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. I ) and (3) The members ofthe ad hoc Working Party on the Use and Safety of2,4,5-T are-

Dr W. A. Langsford, First Assistant DirectorGeneral, Public Health Division, Commonwealth Department of Health (Chairman).

Dr E. J. Aldred. Acting Assistant Director, Public Health Division (Food and Drugs Section), Victorian Health Commission, and Chairman, Yarram Consultative Council on 2,4,5-T.

Professor D. T. Birkett. Clinical Pharmacologist/ Toxicologist. Flinders University, SA.

Dr P. Clarke, Director of Occupational Health. SA Health Commission, and SA Committee on 2.4,5-T.

Professor L. Cox, Obstetrician, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, SA, with particular interest in congenital deformities.

Dr R. G. Edwards, Pathologist, Institute of Medicinal and Veterinary Science, SA, and a member of the National Health and Medical Research Council (N. H. and M. R. C).

Professor C. Kerr, Geneticist and Professor of Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, NSW.

Dr B. Priestly, Senior Lecturer in Pharmacology. University of Adelaide.

Mr J. Snelson, Pesticides Coordinator, Commonwealth Department of Primary Industry.

Associate Professor M. Hobbs, Social and Preventive Medicine, Queen Elizabeth II Medical Centre, WA. and Epidemiologist, was co-opted for the meeting of 23 March 1979.

  1. The members of committees and subcommittees of Council are elected on the basis of their value to committees or subcommittees as individuals and not as representatives of particular groups or ogranisations, except in the case of those committees and subcommittees approved by the Council to require State, group or organisation representation.

The affiliations of members are to universities. Government Departments both State and Federal, to clinical medicine, pathology, public health, pharmacology and toxicology.

Radios in Commonwealth Vehicles (Question No.1510)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 29 March 1979:

Are some Commonwealth vehicles supplied with a radio as standard equipment: if so, arc many of these radios removed owing to a policy that most Commonwealth vehicles should not have a radio.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

Undercurrent contracts, the only Commonwealth vehicles supplied for my Department’s fleet with a broadcast radio as standard equipment arc the Ford LTDs used for Ministerial and VIP purposes. Radios are specifically excluded in departmental contracts for other vehicles and would be fitted only where there was a specially approved requirement. My Department did acquire some radio-equipped Ford vehicles, other than LTDs, when responsibility for the Canberra car pool was transferred from the Department of the Capital Territory in 1977. However, no action was taken to remove any ofthe radios from these cars.

United States: Visas (Question No. 1525)

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 4 April 1 979:

Are Australian Banks experiencing difficulties in obtaining visas for their Australia-born employees from United States Immigration authorities: if so, what steps have been taken by the Australian Government to remedy the situation.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

I have no information about any difficulties in relation to obtaining visas for the United States.

If specific information is provided, the matter will bc considered.

Georges River: Pollution (Question No. 949)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the former Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 24 October 1978:

Have any tests been carried out during the period from 1 975-76 to 1 977-78 to discover whether any Commonwealth Government establishments or instrumentalities discharge effluent or waste into the Georges River in New South Wales; if so, what have been the results of the tests.

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

Holsworthy Defence Establishments

On behalf of the Department of Defence, the Department of Housing and Construction operates three sewerage treatment works which discharge into the Georges River. The plants are located at Holsworthy/East Hills, Moorebank and Ingleburn and serve the Holsworthy Defence establishments. The treatment plants are biological filter plants, with the addition of polishing lagoons in the case of Holsworthy/East Hills and Ingleburn. Such plants are in common use in NSW and other parts of Australia and consistently perform quite well, although they are not capable of meeting all the requirements of Class (P) Protected Waters under the NSW Clean Waters Act.

Investigation of the effluent polishing tertiary treatment lagoons are being arranged to improve their efficiency and minimise any short circuiting of the effluent detention period in these lagoons at Holsworthy/East Hills and Ingleburn. After the treatment cycle, effluent is passed into settling ponds for exposure to ultra violet light action which destroys any residual bacteria.

In the case of Moorebank, funds have been made available for minor remedial works to improve the effluent quality. Replacement of this plant by connection to the Metropolitan Water, Sewerage and Draining Board (MWS&DB) sewerage system planned for the area is under investigation. Replacement of the . treatment works is also under consideration.

During the period 1975-76 to 1977-78 the Department of Housing and Construction carried out 558 tests on final effluent from the three sewage treatment works. Seventynine (79) tests failed to comply with bacterial and chemical standards established under the NSW Clean Waters Act.

The Department of Housing and Construction has provided the following information regarding the results of these 79 tests and their implications:-

During the period ten (10) tests exceeded the suspended solids limit and six (6) tests exceeded the Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) limit. These particular results related to summer periods when algae growth in the lagoons can cause undue influence and give indicated high BOD readings.

In addition results of three (3) tests fell outside the pH limit requirements and results of seven (7) tests exceeded the detergent (MBAS) limit for effluent discharged to Class (P) Protected Waters (i.e., the highest classification of the NSW Clean Waters Act). Results of five ( 5 ) tests on final effluent also exceeded the permissable limit for faecal coliform bacteria in effluent being discharged into water used for swimming. These may or may not bc acceptable with the dilution of the Georges River depending on the background level of faecal coliform existing in the River.

The main parameter where the effluent does not comply with Class (P) water requirements is in the level of Nitrogen (ammonia) present. Biological filter plants do not fully nitrify ammonia and as would be expected 48 tests exceeded the limits. Ammonia is toxic to fish, but because of the dilution available in the Georges River it is unlikely that the ammonia discharged in the effluent would cause any problem.

Overall the departures that have been detected during the spot checking are not considered very serious in the context of the prevailing conditions in the Georges River. Moves to improve the effluent quality of these plants are outlined above.

Bankstown Aerodrome

I am advised that the Hawker de Havilland Aircraft Factory located on the southern portion of Bankstown Acordrome has recently been provided with a trade waste treatment plant. Only a few small connections from the Factory are yet to be made to the treatment plant. The level and nature of their discharge is relatively insignificant.

Other construction works arranged by the Department of Housing and Construction in relation to Bankstown Aerodrome have also been completed. These works divert discharge from the sewerage treatment works serving the building area at the Aerodrome and discharge from the Hawker de Havilland trade waste treatment plant into the M.W.S. & D.B. sewerage system, bringing to an end discharges to the Georges River from these sources.

The only tests of effluent from Bankstown Aerodrome discharged to the Georges River in the period 1975-76 to 1977-78 were conducted in late 1977 as part of a proposal to initiate pollution control works for the whole of the Aerodrome. Some 300 tests were undertaken on 48 samples of the stormwater discharge of the building area catchment, which at present drains into the Georges River.

The tests indicated that the samples had a significant failure rate in respect of meeting requirements of the NSW Clean Waters Act for Biochemical Oxygen Demand (B.O.D.) 5 day tests, and tests to determine presence of excessive Suspended Solids, Oil in Water, Phenolic Substances and Detergents. lt is expected that the Department of Housing and Construction report to the Department of Transport on the survey investigations will be available in the near future, to enable the Department of Transport to determine what work is necessary to stop discharge of polluted stormwater drainage.

Lucas Heights

The Australian Atomic Energy Commission (A.A.E.C.) is the only other Commonwealth agency known to be discharging wastes into the Georges River system. Treated liquid effluent from the A.A.E.C. ‘s Research Establishment at Lucas Heights is discharged into the Woronora River, a tributary of the Georges River. Discharge is in compliance with a discharge authorisation approved by the Maritime Services Board and the NSW Health Commission, and agreed to by the State Pollution Control Commission.

The A.A.E.C. has a long established program of monitoring the radioactivity of the Woronora River, details of which were given in Hansard of 2 June 1977 in answer to House of Representatives Question No. 1 77. This monitoring program is conducted along the Woronora River from the discharge outlet point downstream to its confluence with the Georges River. One sampling point is technically within the Georges River.

Ministerial Meetings with Business Consultants (Question No. 1205)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 2 1 February 1979:

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

– The Minister for Housing and Construction has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s questions: ( 1 ), (2), (3) and (4). No special arrangements are made to record approaches by professional agencies. As such agencies are not accorded any special treatment, there is no reason why there should be such special arrangements.

Defence Service Homes Insurance Scheme (Question No. 1513)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 3 April 1 979:

  1. 1 ) What are the current insurance rates under the Defence Service Homes Insurance Scheme in each State and Territory.
  2. What is the cost in each State and Territory, excluding fire brigade charges, of insuring a home for $30,000.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. and (2) There is no single premium rate per unit of cover for homes insured under the Defence Service Homes Insurance Scheme. The premium structure, shown below, is designed to recover costs and provide a component for reserves.

Defence Service Homes Insurance Scheme (Question No. 1514)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 3 April 1 979:

  1. 1 ) For how long have separate details been available for the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory in relation to the information provided for the various States in the answer to Senate Question No. 448 (see Hansard. 9-10 June 1978, pages 2822 and 2823).
  2. What arc the receipts and payments for(a) the Northern Territory: and (b) the Australian Capital Territory, in relation to the Defence Service Homes Insurance Scheme for the periods for which the information has been available.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. and (2) Financial records of the Defence Service Homes Insurance Scheme for the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory arc not maintained separately. The insurance of the small number of homes covered in the Northern Territory (47 at present) is administered by the

Corporation’s South Australian Office and the transactions for that Territory are included with those for South Australia. Similarly, the insurance transactions in the Australian Capital Teritory, which is geographically within New South Wales, are recorded in the New South Wales Office and combined with transactions in that State.

Details have been extracted from statistical data in an attempt to provide as much as possible of the information sought in the question. The available information is shown below.

Supporting Parent’s Benefit: Lone Fathers (Question No. 1S28)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 4 April 1979:

What was the cost of paying the supporting parent’s benefit to lone fathers between 1 January 1978 and 31 December 1978.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

Payments of supporting parent’s benefit to lone fathers between I January 1978 and 31 December 1978 totalled $7,033,339.

Domestic Satellite (Question No. 1546)

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 5 April 1979: ls the Minister’s department studying the costs and benefits, from a financial point of view, of the proposed domestic satellite; if so: (a) when will such studies be completed, and (b) will the results of such studies be released to the public.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

My Department is represented on a Working Group of senior officials, chaired by the Postal and Telecommunications Department, which is to consider and provide advice to the Government on the report of the Task Force on a National Communications Satellite System. As part of its consideration the Working Group could be expected to look into costs and benefits, from a financial point of view, of a domestic satellite system. lt is expected that the Working Group will report to the Government by the end of June this year. The Government has not yet considered whether it would be appropriate to release details of the Working Group’s investigations.

Australian Broadcasting Commission: Ku Klux Klan

Senator Chaney:
LP

– On 24 October 1978 Senator Keeffe asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, the following question without notice:

I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications whether last Friday and Saturday the Australian Broadcasting Commission radio and television news programs ran an interview with a man who was said to he the leader of the Ku Klux Klan in Australia? Is it true that the man was not identified? Did he wear a cloak over his head? Did he make inflammatory statements about the Aborigines in the Northern Territory designed to aggravate farther the already tense situation that exists there? Is it the policy of the ABC news department to broadcast statements by unnamed and unidentifiable people which are designed to increase racial tension in Australia? Did the ABC give the man an undertaking not to identify him? Will the Minister ask his colleague, the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, to confer with the General Manager of the ABC to ensure that practitioners of hatred in this country are not allowed to peddie their poison on news programs cloaked by a hood and anonymity?

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

The ABC New Service did broadcast part of an interview with a man in Darwin claiming to be the Australian leader of the Ku Klux Klan. The man’s identity was known to the ABC’s Darwin news staff. The man wore a white hood and was not identified, at his request.

The ABC carefully weighed the question of anonymity against the justification for reporting what they considered to be a matter of public importance. It is not ABC policy to encourage racial tension and reports on this matter did not incorporate inflammatory statements about Aborigines. The man interviewed said his group would not engage in antiblack activities. The ABC considered that the formation of a Ku Klux Klan group in Darwin was news and its reporting to be a proper aspect of its news-gathering responsibilities.

Australian Broadcasting Commission: Rural Programs

Senator Chaney:
LP

– On 7 November 1978, Senator Davidson asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, the following question, without notice:

I draw attention to the repeated reports relating to the possible curtailment of country radio and television programs. Is it a fact that by the reported curtailments and cutbacks, programs such as Country Hour and Horizon 5 face virtual extinction? Is the Minister aware that these daily extensive services provided by the Australian Broadcasting Commission to rural areas are not provided by any other agency? Will he make inquiries concerning these reports, recognising the importance of communications to rural areas, especially in Australia? Finally, will the Government confer with representatives of the ABC to ensure that these important social and information services are maintained?

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

The ABC has no plans to curtail the radio program Country Hour and all essential services on ABC radio for the rural community will continue to be broadcast regularly.

Horizon 5 will be replaced by a national weekly rural program of 45 minutes duration to be shown at noon on Sundays, starting in March 1979. The new program is being introduced in response to expressed audience needs obtained from audience research and viewer reaction.

The ABC is very much aware of the importance of its service programs to the wider rural community and its rural service programs will continue to be high program priorities.

Postage Stamps

Senator Chaney:
LP

– On 15 November 1978, Senator Townley asked me the following question without notice:

As booklets of stamps were a most convenient way of buying stamps when they were available and were philatelic items valued by collectors, most probably because the stamps often had portraits of Prime Ministers on them, will the Minister ask the Minister for Post and Telecommunications to consider the reintroduction of stamps in booklet form? May I suggest that the booklets be of the value of $5.

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

The production of stamp booklets was discontinued in 1973 as a matter of economics. Because of increases in the price of postage, sales had dropped considerably and the cost of producing booklets was several times the cost of printing stamps in sheet form. The booklets did contain paid advertisements which offset to some extent the production costs involved. Because of the diminishing sales of booklets, however, advertisers withdrew their support and this resulted in a further increase in the net cost ofthe booklets.

The machinery used by the Reserve Bank of Australia to manufacture the booklets was antiquated and was dismantled when production ceased. There is currently no machinery available in Australia which could produce stamp booklets.

Australia Post has advised mc that for economic and marketing reasons the reintroduction of stamp booklets is not proposed at this stage.

Telecom: Employment of Linemen in Training

Senator Chaney:
LP

– On 16 November 1978 Senator Harradine asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, the following question without notice: 1 preface my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications by referring him to Australian Government Gazette No. 28 of 13 July 1978 wherein an examination was advertised for entry to the Telecommunications Commission as lineman in training in all States except Queensland. Is the Minister aware that quite a large number of applicants responded and that, insofar as Tasmania was concerned, the examination was held on 16 September, on the understanding that the top successful candidates would bc interviewed for the 12 jobs?

Is the Minister aware that on 11 October 1978 before those interviews look place but after the examinations were held, the whole scheme was cancelled, ls the Minister aware of the fact that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has condemned the misleading advertising of private employers that leads to disillusionment amongst job applicants, and does that action ofthe Commission fall within that category?

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

The advertisement in question was placed in good faith in July 1978. Subsequently, a review ofthe likely trend in telecommunications needs in Tasmania combined with a change to a new staff structure approach which involved development of those already employed by Telecom and the need to operate as efficiently as practicable led to a cancellation of the intake.

Telephone Subscribers

Senator Chaney:
LP

– On 17 November 1978 Senator Townley asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, the following question without notice:

Did the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications notice an article in the Sydney Press that indicated that the one-millionth subscriber in Sydney was given three phones at zero rental? Will the Minister say under what provision the Australian Telecommunications Commission is able to remit such a rental in those kinds of cases? Will he indicate to the Senate what number of subscribers will be necessary in all the dialling areas thoughout Australia before a free phone rental will be granted with particular reference to the 09 area and the 002 area? In other words, why should subscribers in Sydney bc at an advantage to subscribers in the rest of Australia.

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

To mark the occasion of the one millionth telephone service in the Sydney telephone network, Telecom waived additional rental charges totalling $60.00 and installation fees in respect of two extension telephones forming part of a service applied for by a residential customer. The customer paid the standard connection fee and rental for the main telephone and normal call charges still apply.

There is a precedent for such concessions by the Commission. Concessions have been made in the past when the Australian network reach the 4 million mark (subscriber located in Sydney) and in Queensland when the network reached 500,000. There has been no particular preference given to subscribers in Sydney.

Section 1 10 of the Telecommunications Act provides the necessary authority for these concessions.

Labelling Of Packaged Food

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– On 24 November 1978 (Hansard, page 2471) Senator Walters asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, a question without notice on the uniformity throughout Australia of laws relating to the inclusion of particulars as to nutritional value on the labels of packaged food. The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs subsequently referred the question to the Minister for Health.

The Minister for Health has provided the following information:

The law relating to labelling of nutritional value on packaged foods are not entirely uniform. Nevertheless, there is a fair degree of consistency throughout Australia.

Food Standards developed by the Food Standards Committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council (N.H. and M.R.C.) and approved by the N.H. and M.R.C. are recommended to the Australian States and Territories for adoption into the food legislation of each Territory and State to encourage the development of uniform food legislation throughout Australia.

Within the following N.H. and M.R.C. Approved Food Standards:

1 ) Standard for Labelling

Standard for Special Dietary Foods

Standard for Vitamins and Minerals there are certain nutritional labelling requirements for particular foods and these have, in the main, been adopted into respective food legislation. 1 have arranged fora document entitled ‘Summary of Nutritional Labelling Requirements within National Health and Medical Research Council Approved Food Standards’ which has been prepared by my

Department in response to this question to be placed as a reference document in the Parliamentary Library.

Regulations for Infants Foods have similar nutritional labelling requirements.

In June 1978 the N.H. and M.R.C. recommended to the States and Territories amendments to the Standard for Labelling requiring ingredients labelling of all packaged foods. These amendments are intended to

inform the consumer exactly what a particular packaged food contains: and

enable those consumers who, for one reason or another, desire to avoid certain foods or additives, to do so.

The requirement for ingredient labelling is in keeping with my Department’s view that nutrition information provided on labels and in advertising should be given in terms of actual food ingredients and not specific nutrients. This conforms with nutrition education programs in Australia which provide information in terms of suitable food choices, e.g. the Basic Five Food Groups. It is my Department’s opinion that detailed nutrient information serves little useful purpose and imposes more scientific information on the consumer than he needs or can normally comprehend. Further, there is evidence from overseas that nutrient labelling leads to unnecessary fortification of conventionally nutritious foods, which in turn could lead to excessive intakes of some nutrients and possible imbalance with others.

Whilst it is true that there are requirements for the disclosure of certain information of a nutritional nature on packaged dog food, it should be borne in mind that these foods frequently constitute the sole items of diet for the animal. In the human context infant milk preparations also may constitute the sole food intake of the child and consequently the requirements for the labelling indicating the nutrient content of these products are stringent and indeed much more stringent than those applied to preparations for dogs.I understand that, generally, it is required that all prepared packaged food for animal consumption shall be labelled with:-

Minimum Crude Protein content

Maximum Crude Fibre content

Minimum and Maximum Crude Fat content and the levels of added Vitamins and Minerals, but that there are some variations within particular States.

Investment Allowance

Senator Carrick-On 27 February 1979,

Senator Archer addressed to me, as Minister representing the Treasurer in the Senate, a question without notice concerning the investment allowance. It was suggested in the question that the investment allowance be extended to include new items of machinery, plant et cetera used by Australian enterprises on overseas projects which are at present excluded from the investment allowance because, being used outside Australia, they fail to meet one of the tests of eligibility for the allowance.

I undertook to refer the question to the Treasurer who has provided the following answer:

When the scheme of the present investment allowance was being drawn up. particular consideration was given to the position of otherwise eligible plant and equipment that would be used, wholly or partly, to produce income outside Australia. The view was taken at the time, and upheld in subsequent reviews, that such plant should not attract the allowance.

In part, this is because plant used outside Australia would normally be applied in deriving income that was exempt from tax in Australia. In these circumstances, Australia would be foregoing revenue in respect of plant used outside Australia with no immediate prospect of any degree of recoupment as the result of the ensuing additional economic activity. This leads on to the further consideration that the purposes of the present allowance are to boost the Australian economy and enable enterprises in Australia to update and re-equip. This exclusive Australian-use test is seen as being wholly consistent with these basic purposes. I might add that it is a test which applied also to the earlier investment allowances for the manufacturing and primary production sectors.

I welcome and applaud the drive and initiative which has led to the number of overseas contracts being won by Australian enterprises. At the same time, if the allowance were extended as suggested, I think that there would be a gap, too wide to be justified because of the potential loss of revenue involved, between the stated purposes of the allowance and the outcome- namely the tax-subsidised use outside Australia of plant and equipment, possibly purchased from non-Australian sources, to derive income largely tax exempt from Australian tax from projects that normally would not have the same potential to create Australian jobs as projects located here.

I also mention, as broadly relevant to the honourable senator’s question, the Government’s decision, taken in the light of representations by Australian enterprises and individuals working overseas, not to proceed with the introduction of a foreign tax credit system.

Petrochemical Works

Senator Durack:
LP

– On 28 February 1979 Senator Elstob asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources, the following question without notice:

Does the Minister agree that the proposed petrochemical works in both Victoria and New South Wales would depend largely on imported feedstock for their operation? Because of the rising cost of oil and the uncertainty of supplies from the Middle East and elsewhere, can the Minister foresee difficulties for these works in the future? Because the Redcliff project would use indigenous natural resources as feedstock, would it not be to the advantage of Australia for the Government to encourage the setting up of a chemical plant at Redcliff in South Australia? Does the Minister also agree that, because the effect of the project on the balance of payments over the first 10 years of operation has been estimated to exceed $2,000m on present prices, there would be other benefits to the State and Federal Governments in tax revenues? If the Redcliff proposal does not go ahead, in which case in all probability liquid hydrocarbons would have to be flared off, does the Minister not agree that in a world which is increasingly short of energy this would be a waste that Australia cannot afford?

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

There are several alternative domestic feedstock options available before the proposed petrochemical plants would have to rely on imported feedstock. These include light naphtha available from local refineries, ethane from Bass

Strait and liquefied petroleum gas from Bass Strait. Currently much or the liquefied petroleum gas is exported.

The establishment of a world scale petrochemical plant in Australia based either wholly or largely on domestic feedstock would provide significant flow-on benefits to other Australian industry sectors and consumers.

In (he event that a petrochemical complex does not proceed at Redcliff, there are options available for utilising the liquid hydrocarbons other than flaring. They could for instance be transported to a capital city and used in the petroleum refinery activities in that city and provide useful additions to the range of Australian refinery products.

Proposed Petrochemical Plant

Senator Chaney:
LP

– On 8 March 1979 Senator Young asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, the following question without notice:

Has the Minister seen a Press report in which it is stated that for many reasons in the long term national interest the proposed petrochemical plant at Redcliff in South Australia should be built before any other suggested plant, including the all important reason of the balance of payments, as production at Redcliff would replace many products now imported, including caustic soda? I ask the Minister whether he has also seen reports that one of the competitors of Redcliff for the establishment of a petrochemical plant in Australia has’a major hand in the import of caustic soda necessary to meet the shortfall between local demand and supply’ and that its proposed petrochemical plant would concentrate more on the production of plastics than on caustic soda. Is he aware that it is estimated that Redcliff would benefit Australia’s balance of payments by an estimated $2,000m over the first ten years of its operations? Will these factors be taken into consideration if the Government does have any influence whatsoever where a petrochemical industry will be established?

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

The Government believes that decisions on developments such as the petrochemical expansion proposed by Dow Chemical (Australia) Ltd at Redcliff are essentially matters for commercial judgement by the companies concerned.

Companies when they are evaluating the possibility of investing in new petrochemicals and caustic soda capacity will undoubtedly take into account many factors in reaching the commercial decision on whether to proceed with the investment.

Plant size and associated economies of scale while being important factors are not the only relevant considerations. Some other factors which would be recognised and evaluated include anticipated capacity utilization, market size, proximity to markets, environmental factors, transportation economies, plant location, feedstock price and availability, and the by-products utilization and inter-relationship with other chemical processing plants.

The Loan Council for its part has approved a borrowing program to finance infrastructure for the project should it proceed.

Cigarette Advertising

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

-On 20 March 1979 (Hansard, page 732) Senator Wheeldon asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Health, a question without notice on whether the spirit of the law prohibiting cigarette advertising on television was being breached. In my answer I undertook to refer his question to the Minister for Health.

The Minister for Health has provided the following information on this subject:

I share the concern of the honourable senator that the spirit of the legislation banning cigarette and cigarette tobacco advertising on television and radio is, in some instances, being negated by corporate or incidental advertising given to cigarette manufacturers, such as in the case cited by Senator Wheeldon, or when sporting events they sponsor are televised.

As indicated by the Minister for Social Security, the question of controls over cigarette advertising has been taken up in the context of the Government’s consideration of the Report of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare entitled ‘Drug Problems in Australia- an intoxicated society?’. I expect to announce in the House, during the current session of Parliament, the Government’s response to the recommendations contained in the Report.

Zone Allowances

Senator Carrick:
LP

-On 22 March 1979 (Hansard, page 869) Senator Thomas asked me, as Minister representing the Treasurer, a question without notice concerning the income tax zone allowance.

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

The question of reviewing the zone allowance is of a kind that essentially falls for consideration in the Budget context. Following earlier representations, the question has already been listed for consideration in this way in 1 979-80. I now confirm that the honourable senator’s interest in the question will also be taken into account in the Budget preparations.

Invalid Pensioners: Air-Conditioning Of Premises

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

-On 27 March 1979, Senator Bonner asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Health, a question without notice (Hansard, pages 965 and 967-8) concerning assistance to invalid pensioners with the provision of air-conditioners.

The Minister for Health has provided the following information:

The Government is very sympathetic to the need of handicapped persons for aids to daily living. However, an airconditioning unit would not come into the category of a medical aid or appliance for the purposes of section 9a of the National Health Act.

Hydro-electric Power

Senator Durack:
LP

-On 28 March 1979, Senator MacGibbon asked me a question relating to the possibility of extending a feasibility study on hydro-electricity generation at the Ord River in Western Australia to include the Burdekin River in north Queensland.

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

Between 1973 and 1976, the Commonwealth and the Queensland governments jointly funded a Sim study into the resources and potential of the Burdekin River Basin for industrial and agricultural development, power generation and flood mitigation. The report was tabled on 4 October 1977.

In relation to electricity generation, the study investigated thermal as well as hydro possibilities. The report concluded that the future role of hydro-electricity generation in the Queensland electricity supply network was vital to a decision on the direction of development of the water resources of the region and required further assessment.

Subsequent to this report, the Queensland Government appointed a State committee to further examine the issues and prepare a firm proposal based on the development options identified in the joint Commonwealth/State report. The later report of December 1978 was released by the State Government early this year and contains a detailed appraisal for two development proposals, one involving hydroelectricity and one without. It concludes that the smaller scheme, which excludes hydro-electricity generation, represents the more attractive option from the State’s viewpoint.

In view of detailed investigations which have been undertaken into hydro-electricity generation on the Burdekin from 1973 to 1978, there is no need for the Commonwealth to become involved in this matter.

Rhodesia

Senator Carrick:
LP

-On 29 March 1979 Senator Sheil asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the following question without notice:

What arrangements have been made for the people of Australia, particularly parliamentarians, to obtain visas in order to enter Rhodesia? As I understand it. such visas are unobtainable in Australia right now, and it should be remembered that many countries will not accept a person who has a passport stamped ‘ Rhodesia ‘.

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

Australia, along with other members of the United Nations, adheres strictly to United Nations’ sanctions which preclude any official dealings with the Rhodesian regime. The Australian Government therefore makes no arrangements for Australian citizens to obtain visas to enter Rhodesia.

As the honourable senator will be aware, the Government does not place restrictions on Members of Parliament, other than Ministers, going to Rhodesia if they so wish. I understand that a number of Members of Parliament have indeed done so.

Taxation Deduction for Gifts to Charities

Senator Carrick:
LP

-On 3 April 1979 (Hansard pages 1206-7), Senator Young asked me, as Minister representing the Treasurer in the Senate, a question without notice concerning the income tax gift provisions. It was suggested in the question that a proposal raised in some quarters for increasing from $2 to $50 the minimum amount that can be claimed as a gift could adversely affect both membership and fund raising of charitable organisations.

I undertook to refer the question to the Treasurer who has provided the following answer:

I refer to my response of 3 April 1979 to a question asked by Senator Rocher (Hansard page 1266) concerning suggestions for an increase in the minimum amount that could bc claimed as a gift. As I said in that response I am not in favour of any such change to the gift provisions.

International Air Travel: Health Risk

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

-On 4 April 1979, Senator Townley asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Health, a question without notice (Hansard, pages 1273 and 1274) concerning the health risks to air travellers.

The Minister for Health has provided the following information:

There are no national statistics available on illnesses or deaths following long distance travel. It is advisable for elderly people with medical disabilities to consult their general practitioners, prior to finalising travel arrangements, as to the advisability of travel and/or any special precautions to be followed during the journey. In addition to the numerous publications put out by travel organisations mentioned by Senator Guilfoyle, my Department has recently prepared a small booklet called ‘Fit to Travel and Return’ that emphasises the health aspects of travel. This booklet is being printed and should soon be available from the immunisation centres in the various State and Territory Divisional Offices to the Commonwealth Department of Health.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 1 May 1979, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1979/19790501_senate_31_s81/>.