Senate
22 May 1979

31st Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 31st Parliament
  3. 1979

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

page 1893

PETITIONS

Indexation of Pensions

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following pet ition from 2 1 1 citizens of Australia:

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

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

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

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

Accordingly, your petitioners call upon their legislators to:

Restore twice-yearly pension adjustments in the Autumn session.

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

And your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Metric System

Senator PETER BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– On behalf of Senator Bonner I present the following petition from 1 1 citizens of Australia:

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

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the plan to obliterate the traditional weights and measures of this country docs 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That the Metric Conversion Act be repealed to ensure that the people are free to utilize whichever system they prefer and so enable the return to imperial weights and measures wherever the people so desire;

That weather reporting be 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 be taught together in schools.

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

Petition received and read.

Compensation: Australian Government Employees

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 40 1 citizens of Australia:

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

The petition of the undersigned electors respectfully showeth:

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

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

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

Petition received and read.

Democratic and Parliamentary Processes

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 46 citizens of Australia:

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

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

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

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

Petition received and read.

Indexation of Pensions

Senator TEAGUE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 122 citizens of Australia:

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

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

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

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

Accordingly, your petitioners call upon their legislators to:

Restore twice-yearly pension adjustments in the Autumn session.

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

And your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Compensation: Australian Government Employees

Senator MELZER:

– I present the following petition from 74 1 citizens of Australia:

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

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

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

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

Petition received.

Indexation of Pensions

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition from 295 citizens of Australia:

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

That restoration of provisions of the Social Security Act that applied prior to the 1 978-79 Budget is of vital concern to offset the rising cost ofgoods and services.

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

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

Accordingly, your petitioners call upon their legislators to:

Restore twice-yearly pension adjustments in the Autumn session.

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

And your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

The Clerk:

– Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:

Mr Igor Ogurtsov

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

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

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

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

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

Petition received.

Alice Springs to Darwin Railway

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

That in order to: - facilitate the development of the North of Australia; - provide an all-weather rapid land transport system from north to south and vice-versa; - facilitate better defence of Northern Australia; - provide improved transport for primary and mining products to southern markets; - boost tourism

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled should:

Urge that the Federal Government give favourable consideration to proceeding forthwith with the completion of the construction of the North/South railway from Alice Springs to Darwin as a matter of priority.

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

Petition 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 are 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 utilize whichever system they prefer and so enable the return to imperial weights and measures wherever the people so desire;

That weather reporting be 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 be taught together in schools.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will every pray. by Senators Button, Carrick, Colston, Maunsell and Sibraa.

Petitions received.

Indexation of Pensions

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

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

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

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

Accordingly, your petitioners call upon their legislators to:

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

And your petitioners in duty bound will every pray. by Senators Peter Baume, Bishop, Carrick, Chaney, Durack, Grimes, Guilfoyle, Townley and Withers.

Petitions received.

page 1895

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1895

QUESTION

GREAT BARRIER REEF: OIL DRILLING

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Science and the Environment. He will recall that on 8 May the Senate debated a motion of no confidence in him, as a result of answers he gave to questions on 3 May. The Minister will recall relying, in defending himself, on letters from Mr Newman and Mr Groom. He informed the Senate that he did not have the letters, but said:

I quote from advice which I have been given by Mr Newman.

Did the Minister receive that advice before or after the answers he gave on 3 May?

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

– If Senator Wriedt is really interested in receiving an answer to that question he will put it on notice.

Senator WRIEDT:

– I ask a supplementary question. The Minister will recall that the basis of his defence against -

The PRESIDENT:

– The Minister has asked that the question be put on notice. Therefore a supplementary question may not be asked.

page 1895

QUESTION

INCOME EQUALISATION DEPOSITS SCHEME

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. In the light of recently announced modifications to the income equalisation deposits scheme, will the Minister indicate the reasons for those changes and their significance in view of the higher levels of income currently being experienced by producers in most of our major rural industries?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I recall a question asked previously, I think by the honourable senator, which related to income equalisation deposits. There has been a basic change in the decisions of the Government relating to this matter. I shall explain briefly the nature of the changes which the Government has decided should be made to the income equalisation deposits scheme. I know that Senator Archer has been particularly interested in this matter. Through his interests in Tasmania he played some part in the alteration of the scheme. IEDs have been available for approximately 2’/> years and experience indicates that although the scheme has proved to be a popular form of saving for a substantial number of producers, limits on deposits which existed in provisions of the scheme restricted deposits to a significant extent. With this in mind, the limit on holdings, previously $100,000, has been increased to $250,000 and the amount of gross farm income which may be deposited and deducted from taxable income in any one year has been raised from 40 per cent to 60 per cent.

These two modifications are particularly appropriate this year when rural incomes have been raised because of the happy coincidence of good seasons and favourable prices on world markets. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics estimates that as a result of these two factors income per farm in 1978-79 will average $26,850 and total farm income will rise to $4,500m. It is an unfortunate fact, however, that the only certainty on which farmers can rely is that bad years follow good years. It was for this reason that the Government introduced the original IED scheme. It provides a means by which farmers are encouraged to put aside surplus funds in good years to tide them over the poorer times which will inevitably follow. The honourable senator has a question about the interest rate that is applicable, which I will discuss with him at a later stage.

page 1896

QUESTION

GREAT BARRIER REEF: OIL DRILLING

Senator WRIEDT:

– I ask a question of the Minister for Science. In view of the seriousness of the subject matter of my previous question and related matters, will he answer this question now or would he prefer to leave it until tomorrow when he will have had time to reflect on it? He will recall that during his defence to a charge that he had misled the Senate, he relied on a letter from Mr Groom to Mr Newman which dealt with the Capricornia section of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Has the Minister seen the whole of that letter and is he aware of its contents? If so, did he see the letter before or after giving the answers he gave on 3 May or was his attention drawn to it after giving those answers?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-The honourable senator’s ambling question will bring the response from me that I do recall all that he mentioned in his preamble. I did not answer his question previously because of the words that he used. My recollection is that Mr Newman was out of the country at the particular time. 1 think that the honourable senator was attempting to trick me by asking whether I had heard it direct from Mr Newman. The letters exchanged between Mr Newman and me have all been thoroughly read by me, and they were read by me last week before I presented the defence.

page 1896

QUESTION

WINE INDUSTRY

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. I refer to the recent draft proposals by the Industries Assistance Commission relating to the Australian wine and grape growing industry. Has consideration been given to the severe consequences resulting from an inevitable downturn in wine sales if these proposals are proceeded with, and the effect of such measures on an industry which already is suffering as a result of the increase in brandy excise? Will the Government carefully consider the following matters before making any decision on the proposals: firstly, the loss of income tax revenue because of anticipated lower sales; secondly, the cost of carry-on finance which will be required by many small producers, particularly in the Riverland district of South Australia; thirdly, the loss of revenue from small service industries and small supporting businesses; and, fourthly, the increased unemployment benefits that would be required to support those who were placed out of work as a result of such measures? Will the Government consider the major effect that this would have in South Australia, which produces about 70 per cent of Australian wine and 90 per cent of Australian brandy, and bear in mind the importance of retaining a viable industry in view of the grape surplus?

Senator Georges:

- Mr President, far too much information is being given. I would suggest that if you are to allow that sort of question from that side of the House, you should allow Senator McLaren to ask a supplementary question on the same subject, containing the same amount of information, and perhaps giving the Opposition’s side of the proposition.

The PRESIDENT:

– I reiterate that it is most undesirable to have lengthy questions giving rather than seeking information. Very briefly, I endorse your concern, Senator Georges, about unnecessarily long questions being asked. They should be avoided so that more honourable senators have a chance to ask a question.

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

- Mr President, I acknowledge your comments about the length of questions. I hope members of the Opposition will also consider them when they give great preambles when asking questions. I hope you will be as strict with them. I find the question -

Senator Georges:

– I rise to a point of order. If the Minister is to be allowed to get away with that comment we can all reflect on the Chair from time to time. I think he is being quite impertinent, and that that ought to be pointed out to him.

Senator Bishop:

– He is reflecting on senators.

Senator Georges:

– He is reflecting on the Senate, and he is reflecting on the President.

Senator WEBSTER:

– You will be well aware, sir, that I was reflecting not upon you but upon the Opposition. I hope that remark is taken as I meant it. Senator Jessop, who asked the question, knows the wine industry in South Australia very well. He is one in this place who has fought for the good of that industry. His voice is listened to in Cabinet. I can assure the Senate of that. I think it should be noted that the Industries Assistance Commission recommendations are in draft form only. They are not being submitted to the Government. The inquiry procedure of the IAC provides for the draft report to be available to interested parties to enable them to examine the report and provide comments, if they wish, at a public hearing. No doubt Senator McLaren is preparing to do that at the public hearing in his State. Public hearings have been scheduled in

June for Adelaide and Sydney for the receipt of submissions on the draft. It might be of interest to honourable senators to know that hearings will be held in Adelaide at 10 a.m. on 19 June and in Sydney at 10 a.m. on 2 1 June. Some of the issues that have been raised by Senator Jessop would have been considered by the IAC as part of its draft report, but Senator Jessop can be assured that the Government, for its part, will review all the issues when it has the final report under consideration. The final report is due by 3 1 July 1979.

page 1897

QUESTION

GREAT BARRIER REEF: OIL DRILLING

Senator WRIEDT:

– I direct a question to the Minister for Science and the Environment. I refer again to a question I asked earlier in response to which he indicated that he had seen the full contents of a letter between Mr Groom and Mr Newman and tha t he was aware of it before the debate in the Senate on the censure motion. My question is: Had he seen the contents before he answered certain questions in the Senate on 3 May?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I suggested that Senator Wriedt should put the question on notice because he tries regularly to twist words around in an attempt to get from a Minister some answer that is not applicable. In this instance he has now asked me about a letter between Mr Groom and Mr Newman. In my opinion the Leader of the Opposition is a complete fraud.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! That is an offensive word to be directed to a colleague in this place. I ask the Minister to withdraw it.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I withdraw the word fraud’. Will Senator Wriedt say whether he asked about a letter between Mr Newman and me? I wonder whether he would be kind enough to do that.

Senator Wriedt:

– You answered the question earlier. You are on record as answering it.

Senator WEBSTER:

– It is impossible for me to expect that of a man such as Senator Wriedt. Hansard will show that his first question related to a letter between Mr Newman and me and that his last question related to whether I studied a letter between Mr Groom and Mr Newman. The man is obligated by his own statements.

Senator WRIEDT:

– I ask a supplementary question of the Minister for Science and the Environment. The Minister appears to have overlooked the fact that he quoted from the letter to which I am referring. He said in answer to my previous question that he was conversant with and knew the contents of the letter. I simply ask:

Did the Minister know the contents of the letter before 3 May.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I ask the Leader of the Opposition to define the letter about which he is speaking.

page 1897

QUESTION

ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES: EXCISE

Senator MacGIBBON:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. In the interests of social and commercial justice, will the Minister request the Treasurer to introduce progressively a uniform level of excise for all alcoholic beverages in Australia, the rate of excise being proportional to the percentage of alcohol in the product?

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

– That would be a policy matter. I will bring it to the attention of the Treasurer.

page 1897

QUESTION

TRADE BARRIERS

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I refer him to the statements made by the Prime Minister during his recent attendance at the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development in Manila, where he is reported to have called for a lowering of trade barriers between developed and developing countries. I ask: If this is the view of the Prime Minister while he is overseas, what is his view in Australia? What steps is the Government taking to implement that view in relation to Australian tariff policy?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The question seeks information from me on the views of the Prime Minister. It is clearly a question that should be put on the Notice Paper for a response by the Prime Minister.

Senator BUTTON:

-Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question.

The PRESIDENT:

– As I pointed out earlier to Senator Wriedt, a supplementary question cannot be asked about a question that a Minister has indicated should be put on the Notice Paper.

page 1897

QUESTION

BANK OF ADELAIDE

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. It relates to the situation of the Bank of Adelaide and the Finance Corporation of Australia. Can he advise the Senate of the latest position as far as the Reserve Bank of Australia is concerned? In view of the possible problems to the banking system, what reassurance can the Treasurer and the Reserve Bank give to the investing community of Australia?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I will seek a response from the Treasurer and let Senator Davidson have it.

page 1898

QUESTION

WORKING VISAS: AUSTRALIA AND UNITED KINGDOM

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. In view of the very liberal intake of United Kingdom visitors who have been given a working visa when in Australia, will a warning be conveyed to Mrs Thatcher that, if she attempts to tamper with the existing facilities given to Australian nationals going to Britain, Australia will be forced to review its ratio of working visas granted to United Kingdom nationals who wish to come here?

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

– I am not sure that I can respond in quite the terms that the question seeks. I am advised that the British High Commission and the British consular posts in Australia have received no advice from London of any change in the current relations governing the entry of any category of Australians into Britain; neither is the High Commissioner aware of any legislation proposed in relation to working holiday visits from Australia. Although changes in immigration rules may well be made later by the new British Government, there is no suggestion that working holiday-makers will be affected. The arrangement, which operates on a reciprocal basis, heavily favours Australia. Working holiday visitor arrivals from Britain in 1978 were approximately 3,000, whereas the number of Australians entering’ Britain for a similar purpose is estimated at between 12,000 and 15,000 a year. I will refer the matter raised by Senator Mulvihill to the Minister. He may feel it appropriate to discuss these matters with the British Minister concerned. If there is any further response on this matter I will see that Senator Mulvihill is advised.

page 1898

QUESTION

RETAIL SPACE IN THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Senator KNIGHT:
ACT

– In view of the oversupply of retail space in the Australian Capital Territory, I ask the Minister representing the Minister for the Capital Territory: What action is the Government taking or can it take to curtail the further release of retail space in the Territory?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I am advised by the Minister for the Capital Territory that the release of retail space in Canberra has been virtually suspended for some 1 8 months and that the position is under constant and continual review. However, it is recognised that developments of a substantial nature should not be delayed unnecessarily simply because they incorporate a small amount of retail space. An example of which I am sure Senator Knight will know a great deal is the Churches Centre which is shortly to be built in Belconnen and which will contain offices, chapels and counselling rooms plus a small number of retail shops situated along the pedestrian walkway from the bus interchange to the Benjamin- Offices. Where development of this type is permitted to go ahead it is up to the lessee to consider whether or not tenants will be found for the retail space when the building is completed.

The National Capital Development Commission is continuing to monitor retail trading conditions, population growth and retail sales. In the light of current conditions it is restricting the supply of sites for additional retail developments to ensure that they are appropriate to retail needs. At the same time local shopping needs must be met and small local facilities will be released in accordance with population buildup and demand. This applies particularly to the Tuggeranong area. Honourable senators will no doubt appreciate that it is only in Canberra that government becomes so closely involved in entrepreneurial decisions to build new stores.

page 1898

QUESTION

YIRRKALA SCHOOL

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs whether he is aware that toilet facilities for teachers employed at Yirrkala school- I refer to the old building- and additional toilet facilities for students at the same school, which were requested and apparently approved some time ago, have not yet been constructed. Can he advise when construction is likely to commence?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The matter of the construction of the Yirrkala school is within my responsibility. I do not have immediate information on this matter but I will seek it out. It is a matter of some importance and I will let Senator Keeffe know. I am well aware of the need for stage one to be completed at Yirrkala. I thought that that, plus all the facilities, had been constructed.

page 1898

QUESTION

IPEC AVIATION

Senator LEWIS:
VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Transport a question concerning the decision made last week by the Department of Transport to grant Ipec Aviation permission to fly freight on all interstate routes.

Is it a fact that the Government has rejected Ipec’s request that it be allowed to use its existing fleet of turbo-prop Argosy aircraft and instead has restricted Ipec to the use of DC3 aircraft which are 40 years old, piston-driven and older than most of the pilots who will be flying them? Is it a fact that Ipec will be forced to buy DC3 aircraft in order to comply with this requirement and will Ipec have to set up maintenance facilities for these aircraft? Is it also a fact that these aircraft use expensive Avgas fuel instead of jet type fuel and that they are not compatible with roll-on, roll-off loading? Finally, I ask: On what grounds was this extraordinary and almost incomprehensible decision arrived at?

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

-What information I have about the matters raised by the honourable senator I have read in the newspapers, so I will refer his question to Mr Nixon for a detailed reply.

page 1899

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Senator MELZER:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. In view of the reports that the new points system for selecting migrants is designed to favour applicants from Rhodesia, South Africa and the British Isles over migrants from countries such as Greece, Turkey, and Lebanon, and in view of further reports that since the points scheme was introduced over 200 South African migrants have been accepted while one Greek migrant has been admitted, will the Minister supply the Senate with the actual numbers of migrants admitted to Australia from South Africa, Rhodesia, the British Isles, Turkey, Greece, and Lebanon for each of the months since the system was introduced?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I am not able to supply that information at this stage. However, I am sure that if the question were placed on notice the categories of migrants, the countries and the period required could be covered in an answer by the Minister.

page 1899

QUESTION

RESIDENCE FOR CHIEF JUSTICE

Senator PUPLICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-Has the AttorneyGeneral ‘s attention been drawn to Press reports indicating that the Government might be considering either buying or building an official residence for the Chief Justice when the High Court of Australia moves to Canberra? Given the shortage of funds in a number of areas and the shortage of funds for people in cases of genuine need, can the Attorney-General confirm or deny these extraordinary reports?

Senator DURACK:
Attorney-General · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– My attention has been drawn to the Press reports to which Senator Puplick refers. The Government has considered this question and has decided not to provide a residence for the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia either in Canberra or elsewhere. As far as I am aware there is no precedent for the provision of such a residence for a Chief Justice in any common law countries and the Government sees no j justification for it.

page 1899

QUESTION

TRANS-AUSTRALIA AIRLINES

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I preface my question which is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate by reminding him of the controversy that raged last week as a result of a statement made by Senator Rae, as a private senator, and an inaccurate statement made by the Minister for Transport that a Senate standing committee had recommended to the Government the sale of Trans- Australia Airlines. Has the Minister noted a further report in last night’s Sydney Daily Mirror financial section written by Jack Beaumont headed ‘Politics casts Pall on Market’? Amongst other matters it states:

Senator Peter Rae suggested that TAA should bc sold while the study group he heads appeared to suggest that all statutory bodies like Qantas and Telecom should be sold to the private sector.

Senator Lewis:

– Hear, hear!

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I notice that some of the Minister’s colleagues said Hear, hear!’. One was Senator Lewis, who is a member of that committee. Will the Minister agree not only that there was no suggestion on the part of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations that the Government should dispose of TAA but also that there was not the slightest suggestion anywhere in the report that Qantas and Telecom should be sold to the private sector and indeed, that there was no reference at all in the report to Telecom? Will the Minister agree that these completely inaccurate, false and misleading reports about Senate standing committees are doing incalculable harm to the Parliament and to the community and will he ask his ministerial colleagues and newspaper journalists, if they read the reports -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Lengthy questions are not desirable. I ask the honourable senator to put his question.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Will the Minister ask his ministerial colleagues and newspaper journalists to read the reports before they give misleading and inaccurate interpretations of them to the public?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I am aware only from perusing the newspaper reports that there has been some dialogue concerning Senator Rae’s Committee. I did not see the Mirror report; I will have a look at it. As far as I am aware, there is no suggestion at all that there is any consideration by the Federal Government of any contemplation to sell Trans-Australia Airlines or any other such authority. Let me put that at rest.

I have a confession to make. I would need to go back and re-read that Senate Committee report in order to respond to the latter parts of Senator Douglas McClelland ‘s question. I cannot answer verbatim what is in that report. However, let me assume that what the honourable senator says is right. I hope that everyoneMinisters, members of parliament and the Press- would read reports before commenting on them.

page 1900

QUESTION

CONSUMER AFFAIRS

Senator ROCHER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. To avoid duplication of effort and waste of resources, will the Government react favourably to a call by the Western Australian Government that power to act in consumer affairs matters be delineated by agreement with the States? Does the Minister agree that a formal division of responsibilities is desirable?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I understand that there have been discussions from time to time- I do not know how recently- between officers of the Department concerned with the administration of Part V, the consumer affairs section of the Trade Practices Act, and State consumer affairs departments with the object of achieving some rationalisation of activities. That is only my very broad understanding of the matter. I will refer the question to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs to obtain a more up-to-date indication of the attitude to the question Senator Rocher has asked.

However, there is one specific area of which I am well aware, and that is the provision of consumer credit. The Standing Committee of Attorneys-General has been considering for some time uniform consumer credit laws, which I think is one specific area that would be of interest to Senator Rocher. I will refer the general aspect of the question to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs.

page 1900

QUESTION

IMMIGRANT DOCTORS

Senator TATE:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and the Minister for Health. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to a speech by Dr Brian Morgan, the chairman of the college manpower committee of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, calling on the Federal Government strictly to control the immigration of doctors? Is it a fact that the inflow of immigrant doctors is now running at 800 a year, equal to the total output of the nation’s four largest medical schools? I ask whether the Minister is aware that Dr Morgan went on to say:

If something is not done about the inflow of immigrant doctors, we will have to not only restrict intake but talk about closing medical schools.

What steps is the Government taking to ensure that the intake of overseas doctors is modified substantially to ensure that the huge expenditure by the Australian community on its medical schools and graduates is justified and their future guaranteed? Will the Government guarantee the people of Tasmania that their medical school will not be undermined by the seemingly unending influx of immigrant doctors?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I will need to refer that matter to the Minister for Health and possibly to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to seek a response for Senator Tate.

page 1900

QUESTION

WINE INDUSTRY

Senator MESSNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry and follows a question asked earlier by Senator Jessop in regard to the wine industry. Has the Minister noted remarks by the Opposition spokesman on primary industry, Senator Walsh, that the draft report of the Industries Assistance Commission on grape growing was an invitation to impose a wine tax in the forthcoming Budget? In the light of the Minister’s previous answer to Senator Jessop that the report is a draft report only and that further public hearings will be held, is it a reasonable assumption that Senator Walsh’s fear-mongering is a figment of his imagination and his only?

Senator Button:

– I raise a point, of order, Mr President. Surely questions cannot ask a Minister such as Senator Webster to make assumptions about what is in the mind of a member of the Opposition. Questions are not to be directed in relation to hypothetical matters.

The PRESIDENT:

– I appreciate that. I thank Senator Button for raising the point. He is quite right. But there are certain aspects of the question to which the Minister may reply.

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-The point of order raises the difficulty of my understanding what is in the Opposition’s mind, and I certainly agree that that is difficult. Senator Georges is attempting by interjection to describe what is in the minds of members of the Opposition. The honourable senator from South Australia has raised an important matter which is of concern to wine producers in his State. When the Opposition spokesman on this industry comments that the draft report is an open invitation to governments to increase tax, that can only be -

Senator Button:

- Mr President, I renew the point of order. Even a Minister of Senator Webster’s calibre cannot say what is in the minds of wine producers in South Australia in relation to something that Senator Walsh said. With respect, Mr President, you invited the Minister to answer some parts of the question. He is proceeding to answer precisely those parts about which I raised a point of order. With respect, he cannot do that. It was a hypothetical question which he cannot answer on that basis.

The PRESIDENT:

– The Minister must ignore the hypothetical aspects of the question.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I was commenting that it is important for the people of Australia to assess the attitudes of Government and of Opposition to a report such as this. The honourable senator who asked the question pointed out that the report has not been finalised yet and that it has brought from the Opposition spokesman on this area of interest- that is, agriculture- the comment that it is an open invitation to governments to increase taxation. That was the import of the question which was asked by, if I may say so, a very worthy senator from South Australia who has a great deal of accounting knowledge and knows very acutely about these things.The original question asked whether I had noted the comment by Senator Walsh on the draft report. That was the basis of this question. I have noted one or two comments in the newspapers about the current statements of Senator Peter Walsh, but I have been more impressed by the comments of Mr Day, the New South Wales Minister for Agriculture, about his Federal Labor counterpart. I am sure that the Opposition would want me, in replying to the question, to make it quite clear that Senator Walsh’s own colleagues take very little notice of his attitude. Mr President, I think that basically that is what was put to you as a point of order by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. As I said, Mr Day, the State Minister, said -

Senator Bishop:

– I raise a point of order, Mr President. I direct your attention to the fact that the Minister is not answering the question asked, but rather is using it as an opportunity to attack our spokesman on primary industry. The Minister is attempting to avoid the question, which is: What is the Government going to do about the matter? I seek your direction to the Minister.

The PRESIDENT:

– Question Time in the Senate is a period of great importance to all honourable senators. It is desirable at Question Time for the best of endeavours to be made to be brief and factual in both asking questions and replying to them. I shall have to rule out of order questions which I feel do not accord with the intention of the Standing Orders.

Senator WEBSTER:

-Mr President, I believe that my concluding comments in my answer were very important because the question related to the attitude of Senator Peter Walsh.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! To speak of attitudes opens debate on a matter. When information is sought, it should be given. That is sufficient.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I raise a point of order, Mr President. Senator Webster, in his reply, stated that in effect the question asked whether he had noted a statement made by Senator Walsh. The Minister replied that he had. That ends the matter. The Minister replied to the question and gave all the information requested. We do not want to tour Australia to see whether someone of like mind to Senator Walsh is in any Ministry.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I call Senator Mason.

page 1901

QUESTION

OIL SPILLS

Senator MASON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My “question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and relates to the oil spills report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation, which contains recommendations concerning navigational aids and practices affecting the passage of Great Barrier Reef waters by oil tankers. As a result of that, I ask the Minister a question to which, although it is without notice, I would like to get at least a general reply now. Does the Government recognise the considerable, continuing and urgent risk of a major oil spill from tankers which regularly traverse the Reef waters, which carry cargoes of 100,000 tonnes of oil or more and which, in the words of the Committee, actually touch bottom in ‘not rare instances’? ls the Government, as a matter or urgency, giving attention to providing additional navigational and tide telemetry facilities which would, among other things, encourage oil tankers to use routes outside rather than inside the Reef? Is the Government considering a principle of compulsory pilotage of oil tankers operating inside Reef waters?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– The honourable senator has asked a number of questions on matters of detail which are outside my portfolio responsibilities. I noticed his request for a general reply or for some sort of reply before I sit down, but I point out to the honourable senator that in this chamber no prizes are awarded for guessing. I shall simply put his question to the appropriate Minister.

Senator MASON:

– I wish to ask a supplementary question, Mr President. I did ask the Minister representing the Minister for Transport for a general response on whether the Government recognises the kind of risk to which I referred. I would have thought that that was not a detailed question. That was the question to which I asked the Minister to reply.

Senator CHANEY:

– I have nothing to add to the answer I have given.

page 1902

QUESTION

FERAL ANIMALS IN THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry aware of a board of inquiry report initiated by the Northern Territory Government and entitled Feral Animals in the Northern Territory? The board of inquiry was chaired by Dr G. A. Letts, C.B.E. The report gives an up-to-date, detailed picture of feral animals and associated problems in the north. It calls for major changes in thinking and states that strong positive action is needed to enable our environmental heritage to survive and the reasonable potential for economic production in the north to be realised.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Get down to your question as quickly as you can, Senator.

Senator KILGARIFF:

– Yes, sir. If the Minister is aware of that report, realising also that the Northern Territory Government has responsibilities in the matter, can he indicate what response can be expected from the Federal Government in order that a review and, where necessary, positive action will be undertaken on the many and varied recommendations?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I am aware of the report of the board of inquiry of 1979 into feral animals in the Northern Territory. It was tabled earlier this year in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. Following discussion in the Assembly on 6 May, the document was referred to Mr Steele, the Northern Territory Minister for Transport, Works and Industrial Development, for comment. The inquiry was set up by the Assembly in June 1978 following unanimous acceptance of a motion that had been proposed by Mr Steele. I see the report as a very worthwhile contribution in the field of feral animal control. The Commonwealth Government is awaiting with interest the response of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly to Mr Steele’s comment.

For the information of the Senate I mention that I am informed that officers of my ministry, of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service and of the Division of Wildlife Research of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation have already initiated discussions on the report with officers of the relevant Northern Territory departments. It may be of interest to note that many of the research proposals which were given high priority in section 6 of the report have already been initiated by the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service and the Division of Wildlife Research of the CSIRO. I refer specifically to research relevant to feral buffalo and pig control in the Alligator Rivers region of the Northern Territory that is included in the recently-proclaimed Kakadu National Park.

page 1902

QUESTION

WINE INDUSTRY

Senator BISHOP:

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, follows other questions that have been asked concerning the draft report of the Industries Assistance Commission on the wine industry. Has the Minister seen the strong criticism that has been made of that draft report by the Victorian and South Australian Premiers? Does he recall that on 20 December of last year the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Sinclair, attended a rally that was also attended by some of his party colleagues and promised those gathered there that there would be no tax on wine? Does that guarantee still stand?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– In line with the wishes of members of the Opposition in relation to questions that they ask and taking note of what the honourable senator from South Australia -

Senator Walsh:

– To be consistent with what you have said, you have only to say yes.

Senator WEBSTER:

-The answer to the first question is no. The answer to the second question- in relation to the detail which the honourable senator gave- is no. The answer to the third question is that undoubtedly when the Government has received the final report it will give that report its ultimate consideration, as the present Cabinet always does.

Senator BISHOP:

– As a supplementary question, 1 simply ask: Does the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry recall the much-publicised meeting of 20 December in the Riverland, which his colleagues attended, and at which Mr Sinclair said that there would be no tax on wine? Does he recall that? Yes or no?

Senator WEBSTER:

– I have given the answer once. Perhaps Senator Bishop did not hear me correctly. J said no.

page 1903

QUESTION

AIR SERVICES BETWEEN TASMANIA AND NEW ZEALAND

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, relates to the proposal to provide air services between Tasmania and New Zealand. Is it true that the decision to allow Trans-Australia Airlines and Ansett Airlines of Australia to fly from Hobart to New Zealand is now being held up only by the doginthemanger attitude of Qantas Airways Ltd, in that it does not want to lose any international routes, even those that it does not have suitable equipment to service? If not, when will an announcement be made on when the service will commence?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I will refer the question to Mr Nixon for reply.

page 1903

QUESTION

PETROL SHORTAGES

Senator ELSTOB:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for National Development. We have heard recently of the violence in California following the petrol shortages. I ask the Minister: When will the Federal Government formulate a comprehensive energy policy so that Australia will not be subjected to the same kind of violence when existing fuel supplies run low? Throughout Australia there are often surpluses of various crops. In particular, thousands of tonnes of grapes are rotting on the vines in growing areas. Will the Government consider financing and establishing ethanol producing industries, where such surpluses occur, to help the fuel supply, to relieve unemployment and to give growers a return for their produce?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I will refer that question to the Minister for National Development.

page 1903

QUESTION

HOME INSULATION

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for National Development. Will the Minister confer with the Treasurer in an effort to permit those persons who wish to insulate their homes against the rigours of the winter to receive tax deductions for the cost of that installation? This would encourage Australians living in the colder areas of our country to save energy which otherwise would be wasted in heating houses which are not insulated.

Senator DURACK:
LP

– That is really a question for the Treasurer to answer but I will refer it to the Minister for National Development also.

page 1903

QUESTION

RETAIL SPACE IN THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for the Capital Territory and follows an answer which was given to Senator Knight with respect to the problems in Canberra. I refer to the recent Canberra surveys which show that there is a serious slump in retailing in the national capital. Is theMinister aware that the Bureau of Statistics figures show that there are 1,927 retail and service outlets in Canberra- a figure which represents a ratio of such outlets to citizens of one to 90? Is the Minister aware that small shopkeepers in the new complex at Belconnen have suggested almost unanimously that they will not renew their leases because of the current retail slackness? Will the Government therefore give consideration to asking the National Capital Development Commission to discourage any further shopping development- development which can only worsen the grave economic difficulties facing most small shopkeepers in Canberra?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I have noted comments relating to the number of retail outlets in Canberra. The honourable senator’s question about discouraging further retail outlets was generally answered in my reply to Senator Knight’s question. Where a retailer contracts to take shop space or selling space there always has to be a calculation as to the limit on the time for which he or she can afford to pay according to the terms of the lease that may be required. There is always difficulty in this area if the costs are too high. Of course, people should study those costs before they commit themselves to taking shop space. I do not know what the attitude of the honourable senator would be, but I think that if he studies the answer that I gave to Senator Knight, who has shown himself to be most active in this field, he will get the proper information.

page 1904

QUESTION

SCREW WORM FLY

Senator THOMAS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. 1 preface it by referring to the considerable risk to the Australian livestock industry posed by the presence in Papua New Guinea and Irian Jaya of the screw worm fly. Because of the possibility of the fly becoming established in Australia, because of the potential threat to the livestock industry and because of the considerable difficulty and expense of eradication, particularly in the sometimes inaccessible parts of northern Australia where the first outbreak is likely to occur, will the Government consider negotiating with the governments of Papua New Guinea and Indonesia with a view to assisting those governments to eradicate the screw worm fly in their countries?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I am aware of the very significant potential threat that the screw worm fly in Papua New Guinea and Indonesia poses to livestock in Australia. I will bring the matter to the attention of my colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and also of my colleague, the Minister for Primary Industry, who may seek consultation with him. I shall convey Senator Thomas’s suggestion to them.

page 1904

QUESTION

WINE INDUSTRY

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question which is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer follows questions asked earlier today about the proposed wine excise. Unlike Senator Webster, I am sure the Minister will be aware that his Cabinet colleague, the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Sinclair, gave a solemn undertaking to wine grape growers late last year that the Government would not impose another wine excise. I now ask the Minister whether he will give a clear undertaking that the Government will honour the promise given by Mr Sinclair and not use the draft report of the Industries Assistance Commission and the subsequent hearings before that body as a means of delivering another crippling blow to the already hard hit wine grape growers.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-Senator McLaren knows, as do all honourable senators, that this is a matter of Government policy. As it is a matter of Government policy, all that I can do by way of response is refer the question to the responsible Minister.

page 1904

QUESTION

MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSION CONTROLS

Senator YOUNG:

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. 1 refer to the recent meeting of the Australian Transport Advisory Council at which Ministers for Transport, including the Federal Minister for Transport, were present. Do South Australia and New South Wales still refuse to accept the majority decision of the other States which were prepared to defer stage three of Australian Design Rule emission control? If so, can the Minister say what were the figures presented by the States at that conference with regard to levels of pollution within the air of the various cities in the States? If the South Australian Government did submit figures, what were they?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– The Australian Transport Advisory Council meeting to which the honourable senator refers received a lot of publicity. I think it would be well known to honourable senators that two States, South Australia and New South Wales, did refuse to go along with the other States in delaying the implementation of the third stage of the air pollution recommendations. As far as I am aware, no independent figures were put to the conference by South Australia. On the figures which are available to ATAC, South Australia is not one of the real problem areas. Sydney appears to be the most seriously affected city, and that is probably the basis of the New South Wales attitude. Melbourne is affected to a somewhat lesser degree. But Perth, Brisbane and Adelaide have lower figures than Sydney has.

page 1904

QUESTION

SAND MINING ON FRASER ISLAND

Senator EVANS:
VICTORIA

– My question bears upon the portfolios of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Resources, and Attorney-General. 1 direct my question, therefore, to either Senator Carrick or Senator Durack. I refer to the Dillingham Corporation’s claim for $23m compensation from the Australian Government in respect of the closure of its sand mining operations on Fraser Island. Is it the case that the Government of the United States of America has made a decision to take up or espouse the Dillingham case before the International Court of Justice, and accordingly to sue Australia in that forum? Does this decision, if it has been made, not represent a spectacular failure of Mr Peacock’s attempts at diplomacy in that area, and make nonsense of any claim of a special relationship with the United States of America? Further, in view of conflicting reports as to the opinion of the Government’s advisers on this matter, what is its present assessment of the likely outcome of any such case brought against Australia in the International Court?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I ask Senator Evans to place that question on notice. It does involve a number of different departments. I think, in view of its importance, it would be better if a considered reply were given.

Senator Evans:

– With respect, I would have thought that at least one aspect of that question would be capable of being answered, and that is as to the competency of the Government’s diplomacy.

The PRESIDENT:

– The Minister has the right to ask that the question be placed on notice, when he will give you a full reply. He is quite within his rights in making that request.

page 1905

QUESTION

WINE INDUSTRY

Senator PETER BAUME:

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer, follows on other questions which have been asked. In view of the known fact that wine, partly because it bears no excise, is at present the source of the cheapest alcohol in Australia, can I receive an assurance that in spite of attempts to pre-empt calm consideration of the matter the Government will consider any report of the Industries Assistance Commission on a proposed wine excise or on protection levels on its merits, and that in making its decision the Government will consider the social as well as the commercial effects that would flow from any decision it made?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I assure Senator Baume that the Industries Assistance Commission report on wine, as on any other matter, will receive the fullest consideration in all its aspects.

page 1905

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS COUNCIL

Senator ROBERTSON:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I direct my question to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Has the Australian Aboriginal Affairs Council agreed this month that the Commonwealth must spend more and make advance triennial commitments to achieve the ideals of self-management and to overcome urgent social problems in Aboriginal communities? Does this confirm that, in the Council ‘s view, funding cuts in real terms over the past three Budgets have disadvantaged Aborigines? Does the Minister support the stated view of all the State Ministers that funding from the Commonwealth is grossly inadequate?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– The Australian Aboriginal Affairs Council met in Adelaide only last Friday. Senator Robertson has correctly indicated that the Ministers attending that meeting expressed the view that the Commonwealth must spend more. As to any decisions relating to a direct comment on Commonwealth funding, I should say that, in light of the present Budget discussions, I stepped back and simply asked that I should note the resolution of the other Ministers. They did make a quite clear statement that they thought Commonwealth funding was inadequate and that more should be spent. I would have to say that I do not think that they were explicit in relating what they saw as current Aboriginal disadvantage to the funding history of the last few years. Rather, there was a concentration on pointing out to me areas of need that they saw as requiring to be filled, and filled by Commonwealth rather than State initiative.

page 1905

QUESTION

ISRAELI MINISTER FOR ENERGY

Senator PRIMMER:

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs: Did the Israeli Minister for Energy recently visit Australia? If so, when; what was the purpose of his visit; and with what Ministers or organisations did he have discussions while he was here?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The question requires detail by way of answer. I will seek out that detail and let Senator Primmer have it.

page 1905

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

Senator SIBRAA:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. Is the Minister aware of the provisions in the relevant British legislation which provide for a sufficiently popular sporting event to be declared a broadcast of national importance, thus preventing commercial television stations from monopolising any particular sporting event, for example, the Olympic Games or international cricket, at the expense of the British Broadcasting Corporation? Will the Federal Government consider introducing such changes to Australian legislation in order to protect the competitive position of the Australian Broadcasting Commission in relation to sporting events?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I am aware that in the United Kingdom there is some provision of the sort mentioned by Senator Sibraa. I think that parallels between the British broadcasting system and our own are somewhat difficult to draw because of the quite different control which the British Government exercises over broadcasting generally in the United Kingdom. In light of the considerable public interest which has been expressed in public access to what would be regarded as national sporting occasions, I will refer the honourable senator’s suggestion to Mr Staley for consideration.

page 1906

QUESTION

EXPORTS OF GOUDA CHEESE

Senator ARCHER:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Earlier this session I questioned the Minister concerning the arrangements under discussion for the export of Gouda cheese. At that time an answer was not available. I would now like to know whether the question has been resolved and whether any information is available.

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I well recall the honourable senator’s question relating to Gouda cheese. It was of particular importance to Tasmania as that area is a producer of cheese.

Senator Rae:

– The finest cheese.

Senator WEBSTER:

– The finest cheese, as Senator Rae suggests. I have been informed by the Minister for Primary Industry that no recommendation has been received from the Australian Dairy Corporaton for abolition of the existing allowances for rinded and rindless Gouda cheese. The allowances payable to Gouda cheese manufacturers were first agreed to by the cheese industry in 1 970 in order to ensure the production of Gouda cheese for the Japanese market by compensating manufacturers for the additional cost involved in producing Gouda rather than cheddar cheese. During the 1970-71 season the manufacturers concerned were advised that the allowances for rinded and rindless Gouda cheese would operate for set periods. That was done to enable the companies to make the necessary investment in the knowledge that the allowances would continue for sufficient time to enable the investment to be written off.

The period set for the allowances has now expired. The Australian Dairy Corporation, with the Australian Dairy Industry Advisory Committee, is presently reviewing the question of the continuation of the allowances. I understand that discussions have been held between the Corporation and the Australian Dairy Products Federation and that separate discussions have been scheduled between the Corporation and manufacturers of Gouda and cheddar cheese. Following these meetings the Australian Dairy Industry Advisory Committee will consider the matter. I understand that the Corporation hopes to be in a position to make a recommendation to the Minister for Primary Industry by the end of this month.

page 1906

QUESTION

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I wish to provide an answer to a question which Senator Evans asked me on 3 May 1979. He spoke of the need for probity and integrity in appointees to the High Court of Australia. He referred to a report in the National Times of 21 April 1979. His question purported to reflect a report in that newspaper of allegations said to have been made by the Honourable Fred Daly. I have consulted my Department to check on the allegations contained in the newspaper article and on the allegations made by Senator Evans. I am advised that the Chief Australian Electoral Officer sought advice from the First Assistant Crown Solicitor, Mr B. J. O ‘Donovan, on 12 December 1972 concerning the proper interpretation of the legislative provisions with respect to the counting of postal votes. The postal votes concerned were for the Division of Parramatta. The number of postal votes in issue was 1 57.

Mr O ‘Donovan consulted the then SolicitorGeneral, Mr Ellicott, on the matter that had been raised with him and each of them concluded that, although the matter was not clear beyond doubt, the better view was that the votes should not be rejected or disallowed if the Divisional Returning Officer was satisfied as to matters set out in paragraph (b) of section 96 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. Both Mr O ‘Donovan and Mr Ellicott were of the view that strong argument could be put for the view that the Divisional Returning Officer had a residual discretion to disallow some or all of the postal votes in issue and that it was a matter for the Divisional Returning Officer to decide which course he would adopt. Both Mr O ‘Donovan and Mr Ellicott expressed the view that whichever course was adopted by the Divisional Returning Officer a petition to the court of disputed returns would be likely to be made if the final count left the two main contending candidates for the Division of Parramatta less than 157 votes apart.

I am advised that until the advice to which I have just referred was received by the Australian Electoral Office the postal vote envelopes in question remained unopened. Accordingly, the advice from the Attorney-General ‘s Department was given without knowledge of which candidate would be favoured by admitting or rejecting the postal votes in issue. The Law Officers Act provides that the Solicitor-General has the function, amongst other things, of furnishing his opinion to the Attorney-General on questions of law referred to him by the Attorney-General. In working practice, senior officers of the AttorneyGeneral ‘s Department do consult informally with the Solicitor-General and obtain his views on questions of difficulty without the specific request of the Attorney-General. That practice seems to me to be sensible and in no way improper.

The consultation that took place in the case to which Senator Evans referred, was no different from consultation that has regularly taken place with each of the persons appointed SolicitorGeneral under the Law Officers Act since its enactment. It is clear therefore that Mr Ellicott took no initiative on this matter and cannot be said to have ‘intervened’ in it. He was consulted in accordance with common practice in the Department. He concurred with the views formed by the officer from whom the advice was sought. In the circumstances therefore, I utterly reject any suggestion that Mr Ellicott acted improperly in this matter or that his action reflects in any way against the high degree of probity and integrity for which he is well known.

page 1907

QUESTION

AIR ACCIDENT AT GORDON DOWNS

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– Earlier this year a couple of questions were asked by Senator Cavanagh about a man called Tiger Yadjajeri who was involved in an accident. He was riding a horse and was struck by an aircraft. Senator Cavanagh ‘s question relates to two items. The first is, whether or not there has been an investigation of the accident by the Department of Transport. I want it recorded that Senator Cavanagh has been advised of the details by letter. An investigation was held. Secondly, he raised the question of workers compensation. I am now advised that Mr Yadjajeri has received the full amount of workers compensation due to him. I have not been able to find out whether he has any prospect of a common law claim but that matter is being followed up, I understand, by the Aboriginal Legal Service of Western Australia. Mr Yadjajeri is now at Hooker Creek in the Northern Territory. I am advised that the Aboriginal Legal Service has this matter under consideration.

page 1907

NUCLEAR ENERGY: AGREEMENT BETWEEN AUSTRALIA AND REPUBLIC OF KOREA

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present a copy of the agreement between Australia and the Government of the Republic of Korea concerning co-. operation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and the transfer of nuclear material, together with a copy of a letter sent to the leader of the Republic of Korea delegation which negotiated the agreement and the text of a statement by the

Minister for Foreign Affairs relating to the agreement.

page 1908

MURRAY RIVER VALLEY

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) Pursuant to section 6 of the National Water Resources (Financial Assistance) Act 1978 I present copies of agreements with South Australia and Victoria in respect of projects by way of salinity control on the Murray River Valley.

page 1908

URBAN AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE) ACT 1974

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) Pursuant to section 8 of the Urban and Regional Development (Financial Assistance) Act 1974 I present a notice under clause 5(2) of the agreement with South Australia and for the information of honourable senators I present a project approval under section 4 of the Act.

page 1908

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) For the information of honourable senators I present an interim report by the Industries Assistance Commission on fixed resistors.

page 1908

CAPITAL TERRITORY HEALTH COMMISSION

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– Pursuant to section 72 of the Health Commission Ordinance 1975 I present the annual report of the Capital Territory Health Commission for the year ended 30 June 1 977.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– I seek leave to make a brief statement in relation to the report which has just been presented.

Leave granted.

Senator RAE:

– It has been the practice in recent times for the Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations to move for the reference to that Committee of any report which is apparently belated in its presentation. This, of course, is a perfectly proper aspect of that Committee’s role in relation to developing and ensuring the accountability of the various authorities to the Parliament. I would just wish to mention that although the presentation of this report is obviously late, I do not propose to move that it be referred to the Committee because the Committee has just completed an investigation of the 1975-76 report of the Capital Territory Health Commission. The Committee’s report, which was tabled on 9 May, sets out the reasons for the delay generally in relation to the presentation of the Health Commission’s reports. Anybody who is wondering why the report tabled today was presented so late will find an explanation and comments set out in the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations of 9 May.

page 1908

ANSETT TRANSPORT INDUSTRIES

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– Pursuant to paragraph 1 1 of the Third Schedule of the Airlines Agreement Act 1952 I present the annual financial report relating to the operation of air services by Ansett Transport Industries for the year ended 1 July 1978.

page 1908

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL AIRLINES COMMISSION

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– Pursuant to section 40 of the Australian National Airlines Act 1945 I present the annual report of the Australian National Airlines Commission for the year ended 30 June 1 978.

page 1909

NATIONAL HIGHWAYS

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present a report by the Bureau of Transport Economics entitled National Highways Linking Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra- Third Report: Canberra Connections, 1979’.

page 1909

TRANSPORT PLANNING AND RESEARCH PROGRAM

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– For the information of honourable senators 1 present a report prepared by the Department of Transport entitled ‘The Transport Planning and Research Program: Report of Progress to 30 June 1978’. The report, which was produced at the request of State authorities, provides an example of the cooperation being achieved between States and the Commonwealth under the Transport Planning and Research (Financial Assistance) Act 1977.

page 1909

TRANSPORT REPORTS

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-by leave- I move:

That the Senate take note of the following reports:

Financial report relating to the operation of air services by Ansett Transport Industries for the year ended I July 1978.

Report of the Australian National Airlines Commission 1977-78.

Report by the Bureau of Transport Economics entitled: National Highways Linking Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra- Third Report: Canberra Connections 1979”.

Report prepared by the Department of Transport entitled: The Transport Planning and Research Program: Report of Progress to 30 June 1978”.

The financial report relating to the operation of air services by Ansett Transport Industries for the year ended 1 July 1978 needs careful scrutiny by the Senate because it appears that some of the financial difficulties that faced Ansett are affecting the expansion of Trans-Australia Airlines and the improvement of its facilities, to the detriment of air travel in this country. I suggest that we ought to be looking at that report fairly soon in consideration of General Business. I think that is where the report will finish up. We seek an early debate to estimate the limitations which are imposed by these financial difficulties to which I referred. It is important that we discuss this report also because at the same time we may be able to discuss the private opinion expressed by one honourable senator that TAA should be disposed of in some way. ‘Sold’ has been the word used.

Senator Rae:

– 1 support your suggestion.

Senator GEORGES:

– I take the opportunity of suggesting to the honourable senator that next time he makes a statement of this sort he should make it in such a way that it is clear that it is his personal opinion.

Senator Rae:

– It was made abundantly clear on every occasion. If it was not reported, I cannot help that. I have tried to make it abundantly clear.

Senator GEORGES:

– The Queensland reporting of the statement seemed to indicate -

Senator Maunsell:

– There is a problem there.

Senator GEORGES:

– Yes. There is a problem with communication. The Queensland reports seemed to indicate that the recommendation was coming from a standing committee of the Senate and that some of us on this side of the Senate were involved. I am in enough trouble in Queensland without being lumbered with having been a party to a decision made by one of our standing committees that we should sell TAA. 1 suggest that we get that matter cleared up as quickly as possible by way of debate. So that the matters can go onto the Notice Paper, I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1909

SENATE ESTIMATES COMMITTEES

Estimates Committee A

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

-by leave- I table additional information received by Estimates Committee A and seek leave for it to be incorporated in the Hansard record of the Committee ‘s proceedings.

Leave granted.

Estimates Committee B

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– by leave- I table additional information received by Estimates Committee B and seek leave for it to be incorporated in the Hansard record of the Committee’s proceedings.

Leave granted.

Estimates Committee C

Senator WALTERS:
Tasmania

-by leave-I table additional information received by Estimates Committee C and seek leave for it to be incorporated in the Hansard record of the Committee’s proceedings.

Leave granted.

Estimates Committee D

Senator MAUNSELL:
Queensland

-by leave- I table additional information received by Estimates Committee D and seek leave for it to be incorporated in the Hansard record of the Committee’s proceedings.

Leave granted.

Estimates Committee E

Senator TOWNLEY:
Tasmania

-by leave- I table additional information received by Estimates Committee E and seek leave for it to be incorporated in the Hansard record of the Committee’s proceedings.

Leave granted.

Estimates Committee F

Senator THOMAS:
Western Australia

-by leave- I table additional information received by Estimates Committee F and seek leave for it to be incorporated in the Hansard record of the Committee’s proceedings.

Leave granted.

page 1910

CRIMES (AIRCRAFT) AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Motion (by Senator Durack) agreed to:

That leave be given to introduce a Bill Tor an Act to amend the Crimes (Aircraft) Act 1963.

page 1910

POKER MACHINE CONTROL (AMENDMENT) ORDINANCE 1979

Notion of Motion

Senator RYAN:
Australian Capital Territory

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

That the Poker Machine Control (Amendment) Ordinance 1979 contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 7 of 1979 and made under the Scat of Government (Administration) Act 1910 be disallowed.

page 1910

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1979

Bills received from the House of Representatives.

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion ( by Senator Durack) 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 Bills being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of such Bills together in Committee of the Whole.

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

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

Second Readings

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I move:

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

Leave granted. 77ie speeches read as follows-

Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1979

This Bill, together with another that I shall introduce shortly, contains provisions to implement the proposal that the then Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and the Treasurer (Mr Howard) announced on 20 July last to the effect that certain revenues derived by Aboriginal communities and groups from the use of Aboriginal land for exploration and mining purposes be taxed by means of a withholding tax system. There is a clear need for certainty and simplicity in the rules governing tax on payments flowing to aboriginals from mining operations. It is important for representative bodies, such as the Aboriginal land councils which, on behalf of Aboriginal communities, are authorised to negotiate terms and conditions on which mining may take place, to have a ready means of assessing the after-tax benefits of payments to the communities.

Under the present income tax law this would not be an easy task. Much of the mineral royalties and other payments that Aboriginal communities can expect to receive as a result of agreements for mining projects in the Northern Territory and elsewhere in Australia will be received in the first instance by various Aboriginal bodies having representative and administrative roles. Those bodies will form a conduit through which mining payments will pass to the benefit of Aboriginal communities. Because of the unusual nature of this structure and other related factors, application of the present law would present difficulties. It would mean that, in practice, the after-tax value of payments received for the use of aboriginal land for mining purposes would not with any assurance be determined in advance by those negotiating on behalf of the Aboriginals. Perhaps more importantly, there could also be some quite inappropriate taxation effects. The new withholding tax will overcome these problems and will have a simple operation.

Broadly speaking, the tax, which will be a final tax not subject to later processes of assessment, will be collected by deduction at the earliest point at which revenues from mining activities are paid to representative distributing bodies, such as the Aboriginal land councils, or to Aboriginal persons or groups. Once a mining payment has borne withholding tax at the source in this way, subsequent distributions or applications of the after-tax proceeds, other than by way of remuneration for services rendered, will not be subject to any further income tax in the hands of the Aboriginal beneficiaries or of any interposed Aboriginal body. Specific tax exemption provisions in the Bill will ensure this.

Withholding tax is to be set at a flat rate of 6.4 per cent of the gross payments to which it will apply. This rate, which will be formally declared by the second Bill, is a convenient way of giving expression to the Government’s decision that a tax of 32 per cent be applied to one-fifth of the gross payments. I stress that the rate was arrived at after most careful consideration. It takes into account that substantial amounts attributable to payments from mining operations can be expected to be expended on the provision of facilities and services for Aboriginal communities and for the benefit of people whose income level is low. On balance, the Government believes that a rate calculated in this way is a reasonable revenue contribution out of mining payments of this kind.

The formal provisions contained in the Bill for calculation and collection of the withholding tax follow closely the form of the existing dividend and interest withholding taxes. Whilst the formal legislative structure of the tax is to impose liability for the withholding tax in the first instance on the Aboriginals or bodies who receive the payments, the recipients are not actually called on to make tax payments. Under the withholding tax collection provisions, mining companies, governments and others who make the payments will carry this responsibility. They will be required to deduct withholding tax and forward the deductions to the Taxation Office in the normal way in satisfaction of the tax liabilities of the recipients.

As announced in the statement of 20 July 1978, the withholding tax system is to apply to payments made on or after 1 July 1979. Opportunity is also being taken in this Bill to make two purely technical amendments to replace references to departments that have been abolished. Being substituted are references to the departments that, under current administrative arrangements, have assumed functions of the abolished departments. Detailed explanations of the various provisions of the Bill are contained in a memorandum that is being circulated. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Income Tax (Mining Withholding Tax) Bill 1979

This Bill is complementary to the Bill I have just introduced, lt will formally declare the rate of tax payable in respect of mining payments made on or after 1 July 1 979 relating to the use of Aboriginal land for mining and exploration purposes. Provisions governing the imposition of a withholding tax on the payments and machinery for collection of the tax by a system of deduction at source are contained in the earlier Bill. The combined effect of the two Bills will be to tax the payments at the rate of 6.4 per cent of the payments, which is effectively the same as a rate of 32 per cent applied to one-fifth of the payments. Details of the provisions of the Bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum being made available to honourable senators. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned,

page 1911

BOUNTY (BED SHEETING) AMENDMENT BILL 1979

page 1911

BOUNTY (DENTAL ALLOYS) BILL 1979

Bills received from the House of Representatives.

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Senator Durack) agreed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders bc suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of the Bills being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of such Bills together in Committee of the Whole.

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

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

Second Readings

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I move:

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

Leave granted.

The speeches read as follows-

Bounty (Bed Sheeting) Amendment Bill 1979

The purpose of the Bill now before the Senate is to amend the Bed Sheeting Bounty Act 1977 to increase the limit on the amount of available bounty to $600,000 in each 12 month period from 1 November 1977 and to revise, from 27 September 1978, the eligibility criteria in respect of bountiable sheeting to enable either the manufacturer thereof or another person to make up such sheeting into bed linen in Australia. The Bill reflects acceptance by the Government of recommendations by the Industries Assistance Commission contained in its reports on ‘Further Short Term Assistance Arrangements for Textiles’ (No. 147 of 25 October 1977) and ‘Conditions for Eligibility for Bed Sheeting Bounty’ (No. 179 of 7 August 1978). The measures contained in the Bill are designed to enable Australian manufacturers to compete more effectively against duty-free imported sheeting fabric.

The increase to $600,000 in the amount of available bounty is being made as a result of changes in the market which have increased the Australian manufacturers dependence upon polyester/cotton sheeting. The revised eligibility criteria will enable Australian manufacturers to obtain maximum utilization of the available bounty. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Bounty (Dental Alloys) Bill 1979

The purpose of the Bill now before the Senate is to give effect to the Government’s decision to provide assistance to the manufacture in Australia of dental alloy. Following advice and recommendation from the Temporary Assistance Authority in its report No. 46 of 5 February 1979 entitled ‘Dental Alloys’, it has been decided to accord assistance by way of a scheme providing for payment of bounty at the rate of $15 per kilogram by weight of dental alloy which, during the period to which the Act is to apply, is manufactured at registered premises and sold for use in Australia.

The bounty, which is to be payable from 22 December 1978, is intended by the Government to accord short-term assistance to Australian manufacturers pending an examination by the Industries Assistance Commission of the longterm assistance requirements of the industry. Because of the short-term nature of the proposal, provision has been made for the scheme to cease on 21 December 1979, or such later date as is fixed by proclamation, and for the amount available for payment of bounty not to exceed $45,000 annually. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Bounty (Paper) Bill 1979

The purpose of the Bill now before the Senate is to give effect to the Government’s decision to provide assistance to the manufacture in Australia of certain types of paper. Following advice and recommendation from the Industries Assistance Commission in its report No. 183 of 17 October 1978 entitled ‘Certain Paper and Paperboard’, it has been decided to accord assistance by way of a scheme providing for the payment of bounty to eligible Australian manufacturers. Bounty is to be payable at the rate of $90 per tonne on specified coated paper and $70 per tonne on specified uncoated paper which, during the period to which the Act applies, is produced and sold for use in Australia in the manufacture of certain printed matter excluding newspapers and telephone directories. The scheme will operate from 6 February 1979 until 5 February 1987.

It is considered by the Government that the proposed bounty assistance to be provided to this valuable and important local industry will lead to improved capacity utilization, increased employment and maintenance of stable prices to paper using industries. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 1912

PIPELINE AUTHORITY AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I move:

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows-

The purpose of the Bill now before the House is to give effect to the Government’s undertaking to restructure the Pipeline Authority. The Bill varies several functions of the Authority prescribed in the Act. Firstly, several of thi. present functions considered inappropriate for the Authority are being deleted. With the passage of the Bill, the Authority will no longer have unlimited power to buy and sell petroleum nor will it be required to ensure: Continuity of supplies of natural gas that is free from impurities; uniform gate-valve delivery prices throughout Australia; the retention and processing in Australia of condensate, petroleum gas and other substances derived from natural gas; and the control of petroleum reserves.

Secondly, the Bill clarifies the role of the Authority in the construction of pipelines. In future, any proposed pipeline construction project will require the specific authorisation of the Parliament. The Bill for the construction of a new pipeline would contain details of the route, limits of deviation and cost estimates. Thirdly, the Authority’s advisory role is being clarified in the Bill. The Authority will be empowered to provide advice with respect to the conveyance or distribution of petroleum within Australia by means of pipelines to the Minister and, as approved by the Minister, to other bodies and people. This function will ensure that the Government has available advice from a body that has experience in the construction, maintenance and operation of a pipeline and that, in approriate circumstances, advice can be provided to other organisations and individuals.

The Bill also amends the provisions on membership of the Authority. The Authority will continue to have five members but in future the Secretary to the Department of National Development will not be a member ex-officio Provision is made for the appointment of a Deputy Chairman. The opportunity is also being taken to bring a number of provisions in the Act into line with provisions in other legislation establishing statutory authorities. In particular, the Bill places the Authority in a statutory relationship with the Public Service Board on matters relating to the staff of the Authority in line with Government policy directed towards similar working conditions for all who are in Government employment. The proposed amendments to the financial provisions, of the Act will bring the legislation more into line with comparable provisions in other statutory authority legislation.

In conducting its business, the Authority is required to act in accordance with sound commercial principles and is funded only by way of its own earnings and borrowings on which it is required to pay interest. The Authority is generating sufficient cash flow to meet the cost of its day to day operations and also make a contribution towards its interest commitments to the Commonwealth Government. In brief, within a short time following completion of the MoombaSydney pipeline the Authority became a net contributor to the Budget. I commend the Bill to the honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 1913

AUSTRALIAN FISHING INDUSTRY

Proposed Reference to Standing Committee on National Resources

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

-I move:

The Senate will recall that on 10 October last year I moved a similar motion and, for some unknown reason, the motion was deleted from the Notice Paper. I have moved the motion again today in order to have this matter restored to the Notice Paper. Since I moved that motion on 10 October last year, it has become more important than ever that the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources should take up an inquiry into this matter. We now know that we have many more foreign vessels encroaching into our waters. I think it was only last week that in Queensland a Taiwanese captain was given a gaol sentence of six months. Other matters make the holding of such an inquiry important, including joint fishing ventures which are being entered into. Many of the professional fishermen around the coast of Australia are still expressing concern that a full, in depth inquiry into the Commonwealth’s involvement in the Australian fishing industry has never been held. As a member of the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources, I hope that that Committee shortly will consider my motion and will see fit to take on board an inquiry into the matter.

Debate (on motion by Senator Peter Baume) adjourned.

page 1913

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 3) 1978-79

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 8 May, on motion by Senator Guilfoyle:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I take advantage of this second reading debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) to raise some matters that are of great importance to the Australian people generally and in particular the people of New South

Wales, the State which I have the honour to represent in this Senate. I want to raise, first, the question of wrong impressions that have been gained by the public at large as a result of certain statements made last week by the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) to the effect that the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations had recommended the disposal by the Government of Trans-Australia Airlines. I do so because there are on that Committee three Labor senators- my colleague Senator McAuliffe from Queensland, Senator Evans from Victoria and myself. I wish immediately to refute the statement by the Minister because, as every member of the Senate would know, Trans-Australia Airlines was established by the Chifley Labor Government in the immediate post-war years and has served the Australian community magnificently. Never for a moment would I or any of my colleagues of the Labor movement be a signatory to a document that suggested the disposal by the Government of Trans-Australian Airlines.

I raise this matter now, on the second reading debate of Appropriation Bill (No. 3), rather than on the adjournment this evening. I do so to put the record straight. In December 1978- the end of last year- the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations presented its report on statutory authorities of the Commonwealth. It was the first report on the subject by the Committee, following a reference to it by the Senate on 6 October 1977 in the following terms:

The continuing oversight of the financial and administrative affairs or undertakings of Commonwealth statutory authorities, and other bodies which the Commonwealth owns or controls wholly or substantially, and of the appropriateness and .significance of their practice in accounting to the Parliament.

The matter had been debated at length by the Standing Committee for as long a period as from October 1977 to December 1978. The report, which I consider to be an excellent one, dealt with the responsibility of statutory authorities to account to the Australian public through their accounting to the Australian Parliament. Not one word was said in that report by any member of the Committee about the Government disposing of TAA to the private sector of the community. Indeed, as far as I can see, the only substantial reference to TAA is that which appears at paragraph 3.5, on page 48, and reads:

Some government business undertakings have been incorporated under a State Companies Act or Territorial Companies Ordinance even though they perform functions of a similar type to other authorities created by separate statute. A prime example is that Qantas is a company incorporated in Queensland but with all shares held by the Commonwealth Government, whereas Trans-Australia Airlines is governed by a Commission created by the Australian National Airlines Act of 1945.

Later, at page 53, there is another mention of Trans-Australia Airlines:

On a more theoretical level, the aggregate approach adopted in the study . . .

The reference is to the study by the private consultant to the Committee- . . inevitably underestimates the impact of any particular authority on the market within which it operates. For example, Trans-Australia Airlines (the Australian National Airlines Commission) will be far more important in markets directly and indirectly related to the airline industry than will be indicated by an aggregate approach. However, because of the difficulties of analysing each market within which a particular authority operates, the approach adopted was aggressive.

A summary of the main findings of the study is then set out. That was the report of the Committee. First, in October 1977 the Committee was charged by the Senate with considering the overall responsibility and activities of statutory authorities, and of their responsibility to account to the Parliament. Rightly and properly, the members of the Committee considered those terms of reference at length, dealt with them at length, took evidence in December 1978, presented a detailed and comprehensive report. No statement was made about any proposal whatever to dispose of TAA.

Later, Senator Rae, who is the Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations, in his capacity as a private senator representing the State of Tasmania, on 20 March, 1 979, asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport:

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

Senator Chaney, representing the Minister for Transport, said in reply that he would draw the attention of the Minister to Senator Rae ‘s comments about what would be consistent with the present Government’s philosophy. I mentioned that deliberately, and put it on record deliberately, because there is a dichotomy between the position Senator Rae occupied as the Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations when that Committee dealt with the responsibility for public accountability of statutory authorities and the position in which, as a private senator representing Tasmania, he has raised in the Senate the matter of TAA

Unfortunately, arising from those circumstances, during the recent recess, when the matter became public property, the Minister for Transport said last Tuesday that all he knew about this question was that Senator Rae’s Committee had recommended that the Government look at the disposal of a number of statutory corporations and businesses owned by it, and that TAA was one of these. In making such an interpretation the Minister was quite wrong, and I think it only fair for me to say at the outset that Senator Rae has endeavoured to set about correcting that misinterpretation. Indeed I, as a Labor member of the Committee, was so concerned about the situation that I issued a Press statement denying that the Committee had discussed the matter and noted that Senator Rae had issued a similar statement. Unfortunately, the damage had been done, and the newspapers, seeing an opportunity for sensationalism, took the matter up. It became headline news, not only in the newspapers but also on television and in radio broadcasts. Even as late as last night, despite the denials that had been made by Senator Rae and by myself as a Labor senator, we saw in the Sydney Daily Mirror the following statement in the ‘Business Guide’ under the heading ‘Politics casts pall on market’.

Sharemarkets usually do well when Parliaments are in recess, but last week was an exception to the rule.

Although most of our governments. Federal and State, were taking official winter breaks, the Sydney sharemarket for example, lost more than 12 index points last week.

There were half a dozen new schemes for modifying tax laws.

Then followed the gravamen of the statement as far as the Senate committee is concerned-

Senator Peter Rae suggested that TAA could be sold while the study group he heads appeared to suggest that all statutory bodies -

I emphasise the words ‘all statutory bodies’- like Qantas and Telecom should be sold to the private sector.

As a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations I refute entirely the misleading interpretation that has been put on the matter by the Minister for Transport. I refute entirely the assertion by Mr Beaumont which appeared in the Daily Mirror last night that the Committee had suggested that statutory bodies such as Qantas Airways Ltd or

Telecom Australia should be sold to the private sector. I assure the Senate that since the Minister’s statement was made I have received many telephone calls from members and supporters of the Labor movement complaining that such a recommendation could have been made by the Committee. In my interest and in fairness to my colleagues Senator McAuliffe and Senator Evans, I raise the matter in this debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) in order to deny the accuracy of any such suggestion. No such suggestion has been made.

Having mentioned that matter, I wish now to deal with another matter relating to government information. An urgency in the Senate was initiated by my colleague, Senator Ryan. It concerned the Fraser Government’s information services. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, representing the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr McLeay), replied in that debate to some of the assertions that had been made by Senator Ryan on behalf of the Opposition. One of the statements that the Minister made was that the Labor Government had set up the Department of the Media with an annual budget of $ 17.5m. He also stated that the Labor Government established a liaison service. As Senator Ryan pointed out, that service was abolished when the present Government came into office. The Minister went on to say that in 1975 the liaison service, supported by the Whitlam Government, cost $315,000 more than the cost of the Government Information Unit and the public relations ministerial staff of the present Government. I have read the Minister’s reply given in the course of that debate. I refer to Senate Hansard page 1116 of 29 March which records comments relating to the Government Information Unit. One could properly be excused for believing that the Labor Government had spent $ 17.5m on propaganda through its establishment of the Department of the Media and that the present Government is spending an infinitesimal sum in this area, namely, $233,000 a year.

I point out that the Department of the Media was formed by the Labor Government for the purpose of bringing together in a co-ordinated manner all activities relating to information that were the responsiblity of the Government. When we came to office we found, for instance, that the old Australian News and Information Bureau was in a backwater of the then Department of the Interior. We found that the Australian Government Publishing Service was linked with the Department of the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts. It was complete maladministration on the part of previous conservative governments that there was no tie up, no knitting of these organisations.

It was the responsibility of the Labor Government to bring some effective administration to government information services and government involvement in communications and media matters, to knit together all of those far flung resources. They were brought together under the Department of the Media, which I headed as Minister. It is completely wrong for the Minister and the Government to suggest that because the Department of the Media was abolished all the activities that went on within it were abolished. They have merely been transferred back to old departments or to newly created departments. For instance, as I understand it, the Australian Government Advertising Service is now not within the Department of the Media or the Department of the Treasury, but within the Department of Post and Telecommunications. The Australian Information Service is now within the Department of Administrative Services, as is the Australian Government Publishing Service. Film Australia, which was part of the old News and Information Bureau under previous conservative governments, is now an adjunct of the Australian Film Commission.

It is wrong for the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services or any other Government member to suggest that whilst we spent $ 17.5 m on the establishment of the Department of the Media, this Government does not spend one cent in any of these activities. For a start, the figure of $17. 5m is wrong. The figure was merely $13. 4m, as I shall show in a moment. All of the activities that were engaged in previously are still being engaged in by the Government today, but are spread throughout the whole range of government departments rather than being grouped under the umbrella of one department and one Minister. I have had some figures compiled by the Statistical Service of the Parliamentary Library headed ‘Expenditure under the Department of the Media (a) in 1974-75 and Expenditure on Similar Functions- 1975-76 to Estimated 1978-79’. I mention that expenditures up to 1978-79 are only estimated because, as the footnote in the document explains, from 1975- 76- the year in which the Labor Government went out of office- onwards the figures include only estimates of identifiable items of expenditure, that is, estimates of salaraies for broadcasting division and publicity. From 1976- 77 onwards the figures are not shown separately in Appropriation Bills. They include only estimates of salaries and identifiable administrative expenses. Mr President, as you can see, the table is a short and simple one. I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows-

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-As will be seen from the table, in the 1974-75 year of Labor administration the amount of expenditure under the Department of the Media was $13,447,000. In the last Budget that we brought down, the Hayden Budget of 1975-76, the total amount of expenditure incurred by the Department of the Media was $13,420,000. The estimates for salaries and identifiable administrative expenses in this area in 1978-79 amount to $12m. That figure does not take into account all of the other expenses which cannot be identified because they are deliberately hidden by the way in which this Government has compiled its budgetary assessments. In a nutshell, by the presentation of that document it can be seen that this Government is spending much more today on those matters which were under the umbrella of the former Department of the Media than the Labor Government did in the years 1974-75 and 1975-76.

That brings me to another matter concerning the establishment by the Government last year of an organisation known as the Government Information Unit. This unit was apparently established by a government decision on 29 May 1978, but the Public Service Board did not issue the necessary approval for staff positions until 25 October 1 978. As a result of a debate that took place on the initiative of Senator Ryan, I decided to do a little more research into this subject. I noted, as I have already indicated, that the Government, not a Minister, but the Government at large, made a decision to establish the Government Information Unit in May 1 978. All honourable senators know that Government Ministers are very keen on issuing ministerial statements. We have a Commonwealth Record sent around. We have a daily release of ministerial statements. But, having searched as far as I can, I can find no record of any ministerial statement having been issued in or about May 1 978 by any Minister telling the members of the Parliament that a Government Information Unit has been established. There is some reference to the matter on 20 February 1 979 in the Oakes Report, a journal in which it is stated:

Mr Vince Matthews, the $30,000.a.year head of the Federal Government’s new ‘communications unit’, has angered some members of the staff of the Parliamentary Library.

There is an article in the Melbourne Age of 8 February 1979 headed, ‘Libs can blame only themselves.’ That is another article written by Mr Oakes. It says:

Public relations advisers can help a politician project his views, his policies, even his personality, to best advantage. But they are limited by the raw material they have to work with.

There is an article by Mr Russell Schneider in The Australian of 24 December 1978 headed, An exercise in cosmetics. Government tries to bridge communications gap. ‘ There is an article in the Sydney Sun-Herald of 21 January 1979 which is headed ‘Moves (in secret) to bolster the Government’s standing’. There is an editorial in The Australian of 30 January 1979 headed ‘Dismal record in public relations’. There was also an interview during an Australian Broadcasting Commission public relations program on 24 February 1979 in which a reference to the establishment of the Government Information Unit was made.

It will be noted that nearly all of the Press clippings to which I have alluded are from the period January and February 1 979. But this Unit was established by way of government decision in May 1978. 1 suspect that the Government was either embarrassed about the decision to establish the Unit, or it did not want the Australian people to know of its establishment at that time. It is complete and utter hypocrisy and humbug for Ministers to suggest that the Labor Government spent $ 1 7.5m a year on government information projects whereas this Government is only spending some $233,000 a year. The $233,000 a year, of course, only refers to the Government Information Unit which has now been established, which has as its head Mr Matthews, on $30,000 a year, which has a grade Al journalist, which has a research officer, a steno-secretary, and which, surprisingly enough, according to the Senate Estimates Committee E record, is attached immediately to the staff of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. How a Government Information Unit, a unit charged with supplying information to the public about activities of government, can be attached to the staff of the Minister for Industry and Commerce is completely beyond my comprehension. I tell the Government, and I tell the Minister at the table, the Minister for Social Security, (Senator Guilfoyle) that I will be watching this matter closely to see what use the Government makes of this Unit as a propaganda unit serving the interests of the Government itself rather than informing the public at large what is going on so far as the overall activities of government departments are concerned.

Finally, I wish to raise another matter concerning the Australian Broadcasting Commission. You, Mr President, will realise that when the Labor Government was in office it made record amounts of money available to the Australian Broadcasting Commission to build that organisation into one of the great national broadcasting units of the world. At the time that the Labor Government left office, the amount of Australian content being broadcast and televised by the ABC on the airwaves of this country was almost 75 per cent. It is now down to 52 per cent. Tragically, it is going to be much less because now the ABC being denied sufficient funds by this Government, is unable to televise the future cricket tests to take place between England and Australia. That has now been left to a commercial network. I tell the Government that no approach has yet been made to the Australian Broadcasting Commission regarding the rights of the Commission to televise those cricket tests outside the normal area of viewing. The Channel 9 network, which has now obtained the rights to televise the cricket tests, is still trying to sell its programs to the regional commercial stations. How can the Australian Broadcasting Commission say to the people at large that it will or will not be prepared to televise the cricket tests outside of the new normal viewing area when at this stage no offer has been made by the Channel 9 network to the ABC to allow it to televise in the outback area? It concerns me that there is a continual downgrading of the activities and organisation of this once great broadcasting service.

Let me read an answer that I received today from the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Staley). I asked:

Did the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s Annual Report 1 977-78 state that ‘staff ceilings and budget restraints this year somewhat restricted the gathering of news . .

The answer to that question was, as it had to be, yes’. I then asked:

Will the Minister consider methods of alleviating the Commission’s problems of budget restraints and tight staff ceilings in the interests of maintaining a national news service of uniform coverage and standard.

The Minister’s reply to that question was:

The Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission has indicated to me certain problems which the Commission has encountered. As I have previously indicated in Parliament the Government is presently examining these and related matters.

How sincere is an answer of that nature when we know that for the last week Ministers have been meeting as an expenditure review committee to consider the further cutting of public expenditure? Not only has the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s ability to broadcast sporting matters been taken away from it but also, as a result of the cut in its expenditure and the severe staff ceilings that have been imposed upon it, the news service which it is able to offer to the Australian people and which it was offering on a completely independent basis when the Labor Government was in office is in jeopardy.

The independence of the ABC is also seriously in jeopardy. On 3 May I received an answer from the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications to a question that I had placed on notice on 20 February 1979. I asked the following question:

In which cities or towns in Australia does the Australian Broadcasting Commission use stringers who are employed by a newspaper, broadcasting station or television station in the city or town.

The list is alarming. Because of that I intend to set out the areas where that situation exists. The Minister provided the following answer:

Only at Albany in Western Australia does the ABC have a news correspondent who is also employed by a commercial radio station.

It is incredible that the news correspondent for the ABC at Albany in Western Australia is in fact employed by its competitor, a commercial radio station. The answer continues:

News correspondents who have connections with local newspapers- most as employees but some as owners or partners in the publishing companies concerned- are used in the following centres:

New South Wales:

Griffith, Finley, Narrandera, Deniliquin, Wagga Wagga, Temora, Hay, Hillston, Bombala, Eden, Bega, Casino, Cons Harbour, Grafton, Mullumbimby, Murwillumbah, Dorrigo, Wauchope, Taree, Muswellbrook, Scone, Gosford, Singleton, Lithgow, Bathurst, Parkes, Forbes, Dubbo, Mudgee, Wellington, Narrabri, Wollongong.

Practically every regional town that services the ABC has reporting the affairs of the ABC a person who is either an employee of a local newspaper in that city or town or the owner or partner in the publishing company involved. The answer continues:

Victoria

Kyabram, Shepparton, Wangaratta, Cobram, Beechworth, Corryong, Horsham, Ararat, Boort, Camperdown, Colac, Dimboola, Kerang, Maryborough, Mildura, Ouyen, Portland, St Arnaud, Warracknabeal, Warragul, Foster, Koorumburra, Wonthaggi, Mirboo North, Orbost, Yarram.

Queensland

Charleville, Blackall, Monto, Allora, Mt Isa, Stanthorpe, Strathpine.

South Australia

Balaklava, Clare, Port Lincoln, Port Pirie, Streaky Bay, Angaston, Kingscote, Kingston (SE), Naracoorte, Waikerie, Broken Hill, Alice Springs.

Western Australia

Northam, Merredin, Busselton, Manjimup.

Tasmania

Scottsdale, Illfraville, Sheffield, Devonport, Deloraine.

Canberra

Goulburn, Yass, Tumut, Crookwell, Cootamundra.

Throughout Australia the ABC is reliant on local newspaper employees, owners or partners in publishing companies in the towns that I have mentioned for the despatch of news from those towns and districts. It is a scandalous state of affairs that that situation has been allowed to exist under this Government as a result of the niggardly treatment given by the Australian Government to the ABC. I have taken advantage of the second reading debate to raise these matters now because they are of great importance to the Australian people. They are of particular importance to the people of New South Wales. 1 sincerely trust that the Government will take cognisance of these matters when it is drawing up the forthcoming Budget.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– I would like to refer briefly to a matter raised by Senator Douglas McClelland. I believe that the work of a committee which has been harmonious and most effective has been, unfortunately, inadvertently misconstrued. The Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations, of which Senator McClelland and I are members, has reported to the Senate on a number of matters. I confirm what Senator McClelland has said, that is, that at no time has the Committee suggested the sale of Trans-Australia Airlines. I also confirm that I have not suggested in any way that the Committee has made such a recommendation. I have put forward a personal view. It is a view which is supported within sections of the Liberal Party of Australia. It is neither a matter on which I would expect the Senate Standing Committee- made up as it is of three Liberal and three Labor members- to be likely to reach agreement nor a matter which is to be dealt with by the Committee. The Committee has not sought or purported to deal with it. I have never at any time purported to suggest that it was dealing with it.

I shall read briefly the statement which I made correcting the situation and to which Senator McClelland has referred as it will help to confirm what he has said. 1 issued a statement on 17 May 1979 in which I said:

Wilh regard to my proposal to sell TAA to a company to bc formed by the Commonwealth Government with an emphasis for employees and small investors to purchase the shares, I wish to make clear that this was put forward by me as an individual Senator.

At no time have I suggested that this proposal was contained in any report of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations.

In so far as the Minister for Transport, Mr Nixon, may have indicated that he believed the matter was raised in a Committee report he was, as he has explained to me since, acting on a misunderstanding created by something he was told yesterday morning and before he had a chance to examine the Committee’s report.

I first raised the matter publicly in a question in the Senate on 20 March 1979.

I propose to pursue the matter as an individual Senator and member of the Liberal Party.

I shall now quote briefly from a front page report on this matter in the Sydney Morning Herald of 16 May. The report states:

Senator Rae is chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations, whose main role is to oversee all Commonwealth statutory authorities including TAA.

He stressed he was speaking as an individual senator, and not as chairman of the joint committee.

I may say that that is what I did whenever I was speaking about this proposition to any section of the media. I understand Senator McClelland ‘s concern that some of the supporters of the Australian Labor Party think that he and his colleagues on the Committee have behaved in a way which would not be regarded as traditional within the Labor Party and therefore his concern to clarify the matter. I also emphasise that our Committee has been, and is continuing to be, involved in work which is primarily related to an assessment of the accountability of statutory authorities in Australia- an assessment of the procedures; an assessment of the adequacy or otherwise of any legislation which exists at the moment in relation to accountability; the timeliness of reports; the adequacy of those reports; and all other aspects of the question of accountability and the role of the statutory authorities in the economy of Australia. That is the major function of the Committee.

While I am speaking I would like to take the opportunity to outline briefly to the Senate the proposal which was referred to in the Press and other sections of the media last week. I believeagain I stress that I am expressing an individual and personal point of view- that big government is a matter of concern not only in Australia but also in a large number of similar countries in the world. I believe that in the post-war period government has tended to grow to the stage where it is too intrusive, where it is too large and where it has problems in governing itself. I think it is interesting that a question raised in Canada, the United States of America, Britain and other places has been: Can government govern itself?

We have a situation where statutory authorities, government departments, government activities have expanded dramatically in Australia, both from a Federal point of view and from a State government point of view. We have almost 250 statutory authorities of the Commonwealth. In Victoria alone there are over 500 statutory authorities. I cannot give the figures in relation to the other States, but they are comparable to the Victorian figure, according to their size. There are vast numbers of statutory authorities of the Commonwealth. Where they are engaged in commercial activities, where they are engaged in activities in which there is no direct government function, I find it hard to understand why they should be conducted by the government.

Trans-Australia Airlines was established in the early developmental period of the domestic airline services in Australia. After the Second World War I believe that it was not unreasonable that government should have been involved in the development of a domestic airline service. I believe that it was not unreasonable that government funding and government assistance should have been available. What has happened since then is that we have developed a two airline policy. We have a situation where our domestic airlines are subject to a large amount of government interference as well as an amount of government support through guaranteed loans to enable the airlines to purchase aircraft. In fact, one of the rather extraordinary things about TAA is the extent to which it has relatively low shareholders’ funds and very high loans as a result of the guaranteeing of those loans by government. The situation is that its gearing ratio is quite extraordinary for an operation of its size. But that is a matter to which I will refer further in a moment.

Since the two airline policy developed and since our airline system has developed, we have reached a stage at which many Australians believe- I believe this also- that it is time to review our approach. I think it is time to ask: Is there a good purpose still to be served by having government own and operate one of the two national airlines? From what I can see, it is not necessary in the operation of the two airline policy for one of the two airlines to continue to be owned by the Government. Whether we should keep the two airline policy or vary it and whether the Government should keep the ownership of TAA are separate questions, which are divisible. I believe that both questions need consideration.

I would like to refer today only to the question of selling TAA. I think that if it were owned by private enterprise and if it were in direct competition with another private enterprise airline, we would be more likely to have the natural development of a greater degree of competition and, whichever party was in government, it would be more likely to start to review the two airline policy with a view to achieving that which most Australians seem to want, which is a departure from what Australians see as a marked lack of competition. It may be that some of the criticism of TAA and Ansett Airlines of Australia as the heavenly twins, as they are quite often called, is unfair. It may be that their public relations is not as good as it should be in explaining the extent to which competition does exist. But I do say that it is a common belief throughout Australia that there is a lack of competition between the two airlines. People see the airlines sending aircraft off as if they were tied together with a string, one after another, at particular times of the day instead of people having a greater choice of services, it is a matter of which airline one travels with at a particular time. Many people complain about this.

One point I wish to emphasise is that it is often mistakenly said that Australia’s airline services are very expensive compared with those provided in the rest of the world. I produced and tabled in the Senate no so long ago, figures showing the comparative situations in regard to cents per kilometre flown in the United States, Europe and Australia. Those figures show that the normal economy fares of Australia’s domestic airline services are comparable with those of the United States. The number of cents paid per kilometre in Australia is less than half the average number paid for similar normal economy fares in Europe. I believe that that is something of which Australians can be proud. The Australian airlines- one at the moment is government owned and the other at the moment is privately owned or is a public listed company- have been able to develop a safe, efficient, and reasonably priced airline service for Australians.

But we in Australia suffer from the tyranny of distance. We suffer from the fact that in Europe one can travel from national capital to national capital for a price which is relatively low compared with the price one has to pay in Australia to get from one State capital to another. Because Europe is so much smaller than Australia and Australia is so large, it adversely affects a large number of aspects of the development of our national economy and national life, it adversely affects our tourist industry, and a number of other matters.

The difficulty is not the fact that we have to pay a large number of cents per kilometre but that we have to travel an awful lot of kilometres to get from one part of Australia to another. This is a matter which may have to be taken into account in looking at other ways in which we can overcome the problem of moving people, providing mobility for people, around this continent of ours, even though to this stage the airlines have been able to develop a safe, efficient service at a relatively low cost per kilometre. I believe that greater competition could help in the development of that sort of service. I think that’ the airlines themselves would probably find that a number of aspects of the two airline policy are not matters which they would regard with a wild degree of enthusiasm.

Without being in any way a radical, I cannot see any reason why we should not be starting to think of making two changes: One generally to the two airline policy and the other to the structure of TAA. I believe that a number of useful purposes could be served in considering the structure of TAA. Why does government have to involve itself in commercial activity in our type of society? I do not know the answer. If there were a national role to be played, such as is the case with Qantas Airways Ltd, I could understand the present situation. One might argue that Qantas is the national flag carrier, that it is operating under international agreements made between the Government of Australia and other governments, that it is operating against other government-owned international airlines. It may be argued therefore that our international flag carrier ought to be a government-owned operation. I make no comment as to whether that is right or wrong; I simply say that could be an argument. So far as TAA is concerned, no such argument can be advanced for the continuation of government enterprise as opposed to private enterprise. The Government has long since lost its developmental role. In the early development days of TAA a case may have been able to be put that government had a role to play.

If we were to consider this proposition of selling TAA, I believe that the time is right to try to engage a greater degree of flexibility and competition and to take the opportunity to improve the workings of our private enterprise economy. I emphasise that not only Senator Douglas McClelland has been concerned but also I have been concerned about some of the misunderstandings that arise. The Labor Party spokesman on transport, Mr Peter Morris, has claimed that I wish to suggest that TAA be sold to big business. The point I have made repeatedly is that it be prevented from being sold to big business. For that reason I wish to outline again the plan. The plan is that the Government should incorporate a company which would be a public listed company. It would be listed on the stock exchanges, but its share structure would be such that first priority would be given to the employees of” TAA to purchase shares in their company. That could be done through a plan which was developed by Louis Kelso in the United States and which is operating successfully in a large number of cases in that country. He cites the example of a janitor at Sears Roebuck, a company which has engaged in this type of plan. The janitor retired not so long ago with $600,000 worth of shares in Sears Roebuck. I believe that a large number of advantages exist from having an approach of worker participation in equity as opposed to the approach of worker participation in management.

I believe that if we have worker participation in equity there is greater encouragement to the employee without taking away the opportunity to have some appropriate worker participation in management. If there is worker participation in equity through a company structured to give priority in share holding to the employees, a situation is provided where employees receive three rewards for their work instead of just one. Firstly, they receive one reward of salary or wages, secondly, they receive the reward of a growth in their equity in the company through the growing value of the shares- if it operates successfully and as it grows with the growth of the nation- and, thirdly, there is the reward for their effort which is through the dividends on the shares which they hold. So instead of employees in this situation having only a single reward they have a triple reward. I believe that this is far more likely to make them enthusiastic, efficient and productive employees than if they are limited to a situation where their reward is solely that which they can grind out in industrial negotiation. All too often in the airline industry in recent years employees have resorted to strike tactics in order to achieve some improvement in income. I would think that if employees could see that the company was more likely to be profitable if they kept the airlines running and that they would get a share of the profits, then they would be less likely to look only to industrial disputes in order to improve their position.

There are many aspects of our capitalist or our private enterprise system which I believe need development and review. If we are to retain that system it has to be efficient, fair and supported by a large percentage of the population. If employees do not feel that they are involved in it or if they do not feel that they have the opportunity to participate on a fair basis, then I believe that they are more likely to be attracted to other approaches such as those advocated by some of the democratic socialist and socialist parties which advocate the nationalisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange. This is the approach of the communists or other people who do not put at the foremost the private enterprise system as the best system likely to make an economy work satisfactorily for the people who are involved in it. If we want the private enterprise system to work satisfactorily then I believe we have to facilitate the individual around Australia, the person with small savings, the employee as well as the big investor- the capital owner- to be able to participate in private enterprise. This is one important way in which it would be possible for the Government to give a lead to those who are at the moment in controlling positions within our capitalist system to encourage worker equity participation and to encourage small investor participation.

I believe that one of the most disastrous things that has happened to Australia in the past 10 years or so has been the effect of a succession of rip-offs of small investors; a succession of routs and ramps and raids by people- many of whom ought to be in gaol but are not- who have used an ineffective police system in Australia, the stock exchange, or the existing company law, for their own benefit in order to manipulate, abuse and destroy the savings of many small people. I do not regard that as being likely to be conducive to people enthusiastically supporting a private enterprise system. I believe that we should start to make the regulation of that area effective. We should not do this with a view to making people’s decisions for them, not with regulations which say you must do this or you must do that, but with regulations which ensure that the system works fairly, freely and openly and in which disclosure is an important part. Disclosure is as important as a quid pro quo to limited liability arising from incorporation. It has always been regarded as the quid pro quo. Disclosure needs to be taken further to ensure that people are not misled and that they are able to make their decisions based on full and proper information.

I see the cleaning up of some of the abuses and malpractices that have taken place within our securities industry over the past 10 years and more as an important part of the development of what some people describe as participatory capitalism. Rather than use that term, I say that it is a system in which the average individual, who can save some money, believes that by investing that money he can improve his position, his participation in the growth and rewards that come from growth in this great country of ours. I suggest that the Government should be giving a lead in this respect. It should be using the opportunity it has with Trans-Australia Airlines to give that lead and to try out the Kelso plan which is not a novel plan. It has been around for a number of years and has been considered in Australia, particularly since the Company Directors Association of Australia brought Louis Kelso out here in late 1975 at which time he gave a large number of lectures and explanations of how the plan works. I had the pleasure of meeting him at that time and I was most impressed with his proposals.

Senator Thomas:

– In your opinion would a change in legislation be necessary for the incorporation of the Kelso plan in Australia?

Senator RAE:

– No, but I believe that we can structure a company under the existing legislation. In fact I understand that at the moment a proposal is on its way to- if not with- the Minister for Transport suggesting just this in relation to TAA. It is from somebody who is an expert in the implementation of that plan. I hope that it will receive due consideration. I will inquire at Question Time tomorrow whether it has. Going further with my suggestion in relation to TAA, I emphasise that first and foremost the company should be structured to give priority in shareholding to its employees. Secondly, I believe it should be structured with a limitation on the size of parcels of shares, not to close up the market entirely or to adversely affect the marketability of shares but to ensure that it cannot be taken over by either overseas or Australian transport interests, or by other big business interests wishing to gain control. It will be possible to go further and legislate in relation to who may own shares and who may not. However, to me that seems unnecessary. If the company is structured properly it is not necessary to go to that extent. That has been done by certain State Governments in relation to another airline and by other State Governments in relation to oil exploration companies. It is not unknown in Australian legislation and in company law.

In summary the suggestion in no way is to sell TAA to big business. In no way is it a matter of simply saying: ‘Let us flog off one of the few successful things in which the Government is involved ‘. It is a matter of saying: ‘ Why does the Government have to engage in economic enterprises at all when they can be satisfactorily carried out on a private enterprise basis where there can be much greater incentive to efficiency and productivity?’ I think that we have an excellent opportunity to do just that. Finally, I refer briefly to a situation in relation to annual reports. Today the annual report of the Australian

National Airlines Commission, which administers TAA, was tabled in this chamber as well as the statutory statement made by Ansett Airlines. The reports were tabled 1 1 months after the end of the last financial year. I believe it is significant that Ansett Transport Industries Ltd was able to present to its shareholders its forty-first annual report for the year ended 30 June 1978 before the end of October 1978. That report has been available to shareholders, to stock exchanges, to regulatory authorities, to members of parliament, and to anybody else for more than six months. It is important that reports be made available early after the close of the financial year so that those who are concerned to consider what is happening, in this case in the airline industry, can get the information before it is so old as to be of historical interest only. I note that the statutory report to the Minister from Ansett Airlines of Australia, which was tabled today, is dated December of last year. Yet for some reason it has taken the Minister or his Department until now to get the report to a stage where it can be made available publicly. I emphasise that all the figures reflecting the full activities of Ansett Transport Industries were made available publicly last October in a report to its shareholders.

Let me turn now to TAA. Today, for the first time, we have access to the figures and the report of TAA. I believe that this is one of the things which happens too often when a bureaucracy is involved in the administration of an activity. I understand that the financial statements for 1977- 78- that is, for the year ended 30 June 1978- were formally approved by resolution of the Commission in early September 1978. It would appear that the Commission is fairly efficient and effective in preparing its financial statements but they were made available publicly only today. I understand that the financial statements were forwarded into the bureaucratic machine in September last year. Until today the public, the taxpayers, who may be categorised currently as the shareholders in TAA, together with everybody else who is interested in the operation of the airline industry and perhaps TAA in particular, have been kept in ignorance of the figures. I cannot think of a reason why TAA could not have published its draft on the same basis as any other statutory authority publishes a draft. An explanation could have been given that the figures were still subject to approval or certification by the Auditor-General, or whatever other requirement may hold up publication. I note again that a very small part of the delay has resulted from the certification of accounts by the

Auditor-General. As I understand it, the accounts were received back from the Minister for Transport or the Department of Transport in mid-March. They were forwarded then to the Auditor-General, who issued his certificate on 1 0 April. Again, one can hardly say that it was the Auditor-General’s fault that matters were held up. I think it becomes reasonably clear with which Minister and which department the accounts have been residing, for good or bad reasons, for quite some period of time.

I note that it was in June 1 978 that the previous annual report of TAA was tabled in the Parliament. It seems that the practice has grown up whereby TAA as a statutory authority provides information to the bureaucracy, the bureaucracy slowly takes its inexorable course, and eventually but very belatedly the information comes out at the other end of the process. 1 would have thought that if TAA were a publicly listed company owned by its shareholders- employees, the small investors of Australia- it would not be in the position of having to withhold its figures until after they had been through the bureaucracy. In making my remarks about TAA, I am not being critical of the company or of its operation. I am enthusiastic about how much better things could be in relation to the lot of the employees of TAA, the lot of our private enterprise system in Australia and the degree of competition and effectiveness in the airline industry of Australia. For that reason, I make this suggestion.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– This afternoon I was pleased to hear Senator Douglas McClelland ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick) a question about the future of Trans-Australia Airlines. The Minister said without any uncertainty that the Government has no intention of disposing of TAA. Of course, this notion developed from what Senator Rae has had to say. It may well be true that the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations said nothing about these things. If it had, Senator Rae’s argument about handing over TAA to a combination of staff and private shareholders and making it part of private industry would have been strengthened. Those of us in the Senate who have debated this subject over the years since TAA was formed know quite well that under the two-airline system TAA does not have the opportunity to develop in a competitive way. The two-airline policy was designed to strengthen and back up Ansett aviation, not only in terms of finance but also in terms of the choice of equipment. Liberal governments have always thrust upon TAA their thoughts about equipment and policy.

Senator Rae referred to the delay by statutory authorities in sending reports to the Senate, and I agree with what he said. But this criticism applies not only to TAA and Ansett; it applies also to many statutory authorities. We are still waiting for the report from the Australian National Railways Commission.

Senator Rae:

– Since 1975.

Senator BISHOP:

– That is correct. It is important that committees of the Senate draw attention to these delays and urge that something bc done about them. I have- taken an interest in TAA ever since I entered the Senate. TAA is an efficient airline, and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. 1 am anxious to see that the government airline, which has often been hamstrung by government decisions to foster its private enterprise partner, should not feel any insecurity because of statements from the Government or Government senators. At this stage it is important that we ensure that TAA, as an efficient operator, will not be impeded by the suggestion that the Government will take certain action. The matter developed by Senate Rae certainly is related to the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations, but it is very clear from that report that nobody on the Committee was anxious that there be a takeover of TAA or any other authority. The Committee drew attention to the very important need to standardise procedures in respect of new authorities, and I agree completely with that recommendation. The following comment is made in paragraph 3.7 on page 49 of the report:

The Committee considers that, in future, if an authority has to be created many of these anomalies could be overcome by adopting the standard practice of creating the authority by separate statute if it varies from the departmental structure in one or more of the following important characteristics:

Freedom from Public Service Board control over starting.

Incorporation.

Freedom to raise or spend finance independently of the Commonwealth Government Budget.

Relief from audit by the Auditor-General.

I am prone to accept those recommendations because, in association with Mr Lionel Bowen, I was instrumental in setting up two commissions- the Postal Commission and the Telecommunications Commission. Nobody could say that they were not a great attribute for government. The Liberal-National Country Party Government was very fortunate as a result of those two organisations being set up as corporations. Nobody would suggest at this stage that anything should be done to impede them. In fact with regard to those two corporate bodies there are too many ministerial directions in relation to staff ceilings which impede not only the training of important staff but also their functions. That is an important matter. A matter which has cropped up amongst honourable senators and at committee meetings is the commissions’ independence and their exclusion from ministerial control. I think that in the past most committees have felt to some extent that whilst the commissions should operate as business undertakings, in respect of their operations there ought to be more rapid response to ministerial directions and to Senate inquiries.

By floating his plan it seemed that Senator Rae got the backing of the Standing Committee. Senator Douglas McClelland was not concerned so much about how he would appear to members of the Labor Party as a member of that Standing Committee. What he was concerned about and what I am concerned about is whether the Committee is the source of Senator Rae’s ideas. We know now that that is not so. We know that the Committee might have had the opportunity to discuss these things. It certainly discussed some sunset provisions- there is nothing wrong with that- and the proposition that some authorities could be unwound. Nobody could say that because of all the obstruction by government over the years, TAA should be turned over at this stage to private enterprise, whatever the apportionment with respect to staff and the public might be. But one can say that the organisation should be given today a freer go in the air.

In the United States of America and in other countries the practice is to open up the skies. We would be better off if the Government decided to allow clear competition to prevail between TAA and Ansett and if it forgot the two airline policy and all the ramifications that it guarantees. There may be an argument today that the safety and development needs were met many years ago. That was the reported intention when the two airline policy was set up. As honourable senators will remember, in this Senate on many occasions we have debated this matter and the suspicion of Labor Party Oppositions that TAA was not getting the go that it deserved. I am interested in what Senator Rae said, but it seems to me that he has drawn new strength from what has happened in the United Kingdom because in his article in the Australian of 1 8 May he said:

It is interesting to note that in Britain, the new Prime Minister, Mrs Thatcher, has set about the de-nationalisation of many of the Government-owned industries, to place them back in the competitive private enterprise area, where most people believe they should be.

Then he talked about nationalisation being an old fashioned socialist idea. He continued:

In Australia, we have nearly 2S0 Commonwealth statutory authorities, many of them undertaking commercial activities which could be carried out by private enterprise.

In coming to power, after the economically disastrous Whitlam-Hayden period, the Liberal coalition government promised to reduce big government and to promote a healthy private enterprise economy.

OK then- why not de-nationalise TAA for starters?

Under the present government the number of statutory authorities has, in fact, increased by approximately 30. To use a hackneyed phrase, ‘it’s time’ to start reversing that trend.

It is clear that Senator Rae was talking as a conservative. He was not talking in the context of worker participation. If he wants worker participation he could certainly start to develop and promote that concept amongst the many private and government industries that we have at present. As a matter of fact, only in the past month have the Federal Government and some of the State governments got together and issued the first paper on worker participation. As we know, when we in the Parliament have discussed industrial relations Bills most Government supporters have opposed such a notion. I cannot remember many -

Senator Watson:

- Mr Macphee doesn’t oppose it.

Senator BISHOP:

– The honourable senator has got behind me. I said that only this month have Mr Macphee and the State Ministers put down the first paper on worker participation. Then I went on to talk about things that happened in this chamber when Senator Watson was not a member of this place and when we debated such a notion. I think that you, Mr Deputy President, will agree that there was general resistance from government supporters and that many private operators presently resist the idea of worker participation. I think that it is a conservative notion to put forward the selling to private enterprise of an efficient airline which is hamstrung by regulations and controls from a government which really does not believe in its operation. It may well be that the honourable senator can nobble the Minister because when he was trying to clear up the mistake, which we were all concerned about, the following was reported in an article in the Sydney Morning Herald on 18 May:

Senator Rae said he would pursue the subject at a meeting of the coalition parties, possibly next week.

He would also meet Mr Nixon next week to discuss his proposal and would present a formal paper on it to the Government.

I am glad that this debate has taken place. I am glad also to be able to support my colleague, Senator Douglas McClelland, who is a member of the Standing Committee. I hope that the Press will clear up the position because in no way can one say that that Standing Committee supports the propositions which Senator Rae is putting forward on his own behalf. Of course, they have occasioned the debate in the public area. A report in the Daily Mirror of 21 May asked: ‘Here are some plums; why do we not distribute them amongst the shareholders?’ The article misquoted Senator Rae because it said that his Committee made the recommendation, but the writer of an article headed ‘Politics Casts Pall on the Market ‘wrote:

The sharebrokers would like the job of floating some of the plums to the public, especially just now when there are no issues of any real significance in the pipeline and the market is desperate for a fresh supply of good quality scrip.

I support what Senator Douglas McClelland said. His statement, which did not get very much publicity, indicates that none of the Labor members on that Committee at any time supported a proposal such as Senator Rae is putting forward now. I think that we ought to acknowledge that Senator Rae’s proposition rests on its own merits. All I can say is that such a proposition would be strongly resisted by the Opposition. I am sure that it would be resisted, of course, by the staff of TAA. I am sure that the reports indicate to every member of the Senate that TAA is a most efficient organisation. What it needs to become more efficient and what we need to get better services- not the controlled services we have, I agree- is more competition. We need TAA to be free from the restrictions and inhibitions of the Government. We want it to be allowed to do what it thinks it should do. In that case what is partly needed is some modification of the general obligations of the two airline policy. In these days there is no reason that we should not have this.

Peter Morris, the shadow Minister for Transport, reported after a very extensive overseas visit that the open skies policy is producing a more efficient service to the public and cheaper fares. If the situation gets more serious I hope that the matter will be brought back to the Senate. In the meantime, I hope that on any occasion when Senator Rae is asked whether his Committee supports the notion, he will attempt to make the position as clear as he has made it today.

Senator DAVIDSON:
South Australia

– The Senate is considering Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1978-79. This afternoon I would like to take some time considering activities of two of the departments covered by that Bill. I refer, firstly, to the Department of Education. Division 270 of the Bill includes items under the heading Other Services’. Those items cover, amongst other things, Australian participation in education programs. Some of the items relate to international organisations, some to scholarships for travel and some to migrant education and other forms of education. I refer, secondly, to the Postal and Telecommunications Department, for which items in the Bill cover national broadcasting and television services and, further, the regulation of broadcasting and television.

In speaking about the appropriations for those two departments, I take the opportunity to refer to children’s television and, more specifically, to the guidelines, which establish new requirements for children’s television programs, which were announced by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal at the weekend. The Tribunal, in its official documentation relating to this matter, pointed out that in its report on self-regulation for broadcasters it recommended that a new classification for children’s television programs, namely, classification ‘C- the ‘C standing for childrenshould be instituted and that only material classified ‘C should be televised between the hours of 4 and 5 p.m. on week days. Later, at the end of last year, the Tribunal appointed the Children ‘s Program Committee, which has now presented its initial statement and recommendation on these matters to the Tribunal.

As I imagine is now fairly well known because the matter has received considerable Press and media coverage, the requirements have been issued and from I July this year each commercial station, firstly, between the hours of 4 and 5 p.m., Monday to Friday, shall televise an aggregate each week of not less than three hours of programs which have been classified ‘C by the Tribunal’s Children’s Program Committee as material designed specifically for children in the age range of 6 to 13 years and, secondly, prior to 4 p.m. each day, Monday to Friday, shall televise not less than 30 minutes of programs which are designed for children of pre-school age. Stations which open transmission later than 4 o’clock will be considered on an individual basis by the Tribunal.

Mr Deputy President, you will recall that in November last year, in my capacity as Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts, I presented a report on the impact of television on the development and learning behaviour of children. When tabling that report I pointed out the widespread use of television in the Australian home situation and its widespread relationship to children and young people. Children were reported to watch television for about 20 hours a week, or nearly three hours a day. I related my statement then to the response which we had received from the Australian community in relation to the matter. I pointed out to the Senate that concern about the impact of television on children ranged widely over many issues. The effects of televised violence emerged as one of the major issues, but much concern was shown also about the effects of the constant exposure of children to programs which portrayed male and female role stereotypes, unreal or foreign lifestyles and the gratuitous use of sex.

Of the people who came to speak to us, we found that educationalists and parents were concerned that television was also adversely affecting the learning behaviour of children. Indeed, some of them claimed that escapist material, watched mainly by children, was stifling the development of children’s creative instinct and imagination. Other people who appeared before the Committee in the course of its inquiry argued that because television had the ability to monopolise so much of the average child ‘s time we, the Australian community, should capitalise on that situation by offering and presenting programs which were informative and imaginative and in which a child might very well have some intellectual involvement.

From the evidence which we received and from our analysis of programs, we concluded that much of the criticism directed at children’s programs offered by the national stations, but more particularly by the commercial services, was very well founded. We recognised that commercial television, by its very nature, was not geared to cater adequately for minority audiences. That led us, I think very properly and very naturally, into a situation whereby we strongly recommended that children’s programming should be taken out of the arena of industry economics and that programs should be produced by an independent production unit.

We have noted that since that report was presented to the Senate it has stimulated lively debate, both in this place and in the community. Therefore, we note with interest that the recommendations on children’s programs which were made to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal by the Children’s Program Committee, to which I referred earlier, have been formulated into new requirements for each commercial television station and have been set out along the lines I have indicated. Those requirements provide, amongst other things, that from 1 July each commercial station shall broadcast between the hours of 4 and 5 p.m. an aggregate of not less than three hours of programs which have been classified ‘C for children. The length of time will be raised to a mandatory three hours when sufficient programs are available.

That should assist in reducing the televising of some of the programs to which I referred, namely, programs which depict unreal lifestyles or stereotypes. I think that all honourable senators would know that such programs appear frequently in the 4 to 6 p.m. time slot. Frequently those programs come from overseas. They were criticised greatly in the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts, to which I referred. In that report we referred to what we called ‘harmful effects’. We stated:

We believe, therefore, that any harmful effects that could flow from programming of this nature could be mitigated to a significant extent by less emphasis on this particular type of programming and greater emphasis on programmes that reflect true Australian life-styles and a more balanced and sensible portrayal of the roles and aspirations of both sexes in our society.

We therefore support the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal’s recommendations relating to ‘The Australian Look’. In particular we support the recommendation that ‘stations be required to achieve a minimum Australian content of fifty per cent of program time between 4 p.m. and 10 p.m. ‘.

At that point, we recommend that: . . the new programme standards . . . to be approved by the ABT– that is, the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal- contain provisions for minimising programming which projects unrealistic life-styles and stereotypes.

The ‘C classification system, which is outlined in the requirements set by the Tribunal, will go some way towards preventing the commercial stations avoiding the use of programs made specifically for children. Those stations have been submitting what they call ‘general family viewing programs’. I do not think that I am being too severe when I make the observation that unfortunately those programs have included some low-quality imports which have been screened in the 4 to 6 p.m. period and, what is more, have been screened on more than one occasion. The recommendations to the Tribunal by its Children’s Program Committee contain some interesting background material. The Committee, in reporting to the Tribunal, stated:

In our view, quality children’s programs must first be entertaining television.

Children’s programs should fulfil some special need of childhood. They should be about subjects which interest children and should be designed and presented in such a way that they can be readily understood and appreciated by children.

It is interesting to note that the Committee then goes on to equate television with children’s literature. It observes that, just as quality children’s literature contributes to the social, emotional and intellectual development of children, so also should quality children’s television. It makes a plea when it observes that the best children’s programs treat children with the same respect that the best adult programs accord to adult audiences. It stresses that those who produce children’s programs should know much about children and should like them, and that they should understand the individuality and diversity of children and encourage that diversity.

The Senate Committee’s report expressed agreement with the general thrust of the argument that I have just put. It also supported the proposal for a moratorium period during which stations should be required to screen good quality children’s television programs. I turn again to the report to draw to the attention of the Senate the measure of agreement that the Commitee has achieved with the Tribunal and, indeed, to the extent to which the Committees opinions have been reflected, if I may say so, in the Tribunal’s announcements of the last few days. To quote again from our report, we said we believed that in a highly competitive atmosphere where networks were always ready to exploit each other’s weaknesses, any network that would be valiant enough to screen a program of superior quality would be highly vulnerable, in ratings terms, to some competitors.

We added:

It has been demonstrated from experience in other countries that children will enjoy informative and educative programs in a monoply situation but will desert them in large numbers if other lighter and less demanding amusement material becomes available.

We then went on to say:

Any serious approach, therefore, to educating Australian children in the appreciation of more constructive programming will need the co-operation of all stations in the screening of such material during prescribed children’s viewing times. However, since such an arrangement is highly unlikely to come about under normal competitive conditions, we recommend -

This was one of our major recommendations- a moratorium period as proposed by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, during which time all stations are required to screen good quality children ‘s programs.

Here again, our report parallels that made by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal over the weekend. The 4 p.m. to 5 p.m. time slot, for at least three hours and hopefully soon five hours, has been chosen. I believe that this is a step in the right direction. It will ensure that three-fifths, or 60 per cent, of this viewing time will be devoted to giving children a proper and suitable alternative to what today’s Melbourne Age has called imported, mindless cartoons and repeated screenings of programs originally made overseas for the adult evening market’. Here again there has been a close adherence- almost the identical words have been used- to what was set out in various parts of the Committee’s report.

One could raise a number of issues concerning this aspect, but for the time being I will refer to only one or two. Firstly, I would ask whether the 4 p.m. to 5 p.m. time slot is the best for the screening of these children’s programs and whether it maximises the child viewing audience. In the material submitted to the Tribunal by the Children’s Program Committee this was stressed as the best period, but Mr Morgan, speaking on behalf of the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations, did not agree. He is reported in the National Times as having said:

The simple fact is that more children are watching television at 7 p.m. than between 4 p.m. and 5 p.m.

I do not know whether that is so, but I am tempted to say that it might well be related to the quality of programs in the afternoon and that very naturally children will seek something that might hopefully be of a better standard and thus watch television at 7 p.m. There is another side to this argument. It is that, as a block, the 6-to- 13- year-olds are certainly a much larger percentage of the audience between 4 p.m. and 5 p.m. I have noted with interest the composition of the Children’s Program Committee. There is a substantial representation of the commercial television industry. It is of interest that the Tribunal did not act on Mr Morgan’s dissent. Nor did either of the two industry representatives on that Committee support his dissent. So the 4 p.m. to 5 p.m. time slot is in my view, a good place to start and eventually should be extended to the period 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. After all, it should be noted that the period from 4 p.m. to 5 p.m. is one during which a large number of children watch television unattended. It is definitely a children’s time and therefore of particular importance.

Secondly, I would ask what sort of criteria will be used by the Children’s Program Committee to determine what programs shall be accorded a C classification. What are to be the guidelines? I am advised that they are to be issued shortly. I hope that vague, or too general, guidelines will be carefully avoided; furthermore, that stations which fail persistently to meet the standards sought will be dealt with severely by the Tribunal. We see the drawing up of these guidelines as a great challenge because, on the one hand, they should give a clear pointer to the way in which the work should be done and, on the other, preserve the necessary degree of flexibility of interpretation. At the same time, standards should be set out, maintained, and when not adhered to should be the subject of an appropriate reprimand.

Pleasing also to note is the new requirement that prior to 4 p.m. each day commercial stations shall televise not less than 30 minutes of programs designed for children of pre-school age. This too was a recommendation that was set out in our report and endorsed by us very strongly indeed. I have referred to it previously on a number of occasions. However, I am a little disappointed that apparently there has been no move to establish an independent children’s television program production unit- to which I referred earlier- that would take the whole question out of the realm of industry economics. The Senate Committee’s report devoted a whole chapter of its recommendations to the setting up of such a unit and to the ways in which it might produce programs and the ways in which it might be controlled, managed and administered- even to the extent of making suggestions in relation to its financing. Taken all in all, we believe that the document referred to, and the report of the Children’s Program Committee to the Tribunal, are complementary to the kinds of thing that we have tried to say in our report to the Senate and in public. Therefore, the weekend announcement is undoubtedly a promising start in improving the quality of children ‘s television.

Another problem that I see relates to the way in which the Tribunal has worded its requirements. Honourable senators may recall that earlier, in quoting from the Tribunal’s document, I observed that it had stated that from 1 July 1979 each commercial television station shall ‘ do certain things. The word used is ‘shall ‘. 1 hope that as a result of the inclusion of such a word there will be no confrontation, legal or otherwise, in relation to these guidelines. We need co-operation between the industry and the Tribunal to ensure that children have the opportunity of viewing programs which reach a high standard of quality in terms of information and entertainment.

We have stated that we see our task as offering constructive assistance to stations and producers to enable them to work together to achieve entertaining children’s programs of excellent quality. We must also recognise that in the commercial television industry there is a necessity to be sensitive to both sides of the situation. The commercial television industry tends to respond to public tastes and public demands. Therefore there is a call today for the public generally to require and to demand better standards in television programming and better quality in children’s television programs. Programs which are wholly didactic in content and approach tend to be avoided by the average child, who may well have spent most of the day in a classroom environment. But I am sure that there is a strong case to be made against the abandonment of the Australian child in relation to what he or she has been required to tune into in recent times.

We welcome the guidelines. I claim that the Senate Committee’s report has made a major contribution to this situation. Certainly, our inquiry gave members of the community a splendid opportunity to state their concern. Our report was a constructive response to this concern and this public interest. Along with a great number of other people, I look forward to the implementation of these requirements. I will watch with interest, and indeed with a great deal of hope, for the establishment of improved children’s television programs. I see some problems arising as these regulations come into effect. However, I am optimistic- possibly that optimism is tempered with some caution- in stating that we should offer every encouragement to those who have the responsibility of providing this form of communication, entertainment and education for the younger members of the Australian community.

Sitting suspended from 5.52 to 8 p.m.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– In order to look at a matter which I have raised in this Parliament fairly con.sisently over the past 3’/i years, I take this opportunity to speak on the Appropriation Bills. As all honourable senators know, before a Budget there will always be speculation as to what the Government proposes to do. But it is probably many years since we have seen a government faced with such drastic alternatives as the present government faces. It has been said that not only will the Vh per cent surcharge which was imposed on the Australian taxpayer in the last Budget not be removed, but also it will be increased, despite the fact that the Government gave an undertaking in the 1978 Budget that it was to be only a temporary surcharge which was to increase revenue by about $500m. Honourable senators also know that because of the desperate economic condition in which the Government now finds itself, it has been compelled to take certain action which any normal government would not take. I refer particularly to its attack on pensioners in this country and its decision not to continue twice yearly indexation of pensions.

I want to direct my remarks specifically to the web in which this Government is now caught. It is a web of its own making, resulting from the new Federalism policy which was introduced when this Government came to office. I want to take the Senate back to the comments which were made in 1975 in a political climate when it was appealing to the Liberal Party of that day to look as though it would be a government which would do things for the States. It was going to hand over powers, and so on, to the States. Certainly in the climate of that time it was electorally popular. I can recall on more than one occasion warning the Senate, the Parliament and the Government of the consequences of that policy on which the Liberal Party had embarked. It was doing so because of the short term electoral political advantages which it had gained during the 1975 election. In the document which the Liberal Party published in September 1 975 simply called Federalism Policy’, it outlined what it intended to do if elected. Of course it was elected, and it is interesting to cast our minds back and look at some of the things contained in that document. For example, in clause 4 it stated:

If government is to be effective, it must be accountable for its actions. It should raise the moneys which it spends.

That, of course, was a reference not to Commonwealth governments, but to State governments. The document further stated:

The taxpayer must be able to identify clearly his individual payments to Commonwealth, State and local authorities.

Clause 7 spells out in more detail the Governments proposals. Referring to the second stage of this new Federalism policy, the clause reads:

In order to increase the budgetary independence, responsibility and flexibility of the States, it is proposed that as soon as possible each State government will have discretion to impose a surcharge or allow a rebate on the total personal income tax of that State.

Without repeating the arguments that were had in this place about the meaning of surcharge, I point out that it was the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) who eventually denned the term surcharge as a tax. What the document was saying was that the States must have a discretion to impose a tax. In February 1 976, at the first Premiers Conference under this Government, that scheme was outlined to the various State Premiers, and foolishly they all appeared to go along with the idea. The reason that they went along with the idea, of course, was that this policy was to be implemented in two stages and the first stage was very appealing. It was a scheme whereby the State governments would be guaranteed a specific percentage of all income tax collections. It is true, as has been said by the Government side, that this was something that the States had argued for for many years. But in considering that particular method of financing the States, what had not been looked at, and what had not been considered, were the other areas of payments that the Commonwealth makes to the States. Unfortunately, when the Premiers met at that conference and appeared to give their blessing to this whole concept of the new Federalism, one thing is certain, that is, that the Prime Minister at that time really believed that he had sold the whole of the new Federalism concept to the State Premiers. I emphasise that, because that is critical to what has transpired over the last31/2 years. Senator Carrick, who was the architect of this scheme, and who I believe was the person who sold the concept to the Liberal Opposition in 1975, in answer to a question asked of him on 27 April in this chamber, said:

The answer is that the Premiers Conference on 9 April was given an unqualified guarantee that the minimum base to be operating for this coming year and the next two years will be the base worked out under the formula of the Whitlam Government and including a three per cent betterment factor. We will at least give what the Whitlam Government gave and by the formula which we have we will provide more.

On 1 9 August of the same year, Senator Carrick said:

It so happens that on the formula of 33.6 per cent the States will get approximately $89m more in revenue sharing this year than they would have got under the Whitlam Government. That is an unqualified fact, and the amount will escalate as the years pass. Next year and in the years afterwards, as revenue from income tax increases, as productivity grows, so the States will continue to grow.

As time has gone by- three years- we find a completely different picture emerging. Instead of the States proceeding to introduce their State income tax, the whole system has gone wrong. It went wrong at the June Premiers Conference in 1976. It was at that stage that the Prime Minister advised the Premiers that he was going to introduce tax indexation in the following Budget. They were immediately alert to the fact that this would have a direct effect on the moneys that they would receive under these tax sharing arrangements. The Prime Minister also advised the Premiers that he would be introducing a Medibank levy, the proceeds of which the States would not share. This, of course, was the fact that really alerted the Premiers as to what they had let themselves in for. Fortunately, they had not made any written statutory commitment to the

Commonwealth. They had simply said enough to indicate to the Prime Minister that they were satisfied with his new Federalism concept and that they would go along with it.

In the event, as the States had not done so, it has meant that possibly $ 1,000m or $2,000m of revenue which it was anticipated that the States would raise between 1976 and the present time has not been raised. All the talk about reducing taxation by the Liberal Government was never intended to be a tax reducing policy at all. It was simply meant to be a tax transferring policy, that is transferring income tax from the Commonwealth to the States. On the assumption that the States would do that, and would implement the policy, the Federal Government bore on with its tax indexation proposals and then with its tax reductions in February of last year, all of which have had to be wiped out. Tax concessions were wiped out in the last Budget and another $ 1,000m in indirect charges was loaded on for revenue. We will see the culmination of all this in the coming Budget. The Government is caught desperately in a web of its own making, a web from which I suggest it cannot now escape. These are the very points I made in 1976-77 and they are on the record. The Government is locked in by legislation to the stageI tax-sharing arrangements. Its only option is to repeal that legislation and admit that the whole system is wrong. Otherwise it is simply going to have to increase taxes, not only in this Budget but in the following Budget in order to reduce the deficit.

When we look back at statements made by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Carrick, who is now at the table, on 4 May 1 976 he said:

I am happy to assure both the Senate and the people of Australia that the Federal Government will proceed with those policies -

That is, the federalism policies-

  1. . which will result, of course, in a major reduction in personal income tax by way of tax indexation.

Those words sound very hollow today because from the beginning it was not possible for the system to work. If my information is correct, there were many people on the Liberal side in 1975 who realised that it would not work. On 8 April of the same year Senator Carrick made the following comment:

So the aim of our policies is to give the States more clearly identified powers.

In order to test that, I put a question on notice last November- six months ago- in which I asked each Minister to identify those areas under his responsibility in which powers had been transferred to the States. I have had one reply from the whole of the Ministry. The answer to the question, of course, was: ‘None’. Not one power has been transferred to the States by that department since this Government took office. The other 26 or 27 departments presumably are not game to answer the question. I suspect that in every case they also would have to say: ‘None’. How hollow it all sounds now. It sounded good at the time, but the warnings were given. If the Treasurer, Mr Howard, were able to state it publicly, I would bet my last dollar he would say that he wishes he had never heard of new federalism. I would bet that Mr Fraser wishes he had never heard of new federalism. He is now locked into something that is gradually throttling him in his financial and revenue arrangements. There is no way out of it, unless this Government is prepared to admit that the whole concept was wrong. That would appear to be the only option available to it.

I know that the speeches this evening on the Appropriation Bill are going to be short and I do not wish to say much more. However, I want to stress again that the Government has not established in any way that it is a tax-reducing government. I repeat what I said earlier: It is a government that wants to transfer income tax responsibility from the Federal Government to the States, and the Premiers, who are now claiming that they will not introduce a State income tax, may be right. I do not know the answer to it in the long term because the Government is going to find it progressively more difficult to manage. One thing of which we can be sure is that every cent the States have been allowed to borrow in their new overseas borrowing programs, so graciously authorised last year by this Government, will come off the payments to the States in the coming Budget. The States may think that they have gained by it, but they are going to learn that they have gained nothing when the Budget is presented to this Parliament.

One can understand a government in a particular electoral climate making policies or statements which appear to be politically advantageous in the short term. Senator Carrick is sitting at the table perhaps wondering why this matter should be raised tonight, and because of his personal involvement in the drawing up of these plans 1 suspect that he would join Mr Fraser and Mr Howard and say: ‘I wish that I had never heard of new federalism ‘.

Debate (on motion by Senator Carrick) adjourned.

page 1931

OVERSEAS VISIT BY PRIME MINISTER

Ministerial Statement

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I seek leave to make a statement relating to the recent overseas visit of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser); to table a joint communique between the governments of Australia and the Philippines; and to move a motion that the Senate take note of the statement.

Leave granted.

Senator CARRICK:

– During the five days the Prime Minister was away from Australia he had discussions with Presidents Marcos and Suharto and Prime Minister Ohira of Japan, and addressed the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development meeting in Manila. This series of discussions was held against the background of significant changes in the international strategic situation. There is continuing instability in Africa and parts of the Middle East. Developments in Iran continue to generate anxiety regarding oil supplies and about the security of the north-west Indian Ocean area. In Korea, new assessments of the north’s military strength have placed this at a significantly higher level than had previously been estimated, and concern over security in the Korean Peninsula has led to adoption of a longer time scale for United States ground troop withdrawals from the Republic of Korea. Hostilities continue in Indo-China as Vietnam attempts to consolidate its position in Kampuchea. The tensions which led to fighting between China and Vietnam are still in evidence. A resurgence of fighting would lead to the danger of wider international involvement. In this international environment the discussions with President Marcos and President Suharto made clear our common recognition that broadly based co-operation between Australia, the Philippines and Indonesia- and between Australia and the other members of the Association of South East Asian Nations- has become all the more important. We recognise our responsibility to press for moderation and conciliation in the conduct of international affairs. The movement towards greater cohension among ASEAN countries is of particular importance to Australia’s interests. It provides mutual support, promotes co-operation, strengthens confidence and assists forces for stable development. Accordingly, Australia seeks to strengthen its links with the ASEAN countries.

The talks with President Marcos made manifest that Australia and the Philippines, as members of the same region with similar interests and attitudes, have a joint desire and determination to work together to respond effectively to the strains and tensions in the international situation. We both welcome the normalisation of relations between Peking and Washington. It will assist the development of a more effective U.S. policy in the Pacific and Asia, which had been hampered by the absence of formal recognition. Normalisation, and the conclusion of the friendship treaty between China and Japan, creates new opportunities for these countries to play a positive and constructive role in the Asia-Pacific region. We expressed the hope that the Soviet Union would make a similar constructive contribution to the peaceful development of the region- a contribution which would be of particular importance because there are areas in which the Soviet Union is not without influence. Australia welcomes the conclusion of agreements between the Philippines and the United States on military bases. These agreements are of major importance to the strategic balance in the western Pacific. By concluding them the Philippines has made a major contribution to the stability and security of that region.

Against the background of a potential world energy shortage the Philippine and Australian governments will co-operate on energy matters. A bilateral nuclear safeguards agreement has recently been concluded, opening the way for negotiations for the supply of Australian uranium to the Philippines. In an exchange of letters between President Marcos and the Prime Minister, Australia has undertaken to be a reliable and reasonable supplier of energy to the Philippines, and to give technical and other assistance to help the Philippines develop its own energy potential, including uranium exploration. With respect to other aid programs it is noteworthy that Australia’s two largest current aid projects are in the Philippines. The growing cooperation between Australia and the Philippines is further reflected in the signature of a double taxation agreement and the ratification of the trade agreement between Australia and the Philippines that had for some time been put aside. The ratification of this agreement comes at a time when trade with the Philippines has been growing faster than our trade overall, with Philippine exports to Australia growing at more than 45 per cent a year. The joint commission, which will be set up under the terms of the agreement, will pursue means of furthering our bilateral trade and investment. President Marcos warmly welcomed Australia’s strong support for ASEAN and the arrangements which Australia is making to assist the Philippines as a member of ASEAN to take up market opportunities for exports to Australia.

The Philippines and Australia have many common concerns and common interests, a common perception of the challenges that confront us and that we can work together to surmount. The recent visit to the Philippines, at President Marcos’ invitation, resulted in the consolidation of a strong and constructive relationship between our two countries. The joint communique issued at the conclusion of the visit, which I table for honourable senators, reflects the range of matters discussed, and something of the spirit of the meeting. The visit to the Philippines has contributed to making possible a relationship with that nation of a kind we have not had before. I wish to record my thanks to the President, Mrs Marcos, and members of the Philippines Government, for all that they did to make the visit such a warm and very constructive one.

As honourable senators will know, UNCTAD V is meeting in Manila throughout this month. It is a meeting of enormous importance. It comes at a significant time, towards the end of the Tokyo round of multi-lateral trade negotiations and before the Tokyo economic summit. It comes at the end of a period of some real progress on the north-south dialogue, particularly on the Common Fund. Over the last five years, both developed and developing countries have come to accept the necessity for compromise for movement from the rigid positions they adopted in the past. In this process, Australia has sought to set an example and has worked to build consensus. This is reflected in Australia’s work to advance the Common Fund, which has long been a policy of this Government. At one stage, both developed and developing countries took the position that the other side had to move first. Australia ‘s view was that, if such rigid stances were maintained, there would never be agreement, and that Australia, in the interests of progress, should take the initiative.

At the 1977 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in London, Prime Minister Manley of Jamaica and our Prime Minister took the lead in setting up a Commonwealth technical group to define the realistic possibilities for a Common Fund, and how this could relate to an integrated program for commodities. A negotiating conference on the Common Fund was held in November 1977. Its results were disappointing, the outcome was a virtual deadlock which held out the prospect of continuing frustration and conflict between the developed and developing countries. To aid in avoiding this outcome at the Sydney Commonwealth Heads of Government

Regional meeting in February 1978, Australia took a new and positive position on the Common Fund. In April 1978, the Hon. R. V. Garland, Minister for Special Trade Representations, represented Australia at a Commonwealth ministerial meeting, called to discuss the report of the technical group set up at the London Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. This ministerial meeting contributed to a greater flexibility in the positions of the developed and developing country participants. And, before the November 1978 Common Fund Negotiating Conference, Australia circulated a paper setting out a suggested model on fundamental aspects of the Fund, with the aim of encouraging an accommodation between the two sides. Much of what Australia put forward was adopted by the Conference.

In addition to Australia’s actions in international forums, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister (Mr Peacock) were active in discussions with the United States Secretary of State, the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, the Secretary-General of UNCTAD, and with others, in advancing the idea that countries must be prepared to move if the Common Fund were to become a reality. The discussion at the December 1978 Heads of Government Meeting in Jamaica was instrumental in helping to reinforce developed countries’ support for the Common Fund. The most recent Common Fund negotiating conference, in March 1979, agreed on the fundamental elements of a Common Fund- a position that, eighteen months ago, few would have thought possible. Australia made an important contribution to that, but there is much work to be done before the Common Fund becomes a reality. UNCTAD must build on the gains that have been made. At UNCTAD the Prime Minister announced the Government’s decision to contribute to the first window of the Common Fund, which will finance buffer-stocks of international commodity agreements. Further negotiation is needed to define the formula for contributions to the first window.

Australia will also make an effective contribution to the Fund ‘s second window, which will finance other measures for the stabilisation of commodity prices, such as adequate research and effective promotion. It will also be important for commodities where it is not appropriate to establish a commodity agreement based on buffer-stocking, for example, a perishable commodity. Our support for a second window is firmly based in our own history. We know from experience that such supports as research and promotion can be crucial to the success of a commodity agreement. Australia believes that with respect to the second window, although contributions are to be voluntary, it too needs a formula approach which would give more stability in financing and would do much to guarantee its success. Australia will continue to be involved fully in the further negotiation within UNCTAD, on the Common Fund.

If the Common Fund is to work there need to be international commodity agreements for certain commodities. Unfortunately there has been little progress in negotiating commodity agreements involving both producers and consumers, and consistent with the principles of the Common Fund. Although some progress is being made in relation to rubber, the International Sugar Agreement is in jeopardy because of the attitude of the European Economic Community while the US administration is experiencing difficulties in having the agreement ratified. Further, some aspects of existing agreements would need to be re-negotiated to make them acceptable. Developed countries must join, and agree to participate financially, in all viable commodity arrangements where they have a major interest in the trade. Otherwise it will be difficult to see their agreement to the establishment of the Common Fund as other than an empty and rather cynical gesture. The effective translation of the commitment to a Common Fund into a reality will contribute to the well-being of developing and developed nations, but alone this is not enough. The dangers of inflation and increased protectionism represent major problems to both the developed and developing nations.

Inflation undermines both confidence in governments and the confidence of governments. It causes unemployment by reducing profitability and increasing uncertainty. With inflation, costs rise, industries are priced out of markets and firms invest less and employ less- creating a national and international unemployment problem. Inflation leads to disorderly exchange rate conditions and increases pressure for forms of intervention which inhibit market forces in general and world trade in particular. We cannot overlook the conjunction between the increased rates of inflation since 1 973, and the fact that the volume of world trade grew at only 4 per cent per annum between 1973 and 1978 compared with 8 per cent over the previous 20 years. In Europe in particular, new protectionist devices have been created in recent years. Export subsidies and wage and agricultural subsidies in the EEC run as high as $25 billion each year. These are just as protectionist as tariffs, quotas or voluntary restraint’ arrangements. They deny markets to developing countries and cause unfair competition for developing countries products in third markets.

Countries must move to adopt the positive policies advocated by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and allow market forces to work. As discussions with the Secretary-General of the OECD, Mr Van Lennep, made clear, the OECD view is that interventionist policies by government have the effect of locking labour and capital into particular industries. The removal or reduction of such policies would significantly enhance the prospects for growth in the international economy and international trade. The Tokyo round of multilateral trade negotiations has put some brake on the increasing move to protectionism, and that may be its greatest success. But although there are individual negotiations within the round that will be of significant benefit to Australia, and many of our exporters will have better assurance of market access than ever before in their history, in the world-wide scene the gains are modest and the impact is certainly not revolutionary. There has been some progress in the reduction of industrial tariffs but little has been done in relation to non-tariff barriers, particularly in relation to agriculture. Virtually nothing has been done in relation to wage subsidies and export subsidies. Against this background the world must look beyond the Multinational Trade Negotiations and ensure the continuation of effects to liberalise trade.

A lapse into protectionism would deny the basic truth that the success of the existing system, a system which has allowed enormous progress to be made in the recent past, depends essentially on the growth of mutual trade, and on maintaining the conditions which allow and encourage that growth. Nothing would lead to greater bitterness and disillusionment among developing countries, would do more to strengthen the case of those who argue for extreme policies than the systematic frustration of access to developed country markets. If the reward for success is to be punishment by means of new protectionist devices, it will demonstrate that the economic principles by which the developed countries have professed to live apply only to those who have arrived and not those who are on their way. The major developed countries carry a great burden of responsibility. Their management of their own economies has decisive effects on the international system. Australia has proposed that UNCTAD should call on these countries when they meet at the economic summit in Tokyo to adopt policies that will bring inflation under control and to resist the temptation to surrender to the pressures of protectionism.

Australia is developing a resolution on inflation, protectionism and structural adjustment and it is expected that this resolution will be launched at UNCTAD tomorrow. We hope that the resolution will have a productive effect and will cut across group lines in UNCTAD. For Australia’s part our record of trade with the developing nations is a good one. In 1966 Australia introduced the first system of tariff preferences to assist developing countries. The Australian system has been substantially expanded. Some 80 per cent of imports from developing countries now enter Australia duty free or at a preferential tariff rate. Australia ‘s imports of industrial products from developing countries have increased substantially. On a per capita basis, Australia’s imports of manufactured products from developing countries, excluding petroleum, more than doubled between 1973 and 1977, a better performance than that of the United States, the EEC, or Japan. In the sensitive textiles, clothing and footwear area, access to Australia is very high. Australia’s imports of textiles, clothing and footwear from ASEAN countries represent $A2.14 per capita compared with 63 cents for the US, 5 1 cents for the EEC and 25 cents for Japan. If these three areas allowed imports to the same extent as Australia then ASEAN imports of these products would expand by $ 1 billion.

The task before UNCTAD is a formidable one. In approaching it, we will need to display moderation, we will need to display realism, we will need to display vision, and last, and perhaps most important, we will need to display the resolution to face formidable problems and to surmount them. A useful aspect of the visit to the Philippines was the opportunity it afforded for discussions with the Prime Minister of Japan, Mr Ohira, on important international economic, political and strategic issues. This broad based dialogue between Japan and Australia is something which I believe both countries find useful. It is a recent development which took shape primarily following 1 978 talks in Japan with Prime Minister Fukuda when the Australian Government engaged Japan in a broad discussion rather than focussing on bilateral issues which important as they are are not the only matters of concern to our nations. In discussing the forthcoming Tokyo Summit, we agreed that the strongest action against inflation is necessary, especially in view of the link between inflation, world trading opportunities and the North /South dialogue. It was plain from the discussions that Japan and Australia have common views on many matters including the Common Fund, co-operation in the peaceful uses of energy and the continuing importance of the US role in world affairs, and in particular with respect to the Asia/Pacific region.

One particular point of interest raised in the course of the discussions was Mr Ohira ‘s concept of a Pacific Basin community in which there would be closer regional co-operation amongst Pacific nations. The idea has considerable potential and merits further discussion and consultation. At the moment the concept is tentative and exploratory and requires a great deal of thinking and consultation, and the Prime Minister has asked the Foreign Minister to develop ideas and approaches to this subject. The discussions with Mr Ohira confirmed that Australia and Japan have close economic relations, a growing political understanding and shared perceptions about the Asia/Pacific region. We now have a broad and mutually accepted framework for constructive dialogue with Japan across the range of bilateral and more general issues which can only be to the advantage of our countries. At the conclusion of the meeting the Prime Minister expressed the hope that Mr Ohira would be able to visit Australia at the earliest possible date. He would certainly receive a warm welcome.

Finally, I turn to the visit to Indonesia. We had earlier enquired whether President Suharto would, like Prime Minister Ohira, be visiting Manila for UNCTAD V, in which case there could be an opportunity to meet there. As an alternative, he suggested having talks on the way back, an invitation which was readily accepted because it provided an opportunity for constructive forward-looking discussions on a wide range of international, regional and bilateral matters. The talks made it perfectly plain that Australia and Indonesia recognise that, living together in one part of the world, we need to work closely together. A strong relationship between Indonesia and Australia is a fundamental foreign policy objective of this Government and, I believe, of President Suharto’s Government also. The talks confirmed the strength of our relationship and served further to advance it. They revealed a high degree of common interest and common understanding on the many political and economic problems facing the region. There have in the past been some strains between our two countries. Those difficulties are now firmly behind us, and we are determined to look to the future constructively and realistically.

The President and the Prime Minister reviewed developments at UNCTAD including the debate on the Common Fund, and the renewed instability in Indo-China and its implications for the region. Australia welcomes Indonesia’s current efforts to strengthen its relationship with Papua New Guinea. On the issue of the Australia-Indonesia seabed boundary negotiations we were both hopeful that they will be brought to a speedy conclusion. Progress has been made in the reunification of Timorese families and there was agreement that this program should be continued as rapidly as possible. The problem of refugees from Indo-China is a human problem of vast proportions which affects all of us. It is a problem which needs to be tackled at the international level. Indonesia’s co-operation in the Indo-China refugee problem is of importance in maintaining an orderly intake of refugees into Australia. Indonesia’s continuing help in forestalling unheralded arrivals of refugees is very much appreciated, for it is much easier for Australia to take in a significant number of refugees when this is done in an orderly way and under proper immigration procedures. Indonesia’s generous and constructive proposal to establish an island processing centre for refugees is welcomed and supported by Australia and we will be contributing towards the cost of this centre. The Government urges other nations to make financial contributions. Finally, there was discussion on the possibility of President Suharto’s visiting Australia before too long and the Government looks forward to offering Presi-dent Suharto the hospitality of this country.

The Prime Minister discussed the new Australian low air fare scheme with both President Marcos and President Suharto. All welcomed the progress made at the recent meeting of Australian and ASEAN officials in Kuala Lumpur where, as a result of considerable good will on both sides, agreement was reached to recommend to Ministers a package proposal for a settlement. As General Romulo, the Philippine Minister for Foreign Affairs, said to the UNCTAD delegates, the joint communique on civil aviation agreed by ASEAN and Australian officials at Kuala Lumpur was an example of the way in which differences can be reconciled in the spirit of compromise. The Australian and Philippines Governments are to discuss arrangements covering routes between Australia, the Philippines and countries to the north. Mr Ohira and the Prime Minister agreed that lower air fares between Japan and Australia are necessary and urged that the negotiations that are already underway between Japan Airlines and Qantas Airways Ltd should be concluded as quickly as possible.

In conclusion, this brief visit to nearby countries was a particularly valuable and effective one. It advanced our bilateral relations with the Philippines, Japan and Indonesia. It advanced Australian-ASEAN understanding. It allowed Australia’s views on major international economic issues to be put at the world forum of UNCTAD V. The visit allowed a warm and friendly exchange of views between heads of Government on a range of issues which can only lead to better international co-operation and understanding on world issues and to enduring relationships between the peoples of our countries, our region and the world. I table the joint communique and I present the following paper:

Report on Overseas Visit by Prime Minister- Ministerial Statement. 22 May 1 979- and move:

That the Senate take note of the paper.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick) has put down a statement which deals with the recent visit by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) to Manila and Bali. To those who read Somerset Maugham, the statement would read like a delightful little dissertation from the breakfast room of Raffles Hotel in Singapore. It has some positive parts and it has some negative parts, but in the main it glosses over some very important aspects of Australia’s relations with the Association of South East Asian Nations and individual nations in that area in particular.

It was a significant visit. It would be idle to deny that. I suppose that one of the significant features of the visit was that the Prime Minister flew in a BAC 1 1 1 aircraft and got there. As a result some rethinking may take place about the purchase of Boeing 707 aircraft for these types of flights. But it is also important to note that the Prime Minister has an ability to say things which are completely unrelated to reality as well as ignorning some past and very important events. Over the last 3 years we have seen the present Australian Government embattled with ASEAN countries. There have been confrontations over import quotas for textiles and other manufactured goods, over the Common Fund, over commodity agreements and more recently over air fare arrangements. A reading of the Press clippings covering these various events really adds up to a sorry story of distrust and confrontation. It hardly coincides with the picture of unanimity which Mr Fraser has painted us.

In spite of the fact that the figures he has given indicate that our per capita level of imports from developing countries is high compared with the United States of America, the European Economic Community or Japan, it is pertinent to note that it is in the most sensitive areas, such as textiles, timber, white goods and small electrical goods, that we have adopted policies which are as restrictive as those of EEC and some other countries. The Government has been obstinate in attempting to meet the demands of the ASEAN countries and, as a consequence, we have had confrontations over contracts dealing with sugar, wheat and, to a lesser extent, dairy and meat products.

I find it difficult to believe that this sudden meeting with President Marcos has resolved all those problems. If they have been resolved, that is good news. It would seem very difficult to believe that that is the case but it certainly is the impression that one gets from reading the speech. I suspect that the proof of the pudding is in the eating and that the moment the Philippines or any other ASEAN country attempts to increase its exports of sensitive manufactured goods to Australia the Prime Minister will be the most ardent supporter of the strict application of the current quota arrangements. These are Australia’s non-tariff barriers and in principle they are the same as the non-tariff barriers of the EEC about which the Prime Minister has complained quite loudly over the past two or three years.

I also suspect that the agreements for access to markets to which the Prime Minister alludes in his statement are not as favourable as he proclaims. It was Professor Fred Gruen who last weekend pointed out quite significantly that the small print of a number of these agreements allows the importing country to suspend access in times of emergency. In other words, very little has been achieved over and above what the previous government achieved between 1972 and 1975. We have always supported the concept of the Common Fund and I would say that we are pleased to see that the Prime Minister took up the idea in spite of considerable opposition from some of his National Country Party colleagues. However, we are concerned that he seems to be using words rather than producing results. It also seems that he is prepared to be uneven in his criticism of people who might be impeding the implementation of the Common Fund or some of its concepts. I refer to the International Sugar Agreement as a case in point. In this respect he said:

The International Sugar Agreement is in jeopardy because of the attitude of the EEC.

He is correct in part only. What he fails to say is that the major impediment to the successful operation of the International Sugar Agreement is the failure of the United States to ratify the Agreement. The United States is the world’s largest sugar importer and, as such, it has very considerable influence on the effectiveness of any international commodity agreement. For quite valid domestic reasons the United States has yet to ratify the International Sugar Agreement. It would have been fairer, and I think more accurate, for the Prime Minister to have placed the blame fairly. That is just one point which illustrates that the Prime Minister has almost an obsession with the EEC.

As we have said before, we do not object to any attempt to try to improve access to that common market, but in the realities of current world trade we find it strange that so much of the time of the Minister for Special Trade Representations, Mr Garland, and other Ministers of this Government has been spent in attempting to find a breach in the EEC’s strong protectionist walls. At the same time we appear to be neglecting the constant approach to ASEAN and other neighbours in the Pacific. It is pleasing that at long last the Prime Minister has recognised the importance of the Japanese concept of wider cooperation in the Pacific Basin. There has been a clear need for a long time, and this was an initiative of the previous Labor Government, to nurture our relations with ASEAN, China and Japan as well as the nations in the Indo-China and Indian sub-continents.

If the present Government had continued the initiative that was commenced between 1972 and 1975 of a Pacific Basin concept, which the Japanese Prime Minister is promoting, we could have had better relations with the countries in which the Prime Minister is now taking such an interest. Whilst we applaud any attempt to improve our relations with countries in the region, we do not approve of what might be termed the grasshopper’ approach of going to see the Filipinos, the Malaysians or anybody else in the region on a once-a-year basis. Rather, we would believe that there should be permanent and continuing discussions on the same basis as the ministerial discussions took place with the Japanese.

Naturally there are difficulties. In particular, Indonesia’s acquisition of East Timor poses one of the major difficulties. This Government has attempted to sweep the Timorese problem under the mat. We do not believe that it can be dealt with so easily. We cannot ignore the fact that there have been serious abrogations of human rights as a result of Indonesia’s takeover in that region. The Prime Minister is well aware that there are significant members of his Government who share that view with honourable senators on this side of the chamber. The Labor Party believes that we should have good relations with Indonesia and that it is better if they are on an adult basis rather than on the type of basis that exists at present. We believe that the Indonesians should be well aware that we do not approve of the actions which they took in relation to the acquisition of East Timor. Thus, we would be far happier if President Suharto were to agree to greater access for International Red Cross services to East Timor as well as access for politicians and any interested groups which wish to see what is in fact going on there.

We also find that the Prime Minister has glossed over a number of matters relating to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development discussions. There is no real detail about the approach which Australia took and the results which it expected from those discussions. It would have been hoped that we would put more strongly the view that the operation of the Common Fund is indeed a matter of urgency, that the abolition of export restitution payments by the EEC is also a matter of urgency and that the removal of a series of other non-tariff barriers is of equal importance. These matters were covered in only a very general way. One would have assumed that, as a result of the importance of the meeting to which the Prime Minister has been, a much more detailed statement would be made concerning these aspects of the discussions.

I am a little surprised also that the Prime Minister talks in terms of significant changes in the international strategic situation. The events which he details are well known and are continuing, but again the Prime Minister appears to deal with things in a staccato fashion rather than to keep us continually advised about changes in his Government’s perceptions of the strategic balance within the region. All of these matters are of enormous complication and they are of enormous importance to us. It follows that the Government should be prepared to maintain a continual stream of information to this Parliament. I suspect that in reality this statement is aimed at creating the impression that the Prime Minister has achieved significant results. I suspect that there is in fact little to show for his visit to Manila and Bali.

Debate (on motion by Senator Guilfoyle) adjourned.

page 1938

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 3) 1978-79

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Senator BONNER:
Queensland

– This evening I want to take the opportunity presented by the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1978-79, which allows an honourable senator to speak on matters other than those contained in the Bill, to speak about a matter of grave concern to me, first and foremost as a member of the Senate, as a Queenslander, as an Australian and, perhaps more particularly, as an Aborigine. I want to speak tonight about the controversy in our nation concerning speculation about whether there will be drilling on the Great Barrier Reef. This matter is of concern not only to me but also, I am sure, to many Australians, if not all Australians. I am sure that it is now concerning many people throughout the world. I find it rather difficult to understand the Government’s attitude when we find that even within its ranks there is a difference of opinion between the two Ministers who have some responsibility in this area, namely, the Minister for Science and the Environment (Senator Webster) and the Minister for National Development (Mr Newman). If one has read the newspapers one will have found that some time last week there was quite a to-do concerning a disagreement between these two responsible Ministers. This must be not only confusing but also of great concern to the people of this country.

I want to quote this evening the comments of a number of people. First and foremost I would like to quote some words from Dr Frank Talbot, the Director of Environmental Studies at Macquarie University and a former Director of the Australian Museum, who has studied the marine life of the Great Barrier Reef for some 15 years. He says that the Great Barrier Reef is the most complex ecological system in the whole world. He says also that larvae floats for scores and perhaps hundreds of miles between the islands and that any oil spillage on one part of the reef could affect the whole reef system. In itself that is a matter about which we all should be concerned. In writing about this matter in today’s Brisbane Telegraph under a rather large headline, one of our leading journalists in Queensland, Joseph Glascott, said that oil exploration could deliver the Great Barrier Reef a death blow. He went on to say- and I know this to be correct from my own experience- that coral and oil certainly do not mix. In the Sunday Sun of 20 May another leading Queensland journalist, Ken Blanch, asked: What is meant by the

Barrier Reef? None of the statements I have heard from either the two Ministers or from the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has told us exactly what is meant by the Great Barrier Reef.

Let us consider the Great Barrier Reef. It has some 2,500 islands. It has 60 to 70 sand cays. It extends for some 1,900 kilometres down the coast of Queensland. It covers about 2,700 square kilometres, which is an area the size of England. I believe that we have had an example of the damage an oil spillage can do to the Barrier Reef. We can remember that on 4 March 1970 the oil tanker The Oceanic Grandeur ran aground on the reef. The oil spillage caused concern to Australians at that time and caused a great deal of damage. Apart from the damage it did to the coral, to the fish and to other parts of the Barrier Reef, it had a devastating effect on the growing of pearl shells in the Torres Strait. Although I am told that the Prime Minister today has made a statement that there will be no drilling on the Reef, 1 ask: Just exactly what does that mean? Does it mean drilling actually on the coral? Is he talking about drilling through the coral? Is he talking about drilling alongside the coral or off the edge of the reef. What studies have been made? Who has carried out the studies? What are the tides going to do in those areas? What is the prevailing wind?

Senator McAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– It all depends how much money is in it.

Senator BONNER:

– I am not concerned with money. I am concerned with preserving the Great Barrier Reef. Let me say loud and clear that neither Queenslanders nor Australians own the Barrier Reef. It is owned by the world. It is one of the wonders of the world. Because we live in Australia and because the reef lies off the coast of one of our States we are only its custodians. We are not the owners of the reef. I believe that that is very important. If we own something, we can sell it, give it away, damage it or do with it what we will, but when we have the responsibility of being the custodians of one of the wonders of the world we have a far greater responsibility to ensure that nothing is done that may damage or interfere in any way with that tremendous wonder.

Senator Wriedt:

– You won’t be too popular with the Queensland Government in saying that.

Senator BONNER:

– I am not concerned with what the Queensland Government is doing. I am concerned with who has the responsibility for the preservation of that wonder of the world. That responsibility should and must remain with the Commonwealth Government or the Federal

Government, whichever we like to call it. Before I entered this Senate legislation was introduced into the Parliament to give to the Federal Government responsibility for waters from the low water mark to the area of exploitation or what at that time was termed the continental shelf. I believe that the fact that we are responsible for that area must be uppermost in all our minds. I want to hear a statement which assures not only Australians but also the whole world that no drilling will take place until maybe some time in the future when technology can assure us with absolute certainty that if we drill anywhere around, near, or on the Great Barrier Reef there will be no possibility of an oil spillage taking place or of any damage being done to our reef.

I make a plea to all honourable senators and to all members of the House of Representatives that they ensure that no drilling on that reef is undertaken- that we do not give any power or permission, to mining companies, exploration companies, the Queensland Government, or anyone else for that matter, to drill on the reef. I say that because I, as one of the indigenous people of this country, have seen the devastation, the exploitation, the damage and the destruction which has been done to many of the things which are part of my heritage. I say to all honourable senators here tonight: ‘Let us not damage what is now our mutual heritage- Aborigine and nonAborigine. You have destroyed much of my heritage, much of the indigenous peoples’ heritage. But, for God’s sake, let us not now damage or destroy that which is jointly our heritage, namely, the Great Barrier Reef’. Money will be to no avail if we damage any part of that reef.

I know that we need to find more energy supplies. Oil is needed. But sometimes I wonder whether we are not spending our money in the wrong way. I am told that it will cost millions and millions of dollars to explore and to drill to find oil in those areas. Why are we not putting that kind of money into finding other sources of energy? Other sources of energy can be found. There is a need for money to be put into finding them. What are we doing in that area? What is the Government doing to try- to find other sources of energy? Let us put our money into that area instead of looking towards drilling for oil, with a chance of destroying something which is far more important to us as a nation and to the world than just finding oil. Oil is needed but there are other sources of energy which 1 believe that, even to this date, we have not explored sufficiently.

My plea tonight is, as I have said before, that until appropriate technology is developed or scientists or someone else can assure us that no damage will be caused to the reef, we should not drill for oil in that area. As long as I have the opportunity to be a member of this Senate, I will not support any move towards giving permission for exploration or drilling on the Great Barrier Reef. I make that statement quite clearly. I will go to any length to prevent such exploration or drilling from happening. I hope that there are others in this chamber- I am sure there are- who will support me in this. I do not care what the consequences to myself will be. Until we can be assured that there is no possibility of any damage being done to the Great Barrier Reef, I say to the governments concerned, whether it be the Australian Government, the Queensland Government or whatever other government might be involved: ‘Hands off the Great Barrier Reef.

Senator ROBERTSON:
Northern Territory

– I take the opportunity in this debate on these Appropriation Bills, to raise a matter which actually is related to appropriations, namely, the appropriation for the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. I refer to problems associated with the disbanding of the Good Neighbour councils. In particular, I refer to the problems faced by the staff of those councils. Honourable senators might recall that I have raised the matter of the excellent work done by the Good Neighbour Council of the Northern Territory in this chamber before. At the time I said that many of the worthwhile projects which were being carried out by the Good Neighbour Council of the Northern Territory would stop as a result of the implementation of the recommendations contained in the Galbally report. I made the point also that support would not be forthcoming from many of the volunteers who previously had given their support to the Council.

That has happened. In no sense do I suggest an ‘I told you so’ attitude; rather, I express my deep concern that the valuable service which was offered is now not available to our new settlers. I take as an example the translation service offered by the Good Neighbour Council. The people who worked so willing before, who gave their services and were paid for them in due course, now are not prepared to do so under the new system which has been suggested by the Government. The upshot of that is that, as I said, a valuable and necessary service is no longer available to our new settlers .in the Northern Territory.

My concern today relates to two matters concerning the staff of the Good Neighbour Council, namely, long service entitlement and severance pay. I make the point that I have the support of the Council in raising this matter. The Council has been involved in this matter and has expressed its extreme concern that the valuable officers of the Council are being disadvantaged. Let us go back a little in time. When the decision to disband the Good Neighbour councils was taken, the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) gave an assurance that special consideration would be given to the staff of those councils. Unfortunately, that assurance, like so many of the other assurances and promises given by the Prime Minister, has not been honoured.

Let us look first at the long service leave situation. In keeping with the comments made by my leader earlier tonight, I will be brief in this matter and will speak very much in note form because I think the matters will be known to the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) who is at the table. Commonwealth funding took the councils only to the end of January 1979. Fortunately, the Northern Territory Government, seeing the good work being done by the Northern Territory Good Neighbour Council, funded it to 30 June 1979 to assist with gaps in services until the Galbally resources centre opens in July. The Northern Territory Good Neighbour Council decided to place moneys from the Commonwealth in trust so that it could cover staff entitlements which would accrue to that date. I shall read part of a letter from the Chairman of the Working Party of the Good Neighbour councils to the President of the Good Neighbour Council of the Northern Territory. When I read this it will be quite obvious to honourable senators that it is written in reply to a letter sent by the President of the Good Neighbour Council of the Northern Territory to the Chairman of the Working Party. The letter states, in part:

I note Council ‘s decision to set aside an amount of $ 1 3,553 in a trust account to cover staff entitlements and that one element of this amount is a figure of $3,864.25 representing pro rata long service leave. From the information we have available, Northern Territory Ordinance No. 67 of 1965 amended by Ordinance No. 52 of 1974 provides an entitlement to long service leave for employees in the Territory only after a period of at least ten years’ continuous service.

The Council believes and certainly I believe that the staff of the Good Neighbour councils can be regarded as staff employees. They can be regarded as government employees. The Council believes that because it has read section 3 1 of the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act, which includes employees of Commonwealth authorities. Obviously the Council has been accepted by the Northern Territory Public Service Board which, in a letter to the

Council dated 8 January 1979, referred to the staff of the Good Neighbour councils as staff from non-Public Service Act areas of Commonwealth Government employment.

The Long Service Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act 1976 provides for recognition of pro rata service after 12 months service in a redundancy situation. It also provides for portability of service where continuity can be established. In this case we have a situation in which the director of the Good Neighbour Council could claim 1 1 years service to carry over into another position within the Public Service. The three remaining staff members would also be entitled to pro rata long service leave under the Commonwealth Act. None of the staff would receive any benefit whatever under the Northern Territory Ordinance. The Council believes that staff fall into the category of employees in government service and therefore come within the provisions of the Commonwealth Act. It makes this assumption for four reasons. Firstly, the Good Neighbour movement was established by a Minister, the late Arthur Calwell, and is therefore a ‘prescribed authority’. We notice from the pamphlet on the Commonwealth Ombudsman, under the heading ‘What complaints are considered?’ that ‘prescribed authorities’ is defined as follows:

Prescribed authorities ‘ are bodies or offices established by statute, or by the Governor-General or a Minister, for a public purpose. They can include incorporated companies under Commonwealth control, but not the Courts, or the Legislative Assemblies in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory.

We know, of course, that councils are funded by the Commonwealth Government and subject to Australian Treasury regulations. From the definition given by the Ombudsman, the fact that the Northern Territory Council is incorporated is not relevant. The councils have a degree of autonomy, but staff ceilings, salaries and conditions are laid down by the co-ordinator who is of course, a member of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs in Canberra. The council believes that the foregoing demonstrates a ‘controlling interest’ by the Commonwealth. If we want to go any further than that we may refer to the definition of ‘controlling interest’ in the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act 1977. I support the proposition which has been put forward by the Council that the staff are government employees. I call on the Minister to investigate the situation and consider favourably the position of the staff of the Good Neighbour Councils.

I turn now to the question of severance pay. I am sure that I need not define what is meant by that term. It is well understood by honourable senators. Let me give a little of the history and then come to the point at issue. Following the announcement of the cessation of funding and the unprecedented termination of the Good Neighbour Councils staff superannuation schemehonourable senators will recall that the Commonwealth underwrote contributions equal to those made by employees- the councils individually submitted to the Department in Canberra proposals for severance payments to staff by way of compensation. In February of this year the Department sent a telegram to all councils seeking approval to use $145,000, or 50 per cent of the Good Neighbour Council’s 1979-80 allocation, for staff severance payments. Not all of the councils agreed. The Northern Territory council did. However, Western Australia, for example, considered that the money should come from another source.

The Departmen t, after discussing the matter in Cabinet, has now offered an income maintenance scheme which extends to recipients half of the benefits provided for under Public Service redundancy conditions. The Northern Territory Council is not happy with this and has written a letter making the point and requesting that a clause parallel to clause 10 of the AlburyWodonga Development Special Conditions be inserted. It might be pertinent to read that clause which under the heading ‘Severance Payment’ provides:

If, in the opinion of the Public Service Board and the Corporation there is no suitable alternative employment available, the Corporation may pay to an officer or employee, on his last day of duty, in lieu of income maintenance payments, a lump sum payment from the Corporation calculated as an amount equivalent to three months ‘salary.

Without doubt the Council would support this proposition and believe that conditions for serverance should provide some compensation for loss through termination of the superannuation scheme, as well as maintenance of income. In this sort of situation severance pay is surely well and truly accepted. The Federal Government has a clear responsibility to provide for the staff because, after all, as was indicated earlier, it is responsible for the present situation. I believe we have established that the staff should be treated as Commonwealth employees. It does seem a pity that the Government yet again should have taken an across-the-board decision.

Galbally in his investigations, as was noted in his later report, found problems, with some of the Good Neighbour Councils, but he also found some good things. He found, for example, that the Northern Territory Council was performing most worthwhile functions. Honourable senators who have read his report will recall the complimentary remarks he made concerning the Northern Territory Council, which he saw as a model on which others would be based. But despite this, because some councils had some problems, all had to go. The Government could see no flexibility in the situation and made no attempt to recognise the fact that some councils were performing well and that some staff were doing an excellent job. I claim, and the claim is well supported by the comments of Galbally and of my political opponents in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, that the staff of the Northern Territory Good Neighbour Council have done an excellent job. They went into their employment firmly believing that the Government would look after them. That belief was reinforced by the statement of the Prime Minister, which gave assurances that the staff would be protected, would be given ‘special consideration’.

I now call on the Government to honour its obligations and assurances and protect the staff of the Northern Territory Good Neighbour Council. I am aware that other staff are involved. They, of course, deserve protection, but my case tonight, my plea, is for the Northern Territory staff. I ask the Minister to consider the proposition that the Northern Territory staff be given pro rata long service leave and the severance pay to which they are morally entitled. I ask the Minister to accept the proposition that these people Commonwealth Government employees, and the rest will flow automatically from such an assumption. (Quorum formed).

Senator KILGARIFF:
Northern Territory

– I wish to speak briefly tonight on one or two matters, but principally on the way in which I see the problems of our Aboriginal people. First, I should like to describe briefly to the Senate a very nice ceremony that I attended in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly last Thursday when a delegation from both Houses of the Federal Parliament presented a mace to that body. I was very proud to be one of those who were involved in the delegation, which was led by our President, Sir Condor Laucke, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, SirBilly Snedden. The mace, which had been prepared following a motion of authorisation some two years earlier by both Houses of Parliament , and the subsequent expression of goodwill by Her Majesty the Queen, was presented in a particularly special ceremony. On very few occasions since Federation has a mace been presented to a Parliament within Australia. The Northern Territory Legislative Assembly has been most fortunate in that, within a year of the transfer of powers from the Federal Government, the Queen and the Federal Government have seen fit to make such a presentation. The mace is steeped far into the history of the Westminster system in the Commonwealth. Having been the first Speaker of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly I was most proud to be a part of that delegation. I commend the delegation and Federal Government for the thoughts behind the presentation, the mace used to be a warlike instrument. I would not think that the mace that has been presented will be used for the purposes for which maces have been used over the centuries. The gold work in the various decorations on the mace is such that it would not stand being used as a weapon. The visit of the delegation to the Northern Territory should be noted.

As I have said on many occasions in the Senate, the Northern Territory is going through a very important phase in its development and history. For many years it endeavoured to have a voice in its own affairs. During the last few years it has quickly achieved this. On 1 July the functions of the Department of Education relating to the Northern Territory, which have been the responsibility of Senator Carrick, are to be transferred to the Northern Territory. This is one of the last State-like responsibilities to be transferred to the Northern Territory. A statement was put out today by the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) that the Supreme Court system is also to be transferred. I foresee that following the settling down period, which is going remarkably well, the Northern Territory eventually will become a State.

There are one or two other matters with which I wish to deal. The first relates to Aboriginal legal aid and is minor compared with the next matter that I wish to raise. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) today answered a query that I put to him on 5 April. I asked:

Has the Government been reviewing the role of the Aboriginal Legal Aid Service; if so: (a) are revised guidelines to bc set down; and (b) will they be made available to the Senate.

The Minister replied:

Yes. A charter for the Aboriginal Legal Aid Services has been under consideration for some time. In addition, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, at my request, is inquiring into Aboriginal access to legal aid. I am also arranging a review of the operations of the Aboriginal Legal Aid Service in New South Wales.

I shall consider when new guidelines are desirable in the light of the review; and

if so, I will inform the Senate.

I believe that there should be an Aboriginal legal aid system. I have no doubt that the majority of people agree with me. In the few years since the system’s inception there have been problems. I believe that there have been problems because there are no guidelines. It is foolhardy to set up any organisation without guidelines. I believe that the problems that have been experienced by the Aboriginal Legal Aid Service in New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, the Northern Territory or other places, and which have been voiced on both sides of this Senate, have arisen because, although such aid has been funded, no guidelines have been set down as to the way money will be expended and the way legal aid will be given to Aboriginal people.

Despite the problems that have been experienced because of the lack of guidelines on Aboriginal legal aid, Aboriginal people in the various States and the Northern Territory have endeavoured to grapple with the problem. They have had extreme difficulties. In any case where money is provided without guidelines or control people do not appreciate that they have responsibilities. Also, people move in on such organisations to endeavour to use those funds to bring about different results from the purpose of the funding. I do not think I have to go on at any length to suggest to the Minister that regardless of what reports come in and what opinions may be expressed, if only for the benefit and assistance of the Aboriginal people, he must establish guidelines. When we look at the expenditure of funds for Aboriginal legal aid, we see some most unusual situations. We see two Aboriginal people- two groups perhaps- at odds with each other. One is granted aid and the other is not. That is just an instance.

I now turn to the main subject on which I wish to speak tonight. I will not speak on the matter for too long. I was interested to read the statement that was issued on 18 May regarding the Australian Aboriginal Affairs Council meeting in Adelaide. The meeting was attended by Commonwealth and State Ministers concerned with Aboriginal affairs. They emphasised the need for improved training, employment, housing and funding for Aboriginal people. The people who attended this meeting- including the Federal Minister, whom we all know has very genuine feelings towards Aboriginal people, and all the State Ministers concerned, whom I would say are no less sincere in their actions towards the Aboriginal people- sat down and endeavoured to work out what could be done in the future for the Aboriginal people. It is worth quoting the following parts from the statement:

The Ministers supported the concept of self-management for Aboriginal people. However, the Ministers agreed that there was a gap between the ideal of self-management and its practical application.

The statement went on to say:

This gap required narrowing through improved training of Aboriginal people, improved community support systems and adequate funding to enable programs to be implemented. Ministers called on the Commonwealth Government to reduce the gap and so encourage Aboriginal people to become self-reliant.

The brief talk that I am about to give will relate to what is meant by self-reliant, and all those other words that we have heard over the years such as ‘assimilation’, ‘self-determination’, and so on. Mr Acting Deputy President, you too, come from the Northern Territory. Senator Cavanagh, who is in the chamber, at one stage was Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. There are many people who are interested in Aboriginal matters and who wonder where we are going with Aboriginal liaison and what we are doing for Aborigines.

I go back several years to when it was decided that Australia had responsibilities for Aboriginal people. At that time the Aboriginal race was in dire straits. The Aboriginal race was being whittled by neglect and illness. Aboriginals did not have the ability or the facilities to withstand the diseases with which they came in contact. Not only was there tuberculosis; there was tremendous infant mortality and so on. I can only liken the attitude of the Government of those days as being that of a kindly rich uncle. He was a paternal type of person who wanted to do something but he did not really understand what the game was all about. So he decided that the Aboriginal people would be gathered together. He saw the Aboriginal people as a black race and because they were black they had a commonality. His attitude was that they should all be brought together so that they could be assisted. The rich uncle, who had this view of aboriginality in relation to a group of black people, did not know better.

Senator Georges:

– What the devil are you talking about?

Senator KILGARIFF:

– I suggest that the honourable senator listen. To an Aboriginal, aboriginality does not mean that a person is black. An Aboriginal will not say: ‘I am a black man; I am an Aboriginal’. He will say: ‘I am a Wailbri’ or ‘I am a pitjatjantjara’ or ‘I am an Arunta ‘. He does so because he is a person who belongs to a specific group of people. This is where the mistake was made in the early days of the assimilation of Aboriginals. Aboriginals did not appreciate the rich uncle’s point of view.

Later I would like to hear Senator Cavanagh ‘s remarks. What happened was that they were herded together and they did not understand what the game was all about.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Herding together was not assimilation.

Senator KILGARIFF:

– As the honourable senator said, this was not assimilation. The Aborigines were herded together and this was a situation beyond their experience. There was no concept of such a thing in Aboriginal law. This was the beginning of many of the problems which are being experienced today. We have gone on from assimilation, the crowding together of people -

Senator Cavanagh:

– But that was not assimilation. It was more apartheid than assimilation.

Senator KILGARIFF:

– It was regarded as assimilation in those days. Because of lack of knowledge it was believed that eventually, through the grouping of these people, there would be an intermingling of blood and the Aboriginal people would disappear over the decades. However, that has not happened. The Aboriginal people are a proud race, and will always remain so. Groups of tribal people cannot live together. It is against their law. Tribes have to live within the boundaries of their own land. They were forced into these particular areas in the belief that it was for their own good, for their education and health. This did not provide the answer that the Government and the Australian people were looking for but a very strong paternal attitude towards the Aboriginal people developed.

Because Aboriginals were brought into this situation they had to forgo their own law. They became just a group of people crowded into settlements at the will of the Government. The Government did a good job. It improved Aboriginal health and it provided education for Aboriginal children. The settlements were very tidy and there was employment. On the surface it appeared that the Aboriginal people were being well looked after and were in good spirits. But, of course, this was not the case. Aboriginal law goes much deeper than some people appreciate.

Ultimately the time arrived when it was decided that Aboriginal people should be given self-determination. I am certainly not a racist and I am certainly not a knocker but if anyone thinks that the concept that is now being practised in regard to self-determination for Aboriginals is working, I would say that they are out of touch with reality. I will tell the Senate what has happened. There was a time when the Government did everything for the Aboriginal people although they had to intermingle, which was against their law. They were not trained although they were given jobs such as looking after settlements and so on. Then suddenly the Government, the Australian people, decided that the Aboriginal people must be given selfdetermination; that they must be given the right to decide what they want to do and where they want to go. But the Aboriginal people had no experience or training to enable them to work out where they were going in our rather sophisticated society. They were in a void and they were unable to cope with the situation.

It was at about this time that the Commonwealth public servants who had previously attended to their affairs were withdrawn from the Aboriginal settlements and the formation of elected Aboriginal Councils was encouraged. This was something foreign to Aboriginal concepts. It is not the way that Aboriginal law works. However, the Aboriginals were encouraged to develop the council situation. The people on whom they had leaned for years were withdrawn, and suddenly they were left on their own. It was a pitiful situation and it embraced many aspects. With the withdrawal of the people on whom they were so reliant there was a void. At this time the Aboriginals were establishing cooperatives. They were encouraged to enter into such businesses. But most of them did not have the ability for self-management that enabled them to conduct their affairs in a businesslike manner. One or two of them had this ability, but I am talking generally. Because they did not have the support of the officers of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs whose services were withdrawn- I am not attacking them; I am just making a factual statement- the Aboriginals had a tendency to create massive supermarkets. It was not uncommon for the businesses they developed then to have a turnover of over $ 1 m a year. Some of them still do. That is big business in anybody’s language for a town or suburb, let alone an Aboriginal settlement.

Some of the people who work for the Aboriginals in this area are dedicated, honest people but I do not label them all as such. These people assist the Aboriginals to the best of their ability to run these enterprises in a businesslike manner, but there is also an element of failure and this element is far too prevalent in the Northern Territory. It is not unusual to hear of an Aboriginal enterprise in the Northern Territory that has gone to the wall. When I say ‘gone to the wall’ I mean that suddenly it is found that one of these supermarkets or co-operatives is $ 100,000 out of pocket, that suddenly there is no finance in the business, that suddenly there are no goods in the store, and that suddenly there is an influx of creditors looking for payment. I say that the reason for this is the withdrawal of the people who gave assistance to the Aboriginals.

The Aboriginals have little knowledge of the sophisticated world of business enterprise. We have difficulty in understanding all the aspects of the sophisticated life that we lead today, so we must sympathise with the Aboriginals who were thrust into this situation and who had to find people to fill the void which had been created by the withdrawal of the people who had assisted them. Perhaps they could be described as the paternal types, but they were the ones on whom the Aboriginals relied. As I have said before, a majority of the businesses are in good condition because of the honesty and dedication of the Europeans who work with the Aboriginal people, but there are far too many people who use the Aboriginals with whom they live to their own advantage. I have seen far too many businesses in the Northern Territory fail to wish to see this system continued.

Senator Cavanagh:

– What is your alternative?

Senator KILGARIFF:

– There are alternatives, Senator Cavanagh. I am coming to them. I do not think that anyone should stand up and be critical of a system- some people would describe it as endeavouring to destroy a system- without offering a constructive alternative. I would suggest to the Government that it should introduce paternalism- to me that is not a nasty word- to some degree. I believe in paternalism because I am the head of a family. I assist and direct my children towards their future. There is nothing to worry about in relation to paternalism. (Quorum formed). The Opposition is getting a little edgy about what I call paternalism. All I am saying is that one practises paternalism within one’s family and there is no reason why some kindness should not be shown to the Aboriginal people. If paternalism is the word for that, let us start to introduce some paternalism to help the Aboriginal people.

Senator Cavanagh has asked me what I would do to prevent the situation arising in which there is a collapse of an Aboriginal enterprise. In the first place I would suggest that there must be an understanding between the Aboriginal people, the councils of a particular area and government- the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and his Department- of the need for liaison and communication. I would suggest that people should be employed to assist the Aboriginals. There should be a calling for applications from the people who are offering their services and those applications should be vetted to ensure that the applicants have sufficient knowledge of financial and business aspects to enable them to do these things. A proving situation should exist between the Aboriginal councils and government whereby applicants will be vetted before they are appointed. If the situation arises that their books do not balance they should be investigated and removed if necessary.

Senator Cavanagh:

– But who would make the appointments?

Senator KILGARIFF:

– I have just discussed that situation. The present system is not working because literally hundreds of thousands of dollars are going down the drain. I am suggesting that an advisory organisation- not necessarily the Department of Aboriginal Affairs- should be formed to carry out the vetting, appointing and close scrutiny for the Aboriginals. By ‘close scrutiny’ I mean a regular inspection of the books to ensure that the kind of situation to which I have referred does not arise.

Senator Cavanagh:

– You say that selfdetermination is wrong?

Senator KILGARIFF:

– Self-determination is not wrong but it is not working under the present system. Too much responsibility is being placed upon the Aboriginal people and they are being touched in many ways because they do not have the necessary experience. Senator Cavanagh, let us go back to the days when you were Minister for Aboriginal Affairs.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Robertson)- Order! I ask the honourable senator to address his remarks to the Chair.

Senator KILGARIFF:

– When Senator Cavanagh was Minister for Aboriginal Affairs did he initiate any training program to enable the Aboriginals to carry out the responsibility that has been thrust upon them by selfdetermination? If we wish self-determination to be successful then we have to look much more closely at the situation. I believe that training concepts have to be brought in and that a complete review of the whole situation is needed, for the good of the Aboriginal people and for the good of the taxpayers of Australia.

Senator COLSTON:
Queensland

– Only 13 days ago I was very disappointed that when there was an opportunity to debate in this chamber the Government’s pension policy the Government cut short the debate. I refer to the debate we had when a matter of urgency was brought forward by my colleague,

Senator Grimes. I share with Senator Harradine the concern he expressed on a sitting day shortly before the Senate last rose, that the General Business item he has on the Notice Paper will not be debated before the next Budget session. I remind honourable senators that that General Business item reads:

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

I believe, as Senator Harradine believes, that it is important that this chamber has the opportunity to debate that motion and to express an opinion on it. As it is, we will not have an opportunity to do that until after the Budget is presented in August. That will be a little late for the Senate as a whole to express an opinion on this motion regarding the indexation of pensions.

A great wave of resentment is sweeping this country in relation to the Fraser Government’s treatment of social security recipients. If we in the Opposition did not report this resentment to the Parliament, and if we did not raise this matter in the Parliament, we would be derelict in our duty. This is one of the reasons for my speaking on this matter tonight. I can remember an occasion well before I became a member of this chamber when pensioners were given a miserly 50c a week increase in a Federal Budget. I can also remember the community’s disgust with the Government’s attitude on that occasion. That 50c a week increase was regarded at that time as nothing more than a cynical gesture towards the pensioner. Nowadays the same feeling exists throughout Australia. The public has quite clearly shown that it is disgusted with the Government’s reneging on its indexation promises. Not many, if any, actions of this Government have created so much anger within the community.

The indexation of pensions has been canvassed extensively in this chamber and in the House of Representatives. Therefore, I do not intend to canvass it at any great length today. That does not mean that the matter is unimportant; it is vitally important to a large section of the community. It is not an issue which should be brushed aside in a cavalier fashion, as Senator Durack did two weeks ago when I asked him a question on this subject. It is a matter that this Government will have to consider carefully- I believe it must consider it carefully- in its current Budget deliberations. Even though the indexation of pensions has been canvassed widely in this Parliament, I intend to mention two matters in relation to the Government’s broken promises on indexation.

On 27 April this year I attended by invitation a meeting of a pensioner group in the Queensland provincial city of Bundaberg. I should add that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) who was in Bundaberg on that day was also invited to that meeting. I believe that a certain government senator was also invited to the meeting. Neither the Prime Minister nor that government senator accepted the invitation. I was quite happy to accept the invitation to go along to speak to the pensioners and to answer any questions they might have had. One of my colleagues in the House of Representatives also accepted an invitation to go to that meeting.

Senator Tate:

– Did you say that the Prime Minister was definitely asked to attend?

Senator COLSTON:

-The Prime Minister was invited to that meeting, but even though he was in Bundaberg he would neither attend the meeting nor meet with a representative group of those pensioners. At the meeting the pensioners unanimously condemned the Government for its refusal to index pensions on a twice yearly basis. But the strength of their feeling was evident by the way in which they showed how very strongly they felt about this matter. At one stage, after condemning the Government’s recent policy of not indexing pensions on a twice yearly basis, they spontaneously took to the streets of Bundaberg to voice their protest. As I watched those pensioners march I felt proud of them, and I was proud of the resolute way in which they voiced their protest against the Government.

Senator Gietzelt:

– With a street march approval?

Senator COLSTON:

– lt was quite a resolute way in which they did this, because the street march was not approved as Senator Gietzelt has suggested. Those honourable senators who know of the Queensland street march regulations know what these pensioners had before them, or thought they might have had before them, as a result of them marching in the streets of Bundaberg.

Senator Tate:

– They were taking a very real risk.

Senator COLSTON:

– They were taking a great risk, but they thought the risk was worth while because that was the way in which they wanted to voice their protest against the policies of this Government. I was very proud of them as 1 watched them march through the streets, and as they marched to the council chambers where they handed to the Mayor of the City of Bundaberg a protest which they asked him to forward to the Prime Minister- the Prime Minister who was in the city that day but who had refused to attend the pensioners’ meeting or to meet a delegation of the people who had gathered there.

The second matter which I wish to mention in relation to twice yearly indexation, concerns an incident which occurred when I recently visited Toowoomba. On Queensland Labor Day this year, which was 7 May, I went to the provincial city of Toowoomba. While I was there a pensioner approached me and said: ‘Senator, can you not do something for the pensions? With no rise in our pension our standard of living is dropping week by week. Each week there are more price increases and our pensions buy less and less’. This pensioner went on to tell me how difficult the situation had become. I believe that his plight is similar to that of pensioners throughout Australia. Why would the situation as he outlined it to me not be difficult? The last consumer price index increase which was taken into account for pensioners was that of June 1978- almost 12 months ago. Since then there have been consumer price index increases of 1.9 per cent in September 1978, 2.3 per cent in December 1 978 and 1 .7 per cent in March of this year. None of these increases, that is the 1.9 per cent, the 2.3 per cent and the 1.7 per cent, has yet been taken into account for the purposes of adjusting pensions.

Today we had notice that there had been food price increases of an unprecedented size when compared with recent years throughout Australia. Today we were told that between March and April this year there had been an average of a 3.1 per cent increase in food prices throughout Australia. Of course, in some places it was greater than 3.1 per cent. In Sydney, it was 3.9 per cent. Here in Canberra it was 4.2 per cent. In my city of Brisbane there was a 2.4 per cent increase in prices. If there was a 2.4 per cent increase in the price of food in one month in Brisbane, then I imagine that this situation would be reflected throughout the whole of Queensland. We must remember that once we get out of Brisbane and into the rural areas of Queensland, food is more expensive. Yet the pensioners are faced with these sorts of increases. The same Bureau of Statistics publication which was issued today showed that the weighted average increase over 12 months for the six capital cities was 14 per cent. In my city of Brisbane, which happened to be the lowest, there was an 1 1 .4 per cent increase. Why do things not become difficult for pensioners when this sort of thing occurs? Yet now the pensioners will have to wait until November to catch up with these sorts of increases and with the sorts of increases which I mentioned just a few minutes ago in relation to the consumer price index.

It is very easy for members of the House of Representatives and for honourable senators to sit here, to receive a comfortable salary and to imagine that the pensioners do not require indexation of their pensions. I am not too proud to admit that I know what their situation is like. Both my parents are age pensioners so I know the sort of thing that they are going through. As well, I had experience in the early 1970s of trying to live on $19 a week unemployment benefit while supporting a wife and child. It was not very easy at that time. But looking back, I am glad that I had that opportunity because I know what it is like for pensioners nowadays. Regrettably- I say that advisedly- many honourable senators on the Government side have not had such an experience and they would not know what it is like. Earlier this month- to be precise, on 6 May- I read the Sunday morning paper in Brisbane and I was dismayed to read an article which was headed: ‘Savage welfare cuts likely in Budget’. Whilst this was some two weeks or more ago I shall read from some parts of the article. It stated:

The Fraser Government is considering savage cuts in welfare spending, including a means test on family allowances and pensions for people over 70 . . . The Prime Minister (Mr Fraser) is believed to have told the Ministers to prune every cent possible, lt is understood the committee will examine proposals:

To impose a means test on family allowances.

Reintroduce the means test for pensioners over 70.

That is part of the article. As I have said, although the article is some two weeks old it is quite revealing to read it. If what the article states is correct, then that is alarming news. However, I believe that since the article was written the Government may have received the message of the widespread dismay that there is throughout the community. If the Government does change its mind, let us not have the spurious claim which we had last year that the Minister for Social Security won a battle within the Cabinet. On this occasion if there has been a win, it is a win for the pensioners of Australia who have shown that they have the will to go against the sorts of policies that were announced in the last Budget and which have really come into being this month when the pensioners should have had an increase in their pensions.

Those who are dependent upon the Government for their livelihood- I include the age pensioners, the invalid pensioners, the widow pensioners, service pensioners and those on supporting parents benefits- should not bear the brunt of what the Sunday Mail called savage welfare cuts. If belts must be tightened- this is debatable- social security recipients and low income families should be the last to be considered as targets for the Government’s austerity measures. I ask the Senate to allow me to reiterate. I hold that the need to exempt social security recipients from the type of punitive measures which the Government is bringing forward is a matter at which this Parliament should look with great urgency.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I rise tonight to ventilate a number of immigration problems because in recent days the Press of the major capital cities has emphasised the dilemma of the Government in regard to its committed intake of Vietnamese refugees from the turbulent area of Asia. Primarily I rise in this chamber to refer to other segments of the ethnic community so that their needs or wants for that matter, will not be overlooked. I took the liberty of conferring with the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle). Firstly, I refer to a letter dated 23 April 1 979 from the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar). Being mindful of the turbulent political era occurring I referred to the plight of non-Moslems in Iran. I have the Minister’s permission to have this letter incorporated in Hansard. I ask that that be done.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS

Parliament House Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 Ref: 73/95220 23 April 1979

Dear Senator Mulvihill,

On 21 March you asked a question without notice of Senator Guilfoyle in her capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs in the Senate. Your question concerned immigration operations in Iran.

There is no officer of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs located in Iran. Officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs at the Australian Embassy in Tehran usually process applications for entry to Australia in accordance with established policy and procedures.

Since I January 1979 the new migration policy (including NUMAS) has been in effect throughout the world and persons in Iran seeking entry to Australia would be considered on that basis. However, recent events in Iran have led to a situation where the Australian Embassy is no longer in a position to continue to handle its full range of consular and immigration functions.

The evacuation from Iran of non-essential staff of the Embassy has resulted in a situation where only persons sponsored under family reunion rules are having their migration applications processed at this time. Independent applicants are being informed they may address themselves to posts in neighbouring countries if they wish to test their migration eligibility prior to resumption of full activities by the Embassy. On present indications, it is not expected the Embassy will revert to a normal operational situation before July or August 1979.

There would be no question of the Australian Embassy in Tehran being able to regard Iranians living in Iran as refugees. The definition of a refugee under international convention and protocol specifies that refugees are persons outside their country of nationality or usual residence.

Yours sincerely,

J. R. MacKELLAR

Senator J. A. Mulvihill,

Parliament House,

Canberra, A.C.T. 2600

Senator MULVIHILL:

– The Minister has outlined some of the difficulties faced as a result of our embassy being under a state of semi-siege. He has pointed out how we are acting under extreme difficulty. In the meantime I was approached by Mr E. Britt, the State member for Willoughby who is well known to Senator Douglas McClelland. This matter is a parallel situation to that which occurred to many Cypriots who were here as tourists when the invasion of that island occurred. This case involves Anna Thomas. Her name has been anglicised. She is a native of Iran. I ask that this document be incorporated in Hansard because it tabulates the family tree and other kindred details.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

PARLIAMENT OF AUSTRALIA

THE SENATE

Tony Mulvihill Senator for N.S.W. Australian Parliament Offices Australian Government Centre Chifley Square, Sydney, N.S.W. 2000 Telephone: 22 1 2700 21st May 1979

From Eddie Britt, M.P., Phone 406 546 File number Sydney N78/500833 Anna Thomas 57 years

At present with widowed sister at 46 Hector Road, Willoughby, NSW Armenian religion. Told to leave by 1.6.79 with sister.

Son and daughter in Iran migrating to USA subject to medical test and requested to come to Australia was rejected. Remaining son Iran in Shah ‘s Army. And has been missing for eight to nine months.

She has been in Australia since son joined Shah ‘s Army since 10 December 1977.

Applied last Friday 18.5.1979 for permanent residence and submitted form, but did not sign it.

Other relatives in Australia, sister, mother, two nephews and one niece.

Widow.

Senator MULVIHILL:

– The punch line in this application is that originally the woman in question had two sons and a daughter in Iran. One son and one daughter were accepted by the United States of America after being rejected by Australia. I take it that originally the other son was a conscript. He served in the Shah’s palace guard. Obviously he is on the losing side but I do not think that a mother should suffer for what we might call the sins of the son. I do not say that disrespectfully- far from it. I think that the Dawes committee, of which the Minister would be well aware, should favourably consider this tourist’s application for permanent residence in Australia. So the defence rests on that particular case. The other application came from the Greek Labor Association of Western Districts which would be the Parramatta region. The secretary of that body has raised with me what he defines as an expansive statement by our Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) at various Greek functions. The key words in the letter are:

Malcolm Fraser has assured the Greek community that if a case of family reunion exists that is not problem to bring relatives to Australia.

I pass that on without comment. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the letter from the Greek Labor Association of Western Districts, signed by its President, and a letter from the Regional Director of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs in Sydney. These matters could be taken on board by the Minister and examined.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

THE GREEK LABOR ASSOCIATION OF WESTERN DISTRICTS P.O. Box 878 Parramatta N.S.W. 19.5.79

Dear Tony,

I want you to make a personal representation to the Minister of Immigration regarding Mr D. Rizos of 77 Wingram St Harris Park NSW regarding his brother Georgios Rizos from Greece.

Malcolm Fraser has assured the Greek Community that if a case of family re-union exist that is not problem to bring relatives to Australia.

Please make personal representation and reply to me and also to Mr Rizos.

Your Fraternally Alexander Zotos JP President

Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs Commonwealth Government Centre Chifley Square Sydney, N.S.W. 2000 6 February 1979

Dear Mr Rizos

I am writing concerning your nomination of Georgios RIZOS and family whom you wish to have join you in Australia.

The Government’s Immigration Policy provides for the admission, subject to certain criteria, of the spouses, dependent children, parents and fiance(e)’s of Australian residents. Other applicants are considered if they possess skills or qualifications acceptable in Australia in occupations for which there is an unfilled demand.

Unfortunately your nominee is not eligible for sponsorship within the limited provision for family reunion, and his occupation as an Electrician is not one that is currently included in the list of eligible occupations.

In the circumstances, I am sorry to inform you that your application for the entry of abovenamed has not been approved.

Yours sincerely, (R. Miller) for Regional Director

Senator MULVIHILL:

– The other matters I wish to raise probably need greater amplification. I have in my hand the tenth report, dated December 1978, of the Committee on Overseas Professional Qualifications. I am not in any way reflecting on the work of the Committee, which adequately clears up cases in which people come to this country with assumed professional qualifications. However, I believe that the criteria used by the Committee should be transmitted to our distant migration officers in the various parts of the world. I wish to refer to a case involving an Indian girl who is really in a Catch 22 situation. The girl was permitted to come to this country and took up duty as a physiotherapist at the Wollongong Hospital. We have to accept the fact that under our federal system we have different criteria for acceptance into various professions. Apparently this girl has failed an examination. The Australian Examining Council for Overseas Physiotherapists will give her a fresh examination but this will not take place for some months. In the meantime, the Wollongong Hospital has indicated to her that if she is not a fully fledged and accepted physiotherapist by the end of the month she will be joining the unemployed.

I know that this is probably a situation in which Federal and State rules overlap. It is an interesting case history, but rather than delay the Senate I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard two documents from the Australian Examining Council for Overseas Physiotherapists, the first dated 28 August 1978 and the second dated 2 May 1979.

Leave granted.

The documents read as follows-

Australian Examining Council for Overseas Physiotherapists Commerce House, Brisbane Avenue, Barton P.O. Box 1407, Canberra City, ACT 2601 Telephone 73 2548 28 August 1978

Miss Hutoxi Amrolia, Wollongong Hospital, Physiotherapy Department, Box 1 798 P.O., Wollongong, NSW 2500 Dear Miss Amrolia

Thank you for your letter of 18 August. I have since received a report on your supervised practice from Mrs Tupling, chief physiotherapist at Wollongong Hospital, and am arranging through Miss Doreen Moore, Head of the School of Physiotherapy at the Cumberland College of Health Sciences, for your clinical examination to be held.

The examination will take the following form:

Three separate patients will be used in the examination. They have an acute, sub acute or chronic condition in the thoracic, orthopaedic or neurological fields. Where possible, one patient will be drawn from the paediatric field.

You will be provided with all information relevant to the patient and will be required to assess, plan a program and carry out a treatment of the patient.

The examiners will also ascertain your knowledge of:

the conditions treated;

what could have been the previous treatment;

how the management program might be progressed.

Each section of the exam should not exceed one hour but should include at least ten minutes of viva voce. A suitable break will be allowed between exams.

It is unfortunate that you were not told of the requirement to advise this Council when you had obtained a position for supervised practice. This information was given to the Australian Consulate-General to pass on to you when your Interim Certificate was sent in June of last year.

I hope their omission will not have a deleterious effect on your examination, and wish you every success.

Yours sincerely, (Christopher Dear) Secretary

Australian Examining Council for Overseas Physiotherapists Commerce House, Brisbane Avenue, Barton P.O. Box 1407, Canberra City, A.C.T.2601 2 May 1979

Dear Miss Amrolia,

I am writing in relation to the clinical examination which you attempted on 3 April. 1 regret to inform you that after very careful and prolonged consideration, you were judged to be unsuccessful and as this was your second attempt you will not be permitted to resit the examination.

Ms Doreen M. Moore, a member of the Council and Head of the School of Physiotherapy at the Cumberland College of Health Sciences has kindly agreed to talk with you to explore what action might now bc taken. You may contact Ms Moore at the address given below:

Ms Doreen M. Moore. Head,

School of Physiotherapy,

Cumberland College of Health Sciences,

P.O.Box 170,

Lidcombe, N.S.W. 2 14 1

Phone (02) 6466444

Yours sincerely, (Christopher Dear) Secretary

Miss Hutoxi Amrolia, Wollongong Hospital, Physiotherapy Department, Box 1798 P.O., Wollongong, N.S.W. 2500

Senator MULVIHILL:

-I think that the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) appreciates my methods. When this matter appears in the Hansard record we will have about 10 days for Wollongong Hospital Board to give the girl an extension or, conversely, for the authorities in Canberra to bring forward the examination date. I think that this is a reasonable request. A job is on the line, and I am sure that this matter will receive mature consideration. I hope that in the future there will be a better meshing between State and Federal authorities in this respect.

My colleague Senator Douglas McClelland probably would be more competent to deal with the next matter I wish to raise because he, with Senator Bishop, was responsible for the early tooling up for ethnic radio. Most of us have noted the pilot program in which the major ethnic communities have endeavoured to sell their wares. I have received a letter from Mr de Sousa, the coordinator of Portuguese programs, in which he seeks an extension of the Portuguese and Brazilian radio program. At the moment the program is allocated two hours broadcasting time, made up of one hour from 4 p.m. to 5 p.m. on Wednesdays and 10 a.m. to 1 1 a.m. on Thursdays. I do not think that these times could be considered prime radio spots. The Portuguese community numbers about 32,000, although there seems to be some doubt in the mind of officialdom whether that figure is correct. There is a congregation of Portuguese people in Sydney as well as a big congregation in Fremantle. I believe there is also a small enclave of Portuguese in the Northern Territory. But the fact of the matter is that a Portuguese language radio program would rope in some Brazilians and some Timorese. These people believe that because of a squeeze play they are not being allowed to expand their radio program. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the letter from Mr de Sousa, which sets out in very clear terms the needs of the Portuguese community and requests that efforts be made to enlarge their area of operation. I have shown this letter to the Minister, who has indicated her approval.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows- 7th May, 1979

To

Senator A. J. Mulvihill Australian Parliament House

Dear Sir,

Re: Portuguese Programme

We wish to request for an extension of the Portuguese and Brazilian programme. Presently we have two hours broadcasting time, (Wednesday 4 to 5 p.m. and Thursday 10 to 1 1 a.m. ) to be increased to six or seven hours weekly.

When our programme started in 1976, the statistics of the Immigration Department stated that the total of the Portuguese Community in N.S.W. was just above five thousand. According to official information from the Portuguese General Counsulate in Sydney the Portuguese community at present numbers 32,000 in Australia (copy attached) with about 24,000 of them in N.S.W. plus Portuguese speaking community of Brazilians and Timorese.

You will appreciate that two hours allocated at present, substantially restricts the possibility of using much of the material available to us to a wider audience which would be of great value to Portuguese speaking community and to the country as a whole.

We are endeavouring to reach the largest possible audience in the Portuguese speaking Community and in order to enable us to achieve our objective we are requesting for one hour between 5 and 8 p.m. and the rest after 10 p.m. during the week.

Two hour time presently allocated does not permit contact with the entire community, in fact, some segments are never reached.

Our programme is now a very important link in the community, providing comprehensive information on social, cultural, sporting events, news and music otherwise not available.

We trust our request will meet with your sympathetic consideration.

Thanking you in advance for your cooperation.

Yours sincerely, FERNANDO NOBREGA DE SOUSA Portuguese Coordinator

Senator MULVIHILL:

– A map has been produced which shows the various areas in which people of Portuguese origin congregate. However, I do not think that this document could be reproduced in Hansard. I make this point on a sentimental note because I think that those of us who have studied Australian history know about early Portuguese explorers such as Ferdinand

Magellan, Vasco cla Gama and the like. I notice that Senator Tate is nodding his head. Obviously he agrees with me that we should pay tribute to these people of earlier times. I think that there is a strong case in favour of the matter I have just raised.

The other matter I wish to raise concerns the slaughter of kangaroos. I am not speaking from notes but I am certain that earlier this year I directed a question to the Hon. Peter Durack, the Attorney-General, about how quickly the law was moving in respect of the slaughter of several kangaroos in a forest in the Australian Capital Territory. I asked the question in February, but this is May and I have not received a reply. A recent newspaper report indicated that two Russian youths who killed several Australian kangaroos in a Moscow zoo have been sent to a penal settlement to work for the state for five years. I believe that there is a lesson to be learned from that. Surely it should not take from February to May for me to find out whether the two gentlemen who were fined about $250 each have paid the fines. I have referred to the episode in the Soviet Union, but we are asking only for a fine to be imposed and paid. I believe that the fine should be paid because 1 have no doubt that these two gentlemen are doing pretty well out of this sort of bloody traffic. I am very anxious that the Minister should let me know whether the fine has been paid in full.

Senator ELSTOB:
South Australia

– I rise to say a few words in the debate on the Appropriation Bills. I believe that medical costs in some areas of this country are reaching alarming proportions. One aspect of health about which I am concerned is the increase in the incidence of cancer, especially cancer that is caused by the environment in which we work and live. Cancer is a problem which touches each of us in some way. We and our families are exposed daily to the agents, called carcinogens, which cause cancer, often unknowingly while we breathe, eat, drink and sleep. However, usually we have no knowledge of what we are being exposed to. In order to respond to the cancer threat, we must all be equipped with basic information and demand preventive policies and actions. If action is to be effective it must be based on information and directed within the realistic limits of the political system.

The incidence of cancer, as we all know, is increasing. It is only in recent years that people have become aware that many cancer-causing agents derive from industrial processes. People who work in a large number of industries today would be subjected to cancer-causing carcinogens if they were not protected by proper breathing apparatus and protective clothing. Tanners and smelters and those who work in the plastics industries run the real risk of contracting cancer of the liver. People who work in the glass, pottery, linoleum, metal, electrolysis, wood, leather and shoe industries and who do not wear protective breathing apparatus and clothing run a real risk of contracting cancer of the nasal cavity and sinuses. Many people who work with asbestos, mine workers, textile users, insulation workers, tanners, smelters, glass and pottery workers, coal tar and pitch workers, and iron foundry workers run the real risk of getting cancer of the lung.

As many honourable senators know, I worked on the waterfront. We had to handle asbestos. Only in the last few weeks people in that industry have started to become ill and the employers agreed to test six people taken at random from the industry at Port Adelaide. Three of those six people have asbestosis. That just goes to show the dangers that people are exposed to when they are totally unaware of the risks they are taking. It has taken possibly 20 years for them to realise that they have asbestosis. Years ago asbestos was imported into this country in unprotected containers- bags that were torn and broken. The asbestos came in ships and floated around in the air. It was taken from the waterfront in open trucks. People in the vicinity of where those trucks went can be affected also. Today it has been proven that asbestos is one of the greatest threats to people. If one works in that industry or lives near it one can almost certainly contract cancer of the lung or asbestosis. This has been known since the early 1 900s when insurance companies began not to give life insurance cover to people who worked in the asbestos industry. It was known at that time that it was very dangerous and yet workers and the general public have never really been told the full truth. That is the real problem. People in the work force and in the general community in every country where asbestos is mined and worked and where many of the other cancer causing agents are coming to the fore now are 3 totally unaware that such conditions prevail.

We have not been told by the medical profession of the dangers involved in many of these industries and yet people go into these industries with no thought of the danger. Professor Epstein is Professor of Occupational and Environmental Medicine at the School of Public Health, University of Illinois at the Medical Centre, Chicago. He was also Chief of the Laboratories of Environmental Toxicology and Carcinogenesis at the

Children’s Cancer Research Foundation in Boston, Senior Research Associate in Pathology at Harvard Medical School, and Swetland Professor of Environmental Health and Human Ecology at Case Western Reserve University Medical School. He has produced a document entitled ‘The Politics of Cancer’. That document explains just how vulnerable the American population is to some of the cancer causing agents which are available in the United States. Cancer is now killing and disabling 53 million people in the United States. He says that over a quarter of the population will develop some form of cancer, from which approximately 20 per cent of the United States population will die. It is estimated that 665,000 new cancer cases were diagnosed in 1975 and that there were 365,000 cancer deaths. In 1975 alone cancer deaths were five times higher than the total United States military deaths in the Vietnam and Korean wars combined.

In this country we have not done a comprehensive study on this subject. It is essential for any developed country to do this. If we are to know the real causes of illnesses which result in increases in health expenditure, I believe that it is essential for this to be done. I think back to some 20 years ago when we worked on the waterfront with machines that were powered by petrol. At that time quite a number of our people were becoming affected by petrol fumes when working below decks in confined spaces. There was a large increase in the number of people dying from what we thought were heart complaints, but we had no idea what was causing them. Because we were concerned about this we started to keep records. We realised that they just were not dying of heart complaints and it was our belief then that they must have been dying from carbon monoxide gas. But the medical profession at that time told us that if one had a large intake of carbon monoxide gas and got out into the fresh air, the gas would dissipate from the body. We believed that this was not right.

Eventually after we had collected sufficient information the then assistant secretary of the Waterside Workers Federation went to a medical convention in the United States and con- vinced people at the convention that carbon monoxide gas did not dissipate out of the body but actually built up over a period and eventually caused brain damage and death. This was latter proved to be correct. Over 20 years ago we decided that we would not work with machines that were powered by petrol and that the employers had to bring in machines which used liquid petroleum gas, which is comparatively free of all the dangers to which one would be subjected when breathing the fumes from petrol using machines. Since that time the whole of the problem has been cleaned up. This did not cost the industry anything. The running of machines on liquid petroleum gas saved that industry many thousands of dollars. There was less maintenance on the machines and the health of the people improved simply because this fact was brought to the employers’ attention.

I believe that there should be a full and thorough investigation into all industries. With commonsense attitudes not only can people’s health be restored and safeguarded but also a great deal of expense can be saved by the whole of the community. That is essential. It is simply not good enough for people who work in industry all of a sudden to find themselves in real trouble because of cancer causing agents. In the last few weeks it has been found that men who have been working as machine operators and using machine oil and whose overalls and clothing have been impregnated with the oil have contracted cancer of the scrotum. That type of occurrence could be overcome quite easily by people wearing decent protective clothing. It is simply that that has not been thought of. I believe that consideration should be given to the whole matter.

Debate interrupted.

page 1952

ADJOURNMENT

Destruction of Wildlife in the Australian Capital Territory

The PRESIDENT:

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

That the Senate do not adjourn.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I just want to redress a wrong. Earlier, in the latter part of my speech, I expressed impatience at the failure of the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) to supply me with details of the prosecution of two people for destroying kangaroos in the Australian Capital Territory. Being mindful of the time, I simply seek leave to incorporate in Hansard an answer to Question on Notice No. 1236, which indicates that justice has been done- at least half way.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the Attorney-General upon notice on 20 February 1 979:

Have the fines imposed upon Paul Anthony Nobbs and Kenneth George Skinner at the Canberra Court of Petty

Sessions of killing protected animals, viz: two grey kangaroos and a joey, in the Uriarra Forest yet been paid; if not, why not.

Senator Durack:

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

I am informed that in the Canberra Court of Petty Sessions on 4 January 1979 Paul Anthony Nobbs was convicted on 2 charges, one of killing a protected animal and one of discharging a gun in a public place, both offences occurring on 31 August 1978. He was fined $100 on the first charge and $20 on the second. The Court allowed him until 4 April 1 979 to pay the fines which have not yet been paid. Action to enforce payment of the fines will now be taken. On the same day Kenneth George Skinner was convicted on one charge of killing a protected animal on 31 August 1978. He was fined $100 which was paid on 5 February 1979.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 10.31 p.m.

page 1954

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Radio and Television: Election Material (Question No. 950)

Senator Mason:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 24 October 1978:

  1. 1 ) How much time was made available to broadcast election speeches or political advertisements in respect of each political party on each radio broadcasting station and television station in connection with the State election in New South Wales on 7 October 1 978.
  2. What was the percentage distribution of time purchased by parties and candidates on metropolitan and country commercial braodcasting and television stations.
  3. What were the costs charged for this time, and what was the percentage distribution of these costs.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

On the basis of information provided to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal by licensees of commercial broadcasting and television stations and by the Australian Broadcasting Commission, the following tables have been prepared to show the details requested under parts ( 1 ), (2) and (3) of the question. These tables show details of radio and television broadcasts of election speeches and political advertisements for the period 12 September 1 978 (date of issue of writs) to 4 October 1 979.

1 ) Election speeches and political advertisements.

Unemployment Statistics (Question No. 980)

Senator Grimes:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 26 October 1978:

Are statistics kept in the Minister’s Department on special groups of Commonwealth Employment Service registrants, e.g. 15-18 year olds, 19-20 years olds, Aboriginals, handicapped persons, ex-prisoners; if so, will these be made publicly available.

Senator Durack:
LP

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

The Department of Employment and Youth Affairs regularly collects statistics on special groups of persons registered for employment with the Commonwealth Employment Service.

In regard to your specific inquiries, the Department collects monthly statistics on junior persons, ie, those under 2 1 years of age categorised into 2 groups: school-leaver and non school-leaver juniors. Until October 1978 non school-leaver juniors were further disaggregated into 2 agc groups, namely, those persons aged 15-18 and those aged 19-20. Collection of these series was discontinued at that time following implementation of the Norgard Review recommendations to alleviate the statistical workload on Offices of the Commonwealth Employment Service. All historical information relating to these series is available to members of the public upon request.

The Department also collects on a monthly basis information on Aboriginals seeking employment and on a quarterly basis information relating to handicapped persons seeking employment. As with the information on non schoolleavers by age, this information is available to the public upon request.

Statistical information on the registration of ex-prisoners is collected in a number of States on an informal basis for internal use only. These statistics lack sufficient coverage for many analytical purposes, and their reliability is not able to be ascertained. This information can be made available to interested persons following a formal approach to the Department.

National Employment and Training Scheme (Question No. 1053)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 2 1 November 1978:

  1. What women’s retraining programs under the National Employment and Training System are Funded in each State.
  2. What amounts have been allocated to these programs in each year from 1976 to 1978.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. I ) Special courses may be developed under NEAT to assist unemployed people in gaining employment particularly in those occupations for which suitable training is not available on-the-job with an employer or through an established educational institution. The courses are made available to registered unemployed people who are assessed as having inadequate or inappropriate work skills. NEAT funds arc provided on a short-term basis only and are intended to enable industry or the education system opportunity to assess the course and provide for future funding.

The following special courses have been funded under NEAT for women since 1976. The courses are listed by State and an approximate cost for each course is included. I would point out that of the courses listed a number were specifically designed for women while the remainder were developed in occupations traditionally favoured by women and therefore could be considered to be directed predominantly at women.

  1. As part of the flexible approach taken under the NEAT System, there has been no allocation specifically provided for training programs for women. Programs have been approved and money allocated from NEAT funds as the need arose. The amounts spent on the courses listed above in the calendar years 1976-78 are shown below:

1976- 3156,729

1977- $389,809

1978- $323,534

Ministerial Meetings with Business Consultants (Question No. 1181)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 20 February 1 979:

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

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

My office regularly receives approaches from individuals and organisations seeking to convey to me views on various aspects of Government policy.

Whilst such views are always of interest the means whereby they reach me are irrelevant. No special facilities are extended to organisations such as those named in the question and no special arrangements exist to record details of contact which they may make with members of my staff.

Details of my own appointments schedule are, of course, maintained by my staff but these indicate the principals with whom I have had discussions, not the names of parties who may have requested the appointment.

Public Telephone at Colinton, Queensland (Question No. 1250)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 20 February 1 979:

  1. Was consideration recently given to re-siting a public telephone at Colinton, Queensland, if so, what was the reason for the proposed re-siting.

  2. Were opinions sought from any community organisations about the proposed re-siting, if so:

    1. what are the names of the organisations; and
    2. b) what was the response of any such organisations.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes. Colinton area telephone services are being converted to automatic working and a new STD public telephone will be installed at the same time.

  2. Yes.

    1. The Esk Shire Council.
    2. The Council advised they preferred the new public telephone to be generally in the same location as the existing one and on the same side of the highway. The proposed site is in accordance with these wishes.

Public Telephones at Lowood, Queensland (Question No. 1251)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 20 February 1979:

  1. 1 ) Was consideration recently given to re-siting public telephones at Lowood Post Office in Queensland; if so, (a) what was the reason for the proposed re-siting.
  2. Were opinions sought from any community organisations about the proposed re-siting; if so, (a) what were the names of any such organisations; and (b) what was the response of any such organisations.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes. The public telephones at the Lowood Post Office are to be replaced with new units providing STD facilities and opportunity will be taken to re-site them from wooden cabinets on the porch of the Post Office to aluminium cabinets on the footpath outside the Post Office.

  2. Yes.

    1. a ) The Esk Shire Council.
    2. The Council advised they preferred the site to remain unaltered as the present site is in a sheltered position. Reasons for the relocation are to improve the visibility of the units to the public and to reduce opportunities for vandalism and misuse. This has been explained to the Council.

Australian Broadcasting Commission National News Service (Question No. 1266)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 20 February 1979:

  1. Did the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s Annual Report 1977-78 (46th), state that ‘staff ceilings and budget restraints this year somewhat restricted the gathering of news . . .’
  2. Will the Minister consider methods of alleviating the Commission’s problems of budget restraints and tight staff ceilings in the interests of maintaining a national news service of uniform coverage and standard.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes.
  2. The Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission has indicated to me certain problems which the Commission has encountered. As I have previously indicated in Parliament the Government is presently examining these and related matters.

Greek Social Security Beneficiaries (Question No. 1294)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 2 1 February 1 979:

  1. 1 ) How many (a) invalid pensioners of Greek origin; and (b) sickness beneficiaries of Greek origin, whose pensions or benefits were cancelled but who were not charged in connection with the alleged New South Wales frauds had held those pensions or benefits for (i) two years or more; (ii) between one and two years; (iii) between six months and one year; and (iv) less than six months.
  2. How many patients of Greek origin who were not charged in connection with the alleged New South Wales frauds had been waiting for compensation settlement for (a) two years or more; (b) between one and two years; (c) between six months and one year; and (d) less than six months.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) Statistics on those not charged are not available and could not be extracted without excessive effort.

Greek Social Security Beneficiaries (Question No. 1298)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 2 1 February 1 979:

  1. 1 ) How many pensioners and beneficiaries of Greek origin not charged under the Crimes Act 1914 in the alleged New South Wales frauds had: (a) an invalid pension; (b) sickness benefits; and (c) other pension or benefit, cancelled, and when were the pensions or benefits cancelled.
  2. How many of those persons were receiving (a) invalid pension; (b) sickness benefit (c) special benefit; (d) unemployment benefit; and (e) other pension or benefit, at the end of each month from April 1 978 to January 1979.
  3. Of the pensions and benefits not restored how many (a) invalid pensions; and (b) sickness benefits, were not restored on (i) medical; and (ii) income grounds.
  4. How many persons who had pensions and benefits restored to them or were granted other benefits had them backdated to the dates of their cancellation.
  5. Where restored pensions and benefits or new benefits were not backdated, what were the reasons.
  6. Were the persons affected informed of the reasons; if so, how.
  7. Were they told of their right to reapply, and to press for backpayments, to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal.
  8. 8 ) How many did so.
  9. How many cases are still under investigation.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. I ) to (9) Statistics on those not charged are not available and could not be extracted without excessive effort.

Frequency Modulation Broadcasting (Question No. 1322)

Senator Mason:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 2 1 February 1979:

  1. 1 ) Has the Minister delivered the submission he referred to in his answer to Senate Question No. 776 (Hansard, 16 November 1 978, page 2171).
  2. When will the Government announce its policy relating to the introduction of commercial FM broadcasting.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes.
  2. 2 ) The Government has not yet decided its policy regarding the development of commercial FM broadcasting. However, I have arranged for further information to be made available for consideration by my colleagues and hope to make an announcement soon.

Apprenticeship Training (Question No. 1329)

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 22 February 1979:

  1. 1 ) How many females and males received apprenticeship training under the National Apprenticeship Assistance Scheme in the years 1975-76 and 1977-78.
  2. What were the areas in which female and male apprentices were trained in those years.
  3. How many males and females received apprenticeship training under the Commonwealth Rebate for Apprentice Full-time Training Scheme in the year 1977-78.
  4. In which areas were males and females apprenticed under the Commonwealth Rebate for Apprentice Full-time Training Scheme in 1977-78.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) to (4) Because subsidies under the National Apprenticeship Assistance Scheme (NAAS) and rebates under the Commonwealth Rebate for Apprentice Full-Time Training (CRAFT) are payable to employers of apprentices, statistics by sex of the apprentices have not been kept. Similarly, data concerning living-away-from-home allowances, paid under both NAAS and CRAFT is only available on an all-persons basis.

Apprenticeship statistics are compiled for the Commonwealth/State Apprenticeship Committee by the Department of Employment and Youth Affairs from statistics made available by the State and Territory Apprenticeship authorities. While it has been suggested that these statistics should be provided on a male/female basis, agreement to supply data in this form has not yet been reached.

National Employment and Training Scheme (Question No. 1330)

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 22 February 1979:

  1. 1 ) How many women and men received training under the National Employment and Training Scheme in the year 1977-78.
  2. In which areas did those women and men receive training.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) A total of 50.699 females and 55,440 males were approved for training under the National Employment and Training System in the year 1977-78.
  2. Information is not available in an accessible form on the specific geographic/industry/occupational areas in which training under NEAT was undertaken in the year 1977-78.

Minister for Trade and Resources: Overseas Visits (Question No. 1336)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 27 February 1 979:

  1. 1 ) How many overseas visits have been made by the Minister since 13 December 1975.
  2. What countries were visited on each occasion, what was the length of stay in each country, and what was the purpose of the visit.
  3. How many: (a) members of the Minister’s personal staff; (b) departmental advisers; and (c) persons other than personal staff and departmental officers, accompanied the Minister on each trip.
  4. What are the names of the persons in category (3) (c) above, in what capacity were they travelling, and who paid their fares and other expenses.
  5. What was the total cost incurred: (a) in connection with the travel undertaken by the Minister; (b) by departmental officers accompanying the Minister; (c) by personal staff accompanying the Minister; and (d) by persons other than the Minister’s personal staff and departmental officers.
  6. To whom were the costs incurred by persons in category ( 5 ) ( d ) charged.
  7. Were the aircraft of No. 34 Squadron used for all or part of the travel; if so: (a) has a charge been raised for such travel; (b) what was the charge; (c) what would have been the commercial airfare applicable for travel undertaken by aircraft of No. 34 Squadron; and (d) do the costs requested in (5) (a) above include the costs for use of aircraft of No. 34 Squadron.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. 12
  2. Feb. 1976: Japan (trade discussions): 8th-22nd July, 1976: Romania (negotiation of trade agreement); U.S.S.R. (trade talks and opening of Australian trade fair). 7th-24th August, 1 976: Iran (negotiation of trade agreement); United Kingdom (discussions on trade and energy); Switzerland (trade discussions); Germany (trade and investment discussions). 4th-7th April, 1977 New Zealand (NAFTA talks). 13th April-9 May, 1977: Switzerland (sugar talks); United States (trade discussions). 30th June-8th July, 1977: Korea (trade discussions); Philippines (trade discussions). 22nd Sept.-7th Oct., 1977: Switzerland (International Sugar Agreement negotiations); Iraq (opening of Australian trade fair and trade talks). 13th-23rd March, 1978: Japan (trade talks). 2nd July-9th August, 1978: Switzerland (MTN talks); Finland (nuclear safeguards agreement signing and trade talks); France (trade and energy discussions); United Kingdom (trade and energy discussions); Philippines (signing of nuclear safeguards agreement and trade discussions). 25th Oct.-5th Nov., 1978: China (leading GovernmentIndustry trade mission). 6th- 1 7th Feb., 1 979: Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait ( leading Government-Industry trade mission ). 27th March-12th April, 1979: United States (MTN negotiations and trade and energy discussions); Canada (discussions on wheat trade and general trade discussions): Japan (MTN and trade and energy discussions): New Zealand ( NAFTA talks).
  3. to (7) I refer the honourable senator to the answer provided by the Prime Minister to Senate Question No. 1335 (Senate Hansard, 2nd May, 1979, pages 1608-1609).

Minister for Transport: Overseas Visits (Question No. 1341)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 27 February 1979:

  1. 1 ) How many overseas visits have been made by the Minister since 13 December 1975.
  2. What countries were visited on each occasion, what was the length of stay in each country, and what was the purpose of the visit.
  3. How many: (a) members of the Minister’s personal staff: (b) departmental advisers; and (c) persons other than personal staff and departmental officers, accompanied the Minister on each trip.
  4. What are the names of the persons in category (3 ) (c) above, in what capacity were they travelling, and who paid their fares and other expenses.
  5. What was the total cost incurred: (a) in connection with the travel undertaken by the Minister; (b) by departmental officers accompanying the Minister; (c) by personal staff accompanying the Minister; and (d) by persons other than the Minister’s personal staff and departmental officers.
  6. To whom were the costs incurred by persons in category 5 (d) charged.
  7. Were the aircraft of No. 34 Squadron used for all or part of the travel; if so, (a) has the charge been raised for such travel; (b) what was the charge; (c) what would have been the commercial airfare applicable for travel undertaken by aircraft of No. 34 Squadron; and (d) do the costs requested in 5 (a) above include the costs for use of aircraft of No. 34 Squadron.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) to (7) In Senate Hansard of 2 May 1979 (page 1609) the Prime Minister provided an answer to Senate Question No. 1335 on Overseas Visits. Please refer to that answer for the purposes of Question No. 1341.

Minister for Health: Overseas Visits (Question No. 1349)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 27 February 1979:

  1. 1 ) How many overseas visits have been made by the Minister since 13 December 1975.
  2. What countries were visited on each occasion, what was the length of stay in each country, and what was the purpose of the visit.
  3. How many: (a) members of the Minister’s personal staff; (b) departmental advisers; and (c) persons other than personal staff and departmental officers, accompanied the Minister on each trip.
  4. What are the names of the persons in category (3) (c) above, in what capacity were they travelling, and who paid their fares and other expenses.
  5. What was the total cost incurred: (a) in connection with the travel undertaken by the Minister; (b) by departmental officers accompanying the Minister; (c) by personal staff accompanying the Minister; and (d) by persons other than the Minister’s personal staff and departmental officers.
  6. To whom were the costs incurred by persons in category ( 5 ) (d ) charged.
  7. Were the aircraft of No. 34 Squadron used for all or part of the travel; if so: (a) has the charge been raised for such travel; (b) what was the charge; (c) what would have been the commercial airfare applicable for travel undertaken by aircraft of No. 34 Squadron; and (d) do the costs requested in (5) (a) above include the costs for use of aircraft of No. 34 Squadron.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

I refer the honourable senator to the answer to Question No. 1335 asked of the Prime Minister (Hansard, pages 1608 and 9) which was published on 2 May 1979.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 22 May 1979, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1979/19790522_senate_31_s81/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant