Senate
29 May 1979

31st Parliament · 1st Session



The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Condor Laucke) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 2215

PETITIONS

Metric System

Senator MESSNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 12 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 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That the Metric Conversion Act be repealed to ensure that the people are free to utilize whichever system they prefer and so enable the return to imperial weights and measures wherever the people so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 ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Metric System

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

– On behalf of Senator Douglas McClelland, I present the following petition from 16 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:

The 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That the Metric Conversion Act be repealed to ensure that the people are free to utilize whichever system they prefer and so enable the return to imperial weights and measures wherever the people so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 ever pray.

Petition received and read.

The Clerk:

– Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:

Metric System

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

The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

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 utilise 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, by Senator Primmer.

Petition received.

Indexation of Pensions

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

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

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

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

Accordingly, your petitioners call upon their legislators to:

  1. Restore twice-yearly pension 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 Button, Hamer and Lewis.

Petitions received.

page 2216

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2216

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL INFANT MORTALITY

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. What are the Aboriginal infant mortality figures for 1978 in the Northern Territory, Queensland and Western Australia?

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

– I do not have those figures with me. I suggest that if Senator Keeffe wants detailed figures he place a question on notice making quite clear the periods in which he is interested and precisely what information he requires. I will certainly do my best to get him the information as urgently as possible because I understand his interest in this matter.

page 2216

QUESTION

SHEEP DISEASE

Senator SHEIL:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct a question to the Minister for Science and the Environment. I refer to the disease of sheep known as cheesy gland or caseous lymphadenitis. The Minister will remember that this disease had a disastrous effect on meat exports in 1 970. I wonder whether the Minister could give us some indication of the wastage that has been caused in the sheep industry because of that disease. Has the Minister any knowledge of any new advances that may lead to the eradication of this condition?

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

-The question is a very important one for the sheep industry. The Senate will be interested to know that in 1970 the United States of America suspended all imports of Australian sheep meat until the standards of hygiene and inspection in Australia were improved. Canada and Japan did likewise at the time. The reason was that many of the carcasses were infected with cheesy gland or caseous lymphadenitis. The honourable senator as a doctor would know that this disease causes abscesses in the lymph nodes and viscera.

A survey was conducted two years ago in Western Australia by the Western Australian Department of Agriculture which estimated that as many as 25 per cent of the sheep slaughtered were rejected for export as whole carcasses. This was basically due to cysts, bruising, grass seeds and contamination from fleece and gut. All of these factors apparently took their toll. But the biggest single cause was usually the disease which the honourable senator has mentioned, and that represented a loss of about $2m a year in that State alone. So the matter is particularly important.

Researchers have been working intermittently on this problem for many years. My understanding is that they have succeeded in developing a vaccine made from bacteria cells inactivated with formalin. But checking the vaccine’s effectiveness has apparently proved to be a major stumbling block. 1 am told that the researchers were unable to identify which sheep were already infected without slaughtering and examining the glands and that they could not reliably induce the disease artificially. So far as I am aware there is a problem at the present time with this most serious disease so far as Australian stock is concerned.

page 2216

QUESTION

EDUCATION: MANPOWER PROGRAMS

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Education. I refer to the sixman mission which is at present overseas studying manpower programs. What is the cost of this proposed mission? What knowledge will the mission gain not already covered in the previous reports from overseas missions, particularly the 1 974 report of the interdepartmental mission to study overseas manpower programs? More specifically, why is Mr Coughlan, Chairman of the Tertiary and Further Education Commission, attached to the mission as an observer? Does this fact and the fact that the mission is headed by the Executive Director of the National Training Council have any particular implications for the TAFE sector in relation to its part in training skilled tradesmen?

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

– It was at my request, as Minister for Education, that the Chairman of the Tertiary and Further Education Council, Mr Coughlan, was invited to join the mission overseas. My belief, which is shared by the Government, is that any such mission would have very considerable implications for the TAFE sector in the broadest understanding of matters generally. As the honourable senator would know, TAFE is the subject of a vital part of the Williams report’s recommendations, which cover many new aspects of training and retraining and not only the question of apprenticeships. The honourable senator will know also that apprenticeship training in its traditional form is now under challenge, largely because of difficulties in carrying it out, and that it is important to see what is happening throughout the world.

I think that the first part of Senator Button’s question related to the cost of this mission. If that is so, I do not have any immediate information. I could get an estimate for him. Whatever the cost- and it would be an economical one- in my judgment the value of the mission would be of great significance. What we have to look at at the moment is the conjunction of four reports which, taken together over a couple of years, will be of enormous significance to Australia. They are the report of the Williams Committee- and the more it is analysed the more educationists are realising that it is of profound significance; the report of the Crawford Committee on structural change, which is posing some very great challenges; the report of the Myers Committee on technology, which will be produced no doubt towards the end of this year; and the report of the Auchmuty Committee on all aspects of teacher training which will be presented early next year. When those reports are taken together they will provide a profound range and possible solutions to all these kinds of problems.

Senator BUTTON:

– I have a supplementary question. My question was a long one and the Minister overlooked one part of it. I put my supplementary question in these terms: In view of very strong criticisms from the business community about the relevance of this overseas mission, what is the Government’s view about what the mission is likely to achieve, having regard to the fact that there have been previous missions of this kind on which no action has been taken?

Senator CARRICK:

– I was not aware that there were strong criticisms from the business community. I will certainly look into that. The Government believes that any study of manpower and manpower problems will be important. Whatever may have been the track record in the past, the important thing is what we do in the future. My previous answer pertains to that. By a series of inquiries and by moving already into the areas covered by the Williams report and the Crawford report, we have shown that we are determined not only to bring Australia to the fullness of human fulfilment in education but also to make ourselves vocationally equipped to compete and to be a pacesetter on the world scene.

page 2217

QUESTION

BOEING 727 AIRCRAFT

Senator COLLARD:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. I refer to an incident concerning a Trans World Airlines stretched Boeing 727 aircraft on a flight from New York to Minneapolis in early April. Reports indicate that this aircraft swerved to the right, did a complete barrel roll and nosedived for a distance of approximately 30,000 feet during which, it is even suggested it broke the sound barrier- all of which are manoeuvres for which this aircraft was not designed. Have the Department of Transport or airlines operating this type of aircraft received any information as to the cause of this incident? If so, would it necessitate any change in the operational or maintenance procedures for these aircraft?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– The question asked by Senator Collard is probably of interest to all honourable senators who spend a fair amount of time on the sort of aircraft that was involved in this incident. I have to say to him that, although some information has been received in Australia, that information is of necessity not complete. As yet there is no indication of the cause of the incident because the investigation in the United States in to the actual incident has not been completed. On the information which is available at this stage there is no basis for suggesting that any changes in operational or maintenance procedures are necessary. No doubt the Department will be following the investigation carefully to ensure that when the results are known anything that flows from them can be used in Australia.

page 2217

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT

Senator PRIMMER:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs. I preface it by referring him to the recently released report into unemployment, which was prepared for the Victorian Government by the Brotherhood of St. Laurence. The report urged the Federal Government to abandon its discredited employment policies and to initiate a proper program of manpower planning and retraining, the effectiveness of which would be monitored by an independent research and development organisation. I ask the Minister whether the Government has considered the report and, if so, whether it is considering making any changes to its employment and retraining programs along the lines recommended by the report.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-Senator Primmer will know that recently the Government set up a new ministry, the Ministry for Employment and Youth Affairs, to focus upon employment, as distinct from unemployment and upon such questions as manpower planning and the whole concept of creating within this nation a movement towards full employment, with the necessary priorities being accorded in regard to particular skills. I am not aware of the extent to which the report in question has been studied by my colleague. Certainly the Government and my colleague would be keenly interested in all such reports. I will direct the honourable senator’s question to the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs and seek a response.

page 2218

QUESTION

CONSTITUTION: SECTION 92

Senator KNIGHT:
ACT

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for the Capital Territory. I preface it by referring to section 92 of the Constitution, which provides that commerce between the States of the Australian Federation ‘shall be absolutely free,’ and draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that in section 92 no reference is made to Territories. I ask: Is the Minister aware that judges such as Sir Owen Dixon and Mr Justice Else-Mitchell have drawn attention to the fact that section 92 of the Constitution is defective in not referring to Territories such as the Australian Capital Territory, and that this matter has been raised at the Constitutional Convention? Is he also aware that because of this the Australian Capital Territory has faced some problems with respect to the milk and egg industries, taxi services, and the sale of lottery tickets in that interstate lotteries operate in the Australian Capital Territory but the sale of Australian Capital Territory lottery tickets is banned in, for example, New South Wales? Does this not represent a serious anomaly in our constitutional arrangements and a source of discrimination, real and potential, against the Australian Capital Territory? Can the Minister say what action can be taken, and is being taken, by the Government to rectify the situation?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– The question is one that has been considered at the Australian Constitutional Convention. According to my recollection, it was part of the discussion at the Perth Convention held last year. The operative words of section 92 of the Australian Constitution are that ‘trade, commerce, and intercourse among the States . . . shall be absolutely free’. The section includes no reference to Federal Territories. I think that is Senator Knight’s concern. It follows that it does not necessarily apply to a transaction which crosses a border between a State and a Territory. The Northern Territory has enacted legislation to remedy this position, but no similar legislation has been enacted for the Australian Capital Territory. I understand that the Minister for the Capital Territory has asked for a report, which will be ready shortly, setting out the policy issues involved in the application to the Australian Capital Territory of a section similar to section 92, and the possibility of amending the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910 to include a section 92-type provision.

The 1978 Constitutional Convention in Perth did consider a report from its standing committee, which expressed the opinion that section 92 was unsatisfactory to the extent that it prevented reasonable non-discriminatory regulation of interstate trade, similar to that which Senator Knight has mentioned. In particular, as I recall, the Convention dealt with road transport. The report recommended a study in greater depth. It was hoped that the question of the application of the section would be aided by the Convention’s consideration of section 92. However, the Convention merely noted and agreed to the report of Standing Committee A. No specific proposal for amendment of section 92 was discussed. Judicial interpretation of the section has not been consistent. Senator Knight brought out that point. The section raises some interesting questions. Two particular areas of government activity have been most affected, namely, road transport and marketing. The application of section 92 to the Australian Capital Territory would free the Territory from many New South Wales licensing restrictions. On the other hand, it would similarly restrict the Australian Capital Territory with regard to the States. 1 am advised that the application of section 92 to the Territory would cause many problems, particularly in the transportation area.

Senator Evans:

– I raise a point of order, Mr President. Is it not the case that the Minister is giving a legal opinion and, moreover, one which he is manifestly ill-equipped to give?

The PRESIDENT:

– No, I do not agree. He is giving information.

Senator WEBSTER:

-The section’s hindrance of marketing schemes is usually listed as one of its main disadvantages. Without section 92 more effective control could be placed on imports to the Australian Capital Territory. I understand that when this matter has been given full consideration by the Minister for the Capital Territory, whom I represent, he proposes to advise Senator Knight accordingly.

page 2218

QUESTION

CHILDREN’S ALLOWANCES

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Social Security. A national family survey conducted by the University of New South Wales has shown that nearly 320,000 children live in one-parent families, which families make up over 9 per cent of the nation’s families and a great majority of these children are dependent on parents who receive social security pensions. The Minister would be aware that the children’s allowance upon which these children depend is set at $7.50 a week. In view of the fact that children reliant on pensions from the Department of Veterans’ Affairs receive $10.50 a week plus an education allowance, will the Minister consider increasing children’s allowances to bring them all into line, and giving an education allowance to all children dependent on pensions.

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

– Any matters of the type mentioned in Senator Melzer ‘s question are properly matters for Budget consideration and I am unable to comment on them at this stage.

page 2219

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION: EMPLOYMENT OF MUSICIANS

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. I refer to the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts in relation to the employment of musicians by the Australian Broadcasting Commission and, further, to the Minister’s references to the Committee yesterday. Is the Minister aware that in the report on musicians employed by the ABC there is a recommendation calling for an independent inquiry into Australia’s orchestral resources? Is he aware that as long ago as September last year the Minister for Home Affairs was awaiting a decision from the Minister for Post and Telecommunications on this recommendation? Does he know the decision of the Minister in relation to this matter? Can he say whether the announced inquiry into the ABC will take into account the responsibility of the ABC for orchestras, or will the Government more accurately reflect the report and recommendation of the Senate Standing Committee by setting up a separate inquiry?

Senator Wriedt:

– He would not know the difference between Palestrina and Shostakovich.

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I had prepared a perfect answer for those questions but I have lost my train of thought due to the irreverent interjection of the Leader of the Opposition. I was also preoccupied by thinking that if there is an independent inquiry into the orchestral resources of the ABC, the subsidy which the taxpayers are paying for my orchestral tickets, and no doubt those of the Leader of the Opposition, might lead to a severe reduction of services rather than an increase in the area of orchestras. To direct my attention back to the questions asked by Senator Davidson, I think the answers are no, no, no, and I do not know. But I will refer the question to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, who may be able to give an answer which is more helpful to Senator Davidson.

page 2219

QUESTION

MEDICAL SERVICES

Senator EVANS:

-I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Health whether she recalls the Treasurer, in introducing the miniBudget last week, saying:

  1. . the general population is protected against large and potentially crippling outlays on medical services by the Government commitment to meet the full amount by which the scheduled fee for any service exceeds $20;

Is it not the case that as the term ‘service’ is defined, treatment of most significant illnesses requires a number of different services and that in combination the cost of such services is likely, in any case of a significant illness, to very greatly exceed $20? In particular, I ask the Minister to confirm the accuracy of the report in the Age newspaper this morning to the effect that, for example, a pneumonia sufferer would pay for treatment about $73 of which the Government would now rebate only $3; that a basic urinary infection could cost around $100 of which only $20 would be rebated by the Government; and that the treatment for a coronary occlusion could cost as much as $450 of which as little as $6 could be refunded.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I did note the report in the Melbourne Age newspaper this morning but I have had no information from the Minister for Health with regard to its accuracy. I will refer the report and the question that was asked to the Minister for Health and obtain information as soon as possible.

Senator EVANS:

– I direct a supplementary question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Even if the Minister is not capable of answering the specific question about particular fees, surely she is capable of giving on behalf of the Government an indication of what the word ‘service’ means and whether it is possible, in fact, for multiple services to add up to substantially more than $20.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– As 1 said, I will refer the matter to the Minister for Health and seek this information.

page 2219

QUESTION

HOUSING LOAN FINANCE

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction aware of the recent claim by the Opposition spokesman on urban and regional development that housing loan finance was ‘at a critical alltime low’, making it extremely difficult to obtain access to home ownership? Can the Minister advise whether these claims are in accordance with the facts, and provide figures on both the level of finance available and the level of home ownership in Australia?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I am advised by the Minister for Housing and Construction whom I represent in the Senate that the claims made by the Opposition spokesman for urban and regional development are false. The level of housing finance in Australia can be described only as buoyant. In fact -

Senator Wriedt:

- Mr President, I raise a point of order. The Minister alleges that the information given in the question is quite false. It is equally false to suggest that the question was asked without notice. It is quite obviously not asked without notice. Mr President, are you going to permit that sort of question to be answered?

The PRESIDENT:

– I will listen to the answer. I call the Minister.

Senator WEBSTER:

-The total number of housing loans approved by banks and permanent building societies- in seasonally adjusted terms- for the March quarter of 1979 was 4 per cent higher than the buoyant levels of approvals in the December quarter of 1978. I think that that is the core of the matter that Senator Archer wanted to make clear. It is purely a case in which some member of the Opposition has incorrectly stated the facts. Senator Archer is most anxious that the view of the member concerned should be corrected. In the December quarter of 1978 the total loan approvals by banks and permanent building societies numbered 57,8 10 -

Senator Georges:

– I also raise a point of order. I accuse the Minister of feeding this question to Senator Archer because it is fairly obvious that he could not call forth that information from his own knowledge. It is obviously a prepared question. If it is a prepared question, as I assert it is, the situation could arise only in this way: The Minister fed the question to Senator Archer. He had prepared an answer to it. He gave the question to Senator Archer. This is further evidence of the misuse of Question Time. It has happened on three occasions this morning and I think, Mr President, that you ought to take some action to prevent Question Time from being abused in this way.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! No point of order arises. I am not a clairvoyant. I do not know the background to questions that are asked. I ask the Minister to proceed with his reply.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I will not start again at the beginning of the answer, but I will start at the point where I indicated that in the December quarter banks and permanent building societies had apparently granted 57,810 approvals, whereas in the March quarter of 1979 approvals totalled 60, 1 30. This is a substantial increase. Let me compare it with the quarterly average number of loan approvals by the same institutions in 1974-75. 1 imagine that this is of great interest to Senator Archer and other honourable senators, particularly Senator Georges. If he would like me to repeat the figures I have already given I will do so, but the quarterly average for 1974-75 was 45,700. 1 will not, as Senator Archer asks me to do, repeat the figures.

The situation is most encouraging to the building industry. Even more encouraging is the forecast that the total volume of the lending likely by banks and permanent building societies in 1 978-79 is about 1 5 per cent higher than it was in 1977-78. I think we should all be particularly proud of that. The claims that home ownership is extremely difficult to obtain are incorrect. Results of a recent Australian Bureau of Statistics survey indicate that the level of home ownership in Australia is an astounding 73 per cent.

Senator Bishop:

– I raise a point of order. I suggest to you, Mr President, that the Minister is offending against Standing Order 100 in that he is debating something which allegedly the shadow Minister stated. We are hearing these things secondhand. As Senator Georges has said on three occasions this morning, the Minister is reading his answer. The Minister often replies to Opposition questions by saying that we should put our questions on notice. Yet in answer to other questions he gives detailed information that might well be given in the form of a ministerial statement. I suggest that the Minister be called to order.

The PRESIDENT:

– I have reiterated time and again that questions should be succinct, that answers should be directly related to questions, and that there should be no debating of issues. I call on Senator Webster to continue.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I was saying that a recent ABS survey indicated that the level of home ownership in Australia was an oustanding 73 per cent. This may be the highest level of home ownership in any country. The 1976 census showed a home ownership level of 68.4 per cent, confirming that home ownership levels are certainly not declining, as was implied by the honourable member for Reid in another place. I suggest, Mr President -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The reply as given is quite sufficient for the question asked.

Senator Georges:

– I ask -

The PRESIDENT:

– The point of order has been ruled upon.

Senator Georges:

– I do not raise a point of order. Is it now opportune for me to ask the Minister to table the paper from which he has been reading?

Senator WEBSTER:

– I am quite happy to do that.

page 2221

QUESTION

VIP AIRCRAFT

Senator SIBRAA:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. Is it a fact that Australia has voted against an International Civil Aviation Organisation motion that would have allowed the Australian VIP Boeing 707 aircraft to use any airport in the world until at least 1988? Is it also a fact that the Royal Australian Air Force VIP Boeings will become too noisy for civil airfields in the United States of America from 1 January 1985 and that after 1985 they would not be allowed to operate in Australia either if they were not RAAF registered and thus not subject to civil aviation regulations? Can the Minister inform the Senate whether the Government will undertake to install quieter engines at a cost of approximately $10m, or will the residents of Sydney affected by aircraft noise from Mascot be subject to the worst aircraft noise in the Western world whenever the VIP 707s use the Sydney ( Kingsford-Smith ) Airport?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I will seek from the Minister for Transport a response to those questions.

page 2221

QUESTION

VOLTAGE FLUCTUATIONS: EFFECT ON COMPUTERS

Senator ROCHER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-Is the Leader of the Government in the Senate aware of reports that voltage fluctuations in electricity supplies, especially surges and spikes, allegedly cause unpredictable difficulties in the functioning of computers? Can he say whether there have been any reports of permanent loss of memory bank data or other computer malfunctions due to inconsistent power supplies? Are power supplies at Commonwealth Government computer installations adequately protected? Is protection desirable and technically possible?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– This matter comes within my area of responsibility as I represent the Minister for Administrative Services. I have some information on the matters raised by Senator Rocher. With respect to the first part of his question, voltage fluctuations in electrical supplies may cause difficulties in the functioning of computer equipment. As to whether there have been any reports of permanent loss of memory bank data or other computer malfunctions, I am advised there have been no known reports to date of irretrievable loss of data from computer memory. However, there have been some cases of computer malfunction due to inconsistent power supplies.

As to the adequacy of the protection which is given, I suppose that the previous part of my answer indicates that there is a reasonable level of protection available since there has been no irretrievable loss of data. I am advised that it is technically possible to protect computer installations against inconsistent power supplies. That can be provided at various levels according to the importance of the functioning of the computer and the sensitivity of the data contained on it. The responsibility for determining the appropriate level of protection is left to the individual departments operating the computers. I do not have detailed information as to what level of protection is provided in any particular case.

page 2221

QUESTION

NATURAL GAS

Senator McINTOSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources. In view of the fact that the Minister for National Development has brought down an energy policy statement, when can I expect an aswer to my question on notice which I asked on 28 March 1979? I was seeking information regarding the relationship between the financial benefit to Australia through the proposed export of 6.5 tonnes of liquefied natural gas and the financial burden to Australia through importing a quantity of oil that would have been used for similar energy potential.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I will seek an answer for the honourable senator.

page 2221

QUESTION

DEREGISTRATION OF DOCTORS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. I refer to the deregistration of certain doctors in South Australia by the Medical Board of South Australia for not paying their annual practising fee. Is it a fact that some patients lost their entitlements to Commonwealth benefits during the period in which their doctors were deregistered? If this is so, will the Minister reconsider the situation of these patients who can be regarded only as innocent victims who were totally unaware that their doctors were deregistered during that period?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

-Senator Young raises an important matter of personal concern, I am sure, to some people in South Australia. I have no detailed knowledge of the matter, but I will refer it to the Minister for Health and ask that he give consideration to the people who may be victims of a deregistration of which they were not aware.

page 2222

QUESTION

BENEFITS TO INVALID PENSIONERS

Senator RYAN:
ACT

– My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. Is the husband of an invalid pensioner who is forced to stay away from work to look after his invalid wife and four small children granted a spouse allowance to enable him to do this or is he forced to take special benefit and lose all right to fringe benefit? If the latter is the case how does the Government justify discrimination against the family where the wife and not the husband is the invalid pensioner?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I will need to look at the circumstances. It would be understood that invalid pensions are tested on a family income basis. If the wife is an invalid pensioner it follows that the husband has not the capacity to earn income that would deprive her of a pension. However, I will look at the matter raised by Senator Ryan and give her an interpretation of the way in which the income test for invalid pensions is used.

page 2222

QUESTION

WINE EXPORTS TO EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Senator MESSNER:

-My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. I refer to the European Economic Community requirements for laboratory analysis of wine imported from Australia into the Common Market. Has there been any progress in negotiations with the EEC toward the recognition of local private laboratories, rather than the single government laboratory, as suitable bodies for carrying out analysis of export wine?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I do not know that I can give the honourable senator a decisive answer in relation to that matter.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Thank God!

Senator WEBSTER:

– I know that that upsets Senator Cavanagh. The question asks whether the EEC recognises the use of private laboratories. My understanding is that, in export, it is usual for the importing country to require a certificate which has the endorsement of the government of the country which originates the goods. I would think it would be for Australia and its authorities to approve particular laboratories for this analysis work. My own interests do not range across that matter. I will refer the question to the Minister for Primary Industry and seek a response for the honourable senator.

page 2222

QUESTION

GLEN DAVIS SHALE DEPOSITS

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for National Development aware that at Glen Davis in New South Wales there are large scale deposits of shale which remain untapped so far as the extraction of oil is concerned? Is the Minister further aware that when Glen Davis was closed down by the Menzies Government it was retorting at the average rate of about 120 gallons of oil per ton of raw shale? In view of Australia ‘s growing energy problems, will the Government consider conducting a feasibility study on the question of re-opening the Glen Davis project in order to provide Australia with an additional oil supply, and also to provide jobs for many Australians who at the moment are unemployed?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I am well aware of the situation in the immediate post-war period, as is Senator McClelland, namely, that there had been at Glen Davis an undertaking in which oil was extracted from Glen Davis shale. The question at that stage was one of cost feasibility and cost benefit, in view of competition with other energy sources. There being at that time the emergence of other sources and no threat to oil itself in the emerging decades, Glen Davis was not considered cost effective and therefore was closed down. Of course, now there is, as the honourable senator suggests, a need to look at all energy sources. Australia, of course, is enornously blessed, particularly with coal in all its forms, from black coal through to shale. Indeed, there is a need, therefore, to look to all the derivatives of energy. I do not know where Glen Davis shale might rate in an order of priorities at this moment. But I think the matter ought to be looked at, and I will refer it to the Minister for National Development for comment.

page 2222

QUESTION

BILATERAL AID

Senator PETER BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-I direct my ques tion to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. To which of the countries listed in the answer to Senate Question No. 1060, placed on notice on 1 June 1 977, does Australia continue bilateral aid? Are there any further countries to which Australia gives bilateral aid and which have been suggested by Amnesty International allegedly to have used torture?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I should indicate at the outset that I had notice some days ago that another honourable senator was going to ask this form of question, so I do have information on the matter. The question on notice of June 1977 to which Senator Baume refers asked: To which countries named by Amnesty International as systematically practising torture did Australia give foreign aid? The answer- and I refer to Hansard of 17 August 1977, page 208- was based on a list of countries drawn from the 1 973 Amnesty International Report on Torture which was revised in 1 975. The report did not provide a complete list of countries which systematically practised torture, but investigated allegations of torture in over 60 countries. The report has not been revised since 1975 and it is now out of date, given the changed circumstances in many countries since that time. I think the honourable senator would agree, therefore, that to name again those countries which in 1975 were alleged to have used torture and to which Australia continues to give bilateral aid might be misleading unless that list were first updated by Amnesty International.

page 2223

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT PAYMENTS IN THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

Senator ROBERTSON:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I direct my question to the Minister for Social Security. Have field officers from her Department been asked to carry out an investigation of the unemployed in the Northern Territory? If so, does this investigation include a questionnaire to be administered to neighbours? Has a special unit been set up to process the findings and, if so, has extra staff been employed to do that job? If an investigation is being carried out, how many people have had their benefits removed as a result of it?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I will need to check with my Department whether any special investigation, as mentioned by Senator Robertson, is being carried out in the Northern Territory. It would be understood that one of the continuing duties of field officers is to test eligibility of people to receive pensions and benefits. It does not require any special investigation for that to occur. As to any reporting to a unit or any of the other matters which were referred to in the question, I will seek advice and I will advise Senator Robertson accordingly.

page 2223

QUESTION

DC10 AIRCRAFT

Senator LEWIS:
VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Transport a question concerning the crash of a DC 10 in the United States of America, in which all 27 1 people on board the aircraft were killed. Is the Minister aware that there have been five fatal accidents which have involved DCH) aircraft from a variety of different causes and in which over 600 people have died? Is the Minister aware of reports that the aircraft is patently unsafe, that it has so many defects that it should be withdrawn from service until all of its defects have been rectified and that there has not been even a forced landing of the aircraft in which all passengers have escaped without injury? Is the Minister aware also that at least seven airlines fly the aircraft into Australia? Will the Government consider banning the entry of the aircraft into Australia until such time as its defects have been rectified?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

-Some of the detail which was given in the question asked by Senator Lewis certainly was not known to me, although the recent crash is, I think, in the minds of us all.

Senator Robertson:

– You should have listened to AM.

Senator CHANEY:

-I did not listen to AM this morning; I apologise for that oversight, lt would be known to honourable senators that none of these aircraft are operated by Australian airlines. It is a fact, as Senator Lewis said, that a number of airlines do operate the DC 10 aircraft into Australia. I think nine airlines are licensed to use these aircraft in and out of Australia, although only eight airlines regularly use them at the moment. I am advised that currently there are no DC 10 aircraft in Australia. Given the fact that the American Federal Aviation Administration has now issued a directive relating to what is thought to have caused the recent accident, there is no doubt that countries operating these aircraft to Australia will ensure that the necessary inspection is carried out forthwith.

Because Australian airlines do not operate these aircraft the Department of Transport does not necessarily receive detailed information on directives or recommended inspections of that type. But, as I have indicated already, the Department is aware of the current directive and the world-wide airworthiness system responds to airworthiness directives and recommendations issued by civil aviation authorities or aircraft manufacturers. That is an ongoing process. I think honourable senators would be aware of the very close interest which has been paid to aircraft safety in Australia by successive governments and, indeed, of the very good record that we have had in that regard. I certainly will draw the attention of the Minister for Transport to the question in the form in which it has been asked by Senator Lewis and I will ensure that nothing that should be done by us is left undone.

page 2223

QUESTION

OIL INDUSTRY DISPUTE

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-I draw the attention of the Leader of the Government in the Senate to the public utterances by Mr Street to the effect that the Government does not believe in any State registered union being a component of the oil industry. Does that view still hold good in the light of the emergence of the Australian Transport Association in the face of objections by transport employers and the Transport Workers Union about a further component in the transport unions? If the answer is in the negative, would the Government favour parallel State and Federal registration of the Australian Workers Union in the Federal sphere? I do not want to shock anyone in the gallery.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-Senator Mulvihill raises a matter which has had vexed problems over many years, namely, the whole question of Federal and State unions and their competitive rights and demarcations. I think that this is too complex a question for me to answer off-hand. I will refer it to Mr Street and seek a considered reply.

page 2224

QUESTION

EDUCATION AND TRAINING

Senator TEAGUE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister for Education. Two months has now passed since the Williams Report on Education and Training was tabled in the Senate by the Government. Will the Government in this session of Parliament give a direct response to the recommendations made in the Williams report or, given the comprehensiveness of the matters considered in the report, will the Government’s response be indirect and given over a much longer period? In particular, will the guidelines that the Minister will shortly announce for the education commissions be related explicitly to relevant areas of the findings of the Williams report?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The Senate should know that the Government, following receipt of the Williams Committee report, set up a Cabinet committee of which I am privileged to be chairman. That committee’s duty is to study all aspects of the report and to take certain progressive steps resulting in a complete report to Cabinet by the end of this calendar year. The Williams report is enormous. It runs to 1,500 pages and contains 1 1 6 explicit recommendations and many more implicit ones. The Crawford Committee report parallels the Williams Committee report. The Cabinet committee has commenced work. It is working weekly on the task. One of my jobs will be to go to the Australian Education Council at the end of June to seek a dialogue with State Ministers for Education over the whole range of relevant matters. It is also my job to ensure that the Tertiary Education Commission shall look towards the relevant things. So, there is a massive amount of work to be done over a large time scale. I said in answer to an earlier question that the more one looks at the Williams report the more profound and important the recommendations are seen to be. There will be progressive actions in this regard- some that can be taken without any delay and some that will take quite some time.

Since Senator Teague asked me about education guidelines, I should indicate to the Senate that I hope early next week- probably on Monday- to be able to present the guidelines to the Senate. I will certainly do so in time for honourable senators to respond to them. Nothing in the guidelines will be inconsistent with the symptoms in the Williams Committee report. Nevertheless, the response to the Williams Committee report will seek to deal with long term and wide ranging matters which will carry into future years.

page 2224

QUESTION

LIVESTOCK INDUSTRY

Senator HARRADINE:
TASMANIA

– I address my question, which deals with livestock exports, to either the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry or the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. Is the Minister aware that the livestock market forecasting committee which met in Hobart last week forecast a severe downturn in stock numbers in Tasmania which could result in some hundreds of meat workers being laid off within the next month? Is he also aware that farmers in Tasmania are having difficulty in restocking? If he is not aware of the forecasts that have been made by the livestock market forecasting committee, will he examine the matter and see what the Government can do to assist in forestalling the major dislocation that is forecast for the meat industry?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– The question appears to be one that should be directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry rather than to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. I am not fully aware of the outcome of the meeting which the honourable senator mentioned in respect of Tasmania or of the drop in stock numbers in that State. I imagine that the honourable senator is speaking of cattle. There is a possibility that a decline in stock numbers has occurred following the very serious conditions suffered over recent years by beef producers over a very wide area. Of course, many have gone out of the business and are not willing to come back into it. They certainly cannot come back into it with the very high prices being offered for stock at present. Those high prices may inhibit the recovery of our beef market. I am unaware that farmers in Tasmania are having difficulty in restocking. The problem may be that Victorian and South Australian markets are not being supplied at the required rate or with the type of stock they may be seeking. However, the matter is of concern. I can assure the honourable senator that the Government is concerned about the maintenance of the good health and prosperity of Tasmania and its people. I will have the Minister for Primary Industry examine the question and see whether a response can be given quickly to the honourable senator.

page 2225

QUESTION

LANDSAT PROJECT

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I ask the Minister for Science and the Environment a question relating to the Landsat satellite. When will the new Australian Landsat project be operational? How will contact be maintained with those people and organisations wishing to use Landsat information and facilities? What will be the ultimate cost of the project? Is it envisaged that, through commercial use, there will be some recovery of costs?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-The honourable senator from the Northern Territory has a considerable interest in this matter because a major facility is to be established in Alice Springs. I imagine that the construction of that facility in the Northern Territory prompts his interest. The direct answer to the first part of his question is that the station is intended to be in operation in March or April of 1980. He asked also how it will be operated. There are two actual phases in Australia. In 1977 the Government decided that it would acquire facilities for Landsat reception at a cost of about $4.2m. That provided for the reception, processing and analysis of Landsat data. We are hoping that some of that work will be done by private industry. I can tell the honourable senator, in response to the final part of his question, that, as he will know, the Australian Science and Technology Council recommended that the Government establish the receiving and processing facilities immediately- we are contracted to do that at present- and that commercial interests or user organisations should provide the computer based analysis facilities. At a recent seminar at Macquarie University some of the latest activity of private organisations in the enhancement of imagery from the Landsat satellite was shown to be totally amazing. The Commonwealth Government has decided that it will attempt at least to regain the annual cost of the use of Landsat, but I am of the view that recovery of the capital cost of its installation will not be sought from users.

page 2225

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT OF MENTALLY HANDICAPPED PEOPLE

Senator TATE:
TASMANIA

– Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs been drawn to the lead editorial in today’s Australian alleging that a decision has been made by the Department of Employment and Youth Affairs to withdraw the subsidy paid to encourage the employment of mentally handicapped young people?

Senator Peter Baume:

– What date does it show? Does it show Wednesday, 30 May?

Senator TATE:

-The editorial is dated Wednesday, 30 May.

Senator Peter Baume:

– That is an unusual thing, as today is only Tuesday, 29 May.

Senator TATE:

– I am obviously not asking a Dorothy Dixer. My question was not going to assume the correctness of the editorial. I intended to go on and ask whether, in fact, such a decision had been taken by the Department. How much expenditure under this heading occurred in each of the States and the Northern Territory in 1977-78 and 1978-79? How many retarded children have benefited from the operation of this scheme in each of the States and the Northern Territory in those years?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I am grateful to Senator Baume for reminding me of the progressive nature of the Australian newspaper. Senator Tate’s question obviously seeks specific, detailed information and statistics which I do not have available. I read the editorial. I will seek the information and let the honourable senator know.

page 2225

QUESTION

BAR FACILITIES ON DOMESTIC AIR SERVICES

Senator WATSON:
TASMANIA

-Is the Minister representing the Minister for Transport aware that economy class passengers flying between Canberra and Melbourne are denied bar facilities including the serving of soft drinks, whereas this service is available to first class passengers? Further, can the Minister reconcile this situation with the fact that on a flight of a similar distance, from Melbourne to Launceston, such services are in fact provided to economy class passengers?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I was not aware that there was any disparity in the services provided as between Canberra-Melbourne and Melbourne-Launceston. I can only assume that Professor Baume ‘s crusade against an intoxicated society has managed to succeed at least among non-first class passengers travelling to Canberra. I am not surprised that alcohol is served to those flying to Tasmania. Normally it is not, as alleged, a stimulant, but rather a depressant. It is probably used to dampen down the natural effervescence of people travelling to Tasmania who are overjoyed at the prospect of arriving in such a beautiful part of Australia. However, I will ascertain why the distinction has been drawn by the airlines. If the reason is not one of those that I have advanced I will let the honourable senator know.

page 2226

QUESTION

PORTRAIT OF THE PRIME MINISTER

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, arises from a report in this week’s National Times that the Prime Minister, through the Historic Memorials Committee, has commissioned an overseas resident, Mr Westwood, to immortalise him in oils and that that person will have to be flown to Australia to carry out this exercise. What will be the total cost of the work, including the fares and accommodation for Mr Westwood, and why has not the well known Australian artist Pickering, who is renowned for his reproductions of the Prime Minister, been engaged for this task of immortalisation?

Senator CARRICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– In order to get the good oil on the matter referred to by the honourable senator, I ask him to put the question on notice.

page 2226

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS

Senator COLSTON:
QUEENSLAND

-The Minister for Social Security would be aware of a report in the Australian Financial Review last week which contained extensive quotations from a letter that was alleged to have been written by Mr Lanigan, the Director-General of Social Services. Did this letter, in the terms of the Australian Financial Review report, specify methods of pushing unemployed off the benefit lists? In view of the fact that extensive quotations have been made, will the Minister make available to the Senate the text of the letter?

The PRESIDENT:

– I call Senator Guilfoyle.

A n incident occurring in the gallery-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! A person in the gallery is displaying a photograph or a placard in an endeavour to attract the attention of the chamber. That is not allowed in this chamber. You will leave the gallery if you do not put down the placard.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I will read the article in the Australian Financial Review to which reference has been made and give consideration to the matter raised by Senator Colston.

page 2226

QUESTION

TAX SHARING ARRANGEMENTS

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I wish to give some information relevant to several questions posed to me by the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Wriedt, on tax sharing matters. I am advised that under the States (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976 the States are entitled to receive 39.87 per cent of the preceding year’s net personal income tax collections, excluding receipts from the health insurance levy, subject to a guarantee that until 1979-80 each State will receive at least the amount it would have received under the old financial assistance grants arrangements. Beyond 1979- 80, a permanent legislated guarantee applies, whereby each State’s entitlement in a year will not be less than in the previous year. The effect of the decision to maintain the present rate of deductions under the pay-as-you-earn system, until 30 November 1979 at the latest, will be to boost net personal income tax collections in 1 979-80. The year 1 979-80 is the base for revenue sharing entitlements in 1980-81, by which time the FAGS guarantee will have ceased to apply. It will not be possible to estimate the likely impact on States’ entitlements in 1980- 81 until the present income arrangements to apply for the whole of 1979-80 are determined. In the interim it could be noted that the States will be entitled in 1980-8 1 to some 40 per cent of net personal income tax collections in 1979-80, including the estimated additional collections arising from the revised arrangements announced on 29 May 1979. Should that not cover all the aspects about which Senator Wriedt asked, if he will let me know I will seek other information.

page 2226

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING TRIBUNAL: CHILDREN’S TELEVISION

Senator CHANEY:
LP

-On 3 May Senator Button asked me a question about some copies of a report on the television viewing habits of Australian children. He asked whether certain copies had been destroyed. He renewed that question yesterday in the Senate. The Minister for Post and Telecommunications has provided me with the following reply:

The research which resulted in this report was undertaken by Tribunal staff in 1977. The report was approved by the Tribunal in draft form on 4 August 1978.

The Tribunal did however have reservations about some of the conclusions drawn from the results and asked that the report be revised.

This was done but further consideration of the report by the Tribunal was deferred until after the completion of the Sydney commercial television licence renewal hearings.

It was at that stage that about 200 copies of the revised report were pulped but the bulk of the supplies remained intact in the Melbourne office.

The honourable senator will be aware that the report and research findings have now been released by the Tribunal and the report has received extensive publicity.

page 2227

QUESTION

TASMAN ISLAND WEATHER STATION

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-Senator Rae asked me a question relating to a weather station on Tasman Island in Tasmania. His question was addressed mainly to the functioning of an automatic weather station located on Tasman Island. Prior to the unmanning of the Tasman light station, the meteorological information was provided by the Department of Transport lightkeeper. With the unmanning of the light station, the Bureau of Meteorology installed an automatic transmitting station. I am advised that the statistics cited by Senator Rae in relation to a meteorological station on Tasman Island do not, in themselves, present a case for the deferral of decisions by the Department of Transport relating to a light station on Matsuka Island.

page 2227

QUESTION

MORETON ISLAND

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-On 23 May, Senator McAuliffe asked me a question in my capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs. The question concerned objections to the listing of Moreton Island in the register of the National Estate. The Heritage Commission has provided the following answer:

Objections have been lodged against the listing of Moreton Island on the register of the National Estate. These objections will be investigated and the Commission will consider the views when deciding whether all or part of Moreton Island should be placed on the register of the National Estate.

page 2227

QUESTION

QUESTION TIME

Leave granted.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-Mr President, I direct my remarks to you and the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick) because I believe that you have a joint responsibility in this matter. When the Minister for Science and the Environment (Senator Webster) answered the question which was put to him by Senator Archer, I raised a point of order. The point of order was that the question had been placed by the Minister. In effect it was not a question without notice. I asked for the paper to be tabled and I now have in front of me a copy of that document which the Minister tabled. It is headed ‘Question’ and it reads: ls the Minister aware of a recent claim by the Opposition spokesman for urban and regional development, Mr Uren, that housing loan finance was at a critical all time low, making it extremely difficult to obtain access to home ownership?

In view of the claims by the honourable member for Reid would the Minister provide details of the levels of finance available for housing and the levels of home ownership in Australia?

That is essentially the same question as that which was asked by Senator Archer. I find it strange that on the document which the Minister tabled a copy of that question appears and following that question on the same sheet is the answer.

Senator Webster:

– How surprising.

Senator GEORGES:

– It is surprising to me that the Minister is not in any way embarrassed by the fact that we now know that he is in the habit as we suspected of distributing questions for which he has prepared answers to honourable members. He has done that consistently and it has raised a considerable amount of comment. It has allowed him to answer at length questions which are prepared by his Department.

Senator Walters:

– A gross distortion.

Senator GEORGES:

– It is not a distortion, Senator Walters. The question and the answer are on the document which has been tabled by the Minister. I would say that this is a blatant misuse of Question Time.

Senator McAuliffe:

– It is fraudulent.

Senator GEORGES:

– I would go even further and say that it is a fraudulent misuse of Question Time. I think that this matter ought to be taken up by the Senate Standing Orders Committee. Perhaps this can be initiated by you, Mr President, in order to prevent this sort of thing reoccurring. In fairness to other Government Ministers, I say that it seems that Senator Webster alone is responsible for this sort of behaviour.

Senator Button:

– Not alone- the main offender.

Senator Cavanagh:

– He has to have the answers provided to him.

Senator GEORGES:

– In my experience it seems that he alone is responsible for this sort of behaviour. He has endeavoured to build up his reputation at Question Time through the work of other people. We have evidence that today he handed out a question to which he read a prepared answer. I think the practice ought to stop. I believe that the Leader of the Government in the Senate has a responsibility to see that one of his Ministers does not misuse Question Time in this way. I say also that, if he is to engage in this practice, it is blatantly stupid of him to have his staff prepare documents of this sort. An honourable senator was bound at some stage to ask for the document to be tabled- as it was today. He has even the question prepared. On the same piece of paper he has the question and the answer which he was to give. I see a look of puzzlement on the face of the Government Whip.

Senator Peter Baume:

– There is no puzzlement. You have not heard the full story, Senator.

Senator GEORGES:

-Then let us hear the full story.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator GEORGES:

– I have not finished. 1 do not doubt that Senator Archer would be prepared to speak, because I have involved him in this. I said that he was responsible for this sort of arrangement. I ask Senator Archer how it is that his question appears on this document when it was supposed to be a Question Without Notice. I know, Senator Webster, that your hide is extremely thick. Your performance in this place has been lamentable. We know that whatever comment is made against you, no matter how harsh, you merely brush it off.

Senator Ryan:

– He should resign.

Senator GEORGES:

– I do not doubt that he should resign, but his performance lately -

Senator Carrick:

– Could we perhaps have Senator Georges address the Chair?

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Georges, address your remarks to the Chair.

Senator GEORGES:

– I take that advice from the Leader of the Government. I recall that during Question Time he spends most of his time directing lengthy tirades at the Opposition with his back to you, Mr President. I hope that in future he takes the advice that he is handing out to me. I consider this matter to be very serious. I have no doubt that you take it to be serious. I think the Minister ought to explain and I think Senator Archer is about to explain.

Senator ARCHER:
Tasmania

– by leave- I find that Senator Georges’ comments are about in keeping with the usual standard of presentation that he produces here. He has waved a piece of paper about and made all sorts of quite ridiculous comments about it, obviously with no facts of any sort or description–

Senator Georges:

– Well, what is the piece of paper, other than a fact?

Senator ARCHER:

– You have had your turn. We have had the example of Senator Georges choosing to use that piece of paper as a means of having yet another attack on the Minister for Science and the Environment. If Senator Georges is interested, and I am sure that he is not, the position is that I do have some interest in the housing affairs of the Government and I like to keep a check on what various people say from time to time about housing. I asked the question entirely on my own volition, after seeing the ridiculous comments that appeared during the weekend under Mr Uren’s name. I compared them with the ridiculous comment that he passed two months earlier and found them to be about 180 degrees different.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Did you supply the Minister with the answer?

Senator ARCHER:

– I informed the Minister that 1 intended to ask a question so that 1 would be provided with factual information on the matters in which I was interested. As Senator Georges knows, they way in which I verbally gave information to the Minister, advising him of the ambit of the question I was to ask, is usual for anybody who is soliciting proper information. I would not expect anybody on the Opposition side or on the Government side of the chamber to be able to obtain information of the sort I required without the Minister’s having access to the question and his knowing about it.

Senator Georges:

– When did you do it?

Senator ARCHER:

– As Senator Georges knows, members of the Opposition do it. All that was said by Senator Georges about Senator Webster was totally, utterly and completely without foundation, as he knew. I am perfectly entitled to continue to obtain information when I want it. If I do not want information I do not ask a question. I do not make a practice of soliciting questions. I can always manage to produce enough questions of my own. I also take offence at what Senator Georges said.

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

– by leave- I appreciate what Senator Georges has attempted to raise in relation to a Minister having factual information before him when responding to a question. I regularly have information before me on a variety of subjects.

Opposition senators- Ha, ha!

Senator WEBSTER:

-There is laughter coming from the Opposition. If Opposition members would like me to name Opposition members who have supplied me with written question so that I may give fulsome answers I suggest that they approach the Government Whip. I will be very pleased to give the names of those honourable senators opposite who, over past years, have given me written questions, which they have addressed to me as questions without notice. My portfolio calls for me to give a very wide range of answers. I bring a volume of information into this place to respond reasonably to questions anticipated from articles which may appear in newspapers or journals in the science area. For instance honourable senators may have noted yesterday that Senator McLaren asked me about the development of the Australian National Animal Health Laboratory at Geelong. One could have comprehended that any senator with an interest in primary industry would ask such a question in the near future. We know that Senator McLaren has such an interest. During Question Time today a piece of paper appeared on my desk. I had no prior knowledge of” it. As a matter of fact I thought it was a question from the Opposition but it turned out not to be a question asked by an Opposition senator. I had no knowledge of the piece of paper or that such a question would be asked. I did not make a notation on the piece of paper and I dealt with it as I believe Senator Georges would wish I should.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– by leave- I think that Senator Georges’ suggestion that this matter be referred to the Standing Orders Committee has merit. I would co-operate in taking that course. In the interim and until Standing Orders say otherwise if any honourable senator approaches me- I hope my ministerial colleagues will also do this- and indicates that he has a particular subject on which he seeks information, I will proceed to get that information because I think that it is the primary duty of all Ministers here to inform the Senate in response to a valid question. Until this practice is changed I think we should proceed in this way.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– by leave- In Senator Webster’s reply to both Senator Georges and Senator Archer he implied that yesterday I gave him a prepared question on the Australian National Animal Health Laboratory. I asked Senator Webster a question on ANAHL at Geelong not yesterday but last Thursday. Senator Webster gave me an answer which he added to at the end of Question Time that day. I inform the Senate that at no time have I given Senator Webster a written question so that he could give me a prepared answer. My question to him last Thursday on the ANAHL was completely without notice. I want to correct the record. Senator Webster implied that I gave him a prepared question; I did no such thing.

The PRESIDENT:

– I take it that it is the wish of the Senate that this matter be referred to the Standing Orders Committee. This shall be done.

page 2229

FUNDING OF WOMEN’S REFUGES

Matter of Urgency

The PRESIDENT:

– I inform the Senate that I have received the following letter dated 28 May 1 979 from Senator Coleman:

Dear Mr President

In accordance with Standing Order 64, I give notice that tomorrow (Tuesday 29 May) I shall move:

That in the opinion or the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The need for guaranteed, continued and adequate Federal Government funding for women’s refuges throughout Australia.

Yours sincerely, RUTH COLEMAN Senator for Western Australia.

Is the motion supported?

More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places-

Senator COLEMAN:
Western Australia

That in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The need for guaranteed, continued and adequate Federal Government funding for women’s refuges throughout Australia.

This morning I intend to show that this is a matter of great urgency. After last Thursday’s miniBudget and its dramatic imposts on the Australian people, and with the August Budget yet to come, I believe that the refuges have every right to anticipate that monetary problems of ever greater magnitude than they are presently experiencing will prevail in future. Members of this chamber and those of another place who had the advantage of talking to representatives of women’s refuges throughout Australia who visited Canberra last week will recognise some of the problems that they are experiencing now. There appears to have been a change in policy which obviously occurred without a great deal of debate in this place or in the other place. I refer to an undated statement which was prepared by the Minister for Social Security, Senator Guilfoyle- I presume at some stage during 1 976 or 1977- in which she says:

The rates of Commonwealth funding provided within the block grants will be 75 per cent of capital costs and 90 per cent of operating costs. The balances of 25 per cent and 10 per cent respectively must be found from other sources, such as the State.

The women who were in Canberra last week informed us that 75 per cent of that funding comes from the Federal Government and 25 per cent is normally paid by the State. It is not paid in Queensland, as we know from questions which were raised in this place as long ago as 1976 and 1977, when the Federal Government paid to Queensland an amount for the maintenance of two women’s refuges. The Queensland Government refused to pass on that money and allocated it to other programs. The Federal Government then, quite rightly, took the position that it would directly fund women’s refuges in that State.

In Western Australia the situation now is that the State Government has reneged on its commitment to the women’s refuges. It has now determined that as from a provisional date, 1 November 1978, women’s refuges will receive only 12’/i per cent from the State Government, in addition to the 75 per cent Commonwealth funding. This has left the refuges in an extremely difficult situation. To obtain the 12V4 per cent State Government funding and to obtain the 75 per cent Federal Government funding, the refuges firstly have to find the remaining 2Vi per cent. To obtain the 1216 per cent, they must have some finance available to them. The only means that they have available to them is to back donate the wages that they deceive as a result of being funded refuges. This is what is happening in Western Australia with the independent refuges.

I think it is important to note at this stage that there are two separate types of refuges operating throughout Australia, including the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory. The first is, of course, the church-backed refuge which obtains its funding from an entirely different source. It does not receive the same proportion of Federal Government funding- that is the 75 per cent. But as a general rule it receives some State Government funding. In some instances it can even obtain some local government funding. Some independent refuges obtain local government funding, as I will demonstrate shortly. I notice Senator Walters shaking her head in bewilderment. Perhaps she is not aware that State governments and local governments actually contribute to worthwhile community organisations such as women ‘s refuges. There are, I believe, some 90-odd refuges operating throughout Australia. Most of those, whilst they are suffering budget restrictions, appear to be the voluntary organisation or the independent refuges, as I have referred to them.

I said earlier that the State Government of Western Australia had reneged on its contract. In November 1978 the Western Australian State Government suddenly approached the Nardine refuge which had been in receipt of 25 per cent State Government funding and informed the refuge that retrospectively its subsidy would now only be 2lh per cent. When the refuge complained, the Western Australian Government then decided in its magnanimous way, as only the Western Australian State Government can be magnanimous, that it would leave this until 1 January this year. That is the situation now. So Western Australia has the distinction along with Queensland, of being the only State which does not contribute the entire 25 per cent to women’s refuges. In the metropolitan area of Perth we have eight refuges which are specifically designated as women’s refuges, but I intend to show in figures which I will produce later that those refuges are used more for children than they are for women. All of them are overtaxed powerwise- I was about to say …..powerwise’ but as we are referring to women’s refuges it would be totally incorrect to do so. Womanpowerwise they are over taxed. All the refuges are reliant on voluntary workers just to keep them in operation.

Senator Peter Baume:

– -Personwise

Senator COLEMAN:

– I have an objection to personwise’ in that it includes a masculine pronoun. In any case, let us consider the individual refuges. For instance, the Graceville refuge is run by the Salvation Army and receives its funding from that source. It receives approximately - $6,000 or roughly 12Vi per cent from the State Government. The Ave Maria refuge is operated by the Daughters of Charity. It is funded by that organisation with the support of a salary for a social worker from the State Government, through the Public Health Department of Western Australia. Warrawee receives 75 per cent Federal Government funding, 12Vi per cent State Government funding and, I point out to Senator Walters, 2lh per cent funding from the Fremantle City Council. Lucy Saw, ACRAH Emmaus, Mary Smith and Nardine refuges all receive 75 per cent funding from the Federal Government and l2Vi per cent funding from the State Government. As I said before, the other 12’/i per cent has to be raised by the refuges themselves.

It is a full time job for 15 workers at Nardine That refuge receives salaries for seven people. In other words, it has eight voluntary workers working full time. It also has something like 1 5 voluntary workers working on a part time basis. Most of those voluntary workers are people who have used the service of the refuge in the past. In order to raise that 12Vi per cent funding without resorting to the cake stalls and raffles, which is a fairly time consuming occupation, those people have decided to backdate some of their salary. I think they are donating something like one-eight or 12!/i per cent of the seven salaries they receive. The Catch 22 situation arises because, in order to get any funding at all, they have to have that 12’/2 per cent first and in order to get that 12V4 per cent they have to have the funding from which they get their wages so that they can donate them back. I think honourable senators will agree that that is a very confusing situation. If honourable senators are confused, imagine how confused the people who are working at the refuge are.

Let us look specifically at the situation at Nardine because it was the first independent refuge established in Western Australia. It was funded in the 1 974-75 Budget program by the Whitlam Government. It was funded continuously until the Labor Government lost office in December 1975. The present Liberal-National Country Party coalition Government continued the funding. I have some figures which have been made available to me by the Parliamentary Library which perhaps the Minister for Social Security, when she replies, will be able to clarify for me. According to the Minister’s statement, $900,000 was expected to be utilised during 1976-77, but the figures provided by the Library indicate that $725,527 was the actual figure. One could assume from that that in the 1976-77 Budget year the Queensland Government refused to fund the two refuges in that State and that perhaps that makes the difference between the $725,527 and the $900,000 which the Minister said in her statement would be utilised. In 1977-78 there was a dramatic increase of $1,424,850 in funding. For this financial year an appropriation of some $3m has been made. Once again, perhaps the Minister would care to advise us just how much of that $3m has been spent on refuges- how many extension or expansion programs have been conducted throughout Australia for the independent refuges. I am not referring to the church-backed refuges because I do not think that they face the same specific problem faced by independent refuges.

Senator Walters:

– Why not?

Senator COLEMAN:

-Because they have church backing. They have resources which the independent refuges do not have. The independent refuges are totally reliant upon the community.

Senator Walters:

– Some of the church organisations are too.

Senator COLEMAN:

-Nevertheless, the churches do back them. If the honourable senator were to go to Centre Care in Western Australian and to Graceville she would find that their funds are raised in an entirely different manner from the way in which the funds of independent refuges are raised.

Senator Walters:

– By the cake stalls you rubbish.

Senator Robertson:

– But not by the people who are running the refuges; that is the difference.

Senator COLEMAN:

– That is right and that is the big difference. The funds are not raised by the people who are administering the refuges. That is normally done by a separate and distinct body of the organisation. But let us look at what Nardine provides with wages for seven full time workers. The refuge is open seven days a week and is available as a public service 24 hours a day; yet it receives wages for only seven full time staff. Part of the criteria which have been set down for Nardine which seems to be unique, is that that refuge has to have a full time bookkeeper. Why it would need a full time bookkeeper and whether that is a Federal Government or State Government provision I have no idea- I suspect it is a State Government provision. The other refuges seem to manage quite capably without one. But Nardine has one total salary out of seven taken up with providing a bookkeeper service at the refuge.

The refuges provide an extremely wide range of services. They counsel women and their children. They provide them with assistance to find legal aid. Nardine especially, is visited by a number of doctors. That is very necessary.

Senator Sheil:

– Free of charge.

Senator COLEMAN:

-That is right: they do it free of charge. I am not suggesting that those doctors make a charge; I am simply commending the refuge for being able to obtain the services of a doctor, whether those services be provided free of charge or even for a small fee, for some of the battered wives and battered children who have to attend or to use the services of a refuge. The refuges help with emergency housing, through the State Housing Commission. They assist with the obtaining of social security benefits and, perhaps just as importantlysometimes even more importantly- they demonstrate an awareness of the need of people in those crisis situations. They provide those people with loving and caring. Perhaps most of all, they provide them with understanding. The bulk of those voluntary workers are normally people who have used the services of a refuge before. They recognise that the refuges are overworked and understaffed and they provide the voluntary service. They do not expect payment for their services but it would be nice to think that they were able to expand the services which they want to provide to meet the need they see in the community.

I want to make honourable senators aware now of the numbers of people who use or require the services of refuges- as I said, they are misnamed ‘women’s refuges’- in Western Australia. I have some very interesting figures. Later Senator Melzer will speak in this debate on the situation which pertains in Victoria and throughout Australia. Senator Robertson certainly will speak on the situation in the Northern Territory. I hope that the majority of honourable senators will be shocked at the enormity of the problem which exists in the Australian community. I hope that sufficient shock will be expressed for those people who are concerned to make sure that when the Budget talks are being held additional, guaranteed, adequate and continued funding are provided for women ‘s refuges throughout the nation. I point out that my figures relate to a relatively short period of the year- in fact, from January to April 1979. I remind honourable senators that 1979 is the International Year of the Child and that children are requiring the use of those refuges as much as women are. Many more children than women are in need of the services of the refuges. At one stage in Nardine the ratio of children to women has 4.1:1, which I think is quite horrific. These figures relate to all of the refuges operating in the metropolitan area and not just to the independent ones.

At the Lucy Saw refuge in the four months between January and April this year 34 women and 59 children were accommodated and five women and 1 4 children were refused because of lack of accommodation. The Mary Smith refuge was able to take 35 women and 61 children, but 126 women and 230 children were turned away. Pretty close to five times as many people than this refuge was able to accommodate were turned away. The Ave Maria refuge accommodated 82 children and women in that same period, but it turned away 226 women and children. Warrawee managed to accommodate 76 women and 155 children, but it turned down 56 women and 82 children. Graceville accommodated 128 women and 222 children in four months but had to refuse 1 18 women and 262 children. Emmaus refuge- I will have a few words to say about this organisation lateraccepted 15 women and 28 children but rejected 4 1 women and 82 children. Nardine catered for 78 women and 190 children but was forced to turn away 32 women and 109 children. This is the situation just in Western Australia. However, whilst accommodation was found at women’s refuges for a total of 1,163 women and children over a four-month period more than that number, or a total of 1,383 people, were turned away.

What happens to those 1,383 people? I suppose one could say that these figures have been juggled to a certain extent because it does not necessarily apply that they would have been rejected only by one refuge. They may have been turned away from two or three refuges or perhaps even four or five because when a woman is in a crisis situation all she is intent on doing is finding accommodation for herself and her family. Therefore these figures could be exaggerated. Nevertheless the figures demonstrate there is a drastic need in society in this area. There is not one refuge that would not be able to tell members of this place absolutely heartbreaking stories about women with children who arrive in the middle of the night in battered physical condition and emotionally broken who are looking for some comfort, perhaps just a cup of tea and a shoulder to cry on to enable them to assess the situation. These women have to find out for themselves just what their actions will be in the future. They have to determine whether they will go back to a brutal and violent situation in their home or whether they will become human beings once again and move out into that great big world with the assistance of people at the refuge. The assistance given to women is another service that the refuges provide. It is a follow-up service. People who have used the refuge know that there are women at the refuge who care for them. They know that they can go back to the refuge and receive advice and help. They do not receive financial assistance because the refuges are not designed in that way. They receive the emotional assistance that is needed when a women with her children are suddenly turned loose on society.

I think it takes a great deal of courage for women with family responsibilities suddenly to walk out of the matrimonial home. A women could walk out for a number of reasons. It could be because her husband is drunk and has come home in a violent mood.

Senator Sheil:

– She may have driven him to drink.

Senator COLEMAN:

– She may have driven him to drink. I am not going to set myself up as an arbiter on who was right and who was wrong. Senator Sheil may feel that he should play that role, but I certainly do not. I have seen women who have had their teeth broken, who have had bruises around their face and shoulders and possibly over their bodies, whose children have been battered and been taken to a refuge because it is a refuge for them. It is a haven. The Government has a responsibility to provide that haven.

Senator Peter Baume:

– And we acknowledge that all over Australia we see the same.

Senator COLEMAN:

– I am glad to hear Senator Baume say that. There is an acknowledgment from this side of the chamber certainly that there is a great need for the provision of more and more substantial services of this nature throughout the community.

I had intended to speak about the situation pertaining particularly in Queensland and New South Wales. However, I will devote the remaining 10 minutes of my speech to Western Australia. I will detail some of the correspondence that I believe we have all received from various refuges and mention some of the criticism about refuges that has been made in this place. The situation with Emmaus is slightly different in that this organisation rented property from the Theosophical Society in north Perth. Possibly because of its geographic situation in the metropolitan area it found itself catering for the needs of a great number of Aboriginal women with their children. The other agencies take Aboriginal women and children. But one generally finds that people of that ethnic background will in actual fact gravitate to where they know there are other women who understand their specific problems. The situation with Emmaus became quite drastic because finding emergency accommodation in Western Australia for a woman with children who does not hold down a job is an extremely difficult proposition. It that woman happens to be black let me assure the Senate that it is impossible. There are still 1,000 Aboriginal families on the waiting list of the Housing Commission of Western Australia list, 800 of which to my personal knowledge have been there for the last three years. It is not the intention of the Western Australian Government or the State Housing Commission to cater for the drastic needs of the Aboriginal people. Therefore it will not be any easier for Aboriginal women to move out of a refuge into emergency housing.

If a woman happens to be in a refuge, happens to be black and happens to have a number of children, that woman becomes a long term resident. As a result more problems are created for the refuge which cannot afford to have long term problems. Refuges have to cater for a certain percentage of the population. However, they cannot do so if women are taking up bed days. Earlier this year I wrote to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) when I learned that one woman with five children had occupied 158 bed days at the Emmaus refuge. Under the circumstances it is impossible for a refuge to continue to offer a service in the community.

I said earlier that accommodation was available in the metropolitan area of Perth. We all know that accommodation is available in most of the major cities. However, this accommodation is not being fully utilised. It is certainly not being utilised for emergency housing for women in drastic situations. I am now extremely disturbed because I have been informed that $ 1.9m, which was appropriated in last year’s Budget- the 1978-79 Budget- for two Queensland projects under the Homeless Persons Assistance Act will not be utilised this financial year. In actual fact I believe that that $1.9m is being returned to the Treasury. Perhaps when the Minister for Social Security follows me in this debate she could tell the Senate why this money could not be used to cater for the financial needs of some of the refuges of which I have spoken and to relieve the situation of refuges throughout Australia. If she reads her departmental publication entitled Know Your Social Services’ put out earlier this year she will see that the claim is made that assistance is available to approved non-profit organisations and local government bodies to meet the costs of purchasing, constructing, altering or renting buildings for homeless people. There is nothing as homeless as a woman with children who has decided in an area of crisis that she has to leave her home in the middle of the night. I believe that that $1.9m could be utilised for the Queensland projects next year and that it could be included in the next appropriation papers which will come out in August. It is not something that cannot be repaid; it is something that can be utilised right now to relieve the situation that applies in all of the refuges.

I think it is a bit unfortunate that women’s refuges have been an area of little public awareness and therefore easily swept under the carpet. I believe this view is being reflected in some of the attitudes expressed by some of the States. Senator Martin and Senator Bonner will possibly agree that the situation pertains in their own State of Queensland. It certainly pertains in Western Australia. It is promulgated by such worthy organisations as the Daily News which in an article last Friday week, 18 May, twice referred to women’s refuges as ‘women’s Refugees’. I am not terribly sure whether this newspaper is suggesting that women’s refuges are to cater for the needs of women refugees who happen to come from some other country. But it certainly did not recognise that they are providing a community service.

I will seek later to incorporate a number of articles in Hansard. But I read specifically two letters which have been sent to me, one from Lismore in New South Wales and one from the Lucy Saw Centre in Kwinana, Western Australia. I had hoped that I would be able to reply to criticism that was expressed by Senator Harradine and Senator Walters about the Tasmanian women’s shelter, but I will leave the reply to that to either Senator Melzer or Senator Robertson, if they have time to do so. The letter from the Richmond Women’s Emergency Service in Lismore is dated 1 5 April and states:

Dear Senator,

I am writing on behalf of the women of the Richmond Women’s Emergency Centre. We arc a regional refuge set up nine months ago to service an area covering Casino, Kyogle, Byron Bay. Ballina and Lismore. Since we commenced operating we have had a very great demand for our service and at any one time we would average six women and fifteen children accommodated at the refuge.

We wish to acquaint you with some of our problems and ask that you pass these details on to your fellow members; especially because of the budget discussions that will soon begin in Federal Parliament.

Our physical location is unsatisfactory as we are located on the flood plain. In the short time we have been operating we have had one flood alarm.

The needs of children in our refuge are not catered for as wc have no member of staff involved in helping these children. We feel that this needs to be rectified and have, in our next budget application made provision for such a worker and expect this will alleviate the problem. In the International Year of the Child we hope the needs of the children in our refuge can be met in this regard.

Accommodation in general in Lismore is in a drastic plight, let alone for a single woman with children. There is very little private accommodation available as this is in general taken up by the students from the Northern Rivers College of Advanced Education and because of the shortage rentals are very high and the cheapest places for rent are in flood areas. There is outright discrimination by real estate agents who prefer to rent to ‘families’ rather than single women with children.

That is not an unusual circumstance. We meet that everywhere. Nevertheless, it creates additional strains on the centres. The letter continued:

At present we are funded 75 per cent from funds made available through the Commonwealth Governments Community Health Programme and 25 per cent from the State Government. Because refuges are a very important humanitarian service, we feel that there should be no question about their continued existence nor about continuous funding and for this reason we feel that current budgeting on a recurrent basis is not satisfactory unless we can be given some guarantees that funding will not be cut at some future date.

Would you please ask questions ‘without notice’ and ‘with notice’ in the house highlighting the problems of women’s refuges in general and ours in particular.

I hope that I have not done that only in regard to that refuge because I prefer to concentrate on the State I know- Western Australia. I can assure those women in Lismore that I am aware of their needs and that when I am in New South Wales I will visit them, if possible. In this Parliament questions have been asked and statements have been made by Senator Harradine and Senator Walters in which they were very critical of the women’s shelter in Tasmania because of an advertisement that it had placed in a newspaper. I think that Senator Harradine commented that the shelter had no right to be political. Let me assure honourable senators on this side and on the Government side of the chamber that people working for a community service have to be political from the time that they get up in the morning until they go to bed at night, because their whole life is based on politics- the politics of whether a Federal government will give funding to the community service and whether a State government will make up the balance or how it is going to arrange to get, for example, the additional 12’/i per cent which is so desperately needed for the refuges in Western Australia.

I return to the motion of urgency which I moved at the beginning of this debate. There is an urgent need for guaranteed, continued and adequate Federal Government funding for women’s refuges throughout Australia. Members of the Opposition recognise that need and it is the responsibility of this Government to fill that need.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– The Opposition has moved a matter of urgency with regard to the funding of women’s refuges, and I think that a number of matters can be discussed during this debate. The matters raised by Senator Coleman with regard to the change of policy and other matters could be put in context perhaps by giving some of the background to the present funding arrangements. In 1974, the then Minister for Health approved the first women’s refuge for funding under the Community Health Program. The funding of women’s refuges under that program was regarded as an interim measure pending a final decision as to the appropriate source of funding. When the change of government took place at the end of 1975, a total of 19 women’s refuges in the States were approved under the Community Health Program. There were also two refuges in each of the Territories which are separately funded by the Territories’ health authorities.

In the 1977-78 Budget, the Cabinet decided that the funding of women’s refuges should be continued under the Community Health Program and the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) announced that in that year, in addition to the funds required for the continuation of the 19 refuges previously funded, Sim would be made available for the funding of refuges which had not been approved previously. In 1978-79 the Government provided $3m for the funding of women’s refuges. Therefore, by way of background we see that in 1974, when the first refuge was funded, there was an expenditure of $59,000 under the Community Health Program. In 1975-76, this rose to $785,000. In 1977-78, we saw a rise to $ 1 .4m, which has been doubled in this year to a total of $2. 8m. So it can be seen that there has been a growth in the establishment of refuges and that there certainly has been a growth in the funds which have been provided by the Federal Government, through the Community Health Program, and by State governments as their contributions to that program.

We ought also to put into context the way in which the percentages of funding have been arranged. Senator Coleman referred to this and to the changes which have been made in two States. Perhaps I ought to put the record in order by saying that when the Commonwealth’s funding of additional women’s refuges resumed in 1977-78, it was at the same rates as the funding of general community health projects, that is, 50 per cent of capital costs and 75 per cent of operating costs. In this financial year, the Commonwealth’s funding of general community health projects has been at the rate of 50 per cent for capital and operating costs, but it ought to be noted that funding of women’s refuges has been maintained at 50 per cent of capital costs and 75 per cent of operating costs. This could be regarded as an important recognition of the need for assistance to women’s refuges, and the bulk of the expenditure in this year is in relation to operating costs. So there is this commitment from the Federal Government to meet 75 per cent of operating costs, and two States- Queensland and Western Australia- meet 12V4 per cent of operating costs and 25 per cent of capital costs. In New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania the State governments provide the full balance of 50 per cent of capital costs and 25 per cent of operating costs. They are significant in the development of the women’s refuges program and the full funding in those four States, which comes by way of Federal and State government funding, I am sure has been of very great assistance in the establishment of the projects.

In accordance with the arrangements which were introduced in 1976-77, the Commonwealth’s funding of women’s refuges under the Community Health Program is by way of block grants to the States. In each financial year the Minister for Health approves a block grant to each State for that State’s total program of women’s refuges. It is the responsibility of the respective States to allocate funds from these block grants to the individual approved refuges. Except in Western Australia, these block grants are administered by the State welfare authorities. In Western Australia, the State administering authority is the Department of Public Health. I understand that, in addition to responsibility for allocation of funds from block grants, the State authorities are regarded as having immediate responsibility for the supervision of refuge operations.

Senator Coleman referred to the Emmaus women’s refuge in Perth and spoke of the difficulties with regard to it and the numbers of Aboriginal women who use it. I understand that there have been difficulties with regard to the future of the Emmaus women’s refuge and I am told that on the recommendation of the State Department of Public Health it was approved for Community Health Program funding in 1977. Since then there have been reports of financial difficulties being experienced by this refuge and also reports of problems encountered by the State authorities in relation to the supervision of the refuge’s operation. As has been said, it caters largely for Aboriginal women. In February 1979, the Director-General of Health informed the Minister for Health that complaints had been received from residents in the area of the refuge concerning noise, drinking, indecent language and other problems. I understand that, in addition, the owners have now served notice on the organisers of the refuge to quit the premises, which are reported to have fallen into a state of disrepair. The Minister was informed that the State authorities had decided, pending investigation, to suspend the funding of Emmaus

I am unaware of the present situation with regard to it, but I am told that in April 1979 the Western Australian Department of Public Health advised the Commonwealth Department of Health that in the past there had been problems of an accounting nature and that, more recently the organisation had struggled to maintain hygiene standards. Apparently, the staff of the refuge have had great difficulty in maintaining effective supervision of the women and children and it seems that these problems resulted in the Theosophical Society notifying the organisation that its tenure had been withdrawn. The Western Australian authorities decided, therefore, to discontinue funding this refuge. As the Community Health Program is a joint Commonwealth-State program, the withdrawal of the State approval resulted in the cessation of both Commonwealth and State funding for the refuge. It is considered to be entirely a matter for State authorities to decide that State approval will be withdrawn and to offer any reasons for that action. In the case of this particular refuge, the complaints that arose from residents and others apparently progressed to the stage where decisions were taken by the landlord, by the State Government and then of course, ultimately by the Commonwealth Government, not to continue the funding.

As far as new refuges are concerned, I am told that the Minister for Health is seeking discussions with the Minister for Finance (Mr Eric Robinson), with regard to the provision of seven new refuges in a number of States. I would expect that, in the period leading up to the Budget discussions, he would be putting forward his proposals with regard to the further development of women’s refuges in several parts of Australia.

The motion of urgency referred to the need for guaranteed, continued and adequate Federal Government funding for women’s refuges. These are, of course, matters for Budget consideration and discussion at the Premiers’ Conference, at which the Community Health program itself is considered. They are matters on which I am unable, in a pre-Budget context, to give any guarantee or commitment for the future. I think honourable senators will understand that, but the history of this program has been such that funds have been increased to the point where it is estimated that this year $2. 8m will be expended. This shows that the Government recognises the need for women’s refuges, recognises with alarm- as I think Senator Coleman put it- the increasing need for provision of such refuges in order to help people who are in distress, in danger or in terror, as well as children who are subjected to what is widelyspread abuse. No-one would argue against those propositions and I think the Government has shown its consideration for the program by developing it to the extent that I have mentioned and by providing funds in the way in which it has.

In regard to child care, I agree that many of the children who pass through these refuges, or are in contact with them, do need special assistance. The week before last, when representatives of women’s refuges throughout Australia were in Canberra, I was able to see them. I have been able to make arrangements to improve the standard of child care that can be given in refuges and assistance in that way. The arrangements that have been made by the Office of Child Care, in regard to child care facilities, resources and programs for the assistance of refuges that are funded under the Community Health Program, will be of great benefit to children who need to take refuge in the way that we have all described. I am hopeful that it will lead to improved care of children and greater relief for mothers and the staff of the women’s refuges. It is certainly a development that has had my personal support.

I refer now to the matters raised concerning the Homeless Persons Assistance Act, and to Senator Coleman’s concern that there would be unspent funds in regard to this program. This has been, over a number of years, a rolling program, and when approvals have been given for particular projects and it has not always been possible for the entire building, for instance, to be completed and all arrangements finalised in a particular year. Also, the projects embarked upon under the Homeless Persons Assistance Act have been subject to adverse community reaction and sometimes local government approval has taken longer than anticipated. However, the funds that were destined to be spent under that program will be spent and the projects approved under it are in course of development. Thus, although all of the funds set aside may not be used before 30 June, they will nevertheless need to be made available to enable completion of buildings and the like to be undertaken in due course. Because I am not in a position to make commitments prior to the announcement by the Treasurer (Mr Howard) of projects which are to be approved in respect of a particular year, I have no other remarks to make with regard to the funding of women ‘s refuges, or the urgency motion that has been brought forward.

I repeat, the Community Health Program will be the subject of the Premiers’ Conference in June. In some instances announcements about commitments with the States are made at that time. In other cases announcements must be delayed until Budget-time. However, as far as women’s refuges are concerned, their increased development and the continuing and growing support that has been given to them by the Federal Government would lead everyone to understand that the Government recognises the need for them and that it must provide substantial funds to continue their existence.

I have no argument with regard to the matter of urgency that has been proposed. I hope it will be understood that, in the pre-Budget context, 1 am not able at this time to make any further commitments.

Senator MELZER:
Victoria

– I rise in this debate because I am concerned that in this area the Federal Government should keep up its commitment. The Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) says that the Government recognises the need for women ‘s refuges and has shown its concern by the commitment that it has made, but in view of the promises that have already been broken by this Government, notably with regard to the reduction of income tax and the retention of Medibank, we are worried that its concern about the need for refuges may also go out the window.

Refuges are needed primarily because of the pressure that is exerted upon people. Although the Government has said that it has a commitment to the development of refuges, it must also recognise that it should show concern because it is the main source from which this pressure arises. The refuges are needed because of the problems that this Government has caused. There is increasing unemployment. Only last week the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) admitted that unemployment would not disappear; that it could reach the figure of 550,000 by next February; and that increasing unemployment was one cause of the pressure which prompts people to react in a violent way and results in women needing refuges.

Another source of pressure is the decreasing opportunity that is provided to people. There is no promotion, no expansion into new areas, no incentive given youngsters. Everybody is fearful of getting the sack. This too puts pressure on people and causes them to react violently. The increase in interest rates that has occurred- even though the Government said that it would reduce them- has meant that housing has become dearer, that people are more in need of second mortgages, more in need of two incomes in the family. Thus they are subject to increasing pressure and frustration. The houses that they need become further out of reach, and so people react violently.

This week we have learned of a proposed increase in the cost of health services. The Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) himself admitted that an increased cost of at least $ 12 a week will be usual for families. We know that extra costs will come about through charges for hospital out-patient services. We know that doctors’ fees will increase and families will be faced with the terrible situation of not knowing how they are to pay for the health care of their families. So, people will run away. People will desert. They will act violently to one another to get rid of the frustration and despair that they have. This will mean that more refuges will be needed and the refuges that exist will be overtaxed even more than they are at the moment.

Whilst this Government says it has a concern in the area, it has to do more than show concern. It has to be very aware of the growing problem and realise that the support for those refuges has to come from this same Government. Honourable senators know that people react violently and cruelly, and that women and children are not in a position to protect themselves against that sort of behaviour. Perhaps the situation in Victoria in regard to refuges is better than in some other States. Even there, refuges that have accommodation for small groups of, say, six to eight women with their children and which deal with people for short periods, have been accommodating up to 74 people over the last six months. The people at all the refuges say that they have received calls for help from three times that number of women during the last six months. So far as they can see, the call for help is increasing every day. More and more people need help. All the refuges indicate that they could take in at least twice as many people as they have accommodation for.

Great numbers of people do not have access to refuges and do not know that refuges exist. There are also great numbers of people who do not know how to reach the refuges even if they have some knowledge that there is care of that sort available in the community. Whilst the Minister says that the Federal Government is concerned, I learned yesterday that there is a refuge opening in Queanbeyan because the refuges in Canberra cannot take the numbers of people who need them. Their facilities are overtaxed and the Federal Government will not fund extra refuges in Canberra. The Queanbeyan people also point out that, whilst the refuges in Canberra have some supportive services- but not nearly enough- the supportive services that are offered by the New South Wales Department of Youth and Community Affairs are much more attractive, much more supportive and much more real in providing the sort of facilities and back-up services that these refuges need.

Honourable senators know that the refuges have been, and no doubt will be, attacked because of their political activity. Nobody has defined exactly what that political activity is supposed to be but as Senator Coleman has said, the personnel who work in those refuges have no alternative but to expand their own political knowledge and so expand their political activity. They have to advise women on their legal rights, their rights to pensions and allowances, what they can do about housing and schools and what they must do about the care of their children. These people have to develop skills of lobbying to attract funds from government departments, both for the women who use their refuges and for the refuges themselves. They are often at loggerheads with Ministers and with State, Federal and local governments about the refuges and the problems that arise in them. So they have to become skilful in using what people might call political skills to service the areas and the women in the areas in which they work.

Every day of their lives these people are immersed in the gross injustice and inequality of all the women who either approach them for assistance or who live in those refuges for short periods. They become very concerned at the injustice and the inequality that is meted out to so many of those women. All the women who use the refuges and who work in them become concerned with changing society so that the problem does not exist any more. They do not want to go on having refuges. They do not want band-aids placed over the problem. They want the problem solved. If that is being political or indulging in political activity then, surely, these people are political. I do not use ‘political ‘ as a dirty word. It is something that they have to do and I think it is very brave of many of them to go out to work in that area for the very little reward that they receive.

The accusation has been made that the women who run or use the refuges are lesbians. These refuges are for women. They are run by women because women in trouble or despair find other women more understanding and more supportive of them. Because they are all women in those houses does not mean that they are lesbians. Because, a group consists of all women, it does not mean that those women are in any way sexually different from the ordinary women in the community. If one is to say that groups of all women contain lesbians, one would have to say that groups of all men contain homosexuals. There are no women sitting in the House of Representatives but I do not believe that the men in that House are homosexuals because of that. I know that on Thursday nights in long weeks of sitting they are tempted sometimes but I am sure that they do not indulge in homosexual activities with each other. It is as absurd to say that they are homosexuals as it is to say that because groups of women are living in houses together those women are lesbians.

The problem of funding these refuges is not so much a problem of uncertainty about the amount of funds; it is a problem of getting the funds in the first place. The refuges do not know what funding they are to get from year to year; they do not know whether they are to be funded from year to year. The problem has been that funding differs between the States, as Senator Coleman has said. This means that because there is unequal funding there are unequal resources. It is unfair to women in States such as Queensland and Western Australia that they do not have at least the resources that States such as Victoria and South Australia have. The problem is that although the facilities are there the States do not assist with funding to the extent that they should. For instance, in Victoria the refuges are used by the police to dump women but the Police Department does not assist with the funding of the refuges and it does not assist with keeping the refuges safe. Some funding is used to provide protective doors, fences, locks and windows because the police will not protect the refuges from men who want to fight and bash their way in to get back what they see as their property- their wives and children who are inside. If the States insisted that the police protect the refuges, as they protect any other property in the States, much expense would be spared.

The problem with current funding is having to prove need. This is a catch 22 situation. To obtain funding it has to be proved that the need in an area is such that a refuge should be funded. In many instances refuges have to take people out of the areas in which they lived, for the very obvious reason that they have to be protected from violent people who want to break into their refuge. Therefore, refuges may have to be established in areas where there is no immediate awareness of need. People are taken from one suburb and put into another suburb. People might be taken from one side of a city to the other side of that city. This means that it is very difficult to establish need in a specific area. One has to establish first of all that there is an area of need and then one has to convince a department that to service that need refuge has to be provided in another part of the State. It is not easy.

There is not the money available for refuges that the Minister and the Government say there is. What this Government should look at in a big, rich country such as Australia is that while there is not money to look after people who cannot look after themselves and who are in danger, there is money to pay almost half the cost of developing mine sites- building railways, ports and towns for firms whose profits go overseas. There is not the money to establish refuges in all the places where they are needed, nor to fund and staff them as we should. But, evidently, there is money to allow overseas companies developing the North West Shelf project to deduct the costs of developing that project from the Australian profits for their oil refining and marketing organisations. The Government does not have the money to provide and staff all the refuges in the areas where they are needed but it can allow Utah Mining Australia Ltd to send back to America profits of the order of $200m.

What is the point of talking about Australia being a rich country that can look after its people if, when we get to the bottom end of the scale, we have people who cannot look after themselves? We admit that the community has a responsibility to look after these people but we allow the mining companies to rape this country and to send the profits that they make out of our resources back to their home countries. This Government has to look at things like resources taxes, which I know it sees as a dirty word and certainly the mining and oil companies see as a dirty word. The Government has a responsibility to use the resources of this country to look after our people.

The Deputy Prime Minister said last week that no one should expect things to get much easier. It is very obvious to some people that in the next 12 months, and perhaps in the 12 months after that, things will get very much more difficult. The Opposition hopes that this Government will recognise that there is a very real need to act in this area in order that the resources of this country are used to look after the people who have no place to go and are the responsibility of any Australian government.

Senator WALTERS:
Tasmania

– I support the motion before the Senate today. However, I believe that Senator Coleman has moved the motion to discuss a matter of urgency quite unnecessarily. The Government has already clearly indicated its support of women’s shelters in Australia. Senators Coleman and Melzer introduced an overtone of fearmongering into the debate today. The Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) has already appealed to the Australian people to ignore fear-mongering. An attempt has been made to convince the people who administer shelters that not only might their funds be reduced but that they might be stopped altogether. Senator Melzer made the extraordinary comment that the Minister had said that the Government does not have the money to fund women’s shelters. The Minister did not say that at any stage. If honourable senators refer to Hansard tomorrow they will find that the Minister did not say that, although Senator Melzer assured the chamber that she did.

Let us look at the Government’s funding of women’s shelters. The Minister said that shelters were first funded in 1974. Nineteen shelters were set up at the end of 1975 and Government funding amounted to $59,000. The Government has underlined its support for shelters because there are now 84 shelters which represent a considerable increase.

Senator Coleman:

– Still nowhere near enough.

Senator WALTERS:

– These shelters are being funded by the Commonwealth Government.

Senator Melzer:

– How many do we need?

Senator WALTERS:

– Senators Coleman and Melzer say that there are still not enough shelters. But at least in that time the number of shelters has increased from 19 to 84.

Senator Melzer:

– So has the need.

Senator WALTERS:

-The need is certainly there. I could not agree more with Senator Melzer. Senator Coleman has already stated that the general administration of these shelters is in the hands of the States. The Minister also commented that the Commonwealth Government views shelters as a very special part of the community health program. We have not reduced the Commonwealth’s share of funding of women’s refuges as has been done in other health programs to the 50-50 share basis on both capital and operating costs. These shelters have been singled out as being very special. The Commonwealth funds 50 per cent of the capital requirements of the shelters and 75 per cent of their operating costs. I am sure that the Senate will be well aware that the operating costs are by far the largest area of expenditure of the shelters. At the moment the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) and the Minister for Finance (Mr Eric Robinson) are discussing the provision of seven new shelters. I feel that the debate today has been initiated in an attempt to cause concern for the people administering the shelters and that this is completely wrong. This Government has recognised the necessity for shelters. Government funding has increased to the extent that in the 1978-79 Budget nearly $3m was allocated for these shelters. Those people who are administering the shelters should be well satisfied that the Government is now showing some concern for them.

The work of these shelters is not just to take in people and look after them during the period of immediate crisis. If Senator Coleman is very concerned for the children in these situations, I think she needs to know what went on at the Hobart refuge. I am not referring to the ‘Tasmanian refuge’. I am referring to the Hobart refuge in which I have shown an interest. The situation in respect of the Hobart refuge on which Senator Coleman commented today is rather unfortunate. Considerable concern has been shown, not only by the Federal members of Parliament and the people of Hobart, but also by the State Government in Tasmania. After various investigations were conducted into the Hobart shelter, the State Minister eventually ordered that child social welfare workers should from time to time enter that shelter and keep an eye on it. This was considered necessary as a result of the Minister’s investigation. It was entirely in response to his concern for the children in that shelter that the State Minister for Health made this order.

As I have said shelters are involved in caring for children while the parent is at the shelter and there is a tremendous amount of follow-up work. I believe that, apart from the initial care that is given, the follow-up work is perhaps the most important part of all. The follow-up work entails obtaining information about the welfare benefits which it is the right of these women to receive. Many women do not know that welfare agencies exist. They can be informed of them by those people who run the shelters. Information is also given concerning legal aid rights and financial support to which they are entitled in respect of custody and property matters of which they may not be aware. The women who run the shelters accompany their clients to lawyers and doctors and generate a tremendous amount of support after the initial crisis in the follow-up period. All this is of great assistance as the figures show that the majority of women return to their home environment after the initial crisis.

Senator Coleman:

– There is nowhere else for them to go.

Senator WALTERS:

-There are other places for them to go. Most of the shelters, and particularly the ones that I know of in Tasmania, have half-way houses and other forms of housing to which these women can go. We have entered another area in Tasmania which I believe to be crucial- that of alcoholic women. (Quorum formed).

Sitting suspended from 1.1 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator WALTERS:

– Before the suspension of the sitting I was talking about special shelters for alcoholic women. Recently in my State Caroline House was established as a centre for alcoholic women in crisis. The other shelters cannot take alcoholic women because they do not have sufficient area in which to set them aside from the other women and assist them with their particular problems. I have nothing more to say. I simply move:

That the question be now put.

Question put.

The Senate divided. (The President- Senator the Hon. Sir Condor Laucke)

AYES: 32

NOES: 26

Majority……. 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2241

COMMONWEALTH ARBITRATION INSPECTORATE

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– Pursuant to section 125 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 as existing prior to the amendment of that Act in 1977,I present the report of the Commonwealth Arbitration Inspectorate for the period 1 July 1977 to 28 February 1978.

page 2241

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BUREAU

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– Pursuant to section 126R of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904, I present the annual report of the Industrial Relations Bureau for the period 3 October 1977 to 30 June 1978.

page 2241

SENATE 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 2241

TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INTERCEPTION) BILL 1979 [No. 2]

Motion (by Senator Carrick, on behalf of Senator Durack) agreed to:

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to prohibit the interception of telecommunications except where specially authorised in the interests of security or in connection with inquiries related to narcotic offences, and for related offences.

page 2241

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 3) 1978-79

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 28 May, on motion by Senator Guilfoyle:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator KNIGHT:
Australian Capital Territory

– When the debate was interrupted yesterday I was talking about the devastation suffered by Uganda during the eight years of the rule of former President Amin. In particular I referred to the activities of the State Research Bureau in their Nakasero headquarters in Kampala. Recently there have been many stories in the Press about the atrocities that occurred there. Perhaps it is worth recording that it is understood that there were 2,000 or 3,000 officers of the State Research Bureau who conducted their campaign of terror and suppression throughout Uganda during the term of office of Amin. Perhaps it is also worth recalling some of the events that occurred in the Namanve forest, which is just outside Kampala, where is has been reported that 6,000 or 7,000 people died in the course of former President Amin’s rule and where Mrs Dora Bloch is believed to have been murdered as a result of the Israeli raid on Entebbe airport and presumably as an act of reprisal by the Amin regime.

Tony Walker, an Australian journalist with the Age newspaper, visited Kampala recently. I will read a comment that he made about the State Research Bureau. He wrote:

The SRB was nothing but an instrument of brutal oppression.

I think those brief words sum up clearly the role of the State Research Bureau and its activities under former President Amin. It is worth recalling the suffering in some regions of Uganda during this time. It has been reported that entire villages were left without men aged between 20 and 50 years as a result of the reprisals in the Acholi and Lango regions and against the people in the north of Uganda. It has been reported that at one stage at least 200 men from that region were being killed each day by the Amin State Research Bureau and its various agents and supporters. It has also been reported that whenever there was a coup attempt or an alleged coup attempt in Uganda during the regime of Amin there would be murder squads or State Research Bureau squads dispatched to the Acholi and Lango regions to wage their campaign of terror and murder against the people who live there. One observer said that they were killing between 1 50 and 200 Langi and Acholi each day and 50 a day thereafter in one particular area of northern Uganda. I think those figures speak for themselves and show the scale of suppression and atrocities that occurred within Uganda under Amin. It is reported in the Canberra Times of 4 May 1979 as follows:

The murder squad had included southern Sudanese, Rwandans, Nubians and some Palestinians.

Most importantly I think at this stage, it is necessary presumably to put the past behind us and try to rebuild the shattered state of the economy as well as the society of Uganda.This raises a question of what we might do to assist that country. I again quote from an article by Tony Walker in the Age:

Uganda is a shattered country, both economically and spiritually.

I believe that those few words probably summarise the situation precisely. Tony Walker made this point in that article in the Age:

Uganda has no foreign reserves and multiplying debts.

This is placing an immense burden on the nation although some assistance is now being received. Tony Walker made the point that Uganda to some extent is fortunate- if that is the word to use in the circumstances- because it is agriculturally a relatively well-off country.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Why has not the leader who was deposed by Idi Amin been reinstated? Have you any views on that?

Senator KNIGHT:

– The honourable senator refers to Dr Milton Obote. I am not sure why that did not occur. I agree that it is a fascinating question, but it seems that Dr Obote is to be left out of the government in the new Administration. I was referring to the relative richness of some parts of the country. Tony Walker, in the article to which I referred, wrote: h is estimated that about 90 per cent of Uganda’s 12 million people can and do live off the land.

So the problems facing the country, to that small degree, are alleviated. Britain was the metropolitan power controlling Uganda for a period of, I think about 70 years dating back to the nineteenth century until Uganda became independent in the 1960s. Britain, has now announced that it will provide $2m, I understand, in direct assistance to Uganda. It is worth noting in that context that President Lule has estimated that the cost of rebuilding will be in the vicinity of $2 billion. The country faces major problems in rebuilding its infrastructure, in the provision of transport services and communications, in the distribution of food and in the maintenance of health services throughout the shattered country. Obviously it is difficult for someone in Australia- I have not visited Africa, Uganda in particular- to understand or appreciate the horror of what has occurred in Uganda. One report from the Melbourne Age dated 3 May 1979 perhaps reflects something of the situation. It states:

Standing before the gaping doors of the looted Uganda Commercial Bank, prison warder Valenario Ekol said he had already found the bodies of two of his brothers.

Since he came out of hiding with the arrival of Tanzanians he hud searched in vain for his wife and four children.

I suppose we can reflect only on the terrible situation that that indicates for an individual. Perhaps we should also reflect on the number of people who must be facing that terrible personal loss and dislocation to their lives and wellbeing in Uganda. It is in that context that I believe we ought to be considering what Australia might do. Perhaps it is worth noting- it is my understanding- that President Lule has visited Australia on a couple of occasions and knows a number of people here. After his Government was sworn in on 13 April 1979 Australia was one of the first countries to recognise his Government. We have already provided some assistance in response to a request from the Commonwealth Secretariat in London. We have decided to send two Australian experts to Uganda- an expert in transport and an expert in agriculture- to join a Commonwealth team to assist in the rehabilitation and, in particular, to identify areas of priority for the implementation of programs throughout the country.

Some discussions have taken place with the Ugandan authorities. I understand that the Australian High Commissioner from Kenya has visited Uganda. It is recognised that supplies of certain equipment are badly needed. These supplies can be sent to Uganda from Kenya. Australia is investigating how we might assist in this respect. Such assistance would be in addition to the training aid which Australia has given to Uganda and which has been continuous since 1961. 1 understand that there are at present ten Ugandan students in Australia.

Having said that, I make the point that it does seem that we and others ought to be considering what more we can do to assist this shattered nation and to alleviate the suffering of so many people in Uganda. It seems to me an opportunity for Australia to take some initiative with respect to Africa, a continent with which we have limited links. On this occasion I believe we could take particular measures in Uganda because of the devastation in that country. It has been suggested, for example, that Australia might send young people as volunteers to assist in rehabilitation work, in rebuilding the country. That is something which the Overseas Service Bureau and the people who administer Australian Volunteers Abroad, for which the Government provides assistance, might look at in particular. There are already Australian volunteers active in parts of Africa, and AVA might be an organisation which could concentrate its attention a little more on Africa and particularly on Uganda in that country ‘s effort to rebuild.

A further possibility, it seems to me, is the Commonwealth Heads of Government conference to be held at Lusaka in August. Commonwealth countries will meet at this conference, and we might hope that at that conference the Commonwealth, perhaps with Australia taking some lead in such efforts, will come up with some initiatives to assist in the rebuilding of a country which is geographically very near to those people who will be meeting in Lusaka, and that it might introduce or develop some measures to help in the rebuilding of Uganda. It does seem to be a project to which the Commonwealth is specially well suited. It is all the more appropriate as that body is meeting in Africa this year.

I thought it useful at this time to bring to the notice of the Senate first of all the suffering that Uganda has faced, and to suggest some ways in which Australia might assist. But I think it is important also to indicate that we are conscious of the devastation which Uganda has faced, and the responsibility that we all have, to some degree, to ask what we might do, either individually or as a nation, to assist in the rebuilding of that nation.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

-I rise to speak on the debate on the Appropriation Bills. I move:

As can be deduced from that text the amendment is concerned largely with the bucketful of guarantees on various matters which this Government gave at the time when it first assumed power late in 1975. The Government guaranteed that it would reduce interest rates. They are now rising. The Government guaranteed that it would reduce unemployment and find jobs for all. Since that guarantee was given, unemployment has doubled and it is rising. The Government said it would reduce or eliminate deficits. Since then, in its three Budgets, the Government has piled up on all time record aggregate deficit of $9.3 billion. For the second year in succession there is to be a massive overshoot of the deficit on the Government’s estimates, and we are heading for a deficit of $3.3 billion to $3.5 billion once again, despite all the cosmetic adjustments and trick accountancy which the Government has employed to try to reduce that deficit. It has presided over the highest three-year aggregate deficit we have ever seen, and there is no sign of it coming down and every indication of it going up.

The Government said it would reduce inflation. For a while it did, but nobody, not even the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), now doubts that it is rising again and will rise to 10 per cent over the next 12 months.

Senator Button:

– He has made a promise, or a new promise about that, has he not?

Senator WALSH:

– A new promise. His new promise is that the present rate of inflation is likely to be maintained. Everyone else believes that it will be 10 per cent, which is precisely double what he promised it would be by this time.

The Government also claimed at the time it was elected that it was reprehensible to borrow money overseas. Since then, we have seen it borrow no less than $4 billion, that fascinating figure, which this Government has not talked about borrowing but has actually borrowed. Our overseas debts incurred under this Government now exceed our total overseas cash gold reserves and drawing rights. So one could say, in a sense, that this nation is now internationally bankrupt, or about to go into international receivership, if one wants to adopt the simplistic approach to these matters that Mr Fraser adopted a few years ago.

Above all, we were promised integrity in government. Since that time, eight Ministers either have been sacked or have resigned, and there are two in the pipeline. We have a Prime Minister that nobody, but nobody, believes. The Government said that it would reduce taxes. Personal income tax is now the highest proportion of the gross national product that it has ever been, war time years excepted. Average weekly earners will be paying $10 a week more in taxation in July of this year than they paid last year.

The Government purports to be a strong government, and it is a strong government when it is kicking defenceless people around. How much strength has it displayed when it has had to deal with the mavericks in Queensland, who refuse to accept the Federal Government’s authority- not only authority, but indeed obligation- pursuant to the 1967 referendum outcome to be responsible for the Aborigines. Every time that this so-called strong man who leads this Government is confronted with opponents who have the capacity to fight back, he backs down before them.

The Prime Minister said that the Government would end ‘the vast unlegislated increases in taxation that accrued in periods of inflation and non-indexed tax scales’. He has now repudiated that promise as well, both to the business community and to the personal taxpayers. The Government has even contradicted itself on a number of occasions. It came in as a Friedmanite government. Since then, that concept has been stood on its head. The basic tenet of Fried.manism is that the rate of growth of the money supply is the critical determinant of inflation, the rate of inflation will be the rate of growth of the money supply discounted for real increases in the gross domestic product. When confronted a couple of months ago with the fact that the money supply had got out of control because of the Government’s assorted mismanagement, the Treasurer (Mr Howard) made the excuse that the money supply growth had been greater than was anticipated, and that the reason for it was that the rate of inflation was higher than was anticipated. So we now have the spectacle of this Government, which was committed to Fried.manism, standing Friedmanism on its head. Friedmanism says that the rate of inflation is determined by the rate of growth of the money supply. This Government, which purports to be a Friedmanite government, says that the required rate of growth of money supply is determined by the rate of inflation.

The major reason why the Government lost control of the money supply towards the end of last year and in this year is that the Prime Minister was stupidly committed to a reduction in interest rates. No matter what the market forces said, he believed that he could be the Canute of finance and fix interest rates by political pronouncements. Indeed, in November, when all the market pressures were operating in the opposite direction, he attempted to force interest rates down by reducing the long term bond rate. The Government has been forced to go back on that action. Because of that and the Government’s weakness- I mention its three months’ procrastination before it took any action whatever over the effect of the very much larger than expected wheat crop on the growth rate of the money supply- the money supply has got out of control. Now, very belatedly, the Government is trying to take some steps to get it back under control.

We have been told for the last 12 months how damaging it would be to the economy, and particularly to mineral exploration and development, if a resources tax was applied. The Government promised to abolish the coal export levy. It has gone back on that promise. What do we now have in lieu of a resources tax? The Government has realised some of the folly in its 1978 Budget decision on crude oil pricing. Given that it has recognised that folly, it also belatedly realises that more and more windfall gains will accrue to the Australian producers on established oil fields. So the Government has decided to increase the crude oil levy to $5 a barrel. It is not a resources tax. It does produce some revenue, which of course a resources tax is aimed to do, but it is a highly undesirable form of taxation, even at the same level of revenue. The reason it is undesirable is that the $5 levy must be met. That to a company is a production cost which must be met before a barrel of oil is extracted. Therefore, while that levy is retained, marginal oil producers will be obliged to leave in the ground oil which can quite economically be extracted. All quantum taxes or mineral royalties are economically unsound. The Government ought to move afar from exacerbating its errors by increasing the size of that quantum levy; it ought to drop the whole lot and adopt a resources tax, as we have been telling it to do for the past 12 months.

The mini-Budget introduced last Thursday will only exacerbate the Government’s problems. The changes which the Government is making to health insurance and oil pricing and the revenue tariff on previously duty free imports will add at least two per cent to the consumer price index in the next 12 months. Compounding that, food prices increased at a rate of three per cent in the month of April alone. Manufacturers’ materials increased in cost by a staggering 32 per cent between March 1978 and March 1979. That is a record increase in the price of materials used by manufacturers. There is no doubt that the inflation rate will go up over the next 12 months. After three years of Fraserism and the enormous social costs associated with it, the one thing which the Government could claim as a plus on its record has now turned into a minus.

The agricultural sector, for which the National Country Party purports to speak, was hit by between $90m and $120m in last Thursday night’s mini-Budget. The reason for that imprecision between $90m and $120m is that we are not sure what future oil price rises are in the pipeline. If the 1 July Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries increase is around 10 per cent, as is expected, the direct cost to the agricultural sector will be in the vicinity of $ 120m, not counting the reduction in export incentives, not counting the revenue tariff on previously duty free imports and not counting, of course, the very big increase in personal taxation.

When one looks back over events of 1 973, as I did this morning, it is rather ironic to note the statements which were made then by assorted members of the Country Party in particular, but also by such Liberal Party luminaries as the Prime Minister and the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Street), concerning the measures which were taken in the 1973-74 Budget when some long-standing rorts which had been exploited mainly by people outside agriculture were terminated. I might add, their termination was well overdue. At that stage those people were saying how terrible it was to hit the agricultural sector at a time when it had just emerged from a long period of recession, and so on. We do not hear those people saying that now. Now that the agricultural sector has emerged from a recession which was equally as severe as that which preceded the 1973-74 Budget, we do not hear those same voices stridently proclaiming how foolish at best and how evil at worst is- the Government’s action of hitting the agricultural sector today, as they were saying it was a few years ago. As a former Western Australian Country Party senator known personally to me was noted for saying, circumstances alter cases. That, of course, was a euphemism for hypocrisy.

In the face of all that, still no effective legislation against tax dodgers is forecast. The scapegoats for all the Government’s blunders and all its malevolence are the unemployed. The unemployed, who are the victims of the Government’s policy, are blamed for the effects of those policies. That is another example of the inversion of truth regarding Friedmanism which the Treasurer put over a couple of months ago. It is obvious from the Treasurer’s statement and from statements made by assorted Ministers in recent months that an attempt is being made to revive the dole bludger scapegoat syndrome.

Six weeks ago we had the spectacle of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Mr Lynch, the Deputy Leader of t he Liberal Party of Australia, having the audacity to say that he thought that probably the unemployment benefit was too high, that it provided a disincentive to people to seek work and that was the reason for the level of unemployment being so high. Apart from the patent absurdity of there being over 400,000 registered applicants for employment and some 20,000 or fewer registered vacancies for employees- the number of applications for jobs exceeds the number of jobs available by a ratio of more than 20 : 1- this raises a moral question. We have a senior Minister in this Government who draws a tax free personal overnight allowance of $62, $ 1 1 more than the weekly income of an unemployed person, saying that the unemployed are being overcompensated financially- It would be bad enough for any Minister who was partly responsible for the level of unemployment to be saying that, but when the Minister who is saying that is a land racketeer and a tax dodger to boot, I suggest it is reprehensible.

Senator Peter Baume:

- Mr Acting Deputy President, to whom did the honourable senator refer as a land racketeer?

Senator WALSH:

– I was referring to the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party.

Senator Peter Baume:

- Mr Acting Deputy President, I believe that that is not in accordance with Standing Order 4 1 8.

Senator WALSH:

– I will withdraw the remark, Mr Acting Deputy President, noting as I do so that the test of acceptability in this place is not truth but the Standing Orders. In marked contrast to its parsimony to the unfortunate, particularly the unemployed, we have the Government’s indulgence of itself and its friends. This is the only Western democracy in the whole world in which there are no longer any taxes of any type on capital. The Prime Minister’s in-laws, the Beggs, were fully compensated for their bushfire losses by the State Electricity Commission of Victoria. They received, apparently illegally, a $50,000 loan at a 4 per cent interest rate. Ultimately, money for that loan is supplied by people who pay an interest rate of 1 1 per cent on their home loans. The Prime Minister’s wife had the audacity to complain about the public exposure of the scandal. If Mrs Fraser and her relatives want to evade public scrutiny of their business affairs, I suggest that they should stop being loan bludgers.

The Prime Minister’s self-indulgence at public expense is breathtaking: $20m for two Boeing 707s, not to mention the very expensive engine modifications which they will require, to expedite his globe trotting and to pander to his vanity and his delusion that he is a statesman of international stature. Then we have the new High Court of Australia building, the cost of which has been expanded by some $7m at the personal whim of the Chief Justice, Sir Garfield Barwick, who would have received also, pursuant to the position he occupies, a country seat had the Press and the Labor Party not exposed to the public what was going on a couple of weeks ago.

We also have the Government’s extraordinary generosity to the Sir Robert Menzies Memorial Trust, which can only be described as a Liberal Party political stunt financed by the taxpayers at a ratio of more than 3: 1. Sir Robert Menzies was not an elder statesman, but a highly partisan political figure. As late as October 1975 he went public in a very partisan way on the most controversial political issue of this decade. We are told that the Trust was established for such nebulous purposes as to study human performance. To such ill defined goals the Government has committed itself to a minimum contribution of $2m and an unknown maximum contribution.

Senator Button:

– You should be grateful that it is a study of human performance and not a study of the performance of stud cattle, or something.

Senator WALSH:

– Yes, but it might be more useful if it were a study of the latter, if it does the sort of thing which it is likely to do. If we look over the list of members of the National Committee of the Trust we find names such as Sir David Derham, Sir William Vines, Sir Garfield Barwick, Sir Henry Bolte and Sir James McNeill. It looks like a Who’s Who of the Melbourne Club and the Victorian Liberal Party, or the directors list of Associated Securities Ltd. The taxpayers will foot the bill for nearly all of that Liberal Party stunt, which is rationalised as being a study of human performance. Not only has the Government guaranteed to match at a ratio of 1 : 1 contributions from the public- some of those contributions will come from State governments and will be matched again by the Federal Government, but also genuine personal contributions, as distinct from State government contributions, will also be tax deductible. So the Government ultimately will be paying something like 75 per cent to 80 per cent of it. I suppose there is some, albeit, ironic consistency in Menzies ‘s successors conscripting money to perpetuate the things that he stood for.

I note with some regret that Sir Zelman Cowen has allowed himself to be used in the promotion of this stunt. An article in the Melbourne Herald of 1 5 May quotes Sir Zelman as saying:

Under the leadership of Sir Robert Menzies this nation grew in many ways- in world reputation, in prosperity, in maturity and in educational standards.

To the extent that these things happened at all it would be more historically accurate to say that they happened in spite of Menzies rather than because of him. In fact he presided over the highest inflation we have ever seen. He presided over one of the lowest economic growth rates in the Western world in spite of a high level of capital investment. He was a boot licker, first of the British and later of the Americans. He was an imperialist lackey who sailed up the Nile in 1956 to give Nasser the cane and got the cane instead. He wrung his hands when South Africa’s racist repressive regime was kicked out of the Commonwealth in 1962.

Above all, Sir Robert Menzies should be remembered as the Prime Minister who lied to Parliament when he committed Australian troops to Vietnam. The 492 Australians who ultimately died as a result of Menzies’ parliamentary lies certainly did not, as the GovernorGeneral put it, benefit from his long and dedicated service to the nation. But perhaps we should not expect anything more accurate from one who was a mealy-mouthed apologist for the second greatest crime of this century at the time it was actually being committed.

Senator HAMER:
Victoria

-Some weeks ago the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen) made a major statement in this Parliament on Australia’s defence policies. The speech was not universally well received by the media though I think most of the criticism was unjust. It is true that he had no major and dramatic equipment decisions to announce. This was almost inevitable in the present economic circumstances. But he did make a most important step forward. For the first time that 1 can remember he set out a clear list of Australia’s strategic goals and related the present and planned composition of the Defence Force to those strategic goals. This is a major contribution to the informed debate on defence policy for which the Minister has called.

It was a great disappointment that the House of Representatives was so thinly attended during this important speech and that two quorums were called. In this performance the Representatives was carrying out perhaps all too faithfully its representative function for there is no doubt that community complacency about defence is disturbingly high. Of course, this is always liable to happen in peace time. It was Kipling who wrote:

It’s Tommy this and Tommy that and chuck him out the brute.

But it’s thank you Mr Atkins when the guns begin to shoot.

It is surely the responsibility of this national Parliament to keep defence in the forefront of its mind for effective national defence is the first duty of every government and we forget that at our peril. I would like to take up some of the points made by the Minister about our strategic priorities and to make some comments on them. I note with disappointment that this is, as far as I can determine, the first time anyone in either House of this Parliament has spoken on this defence statement. We have had five major changes in strategic policy since the Second World War. In the early 1950s the picture was one of global war between Russia and the Western world in which Australia’s main contribution would have been to send two divisions to the Middle East- almost a replay of the early days of World War II. By the mid-1950s the spread of nuclear weapons had rendered this strategy no longer credible and the concept changed to a limited non-nuclear war with China in which we would be a contributor to a predominantly United States force. This shifted again in the early 1960s to the possibility of a local limited war in which Australia might be unsupported by major allies. This soon shifted to counter insurgency on the mainland of Asia in co-operation with allies, primarily the United States. Finally we arrived where we are now- at the so-called ‘fortress Australia’ concept. I believe this is a very bad term. I will return to this point in a moment. The trouble is that each of these strategic concepts required a radically different force structure and equipment. This by no means was always provided, the equipment ordered for one strategic concept arriving one or even two strategic concepts later.

The strategic situation is surveyed by the Defence Committee for the Government and stated in a document produced every few years called Australian Strategic and Defence Policy Objectives’. I believe the country’s strategic interests and policy should be capable of statement in a document of not more than three or four pages. This clear statement should not be cluttered up with tours of the diplomatic horizon. I think a strategic document should state what our strategic interests are and what threats there might be to those interests. The intelligence assessment on which the threats are based and the defence forces required should, of course, be in separate documents and should not be allowed to clutter up the clarity of our strategic appreciations.

What are our strategic interests? We have no desire for anyone else’s territory. Although we may have no axe to grind this does not mean that we have no need for an axe to wield. First of all it is in our interests that there should not be a global nuclear war. Secondly, we obviously have an interest in our territorial integrity and in controlling the use of our exclusive economic zone. Finally, as an important international trading nation we are vitally concerned in the free movement of our international trade. What are the threats to these interests and can we do anything about them? The likelihood of a global nuclear war is slight although it is significantly greater than the Department of Defence seems to think. In the 1 976 Defence White Paper it was stated that given the enormous risks from military conflict, on all rational considerations the restraints on the use of force between the two super powers and the framework of their co-operation should endure. That may be so, but wars are by no means always rational and we must think about the unthinkable.

There is, of course, nothing effective we could do directly in the event of a nuclear war between the super powers. But anything we could do to deter such a war would have to be in our strategic interests. This is the sole justification for the communications station at North West Cape. This communications station is primarily intended to communicate with United States missile firing submarines in the Indian Ocean which are second strike weapons intended because of their invulnerability to survive a surprise attack on the United States and to be capable of inflicting unacceptable damage on the aggressor. They are obviously a very strong deterrent to such aggression and it is equally obviously in Australia’s interests to increase their effectiveness.

Apart from what we could do to prevent the outbreak of a global nuclear war we should at least think about where we might stand in the aftermath of one. This aspect was part of a major study of the defence industry by the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. Some alarming weaknesses were pointed out. I wish I could see signs of some of these industrial shortcomings being overcome. But so far as the composition of our Defence Force is concerned, the threat of global nuclear war should have no effect.

Overseas trade is vital to our economy. Exports and imports are each valued at about 1 4 per cent of our gross domestic product. Compare this with 7 per cent in the United States and 10 per cent to 1 2 per cent in Japan, a country usually thought to be peculiarly dependent on overseas trade. Without our overseas trade our economy would collapse. Of course, virtually all our overseas trade is carried by sea. Over half of the tonnage of our imports is oil from the Persian Gulf. Two-thirds of the tonnage of our exports comprises bulk cargoes going to East Asia, primarily Japan.

It may be of interest to honourable senators that, by value, only 13 per cent of our exports go to the European Economic Community and less than 8 per cent to the United States of America. From what countries do the ships come that carry this trade? In the last year for which I have figures 1976-77- only one per cent were Australian flag ships. The biggest contributors were Japan with 20 per cent of the ships, Liberia and Panama- actually mostly American owned ships- with together, 20 per cent, Britain with 14 per cent, Greece with 6 per cent and Norway, Singapore and Russia with 5 per cent each. Only one per cent were Australian flag ships. Tiny Singapore carries five times as much of our trade as we do.

But important as this overseas trade is, it does not necessarily mean that it is threatened or that we can do anything about it if it is attacked. In what circumstances could it be threatened? The most likely is political disruption at the far end, particularly with oil. But this is an area where it would be quite unrealistic to contemplate Australian military intervention. I suppose that a non-nuclear global war in which there are submarine attacks on trade routes is just conceivable. But in such a war the obvious pressure points would be the North Atlantic, the Arabian Sea and the American hemisphere. Our area would be a negligible priority. Besides, the manifest inability of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to defend its sea communications against nuclear submarine attack makes such an attack exceptionally improbable, because it would almost inevitably escalate into a global nuclear war. I believe that the contingency is so remote and our possible contribution so negligible that it would be unjustified to design any of our defence resources specifically for this role.

What would happen in a war between Australia and a regional neighbour in which the great powers were not directly involved? I find it very difficult to envisage a credible scenario for such a war which would involve submarine attacks on merchant shipping, either by torpedoes or by mines. Such attacks, by their very nature, are indiscriminate. In addition, we should remember that only one per cent of this trade is carried by Australian flag ships. In any case, it seems quite inconceivable that foreign ships would come here in Australian escorted convoys. They would come here either independently with lights on and flags flying displaying a sink us if you dare’ attitude or they would not come here at all. This, too, seems to be a role in which the diversion in our defence effort would be unjustified.

Senator Tate:

– Then what is the purpose of an aircraft carrier?

Senator HAMER:

– I will come to that in some detail in a few moments. If we really believed in the threat of a submarine attack on our overseas trade, the first step would be to increase the proportion of our trade carried in Australian flag ships. We have not done this, which surely puts the threat in its proper perspective.

Our coastal trade is in a slightly different category. Most of it is carried in Australian flag ships, but the threat to this shipping is very slight because of the improbability of this type of warfare and the indiscriminate nature of submarine attack. Submarines would be just as unable to distinguish between Australian ships involved in interstate or intrastate traffic and neutral ships as they would be able to distinguish them from other Australian ships. For these reasons I do not believe that any special diversion of our defence effort to preparations for this kind of warfare would be justified although, of course, if the unexpected did occur and if such a conflict did break out, the forces provided for other purposes would have to do what they could.

So far I have deprecated the necessity for defence preparations to meet three of our strategic requirements. I should like to turn now to two areas where defence preparations are appropriate. The first is the defence of our territorial integrity. Any rational assessment would have to conclude that no such threat could arise while the island chain to our north was firmly held in friendly hands. This island chain is our strategic shield. One of the most foolish strategic statements ever heard was that made by a former Labor Minister for Defence to the effect that our strategic frontier is our coastline. On the contrary, a prudent strategist does not wait until the enemy is on the beaches but acts to prevent a situation developing out of which any threat could arise. Therefore, it is our first priority to ensure that, by diplomatic means, backed, where appropriate, by military force, the archipelago to our north remains in friendly hands.

Senator Tate:

– As in Vietnam, do you mean?

Senator HAMER:

– No. Vietnam is not part of the archipelago to our north. What sort of military force would be appropriate? We would be mad to attempt to impose a government on any of our neighbours and we would certainly fail if we tried. But the Governments in our neighbourhood are fragile and there are strong centrifugal tendencies. It may well be desirable for us to help a friendly government to retain effective control of its territory. Whether we would want to do so would depend on circumstances, including our being invited by the government we would be supporting. But it is an option that should be open to the Government and the Defence Force must have the necessary capability. We would not need large forces, particularly land forces. The last thing we should be involved in is a prolonged and large scale land campaign. Relatively small forces rapidly available could be decisive. For the same reason the operational environment would be relatively unsophisticated.

But what happens if part or all of the island chain to our north is in hostile hands and is held by a government which is a client of one of the major communist powers? Then our whole strategic situation would be changed for the worse. We would have to increase sharply our defence preparations. The danger would not be immediate. Invading this country is not an easy task and any potential enemy would need to undertake a prolonged build-up. We should ensure that our defence infrastructure and Defence Force are maintained in a state in which we could achieve the necessary expansion of our defences in the available time if this crisis arose. Our aim should be to deter such an invasion and to make it a very unattractive proposition for a potential invader. This is certainly within our power.

I turn finally to the question of the control of our exclusive economic zone which, I point out, is an area nearly as large as continental Australia. There are three separate aspects of this control. Relevant parts of the area must be kept under surveillance. We must be able to identify contacts that are made and, where necessary, we must be able to make arrests. The problems are only partially to do with defence. Other aspects more properly concern immigration or customs. But it would be absurd to continue to try to separate them. The Defence Force should undertake the whole task. At the same time, it should be recognised that equipment acquired by the Defence Force for this purpose, which has no wartime value and operations conducted for this purpose which have no training value, should not be funded from the Defence vote.

Before turning to the composition of forces which would result in this strategic analysis, there are some general observations I should like to make. The first point is that we must provide adequate resources to keep the regular forces we have in a state of operational readiness. If we fail to do this there is no way that we can retain morale in a professional force. The first-rate will leave and when a crisis comes or there is a need for rapid expansion, the leadership will be in the hands of the second-rate. The process will be imperceptible but inexorable. To update an old saw, we would be cent wise and dollar foolish if we economised on the legitimate training requirements of our existing forces. We must avoid this at all costs. Secondly, we are spending too little of our available defence resources on new capital equipment. The situation has improved somewhat in recent years from a deplorable low of 4.8 per cent in 1974-75 to 1 1.9 per cent last financial year and an estimated 12.9 per cent this year.

Senator Tate:

– What of?

Senator HAMER:

– I said that 12.9 per cent of the defence vote is spent on capital equipment. It is to be hoped that, as a result of the increased defence expenditure announced recently by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), this figure wil rise still further, for it is still very low. We should be trying to keep our recurrent expenditure- of which by far the largest part is manpower costs- as low as possible, so as to allow for expenditure on long-lead capital items.

Previously I have commented on the need to restrain the number of public servants in the Department of Defence. In recent years their salaries have represented 13 to 16 per cent of total defence costs, and are estimated to be $343m this year. We must also watch very carefully Defence Force manpower costs to which some 35 per cent of the vote is devoted. We must be constantly vigilant to see that the expensive manpower which we keep on the full time payroll really needs to be kept constantly available; whether its role could not adequately be performed in other, more economical ways, such as by the use of cadre forces.

Thirdly, there is the question of lead time. We are all familiar with some aspects of the problem. Put a man and a women together and 1 8 years later you may have a soldier. Our new equipment has nearly as long a lead time and, at the moment, a not much higher chance of arriving. The major new equipment that we plan now will not arrive until the mid-1980s and must remain in service well into the 2 1st century. We must think a long way ahead in regard to our requirements and, as far as possible, choose equipment which is capable of substantial development during its lifetime. ‘Dumb vehicles carrying smart weapons’ is a popular current cliche. I think that it goes too far. We need efficient basic ships and aircraft but what they carry is at least equally important and the basic vehicle, ship, aircraft or tank must be so designed as to be capable of easy modification to carry successive generations of equipment. Fortunately at the moment, largely through the use of micro-computers and other miniaturisation there is a downward trend in regard to the size and weight of equipment. This makes it much easier to update the equipment in a ship, aircraft or tank during its lifetime, but it is not a trend that can continue indefinitely. At the moment we are lucky.

My fourth general remark is that we must beware of the automatic replacement syndrome, the idea that because we have an aircraft carrier, air superiority fighters or tanks, they should automatically be replaced when they reach the end of their useful lives. It is bad enough to have to plan equipment a quarter of a century ahead but it is fantastic to be committed to such equipment in perpetuum. What we need in regard to new equipment is to look at each proposal in terms of its future, not its past, requirement. Perhaps it might be described as zero-based equipment budgeting.

My fifth general remark concerns what we need to keep up with what is called the state of the art. This is sometimes used in explanation, or justification, of the purchase of the most expensive equipment. It is true that providing equipment is one way of keeping up with the state of the art, but it can be enormously expensive, and it is not the only way of achieving that end. May I give one instance. Between the world wars Britain, keeping up with the state of the art, kept on being a tank force. Under the Versailles Treaty Germany was forbidden to have tanks and was forced to rely on theory, some work with dummy tanks and some practical trials with Russian cooperation, until six years before the outbreak of the Second World War. Yet, by the time of the Battle of France in 1 940, the Germans had built up a tank force which, although numerically smaller than the combined forces of Britain and France, was so incomparably more efficient and better handled that it won an overwhelming victory. Of course, if we must have forces available on short notice we must have them in existence, but if it is to be merely a matter of keeping up with the state of the art against a possible future requirement, it may be preferable to second the relatively small number of personnel involved for service with the relevant forces of our friends. There would be no difficulty about this. They would certainly learn a lot and it would certainly be much cheaper.

My sixth general point concerns the danger of over-sophistication of our equipment. If we are not careful we will finish with a tiny number of the most sophisticated version of each type of equipment. Certainly, the way the staff system works, coupled with the desire to keep up with the state of the art, makes this extremely probable, but over-sophistication is wasteful of resources which could be used more beneficially in other areas. It breaches one of the principles of war, economy of force. It will be difficult to exercise control over this, but the Government must be prepared to approve concepts which might limit the complexity of the environment in which our Defence Force might have to operate. It will not be easy. It will require courage. It is fatally easy to say ‘Let us get the best and no one can blame us,’ or ‘Remember the Wirraways over Rabaul’; but risks must be run in peace, as in war, and governments must have the courage to make difficult decisions.

Finally, and most importantly, we must shape our forces round the tasks that we might have to perform, and would be able to perform on our own. By that 1 mean without major allies. This necessarily limits the potential conflicts in the terms of both scale and sophistication. If we design our forces for these limited roles, they will be optimised for that purpose. If a larger conflict, beyond our capacity to deal with on our own, breaks out, our forces, though perhaps not ideal, could still make a useful contribution to an allied force. We must put first things first, and for our Defence Force the first thing is to be able to cope with the things that it might have to do on its own.

Periodically, the Department of Defence produces a paper called ‘The Defence Force Capability Guidance Paper’. This is, of course, highly classified, but as a basis for argument I should like to put forward my views on what the Defence Force capability should be. Bearing in mind the principles that I have advanced, what sort of Defence Force would we require? Looking at our Army first, the chief requirement is to have rapidly available forces of the commando type- air or helicopter portable. They would not need to be too heavily provided with supporting arms. Operations that would require prolonged, heavy support, we should avoid at all cost. It would seem to me that if we had an army which could provide six commandoes and the Special Air Services regiment–

Senator MacGibbon:

– What is a commando?

Senator HAMER:

– It is a unit of British origin of about 650 men, designed for limited operations. It is lightly equipped. A typical commando has about 20 four-ton trucks, 50 Land

Rovers and six 105 mm guns. It is moved by helicopter and is very lightly equipped, but is extremely effective in its role. Six such commandoes, plus the well known SAS regiment, ready at short notice would be adequate to meet our needs for this type of operation. I do not believe that, for this type of conflict a formed division would ever be appropriate.

How large an army would we need to provide an operational force of such strength? It might be worth looking at the example of the British Royal Marines. They have four commandoes and a commando logistic unit, each with 650 men; a light artillery regiment of 400 men which provides a battery for each commando; the equivalent of a divisional headquarters; and minor units, such as raiding forces numbering 140 men and permanent ship’s detachments numbering 300 men. All are immediately available for operations. All of this is provided from a total Royal Marines strength of 8,300 men. I do not want to go too far with the comparison. For instance, the Royal Marines have no significant engineer or signals units but a critical look at our Regular Army manpower would be in order.

Of course, our Regular Army would also have to provide the nucleus for the expansion that would be needed if the archipelago to our north, our shield, fell into hostile hands. In these circumstances, the main basis for expansion would have to be the Army Reserve, the citizen forces. But at the moment there would be no justification for providing, against a hypothetical requirement, more than an Army Reserve cadre. This cadre must be efficient, properly equipped and with a clear concept of its role. The Regular Army contribution would be to have equipment and skills that could not otherwise be provided in the time scale. These Regular Army forces, I believe, should be critically examined. We should look realistically at the value of a local token unit and consider the alternative, which I mentioned before, of seconding key men to fully operational allied units. Of course, this approach would not be appropriate in some areas because of long lead times.

Australia should now build up a proper communications infrastructure. I am delighted that the Government has commenced this task. In other areas a local token unit might be extremely wasteful. A tank force based in Victoria is not learning anything about the defence of northern Australia. It would be better off in Timbuktu. A further point is that the role of the Army in the event of a significant invasion threat would not be to line the coast in a sort of cordon which Napoleon once described as being effective only against smugglers. The Army’s role would be to be so mobile that it could get to the critical point before the crisis. As one nineteenth century American general put it, it would be a case of getting there firstest with the mostest. A battalion in position before an attack is more valuable than a division lumbering up a month later. Such mobility has other vital tactical effects. It forces a potential enemy invading force to concentrate, probably alerting our intelligence and making the invading force vulnerable to our maritime strike forces. Of these, by far the most important are submarines. An effective submarine force could make an invasion of Australia a very uninviting prospect, provided our Army was mobile enough to compel that invasion force to concentrate.

What size Regular Army does what I have said suggest we need now? At the moment the Regular Army is just under 32,000 strong. This strength is largely based on a document prepared some years ago, called the FarrandsHassett report. This actually recommended an Army strength of 38,000, but anguished complaints by the other Chiefs of Staff and subsequent government decisions have brought it down to its present strength. The report is a very odd document. It is not based on any strategic requirement. The Army was merely asked what size it thought it ought to be. I am sure the Chiefs of Staff of the Navy and the Air Force would welcome such a question from the Government about their services. The trouble is that even with this Regular Army of 32,000 we have a surprisingly small effective output. According to a report of the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, we can expect only one immediately available infantry battalion out of a total strength of 32,000 men. A task force of three battalions might be available after two or three months. This would require considerable cross-posting. Comparing this with the Royal Marines, four commandoes- which are about the same size as our present battalions- can be immediately available out of a total strength of 8,300. A radical look at the necessary Army manpower on the lines that I have suggested is in order.

What about the Navy, apart from the submarine force designed to deter invasion? I suggest that the Navy should not waste its time and effort in planning for an Australian re-run of the Battle of the Atlantic. For a more realistic operationthat of supporting a friendly power in our neighbourhood- the Navy’s task should be, firstly, to have an amphibious landing force. This type of force arriving by helicopters and landing craft has the great advantage that it does not require the use of an airfield and it has much stronger supporting arms than a paratroop assault. An amphibious force also has the advantage that it can lurk for prolonged periods just over the horizon, ready to intervene at very short notice if required. On the other hand, it does have the limitation that good intelligence and prompt government decisions are required if the amphibious force is to be in the right place at the right time.

It seems to me that our present amphibious force- six heavy landing craft with one 6000- tonne heavy lift ship, the Tobruk, building, and with the training ship Jervis Bay, the former A ustralian Trader, as a personnel and vehicle carrier- is nearly right, but we really need a second heavy lift ship. A sister ship to the Tobruk would fill the gap. I understand that the Antarctic Division of the Department of Science is hoping to acquire a ship of similar characteristics to the Tobruk for the resupply of our Antarctic bases. Perhaps a combined approach from the Department of Defence and the Department of Science might produce a vessel which would meet the Antarctic Division’s requirements and would also be available in a defence emergency.

The second role of the Navy would be to provide fire support if required by the amphibious force and to interdict seaborne traffic in the area. When the three FFGs and the 14 patrol boats are added to the existing fleet we shall be adequately provided, although it must be said that the FFG is a very expensive way of getting two helicopters- which are the ship’s only relevant output- to the scene of action. The ship’s magnificent anti-submarine equipment, which is designed for the defence of North Atlantic convoys, and the Harpoon long range anti-ship missile are not very relevant to the type of operation about which I am talking. It will not often be useful to fire a $lm missile at a suspect fishing boat at a range of 60 miles. I find it very difficult to believe that the FFGs are cost effective for their likely roles for us. I hope we do not order any more. I hope that future destroyers, which will be needed as existing ones reach the end of their lives in the 1980s, will be designed more precisely for the sort of role about which I have been talking. The DDL design, as it was about halfway through its tragic life before its collapse through its own weight and cost, would seem suitable, lt should be a fast, long range ship of about 2,500 tons carrying a 5-inch gun and a helicopter and with a small crew of 130. Also, it should be built in Australia.

I mentioned a moment ago that Australia has on order 14 new patrol boats of the Fremantle class. They have been in the news recently because of the gun that is to be fitted to them. As a matter of fact, I do not think they need a gun at all for the sort of role in which they are to be employed. A machine gun would be perfectly adequate for their peacetime role. If it is thought necessary for decorative purposes to have a gun, I suppose one might as well have a cheap 40mm World War II gun, even though in my view it would be almost totally useless. It may be ornamental, but it is of no use. It is a high velocity anti-aircraft gun, unstabilised, and in those ships one could not hit the figurative haystack at 40 paces with one of those guns. Nevertheless, if one wants a gun that looks good, this one is all right as long as one recognises that it has no effective use. Come an emergency, we must have plans to fit a proper anti-aircraft armament to these ships. In their peacetime role they do not need such a gun. I do not disagree with the decision to save money in that way, but I think the Department of Defence was wrong in the way it kept prime contractors tendering up to the last minute, involving a considerable amount of their resources in tendering for a project which was subsequently cancelled. We have done this too often. If one keeps on doing it one loses credibility with tenderers and will be unable to get suitable offers for equipment in the future.

What about the aircraft carrier about which Senator Tate asked me? I must say that the Navy is wasting its time if it puts forward a replacement for the Melbourne as necessary for the defence of merchant ships against submarines. The contingency is remote and if it did arise the survivability of the carrier would be very doubtful.

Senator MacGibbon:

– That is the only use for a carrier- on anti-submarine operations.

Senator HAMER:

– It is one use. I am coming to a second possible use. Certainly in that role I do not think we could possibly justify a replacement for the Melbourne, for the reasons 1 have stated. The contingency is remote and I do not think it would be very effective, anyway. One could possibly justify such a ship as a simple platform for STOL aircraft to support the amphibious force in conditions where the submarine threat, by the very nature of the operation, would be slight or negligible. I think there is a possible case there, but it is a highly marginal one.

Senator MacGibbon:

– What you are saying is that we do not need any more carriers. I would agree with that.

Senator HAMER:

– I would have to say that you have expressed my views fairly well. I am far from persuaded that we need another carrier. I can just see a possible role for it, but I think it would be very hard to justify. Before I leave the Navy, I must mention its mobility. We have vast distances to cover and a destroyer needs to refuel every three or four days. If we are not to waste most of our ships on transit to and from the operational area, we have a critical need for more mobile afloat support. At the moment we have one tanker- the Supply. She is old and a replacement is planned. I think we urgently need two such replacements.

What about the Air Force? At the moment we have three squadrons of Mirage fighters, two squadrons of F 1 1 1 strike aircraft, two squadrons of Hercules medium range transports, one and a half squadrons of Caribou tactical transports, three and a half squadrons of tactical transport helicopters, and two squadrons of Orion maritime reconnaissance aircraft, apart from training and support aircraft. On the whole the Royal Australian Air Force seems well equipped for the strategic scenario that I have outlined. What we do need now, in addition to greatly improved medium range transport, is an improved tactical strike capacity. This will have to be associated with in-flight refuelling. The targets would not be of the highest defensive capability. If I could use an analogy from the Air Force’s most recent operational experience, we should assume we require to strike South Vietnam not Hanoi. Although we should not underestimate the likelihood of the spread of fairly modern weaponswitness the recent use of infra-red guided weapons in Zimbabwe- we should not assume that we would have to attack the really tough ones. The necessary strike aircraft and their weapons could thus be of lower order of complexity and expense.

Any possible tactical fighter force aircraft would inevitably have a mix of the qualities required for air-to-air combat, tactical strike, close ground support and maritime strike. I believe we should choose one from the long range tactical and ground support end of the spectrum rather than the air-to-air end, and I am glad the TFF evaluation seems to be heading in that direction. Of course, if our strategic shield to our north were broken, our TFF requirements would change radically. We would then have an urgent need for air-to-air and maritime strike capability. There are great advantages in having a single type of aircraft in the tactical fighter force. Whether the aircraft we now select would be adequate for these other roles- of course differently armed and equipped- would depend on many things, not least on when the requirement arose. It may never arise, and we should cross bridges when we come to them. There are merits in patience. Perhaps I could give one historical example of what I mean. If the Royal Air Force had gone in for a crash expansion when Churchill first urged it in 1 934, the RAF would have needed to put obsolescent bi-plane fighters into mass production, and in 1940 would have been technically far inferior to the Luftwaffe. By holding off for a couple of years the RAF was able to put into production the Spitfires and Hurricanes which won the Battle of Britain. I repeat: There is sometimes merit in patience.

The other requirement of the Air Force during the next decade is for a new trainer, lt is vital to the survival of the Australian aerospace industry that these aircraft should be built and, if possible, designed here. I am glad to see that the Department of Defence apparently accepts this point in its planning. So much for our immediate equipment needs. I do not want to develop the requirements for control of our exclusive economic zone, for most of them have little or nothing to do with defence- control of fishing, illegal immigration or smuggling for instance. For many of these, diplomacy will be more important than the Defence Force. Stop them leaving the far end rather than trying to detect and catch them at this end. The Government and the community will have to decide how much they are prepared to spend on these purposes. Detecting and intercepting low-flying aircraft carrying drugs, flying into disused airfields in Northern Australia, for instance, would be extremely difficult and expensive.

As I said before, although I think the Defence Force would be the most suitable body to carry out the Government’s policy in these matters and that the Defence Force must contribute what it can to this task this should not be at the expense of the training of the Defence Force for its prime role- the defence of the country- but it can contribute a lot. The Defence Force is intended for a role that is on the whole, very different, and the use of its complex equipment for such relatively simple tasks might not be cost effective. But if it is necessary to provide additional relatively simple equipment- ships or aircraft- which would not have a real defence value although they should be operated by the Defence Force, the funds should not come from the Defence vote. We would be deceiving ourselves and the public, if we allowed our Defence vote to be whittled away for non-defence purposes. Our Defence vote is low enough, in all conscience. At the moment we are spending 2.7 per cent of our gross domestic product on defence. This might be compared with 5 per cent in Britain, 6 per cent in the United States of America, and about 1 3 per cent in Russia. Even with the recent increases announced by the Prime Minister- very welcome though they are- our defence expenditure will not rise noticeably above 2.7 per cent of GDP. Of course, the restraints that I have proposed for public servants and in regular Army strength would release more funds for capital equipment and defence infrastructure- perhaps $200m a year- but this will not be enough. We live in a very uncertain world, which recent events in Iran and South East Asia have only dramatised. Our world is not only uncertain; it is unpredictable. Someone recently said that, of the last sixty wars Britain had been involved in, fifty-eight had not been predicted. I do not know whether this is right, but I do not think we are able to do much better.

Before I finish, I want to say something about our defence organisation at the top. I have previously explained at length what I think is wrong. Perhaps it could be summarised best by saying that the Department of Defence is not so much a command or administrative headquarters, as an enormous debating society. As I have said, I believe it needs fundamental restructuring. This will not be achieved by internal review. What is needed is a major external review, as recommended by the Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration. This review should be conducted by someone of adequate experience and prestige, so that there would be a reasonable chance of the recommendations being implemented. I believe that such a review is now urgent.

If we are not to have a substantial increase in defence spending- and one cannot be overoptimistic about this in the near future- we must see that we do get value for our valuable defence dollar. This implies not only more efficient central administration, but also political consistency in our strategic aims. The Opposition cannot reasonably be involved in individual equipment decisions for which the Government and its advisers must accept responsibility. It should be possible- it must be possible- to reach bipartisan agreement on the broad thrust of our strategic policy and the consequent force structures. This should be the great task of this Parliament.

Senator CHIPP:
Leader of the Australian Democrats · Victoria

– It is always a pleasure, yet a difficulty, to follow Senator Hamer. The quality of his speeches- and today was no exception- is quite outstanding as is their courage and clarity. I look back with pride that I had the honour to be Minister for the Navy when Senator Hamer was a distinguished captain in that service. If I could just have an in-group joke with the senator, although I admired his speech tremendously I was sorry that he did not lighten it with a little comic relief by telling us how the Navy buries its admirals at sea.

The Australian Democrats take this opportunity to condemn the Government for its economic policies, the lack of long term planning and the ‘incredibility’- if I could use that word- of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). To that extent we are attracted to the Opposition amendment, moved by Senator Walsh, which seeks at the end of the second reading motion to add certain words to the effect that the Senate is of the opinion that the Government should be condemned for four reasons. We would certainly agree with the first three reasons given by the Opposition, but I dissociate myself and Senator Mason from the fourth reason, which I think spoils the amendment, which is to the effect that the Government’s:

  1. . perverted and wasteful expenditure priorities as exemplified by its allocation of substantial funds in this Bill to indulge the travelling comfort of the Ministry whilst increasing the deprivation of the under-privileged.

I believe that that paragraph spoils a very good amendment and enters into the field of partypoliticking and point scoring in which nobody ever wins.

I will speak to those three points in turn and explain why the Australian Democrats express condemnation of the Government’s economic policies. The measures introduced last week are simply more of those which have already failed. We would have thought it palpably clear that the measures introduced by Mr Howard on behalf of the Government were exactly the same as, except more of, measures which have been applied since the Fraser Government took office and which palpably have failed, lt is no use any longer to say, nor is it credible or believed, that the present economic difficulties can be attributed to the maladministration of the Labor Government. Good heavens, that was three and a half years ago. It is not good enough simply to blame overseas trends or influences for the present state of the economy. I would have thought that inflation demonstrably has not been reduced. Unemployment demonstrably has been increased. The economy is running at about 70 per cent capacity- 30 per cent idle capacity. Our human resources are about 1 1 per cent under used. In those circumstances I would have thought that sensible government would have said: ‘Well, that is the set of policies we have applied to the economy for three and a half years and that is the result. Clearly, those policies must be wrong’. I would have thought that was a simple exercise in logic. But now we have more of the same- more cutbacks in the money supply.

I have mentioned before and I mention again how disturbed the Australian Democrats are about the obsession this Government and the Treasury of this nation have towards the monetarists. They have an absolute obsession about it. They are fanatical about it. I remember the definition of George Santayna of a fanatic as a person who redoubles his efforts long after he has forgotten his aim. That seems to be this blind following of the monetarists theory. It used to be called, under another name, the quantity of money theory, which is still valid in certain circumstances. If the demand for goods and services is equal or near equal to the supply of goods and services and you inject more money into the economy you have the classical demandinflation situation of too much money chasing too few goods and services. But does anybody in the Treasury or anybody in the Government seriously believe that in the economy of Australia now the demand for goods and services is equating the supply of them? For that reason the Australian Democrats believe that to cut back on expenditure at this stage is going totally and absolutely in the wrong direction. It believes in the stimulation of certain industries to pick up the slack which would reduce the deficit by itself. We have a repetition of the policy of more taxesincreased taxes.

I would now like to illustrate something and make a plea to those who sit with Senator Mason and I on the Opposition side of the chamber: Please do not assist the Government in its confidence trick about the 1.5 per cent surcharge. I think we on this side of the chamber ought to take a pledge that the 1.5 per cent surcharge will not be mentioned again, because in fact it .is not a 1.5 per cent surcharge. Let me give the figures. For a person paying income tax of 32 per cent of his taxable income, the surcharge of 1.5 per cent means an increase of 4.69 per cent in the actual tax paid. But since the 1978 Budget arranged for 12 months’ surcharge to be collected over a period of only seven months, the actual increase in tax paid under the pay-as-you-earn system adopted in November 1978 was 8.04 per cent. This surcharge was to cease on 30 June 1979. The situation is made worse by retaining the present tax schedule and the current PA YE rates. The actual surcharge is thus equal to the 8 per cent I just mentioned, but by failing to allow for indexation a further hidden impost of 5.6 per cent is involved- Mr Howard claimed this as the rate of inflation- or, if you wish, 7.9 per cent, which is the consumer price index increase to March 1 979. Thus the actual impost on the taxpayer is not 1.5 per cent but 13.6 per cent, if you accept Mr Howard’s inflation rate, or 15.9 per cent if you index it by the CPI figures in personal tax.

Mr Fraser himself said some time ago about taxation that governments sould be kept honest and not hide the taxes, and that is why he- I applaud him for it- still persists with tax indexation. But if the Government were honest it could drop the surcharge, implement the promised indexation and increase the tax rate by 15 per cent, which under the proposed measures is the real increase in the tax rate. About the same amount of tax would be collected under that proposal, but there would be no deception. I am not advocating that the Government should do that, but I am saying th?.t if it did that it would be honest. I plead with members of the Opposition and journalists to stop using this confusing figure of 1.5 percent.

I would have thought that good economic policy should have gone in the other direction, that at this stage, when the Government is clearly not controlling inflation and when wage demands of the trade unions are quite properly being put to meet with rising costs, a tax cut would have been appropriate.

What happens if there is a tax cut? It means that more money in real terms is placed in the pockets of consumers, the workers, which should allay demands for wage increases. We know that trade union leaders have their job to do and would be bound to go to the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission for increases, but at least it would give the Government some credibility when it went to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. It could say: ‘Look, the workers have more real spending money in their pockets, and that is a real case for you not to grant the amount asked for by the trade unions’. Leaving aside wage justice in terms of an increased share because of productivity and other factors and looking at the wage structure in terms of coping with increased costs, this certainly would be one sensible and logical way of combating inflation and allaying increases for wage demands. But the Government has gone the other way.

At this stage I condemn the Government for the way in which it introduces its economic policies. It is not like the days of Sir Robert Menzies who, for all his faults and for all his virtues, had a bounding respect for the institution of parliament. I came into this Parliament when he was Prime Minister. The one gospel lesson I was taught was that if a Cabinet Minister leaked information he would be sacked and there would be a wholesale investigation. But what is the spectacle today, what was the spectacle of last week and the week before that? Journalists who are respected in the Gallery tell me that leaks were coming from the Prime Minister’s office about an early election in 1980. What does that do for business confidence? What does that do for people in the country- not necessarily in this place- in regard to their respect for the leader of the nation? The Prime Minister knew the leaks were on. Whether he was personally responsible for them or not is not the question. The leaks were coming from his office. One word from him could have dissipated those rumours.

The point that I am making is that it might be a good political tactic, but we should consider what it does to business confidence if rumours are circulating and the columnists of daily newspapers and the weekly newspapers are speculating that an election could be held 12 months early. Because of the damage to the economy I call upon the Prime Minister to clamp down on Cabinet leaks for political purposes and to clamp down on his Ministers leaking information. I compare Cabinet Ministers in their behaviour of the last few weeks to a sieve. That comparison is realistic. What does a sieve do? It leaks material regularly and by design. So does Cabinet. For a period of three to four days almost every daily newspaper in the country had leaks on the front page. Most of these leaks turned out to be true. It is a matter of academic interest whether or not they were deliberate. However, the fact is that the leaks were accurate and while they were circulating the business community was floundering and becoming unstable.

The Government has exacerbated another problem with this new package, to give it a name. It has further diminished demand. We were devastated to read that food prices in April rose by 3. 1 per cent, the highest monthly rise for six years. The food price increase for the year is now 14. 1 per cent. One wonders what this does to the consumer habits of pensioners, low income groups and even people in middle income groups. It makes them tighten their wallets, thus reducing consumer demand. In turn this increases unit cost which in turn causes inflation, which in turn causes unemployment. The massive increase in health care costs and taxes that have just been announced will lead to higher wages which will further lead to under capacity, more inflation, more unemployment, a larger deficit, and more cuts. The inevitable cycle repeats itself with increasing frequency.

I turn to the economic illogicality of this sort of policy. I asked the Parliamentary Library to give me an estimate of the cost to the Budget of unemployment. I am not talking about the cost of unemployment to the psyche, to the character, to the soul, to the outlook and to the philosophy of people who genuinely want to work but who cannot. That cannot be measured in terms of money, but it is reflected in the Budget in dollars. The figures that the Parliamentary Library has given me are for 1978-79. The figures for this year would be far in excess of those. It is estimated that $750m will have been paid in unemployment benefits in 1978-79. In addition there is the loss of tax revenue. Based on an average weekly wage of $ 160- which is the minimum adult male rate- and taking into consideration that a proportion of workers would be single taxpayers and a proportion would claim for dependent spouse, another $620m would be involved. I know that these figures err on the side of conservatism. They total a $ 1,370m cool addition to the deficit. Yet the deficit increased last year by $ 1 billion and will increase over budget this year by an amount which is yet to be disclosed. The fact that it will be out of hand is inevitable. Yet we have more of the same policy. For that reason we agree with the first three prongs of the Opposition ‘s amendment.

We also condemn the Government for a lack of long term planning which is leading to instability in the economy. As I mentioned earlier, we believe that certain industries should be selectively stimulated. For several reasons, the Australian Democrats choose the housing industry. Firstly, it is notoriously quick to respond to stimulus. Secondly, the grip of militant trade unions and trade unionists is not as dominant in the home building industry as in the commercial building industry. Thirdly, if the home building industry is stimulated it lifts ancillary industries. I thought that it was a pathetic attempt by Senator Webster to tell the Senate that the housing industry was about to go into a boom. Despite this, thousands of people want to build homes and thousands of people capable of building homes are unemployed. We believe that an answer can and should be found. We believe that $40m per month at a subsidised rate of interest ought to be injected into the home building industry as a temporary measure. On our calculation the savings of unemployment benefit payments which would result, the increased taxes which the Government would receive plus the repayments of the loans over a period, would improve the Budget deficit situation. I will not be told that houses cannot be built at subsidised rates of interest. It has been done for 50 years in this country with war service homes. It is done with terminating building societies and it is done under the Commonwealth and States housing agreements. We believe that this is one measure which the Government could take to give some confidence to the business community.

Again I look to manufacturing industry. I speak to many Australian manufacturers- large, medium and small. Most of them are desperate because they do not know what the Government’s policies are. They change from week to week, month to month. The manufacturers are so desperate that they say: ‘We don’t give a damn what the Government’s policies are. Let it make them as tough as possible but for God ‘s sake let it stick to them so we can plan ahead ‘. Recently we had another car plan. In this country we ought to wake up to ourselves about manufacturing industry. Sometimes I get a little tired of the academics in Treasury and in the Industries Assistance Commission who make erudite judgments and wise speeches saying that we should get rid of all inefficient, uneconomic industries and do only the things we can do well.

I would agree with this theory if I were at university doing an economics degree. That would be an answerable argument. But what the hell are we going to do to find jobs for the 200,000 young people who will enter the work force in the next 10 years? Will they enter the Public Service? God forbid! Will they enter mining? Mining might boom again. It is a capital intensive industry, not a labour intensive industry. Will they enter primary production? One hopes that there will be an increase in that area but the rural community of Australia has decreased from 45 per cent in 1912 to 8 percent today. There is a world wide exodus of people from rural communities to the cities. Will they enter tertiary industries? We know that they are dependent on the success of the economy. Therefore I come to the perhaps over-simplistic view that if we are serious about our long term future we have to tell manufacturing industry that it can have protection. I know that ‘protection’ is a nasty word. It is not used very often nowadays. But let us be honest. Do we want a manufacturing industry in

Australia? Do we believe it can survive against low-cost countries, unfair competition and dumping being carried out by almost every country? Australia’s record in this regard is almost totally honest, to the point of being naive. Are we going to say to our manufacturers that they cannot be protected? I am suggesting that every two bit manufacturer who does not deserve protection should be given it because he holds out his hand.

Surely some overall view should be taken of where our goals should be not in 12 months, but in five years or ten years. Certain manufacturers should be told now that in five years their operations will be phased out. At that time the Government will retrain their staff and give them compensation, but after that time the manufacturers can no longer look to the Government for protection. But the other manufacturers, to whom we look to employ our young people, ought to be told what are the Government’s guidelines, to go ahead and use their ingenuity, skills and know-how and develop and expand under those guidelines. That sort of long term planning seems to be non-existent.

We know that there will be a petrol shortage, not only in Australia but throughout the world in X number of years. It has come much quicker than many of the experts predicted. There is a petrol shortage in the United States of America now. Are we going to bumble along and not find a solution until we are hit with a shortage? If one can believe anything that the Premier of Queensland says, one can believe that sugarcane can be grown in Queensland. I have made inquiries on the matter. The amount of sugarcane which could be grown in Queensland could be doubled. There is that much land suitable for growing sugar-cane, from which power alcohol can be extracted to be injected into a mix in petrol tanks to drive internal combustion engines. At this stage, I pay a compliment to the Government for the additional $ 1 m that it has put into research in this area. Senator Colin Mason and I have been advocating this for two years.

But where are the guidelines? Are we going to wait until some politician tells Australia ‘Yes, we are short of petrol; it is a crisis’, and then rubbish the conservationists who say ‘Hands off the Great Barrier Reef? Is that going to be the rationale? If past patterns repeat themselves, it will simply be that. Are there any plans for solar energy? Good heavens, solarcal in the State of California has been a most dramatic, outstanding and fantastic success. By 1980 one-quarter of southern California will have its energy provided through solar energy plants along the Californian coastline. This will provide 386,000 jobs, and yet only two weeks ago we learned that the Government, on the recommendation of a committee of Ministers that advised it, let a contract for solar energy units for the Australian National Railways to an overseas tenderer, notwithstanding that efficient Australian tenderers had submitted quotes. I wonder again whether we are going in any direction at all.

The third heading that I speak to in supporting three of the points of the Opposition’s amendment is the Prime Minister’s incredibility. I know I am using that word in the wrong sense. At least when I wrote it down 1 thought I was using it in the wrong sense. But then I thought that incredibility’ means that we cannot believe he is real. Sometimes I wonder about that too. What I am saying is that Australia, at a time of economic crisis such as we are now in, needs a leader who people can trust. I do not trust the Prime Minister. It is not my forte to be critical of personalities. But I believe that when a man assumes the position of leader of the country, by whatever methods he adopted, his credibility has to be sound and accepted by the Australian people, otherwise people will not follow him and we will have divisiveness and worse trouble.

The National Times last weekend listed 16 promises overtly broken by the Government. I will refer to only a few of them. When speaking on employment in November 1975, Mr Fraser’s words were:

Only under a Liberal-National Country Party Government will there bc jobs for all who want to work.

Again, two years later he said:

Unemployment will fall from February (1978) and keep falling.

That is a promise absolutely broken. On 12 September 1978, the Prime Minister said, when speaking about inflation:

Inflation at an annual rate of 5 per cent is within our reach by mid- 1979. It will go on falling under the policies of this Government.

According to the figures of the Treasurer (Mr Howard), inflation is running at about 8 per cent per annum and will not improve in the next 12 months. I would like to speak briefly about health insurance because I was personally involved in it. On 27 November 1975 the Prime Minister said:

We will maintain Medibank, and ensure that the standard of health does not decline.

I think that that is an inaccurate quote, because I remember helping to write it. In fact, the Prime Minister said that we would maintain and extend

Medibank. That was November 1975. 1 will give the history of the matter. At a public meeting a few months previously I had expressed the policy of the Liberal and National Country parties. The Prime Minister was on the platform. I received a standing ovation for saying what I said, which was that if we came to office the Liberal and National Country parties would abolish Medibank. I believed it then and I believe it now. I believe that a compromise was necessary in respect of the then existing health scheme. I said at the time, and still believe, that that scheme was one of the best national health schemes in the world. But it had the big failing of not covering about 9 to 10 per cent of the population for insurance purposes. The Prime Minister was on the platform. It was our policy to abolish Medibank. Later in the year I repeated the statement and I was called into Mr Fraser’s office. He was then the Leader of the Opposition. I was told that that was not the policy and to retract the statement immediately. A meeting of shadow Cabinet Ministers was held at which I said that this was the first time I had heard of it. However, I retracted the statement. I said that if that was the policy I would retract the statement. But what has happened? Is Medibank still there or has it been dismantled? I feel that my personal integrity has been put on the line over that matter. But never in my mind at any time, until that moment, did I have any doubt about what the intentions were. Mr Fraser had this to say about pensions on 15 March 1977.

We are committed to take politics out of pension increases by giving automatic increases in line with price rises twice a year.

Before that, the Prime Minister had said that the Government would make increases in pensions instant and automatic. That was a policy I helped to draft for the Liberal and National Country parties, which was accepted unanimously. The policy was for quarterly indexation of pensions. Now a pensioner has to wait up to 16 months before having his pension adjusted.

Under the heading ‘Generosity to Jobless’, the National Times points out that on 27 November 1 975 Mr Fraser said:

We will be generous to those who can ‘t get a job and want to work.

Has the Government been generous to those who cannot get a job and who want to work? The article points out, quite correctly:

School leavers are no longer eligible for unemployment benefits during the school vacation period.

That bothers me. But what bothers me more are the kites now being flown by Cabinet Ministers by the leaks coming out of Cabinet. Mr Lynch two weeks ago to businessmen in Melbourne and Mr Anthony on the weekend saying that he does not believe in the lifestyle of those who live on the dole. If one follows the pattern of the Government, it seems inevitable that the people receiving the unemployment benefit will be the next under attack.

The last issue I mention- I will not mention the other eleven- is the Australian Assistance Plan. Perhaps the Government’s action with respect to it was the most barefaced of all. On 22 November 1975, as caretaker Minister for Social Security, I attended the one and only meeting of the caretaker Cabinet. I said that our policy on the Australian Assistance Plan was reasonably clear, as I had said in the Parliament, with the concurrence of the Liberal and National Country parties. I said that it was the most progressive and exciting development in social welfare ever introduced into the Parliament. It was a Labor initiative. I reported to the caretaker Cabinet that a great number of people were not sure about our total commitment to the Plan. I drafted a Press release and gave it to every Cabinet Minister, including the Prime Minister. The Press release stated:

We will maintain and increase the Australian Assistance Plan.

That had the approval of the Prime Minister and every Minister. Yet, in February 1976, at the first party meeting after the election was won, the Australian Assistance Plan was abolished. One wonders why the Prime Minister has lost total credibility and total respect. I have tried to keep- I believe I have kept- any personal feelings I have for the man out of my judgment of him. If I do not succeed in that, that is my weakness. But I believe I have succeeded. Whatever any of us personally thinks about the man, he is now leader of the country. He rules the Cabinet, he rules the Liberal Party of Australia. Under the party system, party members come into this chamber and vote according to what the Prime Minister says.

Recently I have heard back benchers and Ministers of the Liberal Party whom I respect and like saying these sorts of words: ‘Look, we know we have broken a promise, but aren’t we better off if we come clean for the good of the country? Isn’t that a more responsible attitude to adopt?’ The Prime Minister is saying those sorts of words now- the ‘noble’ response. It reminds me of a sadistic husband who beats his wife supposedly for her own good and says while he is doing so: Sorry, dear, this is hurting me more than it is hurting you’.

In conclusion, present methods are clearly not working. Australia has some appalling unmet needs, including serious poverty. Yet we let resources, machines and, above all, people stand idle. Brought together they could quickly supply our unmet needs. To call the Fraser Government’s failure to bring them together ‘good economic management’ one would have to rewrite the dictionary.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– The Senate has before it Appropriation Bill (No. 3), to which Senator Walsh has moved the following amendment:

At end of motion, add ‘, but the Senate is or the opinion that the Government should be condemned because of:

Its failure to adopt an economic strategy designed to reduce unemployment;

Its failure to fulfil its promises to reduce inflation and interest rates, and notes with alarm that both are now increasing;

Its determination to place the blame for its economic failures on wage earners, trade unions and the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission; and

Its perverted and wasteful expenditure priorities as exemplified by its allocation of substantial funds in this Bill to indulge the travelling comfort of the Ministry whilst increasing the deprivation of the under-privileged.’

After Senator Chipp had spoken for a few moments, I thought that the Democratic Labor Party was back in the chamber. He said that his party supported the first three paragraphs of Senator Walsh’s amendment, but that it could not go along with the last paragraph. Those of us who were members of this chamber during the reign of the DLP are accustomed to that sort of talk by people who sit here and, in the main, support the Government, although they like to lead the electors to believe that they criticise the Government, as Senator Chipp has done today. Of course, it is an easy let-out for Senator Chipp to say that his party cannot support the amendment moved by Senator Walsh because it does not agree with one tiny part of it.

Senator Chipp:

– I said nothing of the kind.

Senator McLAREN:

– That is why Senator Chipp criticised the amendment.

Senator Chipp:

– I am going to vote with you. What are you talking about?

Senator McLAREN:

– If that is so, we will accept Senator Chipp ‘s vote.

Senator Peter Baume:

– You have to understand the problem, Senator McLaren. He is not very quick on the uptake.

Senator McLAREN:

-Yes, that is right. Senator Chipp spoke a lot about honesty. He did what I intended to do, namely, to quote from the

National Times that paper’s criticism of the Prime Minister for breaking promises. But what Senator Chipp did not tell us was that he was part of the Government that made the promises in 1 975. That leads me to think now that perhaps Senator Chipp believes in the stories that are being leaked from the Prime Minister’s office to the effect that there will be an early election. It appears to me now that Senator Chipp is asking for forgiveness from the Australian electorate for having been a party to all the promises made by the Liberal and National Country Parties in 1975. As Senator Chipp pointed out, most of those promises, if not all, have now been deliberately broken.

The electorate at large does not need to be reminded by Senator Chipp or by any member of the Opposition that this Government has lost all credibility. The capitalistic Press in the main has done that, and has done it magnificently, since last Friday morning. I suppose that, without exception, the capitalistic Press has severely criticised the Government and has taken it to task for having been elected on false promises not once but twice- in 1 975 and again in 1 977. 1 shall quote some of the statements made in this chamber in 1975 by the present Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick). At page 1342 of Senate Hansard of 22 October 1975, Senator Carrick is recorded as having had this to say in speaking to the Appropriation Bills 1975-76:

The Commonwealth Constitution specifically and deliberately provides the means whereby a dishonest, corrupt and disastrously inefficient government may be removed from office and made to account for itself to the people at the ballot box.

How true are those words today? Having been a poultry farmer, I am well aware that chickens come home to roost. They have come home to roost in no uncertain manner for this Government. This is true of statements made by Senator Carrick. He accused the Whitlam Government of deceit, dishonesty and corruption. Now his Government is charged in the very same terms. I did not believe that what he said was true of the Whitlam Government. The only peg which the then Opposition used to hang its hat on was the loans affair. We did not break any promises made to the electorate- not one. Every promise that Whitlam made to the people in 1972 was carried out, with the exception of those for which this chamber would not allow appropriate legislation to be passed. Even after legislation was passed by the Joint Sitting of Parliament, the people who now sit .in government had the temerity to challenge it in the High Court of Australia. On every occasion they lost. So

Whitlam did not break any promises; he honoured every one, as I said, except those for which this Government, which was then in opposition, failed to allow legislation to pass through this chamber. We were not dishonest. We did not dishonour any promises. But there is conclusive proof that this Government has done so on many occasions.

I do not need to repeat what Senator Chipp said about the promises which were made when he was a Government member. He was a party to the removal from office of the Whitlam Government. Senator Chipp said that he was quite happy to be a Minister in a caretaker government. Under the Liberal Party rules, Ministers are invited to be a member of the Cabinet. It is not like the system with the Parliamentary Labor Party, under which members of the Cabinet are elected by colleagues at a party meeting. In the Liberal Party Ministers are selected. We all know that after the election in 1975 Senator Chipp was not selected as a Minister. From reading history we know that from then on he turned dog on the party of which he was a member and Minister. As he has reminded us on so many occasions here, he held many portfolios.

That is the situation. That is the difference between the Whitlam Government’s performance and this Government’s performance. Senator Carrick hung his hat on one peg, namely, the loans affair. Because of that we were forced to go to the people in 1975. The people made their choice. They made it again in 1 977. But no matter where one goes, be it to a sporting function or a hotel, no one will freely admit that he voted for Fraser at the last election. It is the same in Queensland. No one will admit that he voted for Petersen. But we know that the majority of the people did. However, what we are saying now is that Senator Carrick ought to be saying the same thing as he said in 1975- that is, to give the Australian electorate an opportunity through the ballot box to express their opinion as he wanted them to do in 1 975 and as he gave them the opportunity to do.

We do not have the numbers in this place, unfortunately, to do what was done then. Of course, we have debated that matter in this place on many occasions. I do not think that even if we had the numbers we would stoop to the underhand tactics of our leader sneaking over to Yarralumla, asking the driver to park the car behind the Governor-General’s residence and then hiding in a secluded room while the legitimately elected Prime Minister was called over and told that he had been given the sack. I do not think

Bill Hayden would be party to any underhand work like that.

I would like to back up some of the remarks made by Senator Chipp. I want to quote from a speech I made in this place on 30 September 1975 in which I quoted some Press statements which were then put out by the present Prime Minister. We all know when we look at history that Mr Fraser denied repeatedly that he was moving to usurp his then leader Mr Snedden. We all know that at the very time that he was making those statements, putting out Press statements and talking to the Press, he was working to do the very thing he has said he was not doing so that he could unseat Mr Snedden from the leadership of the party. Of course we now know too that, because of all the promises he has broken, Government members who sit behind him in the other place and the Government members who sit in this place are recalling all those events of 1 974 and 1 975. They are recalling how he cannot be trusted, not even in his own party -

Senator Peter Baume:

- Mr Acting Deputy President, I take a point of order. I draw your attention to the provisions of Standing Order 4 1 8 which state that all imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections on members shall be considered highly disorderly. ( Quorum formed).

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Townley)- Senator McLaren, I ask you to keep in mind Standing Order 418 when you are speaking about the Prime Minister or any other member of any other House.

Senator McLAREN:

– Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I have that well in mind when I am talking about anybody in the other House. However, 1 would repeat what Senator Carrick said in this chamber in 1 975 when he accused Mr Whitlam of being dishonest, corrupt and leading a disastrous and inefficient government. What I am saying is that the Prime Minister of today has misled the electorate as he misled members of his own party in 1975.

In a speech I made during the adjournment debate on 30 September 1975, recorded at page 786 of Hansard, I referred to an article written by Mr Hugh Armfield in the Melbourne Age of 8 February 1 975. The article stated:

Yesterday morning Mr Fraser released a statement designed to clarify his position.

This was his position when he was accused of trying to usurp Mr Snedden ‘s leadership. The article continued:

The statement said: ‘At my initiative last Thursday, 30 January, and because of my concern, I discussed with Bill

Snedden the continued and wrong Press speculation that 1 am promoting a challenge to him as Leader of the Liberal Party. As a consequence of the discussion I make this further statement.

Bill Snedden has my full support.

I repeat, as I have said on numerous occasions, that I supported the Party room decision of last November and that 1 support the elected leader of the Liberal Party.

Despite that, there has been continued widespread speculation that I or colleagues of mine on my behalf are promoting a challenge to Bill Snedden. That is not so. There is no contest.

The issue was decided in November. No one to my knowledge or with my consent or support has done anything whatsoever to re-open the question.

We all know what happened a few months later. I could go on and quote lengthy extracts from Press statements that he put out of how he would not refuse Supply if he did become leader. He has done all of those things. It was back in 1975 that he made public statements to the Press about contesting the leadership of his party. He has dishonoured those statements and of course he has dishonoured all his election promises. I do not need to point them out because Senator Chipp has cited the most important ones. We will deal with some of these matters when we debate the statement on income tax and the statement on health measures.

Neither Senator Chipp nor I are the only people who accuse the Prime Minister of misleading the electorate. I wish to quote from an editorial which appeared in the Illawarra Mercury on Friday, 25 May. I might remind the senators opposite who are chuckling that the Illawarra Mercury is in the Fairfax stable which has never been known to support the Australian Labor Party. It supports them. The editorial is headed ‘A night of abject dishonesty’. The article stated:

If you ‘re choking over your breakfast this morning as you read about last night’s ‘mini-Budget’- and you voted Labor at the last election- you have our sympathy.

If you voted for Malcolm Fraser and his tax-happy crew, you had better wipe the egg off your faces.

As Opposition Leader Mr Hayden so aptly described it, the mini-Budget presentation was ‘a night of abject dishonesty ‘.

Promises have been swept aside blatantly and cynically in a revenue-raising act of political piracy which is not even the real thing- the Budget proper does not come down until August and already the Government is warning it won ‘t offer any relief.

Mr Fraser said sometime ago, in a remark he probably has learned to regret, that life wasn’t meant to be easy (under Fraser).

He could have added it also wasn’t meant to be honest.

When Gough Whitlam was in power he boldly and candidly challenged the Australian people to make sacrifices to go without tax relief.

The answer by honourable senators opposite to this statement was the publication of full page ads in the daily Press which showed people clutching handfuls of $5 notes. That is what people thought they were to get from this Government. They got the reverse. The editorial continued:

He told the truth. If Labor was returned to office there would be no tax cuts. He was sacked.

Mr Fraser sailed to victory on the other tack. He handed out family allowance to wives as he took extra money from the pockets of their husbands.

In August last year he introduced a tax surcharge which his youthful Treasurer brashly promised was for 1978-79 only.

The Government wouldn’t touch Medibank, either. No? What is left of that scheme today?

The Fraser Government’s creditibility lies in tatters, but the Prime Minister knows the gullibility of the Australian people.

Next year he will offer all sorts of handouts in an election Budget and if the electorate is true to form, it will vote through its hip pocket and return him to office.

Truly, the people do get the Government they deserve.

That is a quote from the Illawarra Mercury. Let us look at what it says about Mr Howard. Mr Howard is the spokesman for Mr Fraser. What do we see in this Fairfax journal? It states: ‘Lies, lies, lies! Tax levy stays, health aid goes’. That is the paper–

Senator Peter Baume:

- Mr Acting Deputy President, I take a point of order. I seek your advice on quite a different matter. Is it in order to quote from a headline in a newspaper which uses words which would not be allowed in Parliament if they were used by a senator? (Quorum formed).

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT-

Senator McLaren, you are not allowed to use words that are unparliamentary, whether by quoting from a newspaper or by seeking to have those words incorporated in Hansard. Therefore, I ask you to withdraw those words.

Senator Georges:

– Oh, come on! Just a moment. I raise a point -

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT-

Order! I ask Senator McLaren to withdraw the words.

Senator Georges:

– I would like just to speak to your–

Senator Maunsell:

– Sit him down.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT-

Order! Sit down.

Senator Georges:

– Well, I will sit down for a moment, but I will consider whether we should move dissent from your ruling.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT- You are quite at liberty to move dissent from my ruling if you want to. But I am asking Senator McLaren to withdraw the words.

Senator McLAREN:

– I quoted from a newspaper. I showed it to the Senate and I have no intention of withdrawing the words which are printed in that newspaper.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTUnder the Standing Orders, it is not permissible for you to use words that are unparliamentary, whether by quoting or by any other means. Therefore, I ask you to withdraw those words.

Senator Walsh:

– On the point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President -

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThere is no point of order, Senator Walsh. I ask you to sit down.

Senator McLAREN:

– Yes, there was. It was raised by Senator Baume.

Senator Walsh:

– On the ruling-

Senator McLAREN:

– Yes, that is the point of order. Senator Baume raised it.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT- You may dissent from the ruling if that is your wish.

Senator Walsh:

– I have a question to you regarding the ruling.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT- A question is allowed.

Senator Walsh:

– If this has been published in a newspaper already, assuming that no legal action will be taken against that newspaper for publishing those words, is it being ruled in the Senate that statements which are not actionable when published in a daily newspaper are not permitted to be recorded in the Senate?

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Yes. That is correct. I ask Senator McLaren to withdraw the words.

Senator Georges:

– I also would like to speak to your ruling. I do not wish to get to the point of dissenting. If I am not permitted to speak to the ruling, I would like to ask you a question. I am sure that, once I have put the case to you, Mr Acting Deputy President, you will find it extraordinary. If an honourable senator cannot refer to a matter which has been published in a periodical or in a document, and if he has to excise words which he is not permitted to use in this place and make the document unintelligible, serious limitations are placed upon the ability in this place to refer to documents, no matter how unpleasant those documents may be. We must realise that the document may not express the views of the honourable senator. In this case they may do so; but, generally speaking, there are some statements to which we refer and which may be objectionable if the honourable senator uses those words in the normal course of debate. In this case he is referring to something that someone else said and it seems to me, Mr Acting Deputy President, that you are placing censorship on the ability of an honourable senator to refer to material. If Senator McLaren were to seek to incorporate this matter, the Government is in the position to refuse leave to incorporate. If Senator McLaren persists and says that it ought to be a matter of record for some future occasion that these sorts of statements were made in the Illawarra Mercury, surely he has the right to include them in the record by reading them verbatim. I do not want to dissent from your rulingthat would be unfair- but it seems to me that the ruling is unnecessarily harsh. For instance, if you, Mr Acting Deputy President, force Senator McLaren to that point, he could lift up this piece of paper and instead of saying, ‘Lies, Lies, Lies’ -

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT-

Order! I do not want you either to use unparliamentary words.

Senator Georges:

– All right. He could say: Untruths, untruths, untruths.’ How ridiculous it would be if I said that the Illawarra Mercury says: ‘Untruths, untruths, untruths’. If the Illawarra Mercury is able to put something into its record we should be able to put it into our record exactly as the Illawarra Mercury printed it.

Senator Cavanagh:

– It could be a responsibility to do it.

Senator Georges:

– Yes. It could be Senator McLaren’s responsibility to have this placed into the record of the Senate.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I want to raise-

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTSenator Cavanagh, I have heard enough discussion on this matter. Unfortunately, I cannot support the point made by Senator Georges because there are certain words that he knows very well are unparliamentary. The fact that they are printed in a newspaper does not necessarily allow us to use them here or to have them incorporated in Hansard. So for the last time I ask Senator McLaren to withdraw those words.

page 2263

QUESTION

OBJECTION TO RULING

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT- You cannot speak to that motion.

Senator Cavanagh having submitted his motion in writing.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT- It has been moved that this matter requires immediate determination. Those in favour say ‘aye’. Those against say ‘no’.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT- No debate is allowed on this motion.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT-

There is no point of order.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT- The motion is that this matter requires immediate determination. I am putting the motion that we now determine whether my ruling be dissented from.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT-

What is the point of order?

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT- It is Standing Order 429. The motion that the question requires immediate determination has been moved. Those in favour say aye. Those against say no. The ayes have it. A division has been called for; the Senate will divide.

The President having resumed the Chair-

The PRESIDENT:

– Not at this point in time. The motion before the Chair is that the question requires immediate determination. It is not one that is to be debated; it must be put.

Senator Georges:

– I have a question on procedure.

The PRESIDENT:

– I am sorry. The motion is that the question requires immediate determination. There can be no discussion of it in any way at all.

Senator Georges:

– Not even a question?

The PRESIDENT:

– No. The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion say aye. Against say no.

Senator McAuliffe:

– I invite your attention, Mr President, to the fact that there has been no ringing of the bells.

Senator Peter Baume:

– We are not dividing yet, Senator.

The PRESIDENT:

– The motion before the Chair is that the question requires immediate determination. I will put it again.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

The PRESIDENT:

– There is now before the Chair the motion of dissent from the ruling of the Acting Deputy President. There can be no discussion of it.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I rise to a point of order.

The PRESIDENT:

– I am sorry. The motion can be debated.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I will withdraw the point of order. I merely wanted to show that our legal luminaries were wrong in their interpretation of Standing Order 429. Again, as was the case the other day, it is unfortunate that one must move dissent from the ruling of the Chair. No one likes to do that. It is unfortunate that, when you are not in the Chair, Mr President, things seem to get out of hand. I would say advisedly- rather than embarrass anyone in particular- that there should be a more careful selection of Temporary Chairmen.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! That statement reflects adversely upon a very honourable senator who is doing his duty in accordance with the procedures of this House. I must say that is a very unfair remark and I am surprised, Senator Cavanagh, that you should utter it.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– My complaint that he was not doing his duty is in accordance with the Standing Orders. That is why I moved dissent from his ruling. I trust that the Senate will uphold my motion because if such practices are permitted to continue it will establish a precedent that will have an adverse effect upon every member of the Senate.

The question at issue is the interpretation of Standing Order 41 8. It is often breached here but it states clearly that an individual shall not - . . use offensive words against either House of Parliament or any Member of such House, or of any House of a State Parliament, or against any Statute, unless for the purpose of moving for its repeal, and all imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections on Members shall be considered highly disorderly.

The Standing Order speaks first of the use of offensive words and then of certain imputations and reflections that are deemed to be highly disorderly. I assume that the use of highly disorderly words would justify asking for their withdrawal. However, if an honourable senator wishes to emphasise something and uses a quotation from an authority so to do, he has a duty, a responsibility, to quote it correctly, not to omit or add. He has a clear responsibility in that regard. It was not Senator McLaren who made a highly disorderly statement. One who quotes the opinion of an outside authority has no alternative to quoting it truthfully. If that be offensive, there is an onus on someone outside to act. If it be offensive, there may be a cause of action therefor, but an honourable senator cannot claim to quote from a newspaper and then read something that it has not said. The responsibility is on the individual. It only becomes unfortunate if it offends Standing Order 418. That Standing Order does permit the use of offensive words against either House, and against honourable senators in certain circumstances. Although I regret the necessity to move disagreement with the ruling of the Chair, the matter is so important that we should ensure that such disagreement is recorded.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I seconded the motion of dissent. Again I have done so with regret.

Government senators interjecting-

Senator KEEFFE:

-There are some on the other side of the chamber who do not want the dignity of the Senate to be maintained. They are quite prepared to turn it into a rabble, just as they did in 1975. 1 draw attention not only to the relevant Standing Order but also to the fact that in the course of debate prior to your returning to the chamber, Mr President, a number of things occurred that were quite wrong. I believe that the honourable senator on the other side of the chamber who raised the point of order did so in a frivolous manner, and that if the penalty is to be applied to Senator McLaren, it will mean, as

Senator Georges pointed out by way of interjection earlier, and as Senator Cavanagh has said also, it will inhibit debate in this chamber in future. It will mean that if a newspaper headline, a Government document or some other type of document happens to contain a word that is objected to by an honourable senator an untruth will have to be told by anyone making the speech so that the quotation will pass scrutiny under the Standing Orders.

Mr President, before you make a final ruling I draw your attention to Standing Orders 418,419, 422 and 424, each of which has a bearing not on what has happened since you have returned to the chamber but, in its own way, on what happened during the state of confusion that existed during the occupancy of the Chair by the Acting Deputy President. I suggest, with great respect, that part of the problem was caused by a Minister virtually shouting advice across the chamber to the Acting Deputy President as to what he ought to do; that confused him further.

Senator Peter Baume:

– That is not fair. That is simply not true.

Senator KEEFFE:

– It is not only fair but truthful. If that sort of activity is to take place it will be impossible for any Acting Deputy President to maintain control of the chamber. I believe that was one of the things that led to the hiatus this afternoon. It was very similar to what occurred the other evening when the Acting Deputy President lost control. I hope that the practice will cease.

The PRESIDENT:

-Unparliamentary language cannot be used in this place in any circumstance. Those words which cannot be used in normal debate- in a contribution of an honourable senator- cannot be used by their being quoted from a source such as a newspaper or a journal. The logic of the matter is clear. It is an established practice of this chamber that honourable senators cannot utter words which are unparliamentary and they cannot quote something that contains unparliamentary words which cannot be used in normal debate. Otherwise, there would be circumvention of Standing Orders in respect of parliamentary language which would lead to an utterly impossible situation in this chamber in relation to the maintaining of a reasonable standard of words. As I have said on former occasions, in the heat and cut and thrust of debate there is no finer way for a speaker to be effective than to use parliamentary language. I reiterate that honourable senators cannot quote those unparliamentary words which they cannot utter in debate. The Senate has before it the motion of Senator Cavanagh.

Senator Georges:

- Mr President -

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Georges, you may speak to the motion if you wish.

Senator Georges:

– I wish to speak to the motion.

The PRESIDENT:

– I was about to call Senator Rae before I rose to speak. I now call Senator Rae.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– It seems to me that you, Mr President, have clearly and carefully outlined the position which is well known and well acknowledged in this Senate. Any further debate on this matter is almost in contempt of what you have said and should not proceed any further. The issue is clear and I move:

Senator Wriedt:

- Mr President, do you accept that motion?

The PRESIDENT:

– I do. The question must be put.

Senator Georges:

– I am rising to a point of order, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT:

– You cannot.

Senator Georges:

– You called me. I insist that you called me. I ceded not to allow Senator Rae to apply the gag. I think the understanding was that I was to speak. I had the call; I ceded it. Senator Rae got up and applied the gag. I think it is grossly unfair that that should occur.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Georges speaks of fairness. I sat Senator Rae down because I wanted to explain to the chamber how I felt about the matter which led to this situation. I called him after I had spoken because, in all fairness, he was entitled to the call before I gave it to Senator Georges. I think that is quite fair. The question is:

That the question be now put.

The Senate divided.

In division-

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

AYES

NOES

Every Senator, when he comes into the Chamber, shall take his place . . .

Standing Order 403 states:

Every Senator desiring to speak shall rise uncovered, and address himself the President.

When Senator Webster was encouraged to move his motion, he was seated all the time. I suggest that if we are to battle about Standing Orders and procedures of the Parliament, we should start correctly.

Ayes………. 32

Noes………. 25

Majority……. 7

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

The PRESIDENT:

– The next question is that the motion moved by Senator Cavanagh that the ruling given by the Acting Deputy President be dissented from, be agreed to.

Senator Bishop:

- Mr President -

The PRESIDENT:

– There can be no discussion on the matter.

Senator Bishop:

– I know but–

The PRESIDENT:

– I respect the desire of the honourable senator to speak but I cannot allow him to do so.

Senator Bishop:

- Mr President, I know that you, like most of us, want to see the Senate work in a reasonable way. I ask you to consider what I said to you earlier because some of the things happened when you were not in the chamber. This Senate does not want to get into a state in which half of its members are very angry and will frustrate the work of the Senate and the Government. I ask you to consider what I said to you originally, that is, that the premise on which the whole debate is now taking place is based on the fact that an honourable senator did not move a motion correctly. As a result, we have reached a position where the motion proposed by Senator Cavanagh will be put. Regardless of the procedures, I ask you, Mr President, to consider the matter before we take a vote. Perhaps it might be adjourned. I think it is important that you do so. If that is not done, the argument about whether the Parliament will be frustrated by what has happened today will continue and intensify. I hope that you will consider that argument, Mr President. There is no reason that I can see why you should not look at this matter before it goes any further. I ask you so to do.

The PRESIDENT:

– I thank the honourable senator, but the fact is that objection should have been raised immediately at the time of the offence. It is too late now.

Question put-

That the ruling of the Acting Deputy President be dissented from.

The Senate divided. (The President- Senator the Hon. Sir Condor Laucke)

AYES: 23

NOES: 34

Majority……. 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 2267

PRIVILEGE

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-I wish to raise a matter of privilege. I believe it important that I do so in view of the ruling that has just been agreed to, which binds honourable senators not to speak, to report on or to use terms which have been used outside this Parliament. I move:

The decision today has seriously affected the privileges of an honourable senator, Senator McLaren. The reason he has been inhibited is that he was prevented from referring to the Illawarra Mercury, which on its front page used the words ‘ Lies, Lies, Lies! ‘

Senator Townley:

– I raise a point of order. That is the very matter to which I as Acting

Deputy President objected. I ruled that it was unparliamentary to quote even from the page on which those words appeared.

Senator GEORGES:

– Of course one realises that the absurdity of the situation is that in this place, even if I wish to refer -

Senator Peter Baume:

- Mr President, I raise a point of order. The point of order raised by Senator Townley has not been ruled on.

The PRESIDENT:

– My ruling is that we must adhere to Standing Orders and to the practices established over many years. In 1908 President Gould referred to the very thing that Senator Georges has said will ruin the ability of senators to have freedom of expression and freedom of speech and so on. President Gould said:

It is not competent for a senator to read any statement which he is not allowed to utter.

In a different form those are the words I used earlier. Therefore Senator Georges is not in order. The point of order raised by Senator Townley is quite valid. Senator Georges must not quote from that document because that was the matter which led to the present fracas.

Senator GEORGES:

– Suppose I wanted the article in the Illawarra Mercury referred to the Privileges Committee. In putting my case to the Senate that the Illawarra Mercury in making certain statements was in breach of privilege, I would have to use the words ‘Lies, Lies, Lies!’. I would have to do that to establish the case that the matter should go before the Privileges Committee. In this case I am saying that Senator McLaren’s rights have been disadvantaged and that the matter ought to be determined by the Privileges Committee. It has been ruled that Senator McLaren should not use words which have been used in another place. They are not his words. He quoted them. It seems to me that this limitation ought to be examined by a responsible committee of the Senate. I would say that the responsible committee of the Senate in this case is not the Standing Orders Committee but the Privileges Committee. I believe that Senator McLaren’s rights in this place have been seriously disadvantaged by the ruling. For that reason I have moved that the decision of the Senate on this matter today be referred -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The matter before me concerns a breach of the Standing Orders. I have ruled that an honourable senator is not competent to read that which he may not utter in this place.

Senator GEORGES:

– I am saying that that ruling breaches my privilege and Senator McLaren’s privilege. Mr President, you have now included me by denying me the right to refer to the words used by someone else. If in the Queensland Parliament someone said that Senator Webster was a liar, surely I could rise in this place and object on Senator Webster’s behalf and use those very terms. Would that not be right?

Government senators- No.

Senator GEORGES:

-Therefore I could not stand in Senator Webster’s defence? Although those terms have not been applied to Senator Webster in the Queensland Parliament, they have been applied to me. Mr President, you are saying that in this place 1 cannot repeat unparliamentary words that have been used somewhere else. Are you saying that I cannot use them and that I cannot defend myself?

The PRESIDENT:

– That is right.

Senator GEORGES:

– That places a serious infringement on my privilege in this place. So I am right in the proposition I am putting that the matter ought to be referred to the Privileges Committee. Mr President, in a way you have censured us for taking up this matter. Suppose I wished to refer to a whole stream of court evidence which was important to a debate in this Parliament. If there happened to be certain unparliamentary terms in that evidence, are you saying by your ruling, Mr President, that the evidence could not be incorporated in Hansard?

Senator Archer:

– You are having a bad day, George.

Senator GEORGES:

– If that is the case, of course the absurdity of the situation has been revealed. It seems to me that I cannot use unparliamentary terms but -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I ask the honourable senator to be seated. I have heard from him sufficient to allow me to make my decision now. The fact is that the ruling has been determined. The honourable senator has moved that the matter be referred to the Privileges Committee. He has dealt with the matter at length. It is now for the Senate to determine whether the matter should go to the Privileges Committee. The honourable senator is entitled to move the motion. If it is seconded, I shall put it to the Senate.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I second the motion moved by Senator Georges. Senator Archer interjected while Senator Georges was speaking. He said:

You are having a bad day, George.

As a result of the events in the last half hour, I suspect that we will have a few more bad days. I regret having to say that. Mr President, you made a ruling which, you obviously believed to be the proper ruling, and the Senate has endorsed that ruling. When I came into the chamber I indicated to you that I felt there was a way we could get around the problem, but in your wisdom you felt that you had made your decision. It is your prerogative to do so. In all sincerity I say that I think a bad decision has been made here today. I am not canvassing your ruling. The Senate has made its decision. It is now the Senate’s decision, not yours personally. I think it is a bad ruling.

Suppose a newspaper were to say: ‘The Prime Minister is a liar’. If I were to quote that with the intention of saying in the next breath: ‘But I do not believe he is a liar’, I would be out of order. With great respect, that is an absurdity. It is an absurd position. In all the time that I and many others have been members of the Senate we have heard quote upon quote from publications which reflect very much the same sentiment as the publication from which Senator McLaren quoted. We now find ourselves completely locked into the ruling given. Mr President, I am not greatly concerned about the fact that one of your predecessors in 1908, 71 years ago, interpreted the Standing Orders in the way you have ruled. The Senate has come a long way since then. There is no reason to suggest that the honourable senator who quotes unparliamentary terms is in fact using them himself. He may simply be drawing the attention of the Senate to them. I will not debate the matter any further because the Senate has made its ruling, but I think Senator Georges has quite properly moved that the matter be referred to the Standing Committee of Privileges.

Irrespective of our individual views about the rights and wrongs of the matter, I suggest that for the sake of the whole operation of this place the Government, in a moment of compassion, support the motion and allow the Privileges Committee to consider this matter. Whether the Committee would give an interpretation different from your ruling, Mr President, and the Senate’s ruling, I do not know. I think it would be advisable that we did at least that much for the sake of everybody.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I have no objection at all to this matter being referred to the Standing Committee of Privileges.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2269

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 3) 1978-79

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

-I have sat here patiently while the arguments for and against the ruling of the Acting Deputy President have been put. I think the matter now before the Senate is the request by the Acting Deputy President that I withdraw certain words.

The PRESIDENT:

– That is so.

Senator McLAREN:

– I told him that I would not do so. I want to give my reasons for not doing so. I understand that I am entitled -

The PRESIDENT:

– Are you saying that you will not withdraw?

Senator McLAREN:

– Yes, Mr President, and I will state why. As a precedent I used the words of the present Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Carrick. He set the precedent in this place on 22 October 1975. It is recorded at page 1342 of Hansard. I quoted these words earlier today and I will quote them again. Senator Carrick said:

The Commonwealth Constitution specifically and deliberately provides the means whereby a dishonest, corrupt and disastrously inefficient government . . .

They are the words that Senator Carrick used.

Senator Rae:

– I raise a point of order. It seems to me that under Standing Order 440 Senator McLaren would have to be named before he is entitled to speak.

The PRESIDENT:

– That is quite right. I let Senator McLaren speak for a few moments. Senator McLaren, I ask you again to withdraw.

Senator McLAREN:

-Mr President, for the fourth time I say to the Senate that I shall not.

Senator Georges:

– I take a point of order. This matter has been referred to the Privileges Committee. Until the Privileges Committee determines the matter you, Mr President, cannot ask Senator McLaren to withdraw.

The PRESIDENT:

– That was the referral of a whole matter, not an individual occurrence which we have determined has to be withdrawn. As much as I hate to do this, Senator McLaren, if you do not withdraw I have only one recourse open, and that is to name you. Will you withdraw?

Senator McLAREN:

– For the fifth time, no.

The PRESIDENT:

-Then I name you, Senator McLaren.

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

– May I call upon Senator McLaren to make such apology as he sees fit. I urge upon him that he not force me to invoke the Standing Orders. I respect Senator McLaren. The last thing in the world we want to do is to use the forms of the House in this matter. Therefore, I invite him under Standing Order 440 to withdraw. Mr President, it is not good enough for honourable senators opposite to interject. Both dissents from your ruling in recent time were moved by the other side. The provocation lies there.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– by leave- Mr President, when the division was on I was discussing with one of my colleagues whether you would persist in seeking the withdrawal by Senator McLaren. I hoped that you would not, that you would recognise that the spirit of the Senate is that we do not want these events to occur. The Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick) indicated his preparedness to have the matter referred to the Privileges Committee. I think all honourable senators regard this as a common-sense decision. We all get into hassles; we all get a bit sick of them and we all try to find a way out afterwards. This afternoon we have got out of it sensibly. In the light of the fact that the Privileges Committee will consider this matter, Mr President, would you in turn reconsider your request to Senator McLaren to withdraw?

The PRESIDENT:

– In the light of the events, I cannot do this. The rules of this place stand and I must abide by them. Senator McLaren, I beseech you to withdraw in the light of the fact that it has been determined by the Senate that the matter be referred to the Privileges Committee. I see no skin off your nose if you withdraw now. I would hate the matter to be pursued and for you to be suspended.

Senator McLAREN:

- Mr President, again on a matter of principle I have decided- in my own best judgment- that I shall not withdraw. I quote from Standing Order 440:

When any Senator has been reported as having committed an offence he shall be called upon to stand up in his place and make any explanation or apology he may think fit . . .

That is what I am going to do. The Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick) called upon me to stand in my place and make an apology. I ask the Senate: An apology for what? As I said earlier, I used Senator Carrick ‘s own words as a precedent for the words that I uttered. The words were not mine; I was quoting from a newspaper at the time. This is a different argument altogether. I did not use the words. I was quoting from the Illawarra Mercury when an objection was taken. In October the Government of which I was proud to be a member was under very severe attack by people who were not very choosey about the words they used against the Prime Minister or the Ministers. When I look around this chamber I see three of those Ministers- Senator Bishop, Senator McClelland and Senator Cavanagh. I was a back bencher. I had to sit with revulsion and listen to the words uttered by Senator Carrick against those Ministers and against me as a Government member. This happened on several occasions. I will quote not only Senator Carrick ‘s words in the debate but words that were put in a substantive motion in this Parliament as an amendment to an Appropriation Bill which was voted upon. I have had a look through the division list on that vote. I find that there are 19 members sitting on the other side of this chamber- including yourself, Mr President- who voted for that motion which used the words ‘deceit, dishonesty and corruption ‘. These words were used in a motion in this Parliament. Therefore, we have 1 9 Government members who were quite prepared to talk about an amendment like that in their party room, bring it in here and vote for it. Apart from that, it has been said before that honourable senators can use any words in a substantive motion.

The PRESIDENT:

– And that is so.

Senator McLAREN:

– I refer to words used by Senator Carrick in a debate. I quote from page 1,342 of the Senate Hansard of 22 October 1975:

The Commonwealth Constitution specifically and deliberately provides the means whereby a dishonest, corrupt and disastrously inefficient government . . .

He continued:

The power exists, and because this Government is the worst Government since Federation, because it is dishonest . . .

They are the words Senator Carrick used. He is reported at page 1 ,343 of Hansard as saying:

The circumstances about which he was talking was a State receipts tax.

These are Senator Carrick ‘s words:

Now we are talking about corruption, dishonesty.

That is the precedent that I used for quoting from a newspaper article, not using my own words, in this place. It explains the dishonouring of promises by this Government and in particular by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). It might be of interest to you, Mr President, because you were not in the chamber when I spoke that I quoted word for word from an editorial in that newspaper. Certain words were used which, in my view, were more damning than the words which I held up to the Senate, but no objection was taken. I claim that I have a right to quote from a newspaper. I believe every word that is in the newspaper. For that reason I am not going to withdraw those remarks.

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

– Under Standing Order 440 I have no recourse but to move:

That Senator McLaren be suspended from the sitting of the Senate.

Question put.

The Senate divided. (The President- Senator the Hon. Sir Condor Laucke)

AYES: 34

NOES: 24

Majority……. 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Senator McLaren thereupon withdrew from the chamber.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

-Mr President, through you I say to Senator Young that I propose to take issue with him on some of the matters that he said last night. Before I move onto that matter, in view of the contribution that was made by the ‘politically late’ Senator McLaren, I suppose sales of the Illawarra Mercury should really boom. But statements were made by him to which objection was not taken. I wonder why objection was taken to certain phrases, but not to such words as:

If you ‘re choking over your breakfast this morning as you read about last night’s ‘mini-Budget’- and you voted Labor at the last election- you have our sympathy.

If you voted for Malcolm Fraser and his tax-happy crew, you had better wipe the egg off your faces.

As Opposition Leader Mr Hayden so aptly described it, the mini Budget presentation was ‘a night of abject dishonesty’.

All of those comments contain extremely rude words. It continues:

Promises have been set aside blatantly and cynically in a revenue-raising act of political piracy which is not even the real thing- the Budget proper does not come down until August, and already the Government is warning it won’t offer any relief.

Mr Fraser said some time ago, in a remark he probably learned to regret, that life wasn’t meant to be easy (under Fraser).

He could have added it also wasn’t meant to be honest.

That is another very strong phrase which I think should be objected to under the Standing Orders if people on the other side of the Senate are consistent in what they objected to a while ago. The editorial continues:

When Gough Whitlam was in power he boldly and candidly challenged the Australian people to make sacrifices and go without tax relief.

And so it goes on. Mr President, I seek your ruling whether you will allow me to move the following as a substantive motion:

That this Senate is of the opinion that the Prime Minister, Mr Malcolm Fraser, is a fraud and a thief, that he has lied about the economy–

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! That is out of order!

Senator KEEFFE:

– I am asking whether I can doit?

The PRESIDENT:

– I am saying: No, you cannot.

Senator Georges:

– He has used the two words to which objection was taken.

Senator KEEFFE:

-A while ago -

Senator Georges:

– How do you get around that fact?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator KEEFFE:

-Mr President, a while ago -

Senator Georges:

– Exactly! A while ago those words were used. How do you get around that?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I think we are grown up people in this place- and mature too, I hope.

Senator Georges:

– That is not the way Government senators behave.

The PRESIDENT:

– With the difficulties that we have just experienced, a responsible attitude would be most desirable at the moment.

Senator Georges:

– We have just discovered that Government senators are not grown up.

Senator Button:

– I rise to a point of order, because I think there is some confusion about what happened. Senator Keeffe in fact asked whether he could move a substantive motion, and he sought a ruling.

The PRESIDENT:

– And I said no.

Senator Button:

– With the greatest respect, Mr President, you have already been advised by the Clerk with respect to something that Senator Keeffe said earlier. Also with the greatest respect, your ruling was given before Senator Keeffe had finished the question about which he sought your ruling.

Senator Teague:

– Childish. It is childish.

Senator Button:

– Just a moment. Honourable senators on the other side relied on these points a few minutes ago. If honourable senators will be quiet and allow me, I will put it in a different form now. It was in connection with that matter that Senator Keeffe was seeking a ruling. With the greatest respect, he should not be interrupted by you, Sir, before the question about which he seeks advice from the Chair is completed. That is all I put. I refer to the mood which has come upon the Senate in the past few minutes. As I say you had received advice from the Clerk and you pronounced on a matter which it was not proper to do at the time.

Senator KEEFFE:

- Mr President, actually the last few words of the proposed substantive motion on which I sought your advice are quite innocuous. All I wanted to finish it were the words:

  1. . and no longer has the confidence of the Senate.
The PRESIDENT:

– You cannot move that motion, Senator Keeffe; so you might as well not talk any further on it. You cannot move that motion now.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I am not moving the motion. I merely sought the information as a result of what you said earlier in the confusion which reigned in the chamber prior to the suspension of my colleague, Senator McLaren. Senator McLaren attributed certain words to the

Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick) which he apparently had used in 1975, according to the quotation used by Senator McLaren. All those words were blasphemous politically. Very few of the words were more than four letter words which probably none of us would use in this chamber. Mr President, in response to a question from an honourable senator you said that if such words formed part of a substantive motion they would be allowed.

The PRESIDENT:

– Words which form part of a substantive motion are looked at and it is determined whether they are within reason. You must realise that, Senator.

Senator KEEFFE:

– If I were to use similar words in relation to the Prime Minister in a substantive motion, on a matter of public importance or urgency here tomorrow, would that motion still have to be scrutinised and a determination made as to whether I would be allowed to call him all those things, even though I believed that they were true?

The PRESIDENT:

– Yes, most certainly.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I will go back to the matter I was discussing. That has clarified the issue only very slightly. It is probably like walking on the moon; one gets covered in moon dust and it is very difficult to see through the haze. I refer honourable senators now to pages 2200 and 2201 of yesterday’s Senate Hansard, which records Senator Young complaining about the Australian Broadcasting Commission. I shall observe the right priorities, Mr President, and relate my remarks to the Bill.

Senator Young:

– I interrupt you there, Senator. With respect to Weipa, Mr President, I did not refer to the ABC; I referred to a television program.

The PRESIDENT:

– Carry on, Senator Keeffe.

Senator KEEFFE:

-Thank you, Mr President. I refer Senator Young to a couple of matters–

Senator Young:

– I ‘m sorry, I had it the wrong way round. It was the uranium one, you are right.

Senator KEEFFE:

-Oh, Senator Young has changed his mind.

Senator Young:

– I was confused, Senator. I am sorry. It was in the atomic energy reference that I did not refer to the station.

Senator KEEFFE:

-Twice last night Senator Young referred in a very derogatory manner to the ABC. On one occasion, when he referred to the Lucas Heights establishment -

Senator Young:

– No, check that, Senator. I do not think I referred to the ABC then.

Senator KEEFFE:

– During an interview -

Senator Peter Baume:

– I think you are confused this time, Senator.

Senator KEEFFE:

- Mr President, I would like to get on with my contribution, but before I start -

The PRESIDENT:

– I ask honourable senators not to make any more interjections, please.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I am quite happy to be corrected by Senator Young if he now says that he was wrong. Senator Young is recorded at page 2200 of the Senate Hansard to have said last night:

Some weeks ago I watched a television program in which the Australian Atomic Energy Commission establishment at Lucas Heights was discussed. During an interview an employee at the establishment made certain statement such as Risks are greater than expected’ . . .

He went on in that tone. Then, in the second column on that page, he is recorded as having said:

Two weeks ago I saw another Four Corners program.

Further on he said:

This was one of the most disgraceful, biased and bigotted programs 1 have seen.

If Senator Young had used those words today he would have been thrown out of the chamber. He is lucky that he used them last night. I refer honourable senators to two or three further remarks. Senator Young said:

It was not produced by the Australian Broadcasting Commission. It was produced by the Granada Company.

That, of course, is a British television organisation. Senator Young continued:

No doubt the program was shown in the United Kingdom and in other places. The sheer bias and hyprocrisy of the program had to be seen to be believed. It was one of the most disgraceful programs I have ever seen because of its total bias and because no opportunity was given for the other side to put its case. There was no balance.

He went on to state:

I am not going into the detail … Mr Karl Stewart, the manager of the mining company at Weipa, had the courage to challenge the presentation of the Granada production. In fairness to the ABC let me emphasise that it did the right thing and invited Mr Stewart to appear on the program.

Might I say, in putting the case for the other side, Mr Stewart made one of the most hypocritical statements I have ever heard made on a television show in my life. I want to come to the defence of the ABC, whose funds have been cheerfully pared back by this Government until it has reached the stage where it has virtually no capital to produce the high quality television shows and radio shows that it was producing only three or four years ago and had been producing for some years prior to that. Some of the shows produced by the ABC are of world class. In fact, they have been bought by many countries. (Quorum formed) Senator Young went on to say last night:

I repeat: It was one of the most disgraceful and biased programs that I have ever seen. I hope that it will never be presented again.

He stated further:

The Granada production did not show the bitumen roads in the township or the reafforestation with exotic timber that has taken place.

He said:

To give one example as Mr Stewart pointed out, the company gave the money and the Presbyterian church built the houses.

That is only half the story. It is not even true. ( Quorum formed). At that stage Senator Georges interjected and asked:

Have you been to Weipa?

Senator Young replied:

Yes. I have been there many times. 1 have seen the burnt out forests where there is now reafforestation. The company is spending thousands of dollars per hectare to reafforest that country with exotic timber. The company is doing this not for tomorrow or for next year but for years to come so that the Aborigines will have an opportunity to move in and produce teak timber from the forests which have been planted.

If there is a teak tree there, it must be a forestry experiment. Senator Young continued:

One cannot accept the bias of such a program. I had to mention that in the Senate tonight.

I point out that Mr Porter, the Queensland Minister for Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement, used almost identical words. I suggest with great respect that Senator Young was merely copying those words.

Senator Young:

– I have not seen a record of what Mr Porter said. Those were my own words.

Senator KEEFFE:

-Obviously, if Senator Young has not read the words of Mr Porter, he and Mr Porter have a telepathic association and have been able to keep in touch that way because the attitude expressed by Senator Young was precisely that of Mr Porter. Obviously Senator Young has not heard of the trauma at Mapoon. I know that the miners deny this but with the indirect approval of the mining company, the direct intervention of the Government and the indirect approval of the church, the Mapoon village people were driven from their area, finally with the aid of guns, and their homes were burnt to the ground. The establishment of the mining complex at Weipa led to the segregation of the two sections of the community, with the black people living in the Weipa South area and the white people living in the Weipa north area. Senator Young referred to the bitumen roads which were built there. There is no bitumen road between those two sections of Weipa; it is just dirt road. Money has been allocated for the construction of a bitumen road. As far as I know Holy Joh has put it somewhere in the Kingaroy province. But it has not gone into this area. The Aboriginals live in a dirty, dusty little settlement with a very old dilapidated canteen. They are second class citizens.

When the mining company first established the project there little or no employment was offered to them. Their sacred places were ploughed up with bulldozers. It is only in recent times, because of the outcry of public opinion, that the mining company has been taking some notice of these problems. It is only in recent times that the mining company has decided to do something about providing some sort of employment training for Aboriginal people who desire work in this area.

I can recall when I sat in the seat in which Senator Gietzelt is improperly sitting at the moment. Senator Poyser sat beside me. At that time Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin was, I think, Minister for Housing. We took objection that many years ago- our attitude has not changed at all- to segregation in schools and in housing areas. I can remember Dame Annabelle saying: Things have really improved up there; there is not segregation’. She said that it was felt that it was too much trouble to drive Aborigines into the city school because of transport costs. What she said is recorded in Hansard. She said: ‘It is obvious that you have not been there for a long time. Things are very nice at Weipa now. Frangipani trees have been grown.’ I can remember Senator Poyser interjecting and saying: ‘Listen, you cannot sleep under frangipani trees mum, and that is all about it’. On that note, the debate ceased. And one cannot sleep under frangipani trees, even the beautiful trees Senator Young looked at.

I point out that for years there was no attempt to restore the areas where bauxite was being mined. These areas were a red desert. Let me tell Senator Young, and other people who are misinformed, that the forests are not being grown for the benefit of the Aborigine. First of all exotic trees are grown. They interfere with the ecosystem or ecology of the environment in the area. Very few native trees are being grown. The plantings are being made with a long term project in view. The mining company has already made overtures to obtain woodchip processors in order to cut out operations on Cape York Peninsula. It has not been successful to date in this regard. But it has vast areas in its mining leases as does the other group which is to start in the Aurukun area. The company is in the main planting exotic pines. Ultimately this undertaking will become part of a woodchipping project, not for the Aborigines but merely for the miners. Harry Penrith was one of the people who participated in the Granada film. I make no apology for saying that some of the documentation that appeared in the film came from my office. I will send a copy of the speech I am now making to the producers just to let them see how little their films are appreciated by those who do not want to know in this country.

Senator Young:

– They want to hear both sides of the argument, that is all I say.

Senator KEEFFE:

– The only thing that the honourable senator did not do, unlike Mr Porter, was to make reference to Mick Miller who made a comment on a Four Corners program. He said that basically everything in the film was true. Senator Neville Bonner, who sits on Senator Young’s side of the chamber, also approved of what was said in that film. He also said that it was basically true. A lady named Mrs Hall, who also appeared on the program, was also deeply involved in the background to this film. I add my voice by saying that the film was a true rendition of what took place. ( Quorum formed).

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Senator KEEFFE:

– When the sitting of the Senate was suspended- (Quorum formed). Just prior to the suspension of the sitting there were complaints about the calling for quorums and the necessity to report to the chamber. I point out that the Standing Orders provide that members of the Government must keep up the numbers in the chamber. I can recall that back in 1974 and 1975, when honourable senators who are currently on that side of the House- temporarily at least- were on this side of the House, they used every possible device within our customs, conventions and Standing Orders, except the passing of the Budget, to create as much diversion and division as they could. If I may pass a couple more remarks on this matter, I would say now that the boot is on the other foot. We have in office a Government which is struggling for political breath. We have a Prime Minister who for the last week has not been able to handle himself either politically or physically in another place. The Government is getting to the stage of driving its own senior Ministers well towards hospitalisation while they try to stand up to the policies we are discussing in detail in this chamber and which are being debated at length in both Houses. The Government now is coming under a fairly strong assault from sections of the Press, not the least of which is that little journal the Illawarra Mercury that was being discussed in this chamber this afternoon.

I want to go back to the points I was making in relation to the statements made by Senator Young. Earlier he went to some pains to correct me. I quote again from his speech last night which is reported at page 2200 of yesterday’s Hansard. He said:

I was particularly concerned not only about what was said by this employee but also about the Tact that the television station did not see fit to ask someone else from Lucas Heights to put a counter comment. I took this matter up during the sittings of Senate Estimates Committee F. I posed questions to representatives of the Atomic Energy Commission who gave evidence to the Committee.

Mr President, could the galahs on my left please be silenced a little?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The Senate will come to order.

Senator KEEFFE:

-Thank you, Mr President. Senator Young went on to say:

Two weeks ago I saw another Four Corners program.

One could be forgiven for imagining that they were both Australian Broadcasting Commission programs that he was referring to in most uncomplimentary language. Of course, the ABC needs defending because of the savage expenditure cutbacks that have been made. I note that in the Appropriation Bills there is a continuation of the general cutbacks being made by this Government. I hope that at a later date we will get an opportunity to discuss in detail the effects of the mini-Budget. In fact one of the papers by agreement must come back to this House. I wonder whether we will reach the stage at which those matters which have not been mentioned either in the Appropriation Bills or in the mini-Budget will be in the same situation that they were in last year and the year before. It is not a matter of returning money to the Treasury; it is just a case of not taking from the Treasury the money to carry out Budget commitments. At least the Opposition ought to have the opportunity to debate in detail all the activities of” this Government which consistently over a period of years has carried out a program of deceit and frauds so far as some sections of the community are concerned.

When I last spoke in this chamber, I referred to the fraud of reducing the deficit by calling upon those in the community who are least able to do so to make up the deficiency. There remains in the minds of the Prime Minister and senior members of the Cabinet the phobia that the only way Australia is going to trade itself out of economic difficulties is to make those people in the community who are least able to afford it to do all the paying. Eventually we will run out of such people because people on unemployment benefit cannot pay taxes and those in receipt of age, invalid and full repatriation pensions cannot pay taxes. Mr President, it would make it easier for me to finish the last couple of minutes of my speech if the members of the National Country Party could be silenced.

The PRES1 DENT- Order! There is rather too much conversation.

Senator KEEFFE:

-Thank you, Mr President. I usually pay the honourable senators opposite the courtesy of not speaking when I am on my feet unless I make some sort of interjection. While they are speaking I do not subject them to a running commentary on jokes about cows. If we were able to bring about some sort of economic management, many of these things would not be necessary. Quite obviously -

Senator Mason:

– I raise a point of order, Mr President. I draw your attention to Standing Order 422 which states:

No Senator shall interrupt another Senator whilst speaking, unless ( I.) to request that his words be taken down; (2.) to call attention to a Point of Order or Privilege suddenly arising; or (3.) to call attention to the want of a Quorum.

Honourable senators have been substantially interrupting the speaker for the last seven minutes by my watch.

The PRESIDENT:

– There is no validity in the point of order at this stage. I call Senator Keeffe.

Senator KEEFFE:

-Thank you, Mr President. I thank the honourable senator for drawing attention to the Standing Order. I hope that we do not see these one-sided attacks because, contrary to the statement made by Senator Young, the ABC has been even-handed. The fact that it used a film made by Granada Television and then allowed the people who came under some sort of criticism to put in their two bits worth shows that it was an even-handed program. The Granada company is a reputable British organisation which is known for its high quality films. I say again that everything which was said in that film was substantially correct. I hope that these sorts of things will be taken on board by Government supporters in the Senate. I finalise my remarks by saying that I support the amendment that has been moved by the Opposition.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– I rise to support the general principles of the amendment that has been moved. During my contribution I may well move a further amendment. I do not know whether I will transgress the Standing Orders when I make reference to the dishonest way that this Government has operated and to the way in which it has attempted to confuse the Australian public about the role it plays in Australia. I wonder whether the sort of description used by Senator Carrick on a previous occasion about a dishonest and corrupt government does not fit adequately the way in which the Fraser Government has operated since it came to power in 1 975.

During the whole of 1973, 1974 and 1975 in particular but also in more recent times, the principal spokesmen of this Government, in the rhetorical style in which they present their arguments have endeavoured- as was so correctly reported by Senator Chipp earlier today- to suggest that all of the ills, difficulties and deficiciencies that the Australian community has suffered can be traced back to December 1972. Of course, the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) himself has tried to perpetuate that myth, that illusion, as have all of his puppets either in replying to questions in this place or in the course of their general public posturing throughout Australia.

However, when the Prime Minister stands on the international stage, where his words have particular significance and he must speak the truth, which he does not do very often in Australia -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I must point out to the honourable senator that political comment is different from personal abuse. I ask him to bear that in mind. He may make general political comment but he ought not to make abusive comments about an individual.

Senator GIETZELT:

– The Fraser Government has attempted, through remarks of the Prime Minister and all of his spokesmen, with perhaps one or two exceptions, to create the impression that all of the ills that have beset this country may be associated with the three years of the Whitlam Government. However, when the Prime Minister is on the international stage he does not tell that sort of untruth. He knows that when he presents Australia’s point of view in such a forum he must tell the truth. I wish to refer particularly to his statement at the meeting of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development in Manila on 9 May, as published in the

Department of Foreign Affairs document Backgrounder of 16 May. That statement expressed clearly what we were saying when we were in government, and what we said subsequently, and proves that this Government misled the Parliament and the Australian people in respect to the economic difficulties that have beset this country. The Prime Minister said: . . This Conference meets at the end of what has been a troubled decade for the world economy, a decade characterised by high inflation, high unemployment, and, as a consequence, a dangerous drift to protectionism. A decade which has also seen a great deal of acrimony and friction between developing and developed countries, causing alarm in some and disillusionment and cynicism in others.

We do not quarrel with that characterisation but it indicates that when the Prime Minister is out of Australia attending international forums he tells the truth about the state of the economy. When he is in Australia he attempts, as indeed do all Government Ministers, with one or two exceptions, to suggest that all of the problems that beset this country’s economy arose solely from the change of government between 1972 and 1975.

The Prime Minister referred to the past decade. As we well know, in 1969 an economic downturn was already evident throughout the Western world and in Australia. In that year there was a dramatic swing against the conservative Liberal-Country Party Government, as a result of which it almost lost office. We know that in 1971-72, because of the mismanagement by the McMahon Government, which could not handle the economic crisis of that period, the world economy was on the downturn and was having its effects upon Australia and the Australian people took advantage of the situation to change the Government. It is about time that the nonsense that has been peddled by this Government and its spokesmen, particularly the Prime Minister, came to an end and we got down to a serious debate about the problems that beset all of the industrialised Western countries and abandoned this type of nit-picking, partisan-type politics, in which we try to convince ourselves that the blame for the country’s problems lies with one party or section of the Australian people, namely, those who produce the goods and services for the use of their countrymen. If we can only get down to that sort of debate, we might finally be able to make a contribution towards an understanding in the Australian community about where we are at. (Quorum formed).

Thank you, Mr President, for providing me with an audience. We ought to be trying to isolate and identify the problems that beset the

Western industrialised countries. I refer to the sorts of problems with which governments, parliaments and communities ought to be concerning themselves and understanding. If in 1975 it was competent for Senator Carrick to describe the previous Government as a dishonest and corrupt one, it is surely competent for us to say that that sort of gimmickry can be applied to the present government. I refer especially to the comments that were made in this House only a few nights ago by the same Senator Carrick on behalf of the Treasurer (Mr Howard) to indicate the way in which double talk and misleading, reactionary statements are made here- statements which have very little substance in terms of grappling with the sorts of problems with which we are concerned.

The Treasurer, at the beginning of the speech which was presented here by Senator Carrick, said:

This Government inherited a situation in which its predecessor had increased Commonwealth spending by a staggering and irresponsible figure of 1 1 5 per cent over the 3 years it held office.

The fact is, of course, that the Australian Labor Party set about applying, in a very consistent fashion, the electoral mandate that it had been given in 1972. We make no apologies for that and we make no apologies for lifting public sector spending in the areas in which we did. I refer principally to the Budget Speech of the Treasurer, John Howard, of 1977-78. I refer honourable senators to the pages upon which so much criticism has been levelled by Government spokesmen about what the Labor Party did in terms of alleviating poverty, distress and hardship in the Australian community, and in regard to making up lost ground in terms of public sector expenditure during the 1 950s and 1 960s. For example, in the 1972-73 Budget- which was the last Liberal Budget before Labor came to power- $442m was spent on education. In the last Labor Budget of 1975-76 that figure had been lifted to $ 1,846m.

In reply to questions from time to time to the Minister for Education, Senator Carrick, honourable senators have heard that he would do all that he could to maintain that level of expenditure on education. What did we find that he was forced to do? He was forced to swallow his words when, in the document presented last Thursday night, the Treasurer indicated that the Government proposed to prune expenditure on education. If honourable senators look at the ratio of spending on education in those years, it was lifted from 4.3 per cent of Budget income to 8.4 per cent in 1975. This Government has maintained expenditure at somewhere close to 8.7 per cent. Yet, education is one area which is to be cut back. If honourable senators look at the expenditure on health, in the last Budget of 1972-73 the Liberal Government spent $783m, which was lifted to $2,953m by the Labor Government. What was wrong with that? What was wrong with spending that money on health and the care of the Australian people, on increasing medical services and benefits from $229m to $774m? What was wrong with increasing the expenditure on hospital services, on nursing home and domiciliary care service and benefits, on community health services and on health schemes for school children, and doubling the amount of money spent from $ 12m to $24m?

So, we can go on and on in the areas in which the Labor Government lifted public sector spending to provide the Australian people with decent conditions and benefits. Similarly, it can be said that there were similar expenditure increases on social security and welfare, which increased from $922m to $2, 236m for assistance to the aged. Aged and invalid pensions went from approximately 22 per cent of average weekly earnings to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings, which was the commitment upon which the Labor Government had been elected. Expenditure on total social security and welfare was lifted from $2, 100m to $5,077m. This involved assistance to one parent families, handicapped people and veterans and their dependants. Is it argued genuinely in this place that those were decisions that were wrongly taken, and that they were decisions that ought to have been changed?

Senator Kilgariff:

– But you ran out of money.

Senator GIETZELT:

– Of course, honourable senators would expect Government senators to say that the Labor Government ran out of money. That sort of comment is expected because this Government is more concerned with taking away benefits from people and giving benefits to the corporate sector and to those groups in the Australian community that do not need the benefits. The Opposition knows that the Government is under tremendous pressure. One of the reasons why the Senate today adopted the motion moved by my colleague, Senator Coleman- a most unusual event- is that there is a struggle in the Government about maintaining the level of benefits to the Australian people. The Government wants to be able to say that the Senate has expressed an opinion. It cannot afford not to be associated with looking after the rights and needs of the needy people in the Australian community. The Opposition is thankful that Government senators took advantage of that situation to get a unanimous decision in the Australian Senate. The Government is under tremendous pressure to cut back deficits, money supply and welfare payments.

Honourable senators need look only at the Sydney Morning Herald of Friday 25 May. It is reported that Australia’s biggest industry body, the Confederation of Australian Industry, in its submission to this Government in respect of the Budget preparations that are taking place at the moment, has called upon the Federal Government to cut spending in social security, health and welfare payments. In order to do what? To pay incentives to industry- industry that according to the Government, has the responsibility of providing jobs. At what point does that incentive reach a maximum point so that industry accepts the responsibilities? If it is the responsibility of the private sector to provide expansion, development and job opportunities, at what point do we stop in terms of its accumulation of capital in order to provide jobs when, in fact, profits in Australia are reaching one of the highest levels in the last decade?

At what point do those people who have the accumulation of capital under their control make it available from the point of view of expanding or developing industries and providing jobs? The fact is that in the last three years part of that accumulation of capital in this country- an amount in excess of $ 1 ,300m- has been exported by Australian manufacturers to the region covered by the Association of South East Asian Nations, to the Third World countries, for the purpose of developing manufacturing and other activities in those countries. In fact, that is exporting capital for jobs. In the same process, 130,000 jobs in this country have disappeared completely from the work place. Yet, one of the largest employer organisations in Australia, the Confederation of Australian Industry is suggesting that the Government should put the screw on the needy, the unhealthy and those who are out of work. Even the Government’s spokesman, Mr Lynch, has talked about subjecting the unemployed to a more difficult work test. The honourable member for Canberra (Mr Haslem) has suggested that all people under the age of 25 years should not receive unemployment benefit.

Honourable senators well know that the establishment forces, and many members of this Government- although fortunately there are some whom I can exempt from this criticismlike to try to suggest that the reasons for people being out of work are personal; they are responsible for their inability to find jobs. As honourable senators well know, the number of vacancies that exists for employment is small in comparison to the number of people wanting jobs. The ratio is something like 24 to one; there are 24 people looking for each job. Even if all those jobs were filled, there would still be another 23 people looking for each job. It should not be suggested that those people be held responsible for that state of affairs when, on the other hand, the Government and its spokesmen have argued that the responsibility of governments is to provide incentives for the private sector to provide jobs. Yet the Government places no restraint upon what should be done with that capital in order to provide employment.

Australian industry is sick, as indeed industry is sick in all of the other Western industrialised countries. This has been the case for more than a decade. In fact, statistics show that since 1967 there has been a fall in capital investment in the private sector in this country and there has been a declining investment capital in many other countries of the Western world. When the Government came into office in 1975, in its first Budget it said that its strategy was to bring about a consumer led recovery. The business sector set about the task of reviving consumer demand. Most of the decisions that have been made by this Government have been associated with an attempt to encourage consumers to buy but at the same time the Government set about reducing real wages and that prevents people from purchasing.

If one looks at the amount which is now spent on advertising in this country, it will be seen that it has risen to the highest level in our history. We now spend more than $ 1,000m per annum in advertising- in trying to convince Australian people to purchase and to consume more goods. In the last year those people who manufacture and distribute goods in this country have increased expenditure on advertising by 29 per cent. That is a dramatic increase in advertising expenditure. There is almost no limit to the degree to which advertising funds are now being expended. In New South Wales, taxi cabs will now carry advertisements. Advertising has become a significant part of all spectator sports, particularly on television. The tremendous increase in expenditure on advertising is reflected in the sporting field. The consequence is that very little increase in consumer spending has occurred.

The next Budget was to be an investment-led budget. The Government has given industry something in excess of $600m in investment allowances encouraging it to increase productivity and technology in order to raise the level of productivity. The investment-led strategy has failed as has consumer-led strategy. We are now confronted with this Government’s current strategy- and that is an export-led strategy. This too will fail, as indeed have all of the other strategies that the Government has been trying to develop as an alternative to the economic problems that beset this country. All of the leaders of our private sector have been suggesting to this Government- and it does not matter whether it is Conzinc Riotinto of Australia Limited with Sir Rod Carnegie or all the other captains of industry- that it ought to cut back public sector spending and welfare payments, and to reduce taxation. When we talk about reduced taxation it is very interesting to note that some of the puppeteers who talk on these sorts of matters do not even look at their own government’s documents. I refer to page 192 and 193 of the last Budget document, which reads:

Income tax on individuals remains by far the most important single category of Budget receipts. Expressed as a proportion of total receipts, income tax collections from individuals has risen from 38.2 per cent of total receipts in 1968-69 to 5 1 .7 per cent in 1 977-78.

There is a further rise in the surcharge that the Government applied in the early part of this year which was to have been removed on 1 July. It will now continue until November this year as a result of subsequent Bills which are to be brought into this Parliament. This is contrary to what the Treasurer (Mr Howard) said in his documentwhich was read by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick) in this chamber on Thursday night. In fact payasyouearn taxation is increasing and has not decreased under this Government.

I indicate my support for a further amendment which I understand will be moved and which will refer to the evasion and deceit of this Government. I refer now to a few small factors which have arisen out of an examination conducted into the work of government departments.

Senator Wriedt:

– It will also be about the deceit and duplicity of the Prime Minister.

Senator Maunsell:

– Is that what it will say?

Senator Wriedt:

– That is what it will say.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– That is unparliamentary, isn’t it?

Senator Wriedt:

– We will see.

Senator GIETZELT:

– There are a number of incidents that can be referred to by other speakers but I want to refer to some of the matters that were brought out by the Estimates Committee of which I was a member. When the Government is finally persuaded that some compensation should be paid to outlying areas in respect of the tremendous increases in petrol prices which have taken place during this Government’s term of office, if we look at the period when these petrol prices came into force and compare them with what they are today, there has been an increase of more than 1 00 per cent under the Fraser administration. The Government recognised this and set out to take it into consideration in last year’s Budget to allow for compensation to be paid to those people in the outlying areas. A considerable sum of money was set aside for the purpose of providing a subsidised rate so that people in rural or remote areas would be able to escape some of the penalties of the higher prices of petroleum products.

When the extra appropriation required for the Northern Territory was dealt with by the Estimates Committee, we were surprised to find that, although a sum in excess of $5m had been paid to five of the petrol companies in this country for the purpose of providing some relief for those people in remote areas, this Government, which claims to be competent, to be concerned about public sector spending and to represent all of the people of Australia, had failed to provide any check on whether those subsidies had been carried through to the consumers. In other words, the $5m plus the $lm which is to be appropriated following the passage of these Bills is to be paid to the following international oil companies: Ampol Petroleum Ltd, BP Australia Ltd, Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty Ltd, Mobil Oil Australia Ltd, and the Shell Company of Australia Ltd.

No machinery has been established by the Government, by the Department or by the Public Service bureaucracy to see whether the benefits are received by the consumers and I am not in a position to say whether that represents a straight out donation to the oil companies. Ampol received $ 1 56,309; BP received a little bit more than $lm; Caltex received $102,977; Mobil received 5649,089; and Shell received $2,153,596. These were amounts from public funds for the purpose of providing relief to people living in remote areas in the Northern Territory. When we asked the Departmental witness we were told that it was not the Department’s responsibility to check on whether the benefits flowed down to the consumers. As far as the Committee has been able to ascertain no benefits have been received. Until proof to the contrary is made available to the Committee it is entitled to assume that the Government’s intention in this respect has been thwarted by the inability of the Government to provide the mechanisms to ensure that the consumer in fact receives the benefit of $5m of taxpayers’ money. I think that indicates either incompetence or duplicity. Maybe it is just plain deceit.

If large sums of taxpayers’ money are made available for the purpose of providing relief to rural persons in terms of petroleum products and the machinery is not established to see that the benefits flow on, one can say only that one has an incompetent government. One would find it difficult to understand why this information had to be sought out by an Estimates Committee nine months after the moneys had been appropriated in the first place, only to be told that no mechanism was ever established to see whether the money in fact flowed to those who were to benefit. Certainly we would not want that sort of money to be paid to the oil companies. Possibly the oil companies are not guilty in this particular matter- I do not know and the Committee does not know- but I think the Committee ultimately will make a recommendation to the Senate for the purpose of trying to establish some propriety and some proper supervision of the way in which public funds are expended.

The amendment moved by the Opposition seeks to condemn the Government and to put a finger on the Government’s inability to accept its proper responsibilities. It indicates to the Australian people that this Government is not carrying out its proper responsibilities so far as its election promises are concerned and so far as its proper economic management of the Australian economy is concerned. We can only hope that some attempt will be made by the Parliament to understand the incompetence of this Government.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– I must admit to some nervousness in entering into the debate at this stage, having in mind what happened earlier. To make certain that I was not in any way at fault in the use of expressive words, I took the opportunity to look at Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice. At page 445 there is an appendix of unparliamentary expressions. I find that I cannot use such words as blackguard, blether- whatever that means- cad, calumny, corrupt, coward, criminal, dishonest, dog, duplicity, guttersnipe, hooligan, humbug, hypocrites, impertinence, impudence, jackass, lousy, malignant, murderer, personal honour- in a certain context- -pharisees, pup, puppy, rat, slanderer, slander, stool pigeon, swine, traitor, treason, vicious, villains and wicked. I would say that is a rather short list and I was encouraged by that. I thought I certainly would not get myself into trouble if I did not use any of those terms. But unfortunately I referred to Odgers’ Australian Senate Practice and I found that there are about four pages of unparliamentary expressions, which limits me considerably.

Senator Knight:

– It is still only a guide.

Senator GEORGES:

– It is only a guide, but according to May it is the context in which they are used and their acceptability depends on the sense and temper in which they are used. I think if we had looked at that a little more carefully before, we might not have been so unjust to Senator McLaren as we have been. I am not prepared to read all the unparliamentary terms in ‘Odgers’ ‘, but I do think we are a little over-sensitive in this place. I suggest that we should remember our own failings when we pull points of order against our opponents. I would have thought that the point of order pulled today was one upon which the person who raised it should have reflected; otherwise we would not be in the position now of being hesitant about moving a further amendment to the proposition.

Senator Peter Baume:

– I am unmoved- quite unmoved.

Senator GEORGES:

– I know you are not moved by it. You ought not to be disturbed by it. The only problem is that you have disturbed honourable senators on this side of the chamber. You have taken action which has depleted our number by one excellent and very effective senator in this place. I have found that Government members have not been able to deal with him in the past, but they have dealt with him today. He will remember that. I suppose that in the turbulent debates that will take place in the next two or three weeks Senator McLaren will take a lead. Senator Walsh, on behalf of the Opposition, moved an amendment to the motion for the second reading of Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1978-79. The amendment has already been circulated and spoken to. However, in view of the debate which developed today I remind the Senate of the terms which were used against Ministers of the Labor Government and suggest that perhaps the Opposition needs to strengthen its amendment. I propose to do so by moving a further amendment which has been circulated. I move:

In view of what has happened over the past two or three days I would say that those terms are rightfully used as an emphasis of what has happened in this place, that the Prime Minister, having imposed upon the people of this country his own quaint economic theory, will find that theory overturned. Whenever he imposes some new measure he finds that it acts in reverse, that what he intends is not achieved. He has now found himself and the Government in the position where the deficit is running at $4,000m. The estimated deficit has blown out and the Government has to take measures to counter what has happened. In so doing the Government has invited the terms which I have used in the amendment: Deceitful, evasive and incompetent. I have also used the term duplicity, because the people of Australia, time and again, have not really been taken into the confidence of the Government. The Government has evaded telling the truth to the people. If I were to now say that the Government lied to the people, would you object to that, Mr President?

The PRESIDENT:

– In a personal reference, yes, but in a general reference I would not.

Senator GEORGES:

-Of course, I am not about to say that, but I am tempted to do so because it would be an accurate description of what has happened over the past few weeks. ( Quorum formed) I take it that in the last 10 minutes I have succeeded in cancelling from the record some unparliamentary terms. I take it that if I use unparliamentary terms and the Government fails to bring me to order it would cancel out any future action on those terms. How is it that Government senators employ such double standards? Today action was taken against an honourable senator for referring to a newspaper report which mentioned lies. Government senators reacted so sensitively that they moved to the point of throwing him out of this place. I am out of order at the present time because I am referring to a decision of the Senate earlier. However, I have been forced to speak about the position because the standards of honourable senators opposite are such that they will use that action against a senator; but when I provoke them- I have used the very terms which were objected to earlier- they are afraid of moving against me. I will say it again. The Prime Minister has been deceitful.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Georges, you are speaking to a proposed amendment which would be a substantive motion.

Senator GEORGES:

-We are faced with a strange situation. If I speak to a substantive motion I can say whatever I want to, but if I speak in a normal debate I cannot. That is patently absurd. Mr President, that ruling was thrust upon you today. In the normal flow of debate you would not have taken objection to the terms used. However, the Government has now decided that it should gag honourable senators on this side of the chamber by raising points of order against senators who in the normal course of debate tonight refer to an article which speaks of lies. But at the present time I can call the Prime Minister deceitful. I would not normally do this but because I am speaking to a substantive motion I am permitted to do so.

I will explain just how deceitful the Government and the Prime Minister have been in introducing the mini-Budget, as it is called. The Prime Minister can be accused of having lied to the electorate. He has deceived the electorate because he promised that Medibank would not be touched. Yet Medibank has been completely dismantled by the action of this Government a few nights ago. The Prime Minister has been deceitful. He promised that pensions would not be touched. Yet pensions are not to be indexed. Regarding taxation, he promised that the surcharge of 1 .5 cents in the dollar would be removed. He kept that promise. He removed the 1 .5 per cent surcharge but he was deceitful in introducing a 2.5 per cent surcharge. That is a subtlety that does not escape the Australian electorate. Each term that I have used tonight is justified when describing the actions of the Prime Minister, his Government and Ministers. I take great pleasure in what I am doing tonight because today I saw an action which I think is unforgivable. An honourable senator was thrown out of the House because of a minor error. But here I am offending in principle every one of the Standing Orders.

Senator Sim:

– That is the most twisting and distorting argument you have ever used.

Senator GEORGES:

– I am not twisting the situation. I am forcing home to honourable senators just how ridiculous they have been and how absurd they have made this place. On a piffling matter Government senators took action against an honourable senator and threw him out of this place. And here I stand using term after term which offends the spirit of the Standing Orders yet nothing can be done about it because I am speaking to part of a substantive–

Senator Rae:

- Mr President, I raise a point of order. Senator Georges may think that he is being remarkably smart. He may think that today the Australian Labor Party has been remarkably smart in running what is obviously a concerted exercise in both chambers of this House. The point I wish to make is that it is contrary to the Standing Orders to reflect upon a debate which took place and a decision which was made in this chamber this afternoon. A matter is awaiting consideration before the Privileges Committee as a result of a motion moved by Senator Georges and agreed to by the Senate. Now Senator Georges is attempting to canvass again a matter which has been dealt with. Rulings were given by you, Mr President, and by an Acting Deputy President. This matter is awaiting determination by a committee of this Senate, having been referred on a motion by Senator Georges to that committee. Senator Georges is out of order in each of those respects. I leave aside the matter on which he has been attempting to bait us to take a point of order because he is out of order on all the other points. His actions are part of a concerted exercise by the Labor Party to try to delay the consideration of matters of importance to the country- matters related to the Appropriation Bills and a whole string of legislation which is before us. It is an attempt to provoke a debate and a disruption in this place that would eventually lead to a situation in which honourable senators opposite would claim that at the end of the sitting we rushed a whole lot of Bills through this House. It is clear that that is all that this exercise is about. Had Senator McLaren’s problem this afternoon that was referred to been an isolated instance one might have thought that there could be some substance in the complaints of Senator Georges tonight. Mr President, I suggest that this is a deliberate flouting of a number of provisions of the Standing Orders. As a matter of order in this chamber I suggest that Senator Georges be prevented from canvassing again a number of matters which have been dealt with and which are awaiting consideration before a committee of this chamber.

Senator Button:

- Mr President, I wish to speak to the point of order. Senator Rae’s postprandial recollection is not as good as one might have hoped for. He said that he was quite clear about a number of issues but he was not clear about what happened here this afternoon. What happened this afternoon was that in the course of a debate Senator McLaren sought to quote from a newspaper article. The words which appeared in that newspaper article were ruled to be offensive.

On the basis of that discussion there was a debate in this place which I think all honourable senators, other than Senator Rae, would recall. The question of whether a newspaper article which contained offensive words in the same context as those being uttered by a senator were in breach of the Standing Orders, and the reference you made, Mr President, to a ruling of an earlier occupant of the chair, were then referred to the Privileges Committee. The Senate now has before it a substantive motion which contains different words, which likewise offend Senator Rae. But it is quite a different matter from the matter which was dealt with by the Senate this afternoon.

The PRESIDENT:

– Before I call you, Senator Georges, I must point out that Senator Rae has quoted Standing Order 415, which states:

No Senator shall reflect upon any Vote of the Senate, except Tor the purpose of moving that such Vote be rescinded.

I suggest to you, Senator Georges, that you should bear in mind the provisions of that Standing Order.

Senator GEORGES:

-Mr President, you tempt me to move that we rescind the action which took place earlier in the day.

The PRESIDENT:

– I am indicating what you can do at present.

Senator GEORGES:

– I can move–

The PRESIDENT:

– You are introducing an amendment and speaking to it.

Senator GEORGES:

-Yes, but I want to get it clear what your ruling means. If I wished to do so- I was not aware of this; perhaps I should have been- I could have moved for a recision of the action -

Senator Rae:

– Let us negative the adjournment question tonight and have this out until breakfast if you want to waste time.

Senator GEORGES:

– Why not. If the honourable senator–

Senator Rae:

– If you want to waste the time, all right. Otherwise get on with something and stop just wasting time.

Senator GEORGES:

– If the honourable senator is prepared to keep the House after 10.30 or 1 1 o’clock tonight, by all means, we will debate the matter until the early hours of the morning. I suggest that the honourable senator should not threaten the Opposition or try to force us into taking action which we as tolerant people are not prepared to take. However, the honourable senator has given me an idea. Perhaps we should debate this matter in the adjournment debate and move for the recision of the order. But the honourable senator forgot, when he took a point of order, that if the position was as he stated itthat it was a matter to be referred to the Privileges Committee- Senator McLaren really ought to be still here until such time as the matter is determined. I have endeavoured to show that common sense ought to prevail in the Senate.

Earlier it was ruled- I am not canvassing the ruling; I accept it- that by way of debate we cannot use the terms in question. Yet I read all the items of unparliamentary expressions in Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice. In a normal debate I would not be allowed to do that according to the ruling today.

Senator Rae:

– I raise a point of order, Mr President. You have ruled on a point of order which I have just taken. I suggest that your ruling is now being blatantly breached again. I simply repeat that this is a reflection on the ruling made this afternoon. I do not think I need say more.

Senator Bishop:

- Mr President, I wish to speak to the same point of order. Senator Georges has set out to move a further amendment to an amendment which has already been moved in the Senate. That proposition might be interpreted by you or by the Senate to be an infringement of the Standing Orders. The amendment that the honourable senator wishes to add to Senator Walsh’s motion is as follows:

  1. The continuing imcompetence evasion, deceit and duplicity of the Prime Minister and his Ministers as exemplified in the long list or broken promises to the Australian electorate and the scandal or Medibank: and
  2. The Prime Minister’s failure to maintain proper control over the activity of his Ministers and Government to the detriment of the Australian nation and people.

In support of that proposition, which, in a previous debate might have been negatived by a point of order or by some assessment by you, Mr President- I accept your control of the Senate and the proper way in which you have conducted its affairs- the honourable senator has advanced a number of notions. He is simply putting for the benefit of honourable senators a proposition which ought to be examined. In that respect, all he is doing is putting before the Senate a number of matters which are related to the proposition.

Mr President, you have already accepted the terms of the substantive motion. In that respect, it seems to me that the point of order taken by Senator Rae has no validity. Senator Georges is proceeding in his own way, in the way of the Parliament and in the way of parliamentary debate, to advance his amendment. I suggest to you that in that case he is not offending you in your office.

The PRESIDENT:

– The point of order raised by Senator Rae under Standing Order 415 was valid in that no senator shall reflect on any vote of the Senate. But, Senator Georges, you may speak to the amendment which you are now seeking to add to the previous amendment. If you keep to that, Senator Georges, we will all be happy.

Senator GEORGES:

– I regret that I have been diverted from this excellent amendment.

Senator MacGibbon:

– Why don’t you join the Muppet Show?

Senator GEORGES:

– I suggest that that interjection is unparliamentary, according to Odgers’ Australian Senate Practice. I ask that the honourable senator withdraw the remark. Mr Odgers says that such an interjection is out of order. It is unparliamentary.

Senator MacGibbon:

– In deference to the very high professional standard of the Muppet Show I withdraw that remark.

Senator GEORGES:

-One has to be careful what terms one uses in this place. I do not want to press the matter any further. The amendment is self-explanatory in two ways: The Opposition can drive home to the Government in exact terms such as incompetence, evasion, deceit and duplicity, exactly what it is and what it stands for not only as a group. Apparently, under the substantive amendment that I have moved I can do this individually, and I have done so. I do not think that the Government ought to accept what 1 am saying without some rebuttal. It seems to me that from now on, following the forms of the Senate, substantive motion after substantive motion should be reintroduced in order to expose the Government for what it is- a fraud and a failure. That is not part of the amendment. Nevertheless, as part of a substantive debate I can call honourable senators opposite frauds and failures. It seems to me that a silence has fallen upon this place, because I appear to have found a device which makes me immune from the Standing Orders.

The PRESIDENT:

– It has been there for a long time, senator. Is your amendment seconded?

Senator Bishop:

– I second the amendment.

Senator MASON:
New South Wales

– I would like to speak very briefly to the amendment. It is a pity that the Australian Labor Party, having moved paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of its amendment, which make sense, suddenly introduced what I can only describe as a series of buzz words. That is what the Opposition is doing.

It is adding buzz words to confuse a clear piece of thought, to no purpose whatever. As Senator Chipp has already said, the Australian Democrats approve, and in his speech today -

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– We will give you leave to make a statement again.

Senator MASON:

– I did not make it after all, did I?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I call Senator Mason.

Senator MASON:

– The Opposition is using buzz words.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Is that not unparliamentary? I would ask for the withdrawal of those words.

Senator Georges:

– It is definitely unparliamentary.

Senator MASON:

– Is the honourable senator taking a point of order?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Mason, continue your remarks.

Senator MASON:

– I think it is a pity that the Opposition has used those buzz words. Until a couple of hours ago, I thought that the Senate was discussing a serious matter which concerned the interests of society, not necessarily the interests of the Labor Party or of one of its members who may have incurred a certain fate. Surely there is some reason for supposing that some of the time of this House might be devoted to the affairs of the nation. We would approve of that. Indeed, we approve of the motion, but I would make the point -

Senator Tate:

– Which part of paragraph (e) do you disagree with?

Senator MASON:

– We disapprove of paragraphs (d), (e) and (f) for the reasons that I have stated that these are buzz words which add nothing to the original thought in the amendment in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). Senator Chipp made our point about paragraph (d) and suggested we had reservations about that. We believe that the Opposition’s criticism of this Appropriation Bill is just and valid. Surely that should be enough for the Opposition. I find it educational to observe the bitterness which has been manifest on both sides of the Senate in the last few hours. I suggest that it is not something which any senator can observe except with great regret. If I have learned anything tonight it is that this kind of confrontation achieves nothing and destroys a great deal, including probably–

Senator Georges:

– But earlier you voted to throw a senator out of the chamber. You are responsible.

Senator MASON:

– Here is a thought which I want to commend especially to Senator Georges -

Senator Georges:

– You voted to throw a senator out of this place.

Senator MASON:

– I will wait until Senator Georges is listening patiently.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Mason has the call.

Senator MASON:

– This kind of confrontation achieves nothing and destroys a great deal, including the credibility of political institutions in the eyes of the Australian public. I leave that thought with Senator Georges so he can reflect on it.

Question put:

That the amendment (Senator Georges’) to the proposed amendment be agreed to..

The Senate divided. (The President- Senator the Hon. Sir Condor Laucke)

AYES: 22

NOES: 32

Majority……. 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Question put:

That the amendment (Senator Walsh’s) be agreed to.

The Senate divided. (The President- Senator the Hon. Sir Condor Laucke )

AYES: 25

NOES: 31

Majority……. 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Motion (by Senator Guilfoyle) agreed to:

1 ) That clauses1 to 6 be postponed till after the consideration of the Schedule.

That, unless otherwise ordered, the votes in the Schedule be considered in the same groupings and order as the departmental estimates referred to Estimates Committees A, B, C, D, E and F, respectively, as set out in the document circulated to honourable senators.

3 ) That leave be given to senators to move motions expressing opinions or making recommendations based on the reports of the Estimates committees; that such motions be moved when the appropriate vote is under consideration; that where more than one motion is proposed in relation to a particular vote the motions may be debated together, but in all cases a motion or motions shall be disposed of before the question is put on the vote before the Chair; and that any resolutions bc reported when the Chairman makes his report to the President at the conclusion of proceedings in Committee of the Whole.

page 2285

GROUP A

Department of Education

Proposed expenditure, $9,202,000.

Department of the Parliament

Proposed expenditure, $808,000.

Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet

Proposed expenditure, $ 1 ,449,000.

Department of the Treasury

Proposed expenditure, $8,279,000.

Department of Foreign Affairs

Proposed expenditure, $ 10,763,000.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– Some days ago I received an answer from Senator Carrick in his capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) which in general terms responded to my inquiry about the staffing of capital city passport offices. I remember that the Minister explained that the offices had experienced an increase in the number of air travellers seeking passports. However, the Minister gave an oral response. Whilst it indicated that he knew the magnitude of the problem it stopped short of saying what was the anticipated specific staff increase in major capital cities like Sydney and Melbourne. I do not know whether I can obtain in this forum an addendum to his answer which I received in the Senate the other day.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– I have no information at the moment. However, I have requested the information that Senator Mulvihill asked for at the Estimates committee meeting. I will see that that reply is facilitated.

Proposed expenditures agreed to.

page 2285

GROUP B

Attorney-General’s Department

Proposed expenditure. $8,2 19,000.

Department of Trade and Resources

Proposed expenditure. $ 1 ,505,000.

Department of Industrial Relations

Proposed expenditure, $ 1 ,768,000.

Department of Employment and Youth Affairs

Proposed expenditure, $6,853,000.

Department of the Special Trade Representative

Proposed expenditure, $32,000.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I want to relate my remarks on the Department of Industrial Relations to the 1977-78 annual report of the Industrial Relations Bureau. In particular I want to deal with page 5 of the report, which refers to the observance of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act and regulations. I specifically refer to section 132A of the Act which is concerned with offences in relation to independent contractors. I think I am possibly anticipating the remarks that will be made later in the debate by my colleague Senator Bishop. We realise that the building industry has always been a turbulent industry. I want to draw attention to a situation that exists in Sydney and, I think, Melbourne in which there are kerbside pick-ups of people who are not members of the Builders Labourers Federation to undertake general construction work. I know that the BLF has complained about this situation. It is common knowledge that phony agents pick up people in the inner suburbs of Sydney at 7.30 in the morning and take them to jobs which are non-building trade union jobs.

When this legislation was passed and Mr Linehan and his industrial troubleshooters were appointed we thought that, quite apart from the capacity of trade unions to defend their rights, some of the functions of the Bureau would be to weed out these sorts of people. Honourable senators will recall that when I raised the case of Mr Arroyo, a Chilean whom I suppose I would have to call’ an illegal immigrant’, we discovered that the travel agent involved in this case was also running one of these independent construction companies on the side. The travel agent took advantage of the fact that people from Latin America had been here for only a little while and were ignorant of the general pick-ups situation, awards and the general situation that applied. It was impossible for the union to organise these people because of language barriers. I am using this case only as an illustration. But I wonder whether the Industrial Relations Bureau has had any talks with the affected union, namely the Builders Labourers Federation, about this sort of cancer in the building industry.

I notice that the report also refers to trade union irregularities and things like that. I do not know whether the Government has imposed a D-notice on the inner details of all these things. I believe that we ought to be provided with a list of details in respect of some of the matters set out at page five of the report under the heading ‘Observance of Conciliation and Arbitration Act and Regulations’. Perhaps I would call such a list a glossary of goodies and baddies. I want to know what union was complained about and, conversely, what employers were warned. I think we are entitled to know these facts.

There is no question that the Industrial Relations Bureau is a pretty costly edifice. There is no question about that. I do not mind if the Bureau is able to eradicate some of the problems. Without trying to score any political party points, I believe that in time of economic hardship and stress the worst comes out in people. In some instances there is avoidance in respect of wage claims. This problem is compounded a little further. I do not think I am breaking any confidences with officers of the Department of Employment and Youth Affairs when I say that there has been a genuine misunderstanding between employer and employee in respect of the holiday claims of the employee and so on. I am thinking particularly of the dry cleaning industry, in which one firm buys out another. This situation leads to redundancies. My information is that many dry cleaning firms in Sydney have a staff of two or three employees and that there is very little union organisation in the industry. The stock answer one receives is this: ‘It will be at least five weeks before we can get a chance to investigate the complaint’.

I think the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) has the gist of my complaints. I want more detailed answers than what is set out at page five of the report. I earlier used the term ‘a glossary’. I think that in addition we should be able to find out a number of arbitration inspectors in the field and the back-up clerical staff to see whether it is true that people have to wait five weeks before their claims can receive attention. As a matter of fact, I was involved in a claim this morning. I was able to talk to both sides and, in fairness to all concerned, I think that the employer was a little tangled up between Federal and State awards.

I am not a sort of industrial Solomon passing judgment on the employers, but I believe that sometimes the quicker we can get action the quicker we can smooth out the difficulties. If people have to wait for five or six weeks they get embittered and feel that perhaps there should be even a surcharge on top of the award. That is an extreme view, but I am sure that the Minister will appreciate the complexities of the industrial field. I know that, when this legislation was born, we thought that it was going to do many of these things. I would like to have more information about how this organisation is operating than is contained in the report.

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

-In the course of the examination of the estimates for the Attorney-General’s Department in Estimates Committee B, a question arose with respect to the staffing of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal which has not yet been satisfactorily answered. There has been very great concern that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, although a wholly admirable concept representing a very major and significant reform in our system of administrative law and practice, was proving to be something of a damp squib because of the unwillingness or the inability of the Government to vest significant jurisdiction in it. When the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) was pressed to explain what was proposed with respect to the resources of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, he made the point that there was a demand for jurisdiction in that the Tribunal that was running ahead of resources. His statement to that effect and the subsequent discussion of this point appears in the Hansard report of Estimates Committee B of 7 May this year at pages 282 to 283.

The question of what precisely was the demand on the jurisdiction of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal was then pressed in the Committee and the Attorney-General was asked to provide a detailed list of the number of heads of proposed jurisdiction for the Administrative Appeals Tribunal which were in fact in the pipeline and which were being held up or not rapidly implemented because of the present resource problem which limited the ability of the Tribunal to handle these heads of jurisdiction. On at least four occasions the specific request was made to the Attorney-General, which eventually he conceded reluctantly was a request that it was possible to meet to give some detailed indication of what the jurisdiction outstanding, as it were, might be not only with respect to his own Department but also with respect to all the other departments in the Administration where this question had arisen.

The Committee has been treated with admirable courtesy as far as its other requests for additional information have been concerned, but regrettably it appears that this matter either was perceived to be too sensitive or perhaps was arguably in the too-hard basket. I am not sure which is the more realistic interpretation, but no answer has been received. I would very much appreciate, in the course of this Committee debate, an undertaking from the Attorney-General that the information that was properly sought in the Committee can be supplied.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– I have noted the remarks of Senator Mulvihill with regard to the Industrial Relations Bureau. I agree with his remarks about the complexities of industrial relations. He has asked for some specific information, particularly with regard to arbitration inspectors and other matters. I will see that that information is requested from the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Street) and provided to Senator Mulvihill as soon as possible.

With regard to Senator Evans’s request concerning the Administrative Appeals Tribunal staffing, I am able to advise only that there is no further information that can be given to him about the matter that he has raised. I will refer that matter to the Attorney-General. If further advice becomes available, I will see that Senator Evans is advised accordingly.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– I want to add some comments to what Senator Mulvihill said with respect to the extent to which the new Industrial Relations Bureau is doing what we used to argue it should do, that is, to ensure the observance of awards. The Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) will know that the new Bureau has been armed generally with punitive powers to which the Opposition objected. During the time that the matter was debated we argued that, over the years, the evidence showed that there were more actions against unions than there were against employers for breaches of awards. I do not think that that general claim has been answered yet. I ask the Minister whether at this stage or at a later date she can provide information about cases in which the Bureau has acted in the conventional way in which it was first charged to act, that is, for the Arbitration Inspectorate to make sure that arbitration awards are observed. 1 refer to page 5 of the first annual report of the Industrial Relations Bureau which, in paragraph 3.3, refers to complaints in relation to action by employers to the disadvantage of employers and to section 1 32A- offences in relation to independent contractors- which are related, I think, to breaches of award conditions or organisational breaches. Many of the paragraphs refer to action that was taken to recover payments under awards. The Minister will remember Senator Mulvihills long standing battle for people working at airports who were not paid and for whom it took 12 months or so to secure payment. I wonder whether any general statement can be made about the success of the Bureau in making sure that awards of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission have been secured by the Arbitration Inspectorate. Is it a fact that the Arbitration Inspectorate is putting more time into taking punitive action against organisations than it used to put in with regard to breaches of awards?

The second matter I raise concerns training skills. At Question Time this week, I mentioned that the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar) had said last week in a speech in Sydney that the availability of key occupational skills continues to be an important issue even in the current economic situation. He said that these cannot be made good from our own resources, at least in the short term, despite training and retraining programs in Australia. He pointed out the need to import skills into Australia. I think that the Minister will recall that in the Senate there have been numerous questions asked by honourable senators on both sides of the chamber, including me, about the need to change staff ceilings to make sure that there is the easiest recruitment of apprentices and skills in departments and particularly in statutory organisations. I pointed out previously that in the Postal Commission and the Telecommunications Commission there are opportunities to train people and to take on skilled people, but that because of the Government’s policy on staff ceilings it was not possible for them to recruit staff. As we know, employer organisations and unions have said that in Australia we are short of 2,000 skilled employees. If that is so, it is clear that many skilled people today can be upgraded. I ask again: How is it that we are still placing staff ceilings on departments and statutory authorities which could provide a pool of skilled people to meet this demand, as has been mentioned by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs?

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– Although we are considering the Supplementary Estimates, I want to refer to the cost of the Industrial Relations Bureau over the time it has been in existence. The amending Bill had the purpose of policing awards and industrial relations as they were seen by the Government. I ask whether we can justify the continuation of expenditure on the Bureau at a time when we are cutting down on expenditure in so many deserving cases. After, I believe, two years they took to court their first case. It was a prosecution against the Melbourne City Council and and the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union. Apparently it arose from the dismissal of an employee who either would not participate in a strike or who would not join a union. I am trusting to memory and do not recall the full particulars of the case. However, the case against the Council was not successful. As I recall, the defence offered was that the dismissal occurred not because the individual would not do what the union requested but because other unions would not work with him and the duties of the Council could not be carried out. It was agreed that the dismissal had occurred because other considerations had made it essential.

The court referred to the particular wording of the section and said that the employer’s responsibility was not related only to the union activity of the person concerned or the lack of it; that other factors came into play and therefore it was obliged to dismiss the action against the employer. I believe that, because the union had challenged in another court the validity of the section in question, action against it was not pending.

As has been pointed out, because of the wording of the relevant clause, the employer could not be found guilty. That brings up the question whether any employer can ever be found guilty of a breach under this award. If the Government had wanted the provision to apply to employers one would think it would propose an amendment that would change the wording that the court felt made it inoperable in that respect- a situation which could include most employers.

Alternatively, since the legislation was drafted on the very competent legal advice of the Attorney-General’s Department, I wonder whether from the start the Government pretended that this was an organisation to police awards in respect of both employers and employees, knowing that it could never operate effectively against employers. Indeed, the Senate and the Parliament may have agreed to the legislation thinking that it had equality of application and might not have done so if it had been known that policing would apply to the trade union movement only. Certainly, the wording in question makes it difficult ever to convict an employer.

I ask the Minister to justify an additional expenditure of some $ 1 .3m upon an organisation so that it may continue to operate in a way that was never intended by Parliament. I question whether we should continue the work of this Bureau until that position has been clarified and the amending legislation has the effect that this Parliament intended.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

-We have had since this afternoon to examine the report of the Commonwealth Arbitration Inspectorate for the period 1 July 1977 to 28 February 1978. February 1 978 was only 1 5 months ago and one could almost comment that since the inspectorate has been able to submit something within that time its performance has improved. Perhaps the inspectorate misjudged, because there is a whole history in relation to what was the inspectorate and now is apparently, from the staff point of view, substantially the Bureau, which has been a matter of concern to successive Estimates committees for quite some period. A tremendous amount of work must have been put into preparing this report, which is fully four pages long. It does include also a quite large number of statistics, indeed some 27 pages thereof well spaced- not all by any means completely filled.

The situation is not novel. The Estimates committees of the Senate are treated by the inspectorate and its successors in a way which perhaps leaves something to be desired. I would like to quote from the report of Estimates Committee F, which dealt with this matter in 1977. At page 100 of Parliamentary Paper 221-1977, which represents the combined reports of all the Senate Estimates committees, Estimates Committee F said:

It considers, however, that delays in the presentation of many reports to the Parliament are inexcusable. A specific example, which first came to the attention of the Committee during its consideration of the 1975-76 Estimates, was the Report of the Commonwealth Arbitration Inspectorate. The Department of Employment and Industrial Relations advised the Committee on 14 October 1976 that the report was nearing finalisation, and subsequently advised by letter that: ‘It is anticipated the 1 975-76 report will be presented to the Minister early in November and depending on the printer published copies are expected to be available early in December’. The letter continued: ‘As regards future reports the objective will be to seek to have the reports presented to the Minister before the Budget sittings in the year in which the report falls due’. The 1975-76 report, dated 20 December 1976, was not tabled in the Senate until 24 May 1 977. The 1 976-77 report has not yet been tabled.

The report from which I quote was submitted in October 1 977. The report reads further:

The Committee expected that a further explanation of the delay in production of the 1976-77 report might be forthcoming from the Department when answers to other questions raised in the course of the Committee’s hearings were provided. However, the material which reached the committee on 10 October 1977 did not include any further comment on the matter. In view of the Committee’s obvious interest in the presentation of the report to Parliament, the Department’s omission seems curious. The Committee suggests that the Senate give consideration to deferring passage of the Vote of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations until details of progress on the 1 976-77 report are provided to the Senate.

Every honourable senator will know that no Estimates committee reports in those terms unless it feels some degree of exasperation. It is hardly something that would be ignored. That was two years ago. If I may quote a little further- because I think it is of interest to the Senate in considering this whole matter- at pages 443 and 444 of the Hansard report of the proceedings of Estimate Committee F on 13 September 1977 there is reference to a question amicably and pleasantly asked by my colleague Senator Mulvihill, who over the years has taken an interest in the matter and I think has been particularly patient on this question. He asked:

In view of the last exchange where Senator Bishop said the Department was pushing forward, how can you explain that this year and last year we have not got the Commonwealth Arbitration Inspectorate Annual Report in front of us?

On behalf of the Department, Mr Tregillis stated:

I am not sure at what stage the Report was in the course of preparation and when it would have been completed. I am not sure to what stage it is in the printing process at the moment. There is always a delay between when the Report is completed and when the final print is available and ready for tabling in Parliament. I can find out and then provide an answer, but I am not sure what stage the Report is at now.

I feel somewhat sorry for Mr Tregillis because I think that others perhaps let him down. I now quote from the information provided by Mr Tregillis to the Committee, dated 18 October 1977. He stated:

The Department recognises the importance of having the Reports available for examination by the Senate Estimates Committee when the Committee is considering Departmental Estimates and this is the basis for adopting the objective that Reports should be available in time for them to be tabled by the Minister during the Budget Session of Parliament.

Unfortunately, it has not been possible to achieve the objective this year.

I pause to say, nor in any other year, it appears. The Commonwealth Arbitration Inspectorate report for a period of eight months- 1 July 1977 to 28 February 1978- has been presented to the Senate at the end of May 1979. It is very hard to think of a reason why that should be so, and why it should be done without explanation or apology. I wish to quote from the report which was tabled today. This carries the explanation as to what has happened a little further. Somebody might say: ‘Well, the Inspectorate has gone out of existence and therefore it might have been hard to find somebody who could produce the report for it ‘. The report states:

The functions of the Arbitration Inspectorate were assumed by the Industrial Relations Bureau on I March 1978 with the proclamation of those sections of the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Act 1977 . . . which repealed section 125 of the Principal Act and inserted new sections concerning the functions and powers of the Bureau. The report therefore covers the period of operation by the Inspectorate from 1 July 1977 to 28 February 1978.

It is quite obvious that there has been a continuity of the practice of people regarding with contempt the responsibility to report to the Parliament and to the people. I believe that the Senate should not permit that sort of practice to continue without taking note of it and without taking some action. It is the first time that I have taken the matter as far as this but in the past we have gently raised it through the Senate Estimates committees. I now say that I will not vote for the passage of the provision of funds for this area of activity unless a little more attention is given to obligations in relation to reporting.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– Australia now has a fairly large intake into the Public Service of boys and girls of postwar migrant parentage. Do we encourage some of our arbitration inspectors of the future to be bilingual? Is there any incentive for anybody who is bilingual to apply. I am a little unsure whether the next matter I wish to raise involves the estimates under discussion. The Committee under the chairmanship of Senator Rae raised the question of when we would have all our awards printed up to date and a digest prepared in various languages. The last response I received was that the first target had to be met. Perhaps a response can be obtained in regard to the second objective. (Quorum formed)

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– Several honourable senators have raised matters under these estimates. Senator Bishop referred to page 5 of the first annual report of the Industrial Relations Bureau. He required information with regard to observance of awards and cases in which the Industrial Relations Bureau has acted. I am advised that that information is not here. There is no information that is additional to the annual report with us at present. Senator Bishop’s requests have been noted and that information will be obtained and provided to him without delay. Senator Bishop also raised the matter of training skills. I think it is acknowledged by us all that there are shortages in certain categories of worker. What the honourable senator referred to is an important matter. It is only partially the responsibility of the Industrial Relations Bureau. The Department of Employment and Youth Affairs is involved in training programs and I will draw to the attention of the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner) Senator Bishop’s remarks with regard to training skills and our requirements in that area. Senator Mulvihill made a request relating to the recruitment of migrants for inspectors. I will need to seek information on whether there is any attraction for bilingual inspectors.

Senator Mulvihill:

– They would be Australian citizens.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I understand that. I know that in my own department there are incentives for people with bilingual skills to use those skills. I will check to see whether that applies with regard to inspectors. Senator Cavanagh raised the matter of a judgment and wording of the section referred to by a judge.

He questioned the justification for the conduct of the Industrial Relations Bureau while we were seeking clarification of the wording and the implications of it. I am able to say only that we are looking at the legislation with regard to the future implications of it and we are certainly examining the j judgment with regard to what was noted at that time. I also refer to the fact that a union case is before the High Court at present. Naturally, we await the outcome of that case. Senator Cavanagh referred to an important judgment which is certainly under the closest examination by the Industrial Relations Bureau.

Senator Rae expressed his concern about the lateness of the report. The exasperation of Senator Rae and other honourable senators with regard to the lateness of reports presented to Parliament by departments and instrumentalities is acknowledged. I have noted in particular the delay that has occurred in the presentation of the Commonwealth Arbitration Inspectorate report. I can only say that in this instance there have been unusual difficulties because of the setting up of the new Industrial Relations Bureau and the records of the inspectorate being required in the setting up of that new body.

We have the assurance of the Industrial Relations Bureau that there will be no such delay in the presentation of this year’s report and I will draw the attention of the Minister to Senator Rae’s comments with regard to this matter. I can understand that by this stage all departments and instrumentalities should be well aware of the Senate’s insistence on adequate reporting in time for matters to be considered in a contemporary context. I believe that on this occasion Senator Rae’s comments do justice to the responsibilities of the Senate and that they will certainly be noted by the Industrial Relations Bureau.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I realise the difficulties that the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) is facing from what she has said. I also recognise the importance of the judgment that has been given concerning the prosecution of the Industrial Relations Bureau. I do not deny the statement that has been made that it would seem doubtful whether a prosecution against an employer could succeed. The Government is now looking at this matter to see whether it can appeal against that decision or whether there should be some amendment to the relevant Act. There is a delay whilst the Government is making up its mind what to do to rectify the position, if it believes that it needs rectifying. We cannot deny the possibility that the Bureau will be unable to prosecute an employer for the dismissal of employees, which action may have been brought about by union action. The union perhaps could be prosecuted more successfully. As this legislation is now one-sided and is contrary to what the Parliament intended when it was passed, could the Minister give some assurance that no other prosecutions will be laid by the Bureau against employers and employees until such time as the Government has made up its mind on the issue and tries to rectify the position?

The other point to which 1 wish to refer was raised by Senator Rae. I think that it is very important. It concerns the delay in the presentation of reports. Some definite promises were given after criticisms were made in this regard. My understanding of the remarks that the honourable senator made is that the promise was given that annual reports for the year ending 30 June would be available each year before the Budget session- that is, before August. Today we find that this is not so. We have received the Budget for the past year only today. This was sufficient to increase Senator Rae ‘s irritation in regard to this matter for him to acknowledge that something has to be done. As he has raised this point, he deserves this Parliament’s support in trying to obtain current reports from departments. When a report contains only four pages one would think that it could be compiled in two or three months. Senator Rae has suggested that he will not vote for a particular appropriation until such time as an undertaking is given by the Department concerned to supply honourable senators with prompt reports. I am inclined to think that the Senate will agree with him. Having taken the initiative and highlighted the matter, we are now looking to him for a lead. I did not interpret what he said to mean that he would vote against this particular appropriation, whether he would delay it, or whether he would–

Senator Sim:

– He said he would on the next occasion.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-! take it that he is referring to the August Budget. This is a warning to the Minister. It is not sufficient for her to obtain advice from her advisers and to say: ‘I will report’. She has the men assisting her who are in a position to say: ‘We will insist upon it’. That should be the advice given to the Minister by her advisers. We look for some redress of the position and some firmer assurances other than the Minister just saying: ‘I will take up the matter with the Minister concerned ‘.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I rise to speak on the Estimates in group B. I wish to make some reference in the first instance to the report of the Committee in respect of the Attorney-General’s Department. Having been a member of the Estimates Committee which dealt with the estimates for the Department of Administrative Services, it concerns me to see the report that has been tendered by our colleagues on Senate Estimates Committee B concerning the costs of car hire in relation to the Attorney-General’s Department and the Department of Industrial Relations. The questions asked by my colleagues Senator Mulvihill and Senator Jessop were very much to the point. They asked about the estimates for the Department of Administrative Services and the costs of car hire generally from the Commonwealth car pool. I congratulate Senators Rae, Messner, Young, Button, Evans and Tate for what I regard to be an excellent report given by Senate Estimates Committee B. Having made that remark, I draw to the attention of the Committee of the Whole the comments to be found on page 2 relating to car hire where they said:

Two separate questions relating to the provision of cars were raised during the Committee’s hearing.

The first concerned the cost of the apparently unlimited availability of cars to the judiciary, and to presidential members of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The Attorney-General advised that the matter was currently under consideration by the Minister for Administrative Services.

The second related to the running costs of cars used by Departmental Officers.

I am interested to note the Committee’s finding in this respect. It found a quite startling discrepancy between hire costs of self-drive cars provided by the Department of Administrative Services on the one hand, and on the other hand, commercial hire rates and car-with-driver rates. The evidence indicated that self-drive cars are hired out to departments at $33 a week. I emphasise the amount of $33 a week. The charge for a car-with-driver is in. excess of $120 a day. I find that to be a startling and alarming discrepancy. A self-drive car is hired out to a department at a charge of $33 a week and the charge for a car with driver is in excess of $ 120 per day. No one can tell me that the wage and salary of a car driver is anywhere near that amount. Car drivers would regard themselves as being in the upper class brackets if they were being paid $ 100 a day to drive cars. That is what this amounts to on these figures.

Senator Mulvihill:

– They would be aristocrats of labour

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Yes. I am absolutely amazed that such a discrepancy appears to exist in the evidence which has been given to Senate Estimates Committee B. I sat in on the hearing of Senate Estimates Committee E. My colleague, Senator Mulvihill, and Senator Jessop from the Government side asked questions on this matter. Those questions are recorded in the additional answers given to Senate Estimates Committee E on pages 1 9, 20, 21 and 22 of the additional estimates for the Committee. I seek leave to have those answers incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The documents read as follows-

SENATE ESTIMATES COMMITTEE E

Consideration of Additional Estimates 1978-79 Department of Administrative Services.

Reference: Senate Hansard, 3 May 1979- Page 76.

Consideration of Division 1 30- AdministrativeDepartment of Administrative Services.

Senator Mulvihill:

asked to be provided with a schedule showing the percentage of Commonwealth cars used in Sydney over a set time as against private cars.

Answer.

For the year ended 30 June 1978, based on revenue the percentage of work done by Commonwealth cars with driver in Sydney was 71.3 per cent and for taxis and hire cars 28.7 percent.

SENATE ESTIMATES COMMITTEE E

Consideration of Additional Estimates 1978-79 Department of Administrative Services.

Reference: Senate Hansard, 3 May 1979-Page 76.

Consideration of Division 130- AdministrativeDepartment of Administrative Services.

Senator Jessop:

asked the following:

  1. The current hourly costs to the Department of taxis, hire cars and Commonwealth cars:
  2. What costs for cars the Department was involved in during the recent transport strike.

Answer.

  1. There is a wide range of charges for taxis and hire cars and there is considerable variation from State to State. Rates for taxis are governed by the relevant State or Territorial Transport Regulation Board. For example, in the Senator’s home state, South Australia, the contract rates are:

Taxis.

  1. For journeys within the metropolitan area and for journeys which begin and end in the metropolitan area but do not proceed outside the metropolitan area of Adelaide-

    1. 1 ) Flagfall (including first 145 metres): $0.55.
    2. Rate per completed 145 metres; $0.05.
    3. 3 ) Waiting Time: $7.20 p/h.
    4. Booking Fee: $0.20.
  2. For a journey which begins in the metropolitan area but ends outside the metropolitan area of Adelaide-

    1. 1 ) Flagfall: Nil.
    2. Rate per completed kilometre; $0.23 each way.
    3. Waiting Time; $7.20 p/h.
    4. Booking Fee; $0.20.
  3. For a journey which begins and ends outside the metropolitan area, Adelaide but does not enter the metropolitan area-

    1. Flagfall; Nil.
    2. Rate per completed kilometre: $0.23 each way.
    3. Waiting time; $7.20 p/h.
    4. Booking Fee; $0.20.
  4. For a journey which begins outside the metropolitan area and enters the metropolitan area of Adelaide-

    1. Flagfall; Nil.
    2. Rate per completed kilometre; $0.23 each way.
    3. Waiting Time; $7.20 p/h.
    4. Booking Fee: $0.20.
  5. Additional Administration Charge-

A service charge of 10 per cent of the total invoice to be payable but such charge shall reduce to 8 per cent provided that payment is made within 30 days or TA per cent within 14 days of performance of service and rendering of account.

  1. After hours surcharge- to be added to the metered fare on all hirings from 8.00 p.m. to 6.00 a.m., Monday to Friday, 8.00 p.m. Saturday to 6.00 a.m. Monday, and all Public Holidays- $0.20 per hiring.

Hire Cars $ 1 3.00 per hour, minimum charge of 1 ‘/i hours OR a kilometre charge of 48 cents per kilometre whichever is the greater. Hirings will commence at the time nominated by Department of Administrative Services. Hirings of greater than Vh hours will be charged at the rate of $3.25 per each additional 15 minutes.

Contract rates for other States and the ACT can be provided if required.

In the States, the Central Transport Authority charges $16.80 per hour where a Commonwealth car is specifically requested. The charge is $13.80 per hour where allocation can be made on the basis of availability- Commonwealth car, hire car or taxi. In the ACT, the corresponding charges are $17.70 and $14.40 respectively. Within the metropolitan areas as defined the charge is on a pick up to drop basis whereas outside the metropolitan areas the charge is depot to depot.

  1. There were stoppages on a number of days over the period 16 March to 4 April 1979 and these varied from State to State and the ACT. In capital cities, most departments arranged transport through this Department; in the ACT, all Departments booked direct with the taxi company. The costs incurred on strike days were not separated from the normal charging procedure.
Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The answer that has been given to Senate Estimates Committee B does not square with the answer given to my colleague, Senator Mulvihill, on Estimates Committee E. The answer which was given to him in respect of comparability of charges was that for the year ended 30 June 1978, based on revenue, the percentage of work carried out by Commonwealth cars with drivers in Sydney was 71.3 per cent and for taxis and hire cars 28.7 per cent. I am pleased to note that Senate Estimates Committee B recommends that all of the matters that have been referred to in regard to the costs of self-drive cars on the one hand, and cars with drivers on the other hand, should be pursued by the Estimates Committee to which the estimates for the Department of Administrative Services will be referred during the Budget sitting. I particularly make these remarks for the benefit of my colleague, Senator Mulvihill, who has shown considerable interest in this matter for some time. The situation is alarming, to say the least. The evidence indicated that self-drive cars are hired out to departments at $33 a week, whereas the charge for a car with driver is in excess of $120 a day. That is a staggering, alarming and astronomical difference. I draw it to the attention of the Committee of the Whole.

The other matter that I wish to raise in regard to the report of Estimates Committee B is a run-off, as it were, of the comments made by Senator Rae concerning the failure of certain Government instrumentalities and authorities to report to the Parliament with expedition the results of their activities over the previous 12 months. All departments and Commonwealth instrumentalities have a great responsibility to the Parliament and the Australian people for the principle of public accountability. The Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations, of which Senator Rae is Chairman, tendered a report to the Parliament in December of last year setting out the growth of the mulitiplicity of statutory bodies and the number of departments and pointing to the tendency that has developed in recent years for statutory authorities in particular, and to a lesser extent departments, to submit their annual reports to the Parliament at a comparatively late stage. After all, it is not the Executive Government that provides the wherewithal, the funds, to finance their operation; it is the Parliament and the Parliament is entitled to have consideration.

I am concerned when I read on page 5 of the Estimates Committee’s report relating to the Department of Trade and Resources some comments about the confidentiality of information being sought by the Senate Estimates Committee concerning the Australian Uranium Export Office. It can be seen on page 5 of the report that six questions relating to export controls and contracts were given in writing to the Department on the ground that a suitable officer was not present at the Committee’s hearings to answer the proposed questions orally. Mr Chairman, if I may say so, I think that is an affront to the Parliament of Australia. For eight, nine or ten years now Senate Estimates committees have been operating for the purpose of eliciting from Ministers and, through Ministers, from senior public servants details of expenditure that are incurred by departments for and on behalf of the Australian people. Time after time, not only when we have been in opposition but also when members of the present Government have been in opposition complaints have been made by members on both sides of the Senate that there has been a failure on the part of departments to acknowledge that they have a responsibility to answer to the Australian Parliament.

It concerns me that six questions relating to export controls and contracts, which are of great importance to the Australian Parliament and to the Australian people, had to be given in writing to the Department of Trade and Resources on the grounds that a suitable officer was not present at the Committee’s hearings to answer the proposed questions orally. The Committee eventually recommended that this latest example of the need for in camera evidence be drawn to the attention of the Standing Orders Committee. I mention these matters to indicate not only to my colleagues in the Committee of the Whole, but also to the Ministers who are responsible for the presentation of Estimates to the Senate and to the permanent heads and officers of departments that the situation that has been reported by Senate Estimates Committee B in relation to the Department of Trade and Resources is far from satisfactory. Members of the Opposition will be looking at this matter very closely when the Budget Estimates are presented. I mention these matters at this stage because I believe they are of great importance to the Committee of the Whole and to the Australian people.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– Further matters have been raised in regard to Estimates Committee B.

The first was a further reference by Senator Cavanagh to the judgment in the Kane case. The proposition put by Senator Cavanagh was that no further prosecutions should be made until we have studied the implications of the judgment and taken whatever further action may be decided to be taken in this matter. I have to say that the Industrial Relations Bureau is independent from Government and it would not be within any Minister’s capacity to guarantee that no further prosecutions would take place until further investigations or considerations had been undertaken.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Could you not give the Bureau a strong hint?

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– The judgment referred to one section of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. As Senator Cavanagh would understand, the judgment was an important one. It is one on which the Government will reflect upon and whose implications will be considered by the Government. The Bureau is an independent body that deals with prosecutions in a variety of matters. This was one aspect referred to in an important judgment that is being studied.

Senator Douglas McClelland referred to the report of the Attorney-General’s Department and the charges on Commonwealth cars. I note that he has now had additional answers incorporated in Hansard, to complete the record of the charges for cars with drivers and without drivers. He also noted, as I note, that it is required by Estimates Committee B that this matter be discussed further in the Budget sittings. I think that at that time it would be appropriate that further information be provided with regard to costings which show a charge of $120 a day for a car with a driver in contrast to a charge of $33 a week for a car without a driver. I am sure that at the time of the Budget sittings information from the Department of Administrative Services could be provided to give some background to the charges that have been made.

Senator McClelland also referred to the failure of Government instrumentalities to report in due time. I think that fact was noted by me when Senator Rae brought this matter forward. I also noted Senator McClelland ‘s remarks with regard to the Department of Trade and Resources and the Committee’s thoughts on in camera evidence. I further noted that the Committee recommended that this latest example of the need for in camera evidence be drawn to the attention of the Standing Orders Committee. It is hoped that the report of that Committee will clarify to the satisfaction of the Senate the way in which departments and instrumentalities are required to report to the Parliament as Budget or supplementary Budget appropriations are being considered. I shall draw to the attention of the Ministers concerned, the remarks of all honourable senators on Estimates Committee B. I feel sure that where further information has been required it will be provided as soon as possible.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– I wish to raise a matter which Senator Douglas McClelland hinted at. It concerns the use by the judiciary of cars which apparently are provided with a driver. I would like an explanation. I am attracted to this item of expenditure by an article in the Age on 24 May 1 979. 1 am referring to the questions asked at the Estimates committee. The article in the Age stated that the subject of judges’ use of cars had become such a touchy one in Senator Durack ‘s Department that any request for information on judges’ expenses usually sends people hiding under the table’. If it has reached this situation then the matter is serious indeed. I know that the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) is representing the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) and perhaps cannot give me a direct answer, but perhaps her advisers can.

In asking this question I am supported by a complaint which I passed on in general terms to the Attorney-General. It concerns a judge of the Family Court of Australia in Brisbane. The judge not only had taken it upon himself to accept the car as one of the privileges of office but also had decided he should use the car in a general way and transport his son across town to school. Senator Durack has indicated that that practice has ceased. If judges consider these cars to be part of their entitlement, how have they reached this conclusion? Is it that when they are appointed to their position they are told that their remuneration will be a certain amount plus free use of a manned car? I imagine that the provision of a car for a judge of the High Court would be justifiable. Surely there must be a cut-off point where judges lower down the judicial scale are not entitled to a car and service of the nature revealed at the Estimates committee.

It should not be the responsibility of any senator, a complaint having been made, to raise the matter with the Attorney-General. It becomes a complaint that one could use politically if one desired. One could raise this matter on the floor of the Senate and name the judge concerned. Perhaps the judge had been misled in relation to his entitlements. Perhaps all judges have been misled. The article also stated that investigations were taking place. I think that Senator McClelland referred to this matter. Perhaps the Minister at the Estimates committee also referred to it. I wonder whether I could have a little more information about this matter because it can be an expensive outlay, especially when we consider the number of judges involved. The article stated that the practice became customary for all seven High Court judges soon after Federation. I do not question this practice forjudges at that level. But now it also applies to 42 Family Court judges, 30 Federal Court of Australia judges and the President and commissioners of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission.

I agree with Senator Tate’s view that travel between work and home in a judge’s own city- as distinct from when he is travelling away from home on duty- should be at the judge’s expense, just as it is to any worker. Can the minister give us some comfort and state that this practice will be brought under control? We know that these facilities are available for judges outside their own city. But if they are to persist with these practices in their own city they ought not to abuse them. The facilities should be used only in the direct movement from home to court and back again.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– I can make only a general comment in response to Senator Georges. I am aware that in recent weeks there has been some public comment with regard to the judges’ use of cars and their entitlements. I understand that on appointment the judges receive a letter advising them that they have access to a car with a driver. I am not aware of any other conditions with regard to their appointment. I will draw the attention of the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) to Senator Georges’ comments and see that he is provided with any further explanations that may be given.

Senator Georges:

– For what exactly is a judge entitled to the use of a car and driver?

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– That is the matter on which I said I am not able to give the details. I am advised that a judge has access to a car with a driver. I am not aware that there are any further details which amplify that statement in relation to what a judge is advised on his appointment. I will need to refer that matter to the Attorney-General.

Senator MacGIBBON:
Queensland

– I would like to ask a question in relation to this point because I think it needs clarification. Presumably the judges would be liable to pay income tax on a higher amount if this were given in lieu of salary.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– I feel that it may be helpful if I indicate- as one who was present during Committee B hearings- in response to what Senator Georges raised regarding judges’ use of cars that the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) indicated that this matter is being investigated by his Department and another department. While problems exist this matter is being considered. Steps are apparently being taken in relation to the matter. That was the evidence given by the Attorney during the hearings.

Proposed expenditures agreed to.

page 2295

GROUP C

Department of Social Security

Proposed expenditure, $2,687,000.

Department of Finance

Proposed expenditure, $ 1 , 3 1 5,000.

Department of Health

Proposed expenditure, $5,946,000.

Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs

Proposed expenditure, $3,420,000.

Department of Veterans’ Affairs

Proposed expenditure, $11 , 696,000.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I want to speak in relation to the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Senator Guilfoyle will be aware that I indulged in considerable dialogue with officers of this Department about the backlog of people- probably trade union activists- who find their citizenship applications in a sort of limbo. I referred in general terms to one or two cases. I would like to expedite a decision. I know that recent legislation on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and the tribunal for people who are denied citizenship because of security evaluation will not be finalised for some time. In order to facilitate the discussion tonight I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a letter relating to Mr Pires, a Portugese national who was active in the Builders Labourers Federation at one time. I think he is in the Miscellaneous Workers Union now.

Leave granted.

Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs

Commonwealth Government Centre Chifley Square Sydney, N.S.W.2000 19 April 1978

Dear Senator Mulvihill,

I am writing in reply to your representations concerning the application for Australian Citizenship lodged by Mr Viriato Pires of 1 1 Telopea Avenue, Flemington.

I’m sorry but we have no record of previous correspondence from your office, regarding this application, other than your enquiry dated 20 January 1978.

Mr Pires ‘s application has been referred to Canberra Office for their decision and a further memorandum was sent on 1 4 April 1978.

When the matter has been finalised,I shall write to you again.

Yours sincerely,

  1. W. AUSTEN

Regional Director

Senator J. A. Mulvihill, Commonwealth Parliament Offices, Commonwealth Government Centre, Chifley Square, SYDNEY, N.S.W. 2000

Senator MULVIHILL:

– The second matter I refer to is a deportation case. This was heard before Mr Justice Davies earlier this year. Immigration officers gave me a summary. I will not mention the name of the case- the crux of the matter was that the judge ordered deportation, but the man concerned was apprehensive of returning to his birthplace. I know that the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar) has been sitting on this case for quite a while. I believe that he has to bite the bullet. I think that the clues that I have been given will be sufficient to enable me to get an answer in relation to that question.

The final matter with which I wish to deal tonight relates to the definition of political refugees. While I do not quarrel with the definition, the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) will recall that senior officers from the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs reiterated that a person subject to political duress has to surface in a third country. While that may be easy for some people in parts of Asia who can often get a boat, there are people in Latin America where this is not so easy.

The case with which I want to deal is what I might call a secondary political refugee. To facilitate consideration of this matter, I mention three documents concerning a Chilean national, a Miss Helia Allebi. The first document is a letter from the Joint Working Group for Refugees from Latin America in Britain. This letter was directed to the Chief Migration Officer well over 12 months ago, and asked that this woman be allowed what I might call a secondary transfer from Britain to Australia, where she has relatives. The second letter is from the British Home Office which explains how this lady had been originally accepted. The third letter, not so hopeful, is from the Australian High Commissioner. If these three documents can be incorporated in Hansard, perhaps consideration can be given to the redefinition of ‘eligibility’.

While I am dealing with the subject of Latin Americans, the Minister would be aware that there have been similar cases with Vietnamese immigrants. Some have gone to the United States of America, some to France, and some have come to Australia. Then we have the secondary requests as to whether A may join C, or whether B may join A. I am not sure what our current policy is. If these three documents are incorporated in Hansard, this might then lead to a consolidated reply. I seek leave for that to be done.

Leave granted.

The documents read as follows-

JOINT WORKING GROUP FOR REFUGEES FROM LATIN AMERICA Formerly Joint Working Group for Refugees from Chile in

Britain 2 1 Star Street, London W2 IQB. Tel: 0 1 -262 4926/262 5274 5 January 1978

Chief Migration Officer, Canberra House, 10-16 Maltravers Street, London WC2R 3ER

Dear Sir/Madam

Re: Miss Helia Allebi

I am writing to support the enclosed application for entry to Australia for Miss Nelia Allebi

Miss Allebi arrived in the United Kingdom in January 1975 with her son and daughter having fled from the aftermath of the 1973 Chilean coup d’etat to Lima, Peru, where she and her family received protection from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. She and her family on arrival in the UK were received and resettled by the Joint Working Group for Refugees from Latin America.

In the past 5’A years Miss Allebi has suffered great disruptions and personal tragedy in her life. The coup in Chile forced her to abandon her family, friends and job; many friends were killed in the aftermath of the coup or simply disappeared ‘. More recently a very close friend who was living with her was electrocuted and died in her house. She is now living alone- her children have grown up and have gone their own ways since coming to the UK. Her daughter is married and her son is a seaman.

Miss Allebi s family are resident in Australia- her widowed mother, two brothers and sister. She desperately wants to be reunited with them and they have written to her ( copy of letter enclosed ) promising to accommodate her and lind her employment in Australia.

While bearing in mind that Miss Allebi ‘s case would probably not come under the categories currently eligible for permanent entry to Australia I trust that you can regard her case with humanitarian sympathy to enable her to re-unite with her family in Australia.

Yours sincerely, (Signed) GORDON HUTCHISON Coordinator, Joint Working Group

HOME OFFICE Lunar House, Wellesley Road, Croydon CR9 2BY 7 March 1979

Mrs Helia De Lourdes Allebi

Dear Mrs Allebi,

I am writing to say that there are no longer any restrictions on the period for which you may remain in the United Kingdom. An appropriate endorsement has been placed in your PRC which is enclosed.

You are now free to remain permanently in the United Kingdom. You do not require permission from a Government Department to take or change employment in England, Wales or Scotland and you may engage in business or a profession provided you comply with any general regulations governing the business or professional activity.

In Northern Ireland however you would have to consult the Department of Manpower Services; if you are thinking of going to live or work in the Isle of Man or one of the Channel Islands, you should first consult the Island’s Immigration authorities.

If you leave the United Kingdom you will normally be readmitted at any time within two years of your departure. Should you obtain a new passport, the production to the Immigration Officer of the passport enclosed with this letter on your first return to the United Kingdom will indicate your settled status and facilitate your re-admission. Failing this, you will need to satisfy the Immigration Officer of your settled status and in this connection you may find it helpful to carry with you documents, such as bank statements, notices of income tax coding etc., relating to the earlier years of your residence in the United Kingdom.

Nationals of certain foreign countries must have a United Kingdom visa on every occasion on which they enter the United Kingdom. Application for a re-entry visa may be made to the nearest British Passport Office in the United Kingdom before travelling abroad or may be made to the nearest British Embassy or Consulate while you are abroad.

You are no longer required to report changes of address or other particulars to the police. Your police registration certificate, which is enclosed, has been endorsed to show that you are exempt from registration.

Yours sincerely, (Signed )N. de POULSE

MIGRATION BRANCH AUSTRALIAN HIGH COMMISSION Canberra House, 10-16 Maltravers Street, Strand, London WC2R 3ER 8 February 1979 Joint Working Group for Refugees from Latin America, 21 Star Street, London, W2 IQB

Dear Sir,

Re: Miss Helia Alleb

Thank you for your letter for the 5th January concerning the migration application lodged by the above.

Unfortunately, Miss Allebi is not eligible under any of our current categories and the only possibility, and I must emphasise that this is a possibility, would be if her relatives in New South Wales were to approach the Regional Director of Migration, Commonwealth Centre, Chifley Square, Sydney, New South Wales 2000. for possible special approval of a sponsorship. 1 am sorry I cannot be more encouraging.

Yours faithfully, (Signed) for DIRECTOR (Southern Region)

Consideration interrupted.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Scott:
NEW SOUTH WALES

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

That the Chairman do now leave the Chair and report to the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

The Chairman having reported accordingly-

page 2297

ADJOURNMENT

The PRESIDENT:
Senator the Hon. Sir Condor Laucke

– Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 10.32 p.m.

page 2298

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circul

Departmental Approaches by Lobbyists (Question No. 1222)

Senator Walsh:

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

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

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

Departmental staff receive many written and personal approaches from representatives of ethnic organisations, community agencies, business firms, on behalf of individual clients of the Department. A written record is made of such approaches and attached to the relevant file as preliminary to preparing a reply. There are no special arrangements to record approaches by professional agencies.

Social Security Prosecutions (Question No. 1299)

Senator Grimes:
NEW SOUTH WALES

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

  1. 1 ) How many persons receiving pensions or benefits under the Social Services Act 1947 were charged with conspiracy under the Crimes Act 1914 before 31 March 1978 for offences connected with their pensions or benefits.
  2. When were such persons charged, and what pensions or benefits had they been receiving.
  3. 3 ) Were any such prosecutions successful.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) to (3) Advice which I have received from the Department of Administrative Services, which has administrative responsibility for the functions of the Commonwealth Police, is in the following terms-

So far as available Commonwealth Police records are concerned, a search of those records does not indicate that any persons in receipt of social service pensions or benefits were charged with conspiracy under the Crimes Act 1914 prior to 3 1 March 1978. In that case parts (2) and (3) of Senator Grimes ‘question will not apply.’

I am also informed that my department is not aware of any such charges having been initiated by or on behalf of my department.

Greek Social Security Beneficiaries (Question No. 1305)

Senator Grimes:

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

  1. I ) How many invalid pensioners whose pensions were cancelled in Greece; (a) have returned to Australia to lodge an appeal: (b) have had their invalid pensions restored; (c) have been granted: (i) sickness benefit: (ii) special benefit; and (iii) unemployment benefit, pending investigation: and ( d ) have been refused pensions or benefits.

    1. For what reasons have pensions and benefits been refused in such cases.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) (a) My department has no knowledge of the purposes for which former pensioners returned to Australia from Greece after their pensions were cancelled.

As at 2 March 1979 the situation was as follows. 7 people whose invalid pensions had been cancelled following the reviews conducted in Greece between April and June 1978. returned to Australia and subsequently lodged appeals. 16 other people whose invalid pensions had been cancelled in Greece between April and June 1978, lodged appeals in Europe and later returned to Australia.

  1. (i)5:(ii) II; (iii) 3.
  2. I (for a short period this person was reinstated on invalid pension ).

    1. Where pensions or benefits claimed have been refused, this action has been taken because the claimants have not established that they satisfy the eligibility criteria which Parliament has prescribed in the provisions of the Social Services Act.

Minister for Social Security: Overseas Visits (Question No. 1345)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 28 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 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 answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

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

Financing of Wheat Board First Advance (Question No. 1372)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 28 February 1979:

Has: (a) the General Manager; (b) the Chairman; or(c) any member of the Australian Wheat Board protested to the Treasurer since I January 1979, seeking to change a plan by the Government, and/or the Treasury and/or the Reserve Bank, to finance part of the 1978-79 season first advance from sources other than the Reserve Bank Rural Credits Department; if so, when were any such protests made, and by whom.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

No such representations have been made to the Treasurer.

Financing of Wheat Board First Advance (Question No. 1376)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 28 February 1979:

  1. 1 ) Did the Treasurer earlier this year, either alone or in conjunction with other Ministers and after conferring with the Secretary of the Treasury and/or other senior Treasury officials and/or the Governor and/or other senior officials of the Reserve Bank, agree to prevent the Reserve Bank’s Rural Credits Department advancing sufficient funds to the Australian Wheat Board lo enable the Board to meet its obligation to pay the first advance on all 1978-79 season wheat received from wheatgrowers.
  2. Was it intended that the Wheat Board borrow the rest of the money required to meet its obligation to wheatgrowers from the trading banks.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

This Question and Question No. 1380 are part of a scries of questions directed to myself and other Ministers concerning Wheat Board financing arrangements for the 1978-79 crop, lt is noi appropriate for me to answer questions which directly relate to the banker/customer relationship that exists between, the Board and the Reserve Bank. The following will, however, serve to answer those points of the questions which concern the Government’s role with the financing of the crop.

Late last year the Government decided that the first advance payment to wheat growers for deliveries from the 1978-79 season ‘s harvest should be set at the level of $75 per tonne less freight. Appropriate arrangements were then made Ibr the Board to borrow sufficient funds from the Rural Credits Department of the Reserve Bank, to pay that level of advance and to meet the Board’s expenses on the then estimated deliveries of 13 million tonnes. Subsequently this estimate was increased to almost 18 million tonnes with the result that the funds initially made available by the Reserve B,mk were insufficient. The Reserve Bank however made available further funds to the Board on an interim basis while the question of appropriate ways of financing the additional requirements was under consideration by the

Government. The Wheat Board did not issue cheques involving first advance payments to growers from 13 January to 2 February 1979 while these interim arrangements were being put into place.

A combination of the traditional method of financing the crop, involving use of Reserve Bank credit, and the record crop would have had an unanticipated, once-off impact on the rate of growth of the money supply in 1978-79. In order to limit this impact the Government decided that part of the additional financing requirements of the Board in 1978-79 should be met by issues of commercial bills to the non-bank sector with the proceeds being repaid to the Reserve Bank. The first tranche of $ 1 55m has been borrowed in this way, and the second tranche of $300 m is being issued. This action will restrain the rate of growth in money supply. The additional cost associated with the commercial borrowing will be borne by the Government so that wheatgrowers will still receive the same cash payment.

Financing of Wheat Board First Advance (Question No. 1380)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 28 February 1979:

  1. 1 ) Were first advance payments to Australian wheatgrowers delayed earlier this year because the Reserve Bank’s Rural Credits Department refused to advance to the Australian Wheat Board sufficient funds to meet its obligation to pay the first advance on all 1978-79 season wheat received from growers.
  2. On whose authority or instructions did the Reserve Bank refuse further advances to the Wheat Board.
  3. Did the Reserve Bank later make available to the Australian Wheat Board sufficient funds to honour its obligation to pay the first advance on all wheat received from wheatgrowers.
  4. On whose authority or instructions did the Reserve Bank reverse its earlier policy.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

I refer the honourable senator to the answer I have provided to Question No. 1376 in today’s Hansard.

Greek Social Security Beneficiaries (Question No. 1397)

Senator Grimes:

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

How many invalid pensioners in Greece whose pensions were cancelled in April 1 978 and subsequently reviewed had their pension cancellation confirmed on: (a) income grounds; and ( b) medical grounds.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

Of the 105 invalid pensioners whose pensions were cancelled following the review conducted in Greece between April and June, 1978, all had their pensions cancelled on the prime test of medical eligibility, and it was therefore unnecessary to apply the income test.

Cyclone Warnings (Question No. 1487)

Senator Thomas:

asked the Minister for Science and the Environment, upon notice, on 28 March 1979:

  1. 1 ) How many cyclone warnings were given by the Perth Cyclone Warning Centre between 1 2 noon and 1 2 midnight on Tuesday, 13 March 1979, and when was each warning given.
  2. How many cyclone warnings were broadcast by the Australian Broadcasting Commission through regional stations covering the Geraldton/Northam area of Western Australia between 12 noon and 12 midnight on Tuesday, 13 March 1 979, and when was each warning given.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Four cyclone warnings for Cyclone Hazel were issued by the Perth Tropical Cyclone Warning Centre during the period in question at the following times: 1 pm 4 pm 7 pm 10 pm

Supplementary statements giving the cyclone’s latest position and movement were issued at noon, 2 pm, 3 pm, S pm, 6 pm. 8 pm. 9 pin. 1 1 pm and midnight.

The I pm warning covered the coast between Onslow and Carnarvon with a cyclone watch extending south to Kalbarri.

The 10 pm warning covered the coast between Exmouth and Kalbarri with a cyclone watch extending south to Lancelin.

Warnings and hourly statements continued throughout the night.

In addition the Regional Director of the Bureau of Meteorology briefed the community on the cyclone’s predicted track from west of Carnarvon to Shark Bay, Kalbarri and Geraldton on ABC television at 7 pm on 13 March. The telecast was received in Carnarvon, Geraldton and country centres.

  1. The following information in response to the second part of the Honourable Senator’s Question has been provided by the Minister for Post and Telecommunications:

    1. Warnings were issued at 13.00, 16.00, 19.00, 22.00 by the Perth Regional Office. Statements were issued to the ABC only at 12.00, 14.00, 15.00, 17.00, 18.00, 20.00. 2 1.00, 23.00 and 24.00.
    2. All above warnings and statements were broadcast at 15 minutes past the hour through 6GN Geraldton. 6DL Dalwallinu and 6NM Northam began broadcasts of warnings and statements from and including 23.15 on Tuesday 13 March when Perth Cyclone Centre advised cyclone watch operating for areas serviced by 6DL and 6NM. Hourly broadcasts continued after midnight until cyclone degenerated. Final warning issued at 14.00 on Wednesday 14 March.

Age Pensions (Question No. 1527)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 4 April 1979:

How many pensioners, in the course of the recent review of age pensioners over 70 to assess eligibility for pension increases: (a) were sent forms to complete; (b) returned those forms; (c) were found (i) eligible, and (ii) ineligible, for pension increases; and (d) had pensions cancelled because they failed to reply.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. Approximately 32,000 forms were issued to pensioners and pensioner couples aged over 70 years to assess eligibility for pension increases under the provisions of the Social Services Act as amended at the time of 1 978 Budget.

These forms were fowarded only to pensioners whose income was, according to our records, above the limit for a pension increase but below the fringe benefit eligibility limit. Because their pensions were being paid free of the income test, these pensioners may not have advised income reductions which would have enabled them to receive pension increases.

  1. and (c) The return of the form was voluntary and no statistics were kept of the number of pensioners who were subsequently shown to be eligible or ineligible for an increase in pension.
  2. No pension was cancelled because of failure to respond to the review.

Domestic Satellite (Question No. 1547)

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 5 April 1 979: ls the Treasurer’s department studying the costs and benefits, from a financial point of view, of the proposed domestic satellite; if so: (a) when will such studies bc completed, and (b) will the results of such studies bc released to the public.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

My Department is not currently undertaking a study of the costs and benefits of the proposed domestic satellite. The honourable senator’s attention is drawn to the answer to Senate question on notice No. 1546, provided by the Minister for Finance, in the Senate Hansard of 1 May 1979.

Social Security Appeals (Question No. 1570)

Senator Grimes:

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

  1. 1 ) How many cases of appeals by pensioners and beneficiaries against adverse decisions by the Department of Social Security have been seen by review officers in each State since the establishment of such reviews.
  2. In how many cases in each State: (a) has the Review Officer: (i) recommended; or (ii) activated, the reversal of such adverse decisions; ( b ) has the Review Officer satisfied the claimant that the Department’s adverse decision was correct; and (c) was the Review Officer the original determining officer.
  3. Has the Review Officer stage resulted in a diminished number of appeals going to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Review Officers in each State have handled the following numbers of cases since the establishment of the Review Officer procedure:

NSW-2,988; Vic-3,619; Qld-3,388; SA-528; WA-2,444: Tas.-342: NT- 1 7: Aust.- 13,326.

The Review Officer procedures did not commence from a uniform date in each State or in each office of each State. The dates from which the Review Officer procedures became fully operational in each State are as follows:

NSW-May 1978; Vic-May 1978; Qld-July 1978; SA-December 1978; WA-May 1978; Tas. -October 1978; NT-June 1978.

  1. The information in the form requested is not available but the following figures show (i) the number of cases where the original decision of the Department was varied following review by a Review Officer and (ii) the number of cases where the original decision was not varied:

NSW-(i) 1,431, (ii) 1,557; Vic-1,270, 2,349; Qld- 1.332, 2,056: SA-81, 447; WA-777, 1,667; Tas. -58, 284; NT-7, 10; Aust.-4,956, 8,370.

The purpose of the Review Officer procedure is to provide an independent review of departmental decisions. Every effort is made to ensure that the Review Officer has not been involved in the original decision-making process. However, in smaller offices of the Department there have been isolated instances where this has occurred because there has been no other officer available at the time to conduct the immediate review required.

  1. Yes. In the three months ended 31 March 1979, 1,997 appeals were lodged with Social Security Appeals Tribunals compared with 4,238 appeals during the same period last year.

Income Equalisation Deposit Trust Account (Question No. 1609)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 10 May 1979:

What was the Income Equalisation Deposit Trust Account balance at the end of each month in 1979 up to the most recent available month.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

The balance of the Income Equalisation Deposit Trust Account at the end of each month in 1979 up to the most recent available month was as follows:

Merino Sheep Exports

Senator Carrick:
LP

-On 27 February 1979 (Hansard, pages 253 and 254) Senator Walsh asked me, as Minister representing the Prime Minister, a question without notice concerning the export of merino sheep from Australia. The Prime Minister has supplied the following information for answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The present policy relating to the export of merino sheep was adopted in 1978 on the recommendation of the Minister for Primary Industry after consultation with and the support of the Federal grower organisations. The conditions which had been agreed by the Government may be summarised as follows: export approvals to be issued only for merino rams sold at public auction sales nominated by the Australian Association of Stud Merino Breeders; no more than 300 merino rams to be sold for export for a trial period of up to 12 months starting from 26 July 1978; merino rams purchased for export to New Zealand will not be debited against the export quota of 300 rams; the prohibition to be continued on the export of merino ewes, ova and semen; and the Minister for Primary Industry is to keep the situation under review.

My remarks at Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd, India referred specifically to impediments to the export of breeding sheep attributable to trade union policy which may deter purchases by export customers. They were not intended to define the type of merino breeding sheep permitted for export by the Government; that is a matter of public knowledge which would be well understood by potential export customers.

Unification Church

Senator Durack:
Attorney-General · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– On 5 April 1979 Senator Jessop asked the Attorney-General the following question without notice:

The Attorney-General will recall that previously I mentioned my concern about the spread of activities in Australia of the Unification Church otherwise known as the ‘Moonies’ and that my question arose from allegations made recently in an Adelaide newspaper concerning practices pursued by the Moonies’. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to a speech by Mr Paul Rose, M.P., in a debate in the House of Commons on the activities of this so-called church in the United Kingdom? Is the Minister aware that Mr Rose drew attention to the sworn testimony of ex-members of this cult and cited the case of a girl whose father was conned into giving away to the organisation an £800,000 estate in Stanton Fitzwarren? In view of this and other evidence of extortion in the United Kingdom, will the Minister initiate an investigation of the activities of this sect in Australia?

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

On 5 April 1979 the honourable senator drew to my attention a speech made recently by Mr Paul Rose, M.P., in the House of Commons on the activities of various organisations making up the Unification Church. I have now seen that speech and the reply to it given by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. By way of general comment the Under-Secretary said that the information that had so far been provided to the authorities on the activities of these organisations had not, in the judgment of those responsible, warranted prosecution for any major criminal offence. There had been a few prosecutions on minor charges connected with street collections. The Under-Secretary went on to say that if these organisations keep within the law. it was a very serious matter to suggest that the Government should take action against them nevertheless.

In so far as the organisations operate in Australia, their activities would be a matter for regulation by State law rather than Commonwealth law and I refer to the reply I gave the honourable senator on 2 1 March 1979.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 29 May 1979, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1979/19790529_senate_31_s81/>.