Senate
30 May 1979

31st Parliament · 1st Session



The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Condor Laucke) took the chair at 2.15 p.m., and read prayers.

page 2303

PETITIONS

Alice Springs to Darwin Railway

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I present the following petition from 178 citizens of Australia:

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

The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:

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

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

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

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

Petition received and read.

Democratic and Parliamentary Processes

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 30 citizens of Australia:

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

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

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

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

Petition received and read.

Indexation of Pensions

Senator CHIPP:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 123 citizens of Australia:

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

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

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

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

Accordingly, your petitioners call upon their legislators to:

Restore twice-yearly pension adjustments in the Autumn session.

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

And your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Indexation of Pensions

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 5,929 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable, the President, and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled, the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth that those who have retired and those who are about to retire, are being severely and adversely affected by inflation and Australian economic circumstances.

The decision not to restore six monthly indexation of pensions, particularly those entitled to age pensions, creates a further undue hardship.

A pension for all on retirement, and a guarantee that all Australian citizens will retire with dignity is considered a right, and not a charity. The now restoration of the six monthly indexation for persons entitled to age pension benefits, discriminates against the aged citizens of Australia.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Metric System

Senator CHIPP:

– I present the following petition from 36 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 bc taught together in schools.

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

Petition received and read.

Telephone Charges

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I present the following petition from 72 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 sheweth:

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

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

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

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

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Indexation of Pensions

Senator MASON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

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

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

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

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

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

Accordingly, your petitioners call upon their legislators to:

Restore twice-yearly pension adjustments in the Autumn session.

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Metric System

Senator TEAGUE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 1 3 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.

Metric System

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 13 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 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.

Petition received.

Metric System

Senator LEWIS:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 36 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 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.

Petition received.

Metric System

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 34 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 arc a violation of all democratic principles.

Your petitioners therefore pray:

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

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

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

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Metric System

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

– I present the following petition from 9 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.

Metric System

Senator MELZER:

– I present the following petition from 9 1 citizens of Australia:

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

The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the plan to obliterate the traditional weights and measures of this country 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.

Taxation Reform

Senator MELZER:

– I present the following petition from 14 citizens of Australia:

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

The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that in spite of numerous measures taken by various governments, unemployment in the country has not significantly declined.

As a result, supplies of both goods and services have declined; human resources are wasted, capital resources arc not used and natural resources are left under-developed.

Both local and overseas experience shows that prosperity is encouraged when taxes, which penalise production are replaced by taxes which provide incentives for productivity. These also provide disincentives to idle speculation such as that which results in so called ‘windfall profits’ from land price increases.

The reduction of Income-tax, Sales-tax and Payroll tax is known to reduce the costs of production and to stimulate demand.

It is also known that when Land Tax or Council Rates are raised on the unimproved site value of land, then the development of vacant land and under-developed slum areas is stimulated.

It follows then, that the gradual replacemnt of taxes on production with taxes on non-production will create new employment, reduces the costs of production, reduces the rate of interest, the cost of housing and stimulates all industries.

We wish to point out that the replacement of production penalising taxes is a very practical proposal. According to official Municipal Valuations, it is estimated that Unimproved Site Values have increased from $337,000m in 1973-74 to $367,000m by 1976-77. This represents $30,000m so called ‘windfall profits’ which was completely unrelated to productive improvements.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should act to relieve unemployment by a Taxation Reform to replace taxes on production with taxes which provide incentives for the increased supply of both goods and services.

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

Petition received.

The Clerk:

– Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:

Metric Conversion

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. by Senators Cavanagh, Davidson, Guilfoyle, Hamer, Jessop, Martin, Messner, Puplick, Scott and Sibraa.

Petitions received.

Indexation of Pensions

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

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

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

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

Accordingly, your petitioners call upon their legislators to:

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

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

Petition received.

page 2306

DAYS AND HOURS OF MEETING

Notice of Motion

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

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

  1. 1 ) That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till Monday, 4 June 1979, at half-past two p.m.
  2. ) That the sessional order rela ting to the adjournment of the Senate have effect at half-past ten p.m. on that day.
  3. That, unless otherwise ordered, on Tuesday, 5 June 1 979, the Senate meet at half-past ten a.m.

page 2306

EDUCATION

Notice of Motion

Senator DAVIDSON:
South Australia

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

That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Education and the Arts: The effectiveness of Australian schools in preparing young people for the work force, with particular emphasis on literacy and numeracy.

page 2306

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2306

QUESTION

THREATENED CLOSURE OF SCHOOLS IN THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Senator RYAN:
ACT

– Is the Minister for Education aware that there is to be a public meeting held in the Australian Capital Territory this evening to be attended by parents, teachers and students from schools all over the Australian Capital Territory protesting against threatened closures of high schools and Narrabundah College in the Australian Capital Territory? Does the Minister agree that this situation of threatened closures has come about as a result of the failure of the Federal Government to provide adequate funds for Australian Capital Territory schools? Can he say whether he is prepared to permit the closure of Narrabundah College?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I am aware that a public meeting was called for tonight by the statutory body, the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority, which I thought had the full approval of the Australian Labor Party. It was called by the Chairman of that authority, Mrs Ros Kelly, to discuss with the community the problems that have arisen demographically from declining population and changes in population structure in the Australian Capital Territory. I would have thought that the Labor Party, with its full support for the autonomy of that statutory body, would have approved of that matter. Labor Party members have reminded me often enough in the past of the significance of autonomy of that body.

I would reject outright any suggestion that closure of schools has anything to do with a failure of funds. Senator Ryan must be a born loser. She pursued last year the long, sad tale that 2,772 teachers were not enough, only to find now that they were in fact more than enough to staff the schools. One cannot trail these kinds of kites without them tripping one over in the future.

As to the question of closure or otherwise of schools, the Labor Party has always informed me that the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority was the body that should have the primary and essential responsibility for determining the administration and decision making of education in the Australian Capital Territory. I take it that Senator Ryan would uphold that. The Authority is itself at this moment discussing with the public the problem. I think, along with all others, we should wait to see what is the outcome of that discussion,

page 2307

QUESTION

AIRCRAFT ENGINE BOLTS AND MOUNTING COMPONENTS

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. It refers to jet aircraft operating in Australia. As it is quite common for one manufacturer to make similar parts for different aircraft manufacturers, is the Minister able to say whether the bolts and the engine mounting components that are used in 727, DC9 and Jumbo aircraft operated by Australian airlines are made by the same manufacturer that made the bolts and engine mounting units for the ill-fated DC 10 American Airlines aircraft that crashed a few day ago near

Chicago airport? If he is not able to answer that question at this stage, could he find out the information and advise the Senate as soon as possible? Is he able to advise whether any check has been made of Australian aircraft engine mountings since the American Airlines DC 10 crashed?

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

– I am not able to advise the honourable senator on either of the points that he has raised. He would be aware, however, that in the United States of America, as in this country, there are stringent standards of airline inspection and control. I have little doubt that if the bolts to which he has referred were the same as the bolts which caused trouble in the DC 10 aircraft, that matter would have been drawn to our attention. I will obtain a specific answer for him and let him know as soon as possible.

page 2307

QUESTION

TEACHING ALLOWANCES

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Education. I refer to questions which have been asked by Senator Chipp in this place involving a dispute amongst Victorian primary teachers relating to supervision. Is it a fact that in March of this year the Commonwealth, through counsel, argued before the Academic Salaries Tribunal that this matter could not be dealt with by the tribunal? Is it further a fact that on 2 1 May this year the Commonwealth, again through counsel, took a similar view? I remind the Minister of his answer to Senator Chipp on 9 May in which he said:

If . . . there is an impasse I would certainly want it to be resolved.

If that is so, I ask: Firstly, why did the Commonwealth argue in the way in which it did before that? Perhaps this was not within the Minister’s knowledge. Secondly, what has been done since to resolve the impasse from the point of view of the Commonwealth Government?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I think that in my more recent answer, I have described in detail the answers to Senator Button’s question today. I think that the Academic Salaries Tribunal believed that it could act in hearing particular aspects of educational problems- not in totality- and that this could be done by way of extension to those problems that the Campbell Academic Salaries Tribunal had left over. It believed that it could tidy up and finish off the matters. The Attorney-General who looked at this matter reached a conclusion that that would not be good law. I had hoped that it would be good law and, no doubt, Senator Button would also, so that we could expedite the matter. Now it being indicated that it is not good law and the Tribunal reflecting on this matter, I have asked personnel of various departments to see what particular amendments might be acceptable so that I might persuade Cabinet to accept them in order that we can resolve the matter as quickly as possible.

Senator BUTTON:

-I ask the Minister for Education a supplementary question. Is he, as Minister for Education, concerned about the implications of effectively expanding the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to deal with disputes such as this?

Senator CARRICK:

– I am concerned that the Tribunal should not only be able to deal with a total review of all salaries as such but also should be able to look at particular aspects of salaries. The alternative is that we will have another Federal-State dog fight in industrial tribunals all over Australia. This would not be good. If the Commonwealth Tribunal cannot respond to these matters we will find that people will go to State tribunals and we will have the kinds of troubles that are bedevilling Australia today. I am concerned that we should make the Academic Salaries Tribunal workable. I will try to do so.

page 2308

QUESTION

CHINESE POPULATION IN VIETNAM

Senator SIM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Has the Government any confirmation of reports published today that Vietnam intends to expel its entire ethnic Chinese population? It is estimated that l.S million people could be expected to descend on neighbouring countries. If the report is correct, will the Government in concert with all interested governments bring whatever pressure it can on the Vietnamese authorities to try to prevent this callous, inhuman and dangerous action?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I have read in the Press reports that Vietnamese refugees have alleged that the Vietnamese Government intends to expel its entire ethnic Chinese population which amounts, as Senator Sim has said, to between one million people and 1.5 million people. Because Senator Sim has a knowledge of this region, he will know that the traditional animosity between the Vietnamese and Chinese has intensified over the past year or so as a result of growing tensions between Hanoi and Peking. Following China’s military incursion into Vietnam in February and March of this year, the Vietnamese authorities have taken an increasingly hard line with the ethnic Chinese minority which it has publicly described as a fifth column. While I cannot confirm reports whether Vietnam intends to expel its entire ethnic Chinese population, the information available to me suggests that ethnic Chinese in Vietnam are being subject to a deliberate campaign of discrimination. It appears that the Vietnamese authorities are implementing a program which would force ethnic Chinese to choose between harsh conditions in what are called ‘new economic zones’ and expulsion. Therefore, there does seem to be evidence that the trends that Senator Sim has indicated are happening, and of course they are to be deplored.

page 2308

QUESTION

STUART HIGHWAY

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. I refer again to the Stuart Highway. I ask the Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the editorial today in the Adelaide newspaper The Advertiser, which expresses the concern of the South Australian community about the state of the highway and the need for Federal assistance to complete its construction. After mentioning the over 25 per cent share put in by the South Australian Government, the editorial says, of the South Australian Government:

But it claims, with some justice, that more help is needed from Canberra to enable the job to be completed within a reasonable period.

I ask the Minister whether he knows also that last week the Minister for Transport had an obligation to meet residents of Coober Pedy and members of the Australian Road Transport Federation, but because of conditions was unable to keep that appointment. Does the Minister intend to keep that appointment? When is the Minister likely to confer again with his colleagues and the deputation that formally requested a special Federal grant for the purpose of constructing the road?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I do not usually see the Adelaide Advertiser and today is no exception so I am not aware of the leading article to which the honourable senator refers. I am not surprised that the Adelaide newspaper should say that it wants more help from Canberra. That is the sort of statement which appears in newspaper articles all around Australia. I would not go white with amazement if a copy of the newspaper were actually produced by Senator Bishop.

Senator Bishop would know that the Federal Minister for Transport, Mr Nixon, has continued to show a very active interest in this road. No doubt Senator Bishop has seen a Press release issued either late last week or early this week which indicated that Mr Nixon had recently inspected the area in company with Senator Jessop who also has shown a considerable interest in the Stuart Highway. I think there was an indication in that Press release that next year, pursuant to Mr Nixon’s urging, the South Australian Government will put a substantially increased amount into the improvement of the Stuart Highway. I have no knowledge of Mr Nixon’s obligation to meet certain people; I will have to seek information from him about that.

Senator BISHOP:

– I ask the Minister again: Will he ask the Minister for Transport whether he intends to consider the request of the broad deputation which met him last year, consisting of members from both parties, the Australian Road Transport Federation and the Mayor of Alice Springs, which made a special request for a Federal grant to do this work?

Senator CHANEY:

– Yes, Mr President.

page 2309

QUESTION

MISUSE OF PUBLIC FUNDS

Senator MacGIBBON:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. Over the last few weeks I have received a dozen or more letters relating to the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Bill 1 979. Some of these letters have been against the Bill, and some of them have been for the Bill. Whatever the views contained in these letters, I welcome the fact that people write to me about it. But this morning I received a letter in an envelope the outside of which is marked ‘OHMS’ and the bottom of which is marked ‘Commonwealth of Australia’. If not delivered within seven days, return to the Department of Civil Aviation, Post Office Box 1, Brisbane Airport.’ On the top it has been franked with what I presume is a departmental franking machine.

Opposition senators- Oh!

Senator MacGIBBON:

– This is a serious matter. Inside is a roneoed letter exactly the same as four others which I received throughout the day. I ask the Minister: Is this not a serious misuse of public funds?

Opposition senators interjecting-

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I think it is a pity that Opposition senators should be caterwauling about that question, which relates to the proper use of publicly paid for stationery and postage. I think that it is a proper question to ask. I suppose that there is a self-evident answer to it; that is, that employees should not use those resources to push a private political view. I think that the answer to the question is self-evident and I am at a loss to understand the quite odd reaction from the Opposition benches. It seems to me that very little can be done to control the use of every envelope which is issued on behalf of the Commonwealth.

But since the honourable senator asked me whether the matter to which he referred was a misuse of public money, I say that clearly it appears that it was.

page 2309

QUESTION

NATIONAL TRAINING COUNCIL

Senator MCAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate, who is deputising for the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs: Has his attention been drawn to a recent article in the Australian concerning the funds unspent by the National Training Council so far this financial year? In view of the comment in the article that there seems to be a lack of public awareness about the funds and the Training Council, will the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs consider requesting his Department to make a determined effort to ensure that employers are acquainted with the Council and its assistance programs?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– Whilst I did not see the article to which the honourable senator referred, if the facts are as he stated I think there is a case for wider publicity on the matter.

Senator McAuliffe:

– It involves jobs.

Senator CARRICK:

– Yes. Jobs are involved and this is an important matter. I will refer the suggestion to the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs and will seek his comment and action.

page 2309

QUESTION

CHILD ABUSE

Senator WALTERS:

– I direct to the Minister for Social Security a question which relates to her responsibility in her capacity as Minister in charge of the Office of Child Care. Can the Minister say whether it is a fact that Australia does not keep statistics on child abuse. If it is a fact, can the Minister say what basis is used for conducting existing programs for children at risk in that area?

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

– At present no statistics with regard to child abuse are collected at a Commonwealth level. Matters of accidental injury et cetera, fall principally within the responsibility of State governments. A number of projects within the Office of Child Care are designed to prevent child abuse and many of them come under the family services support programs. At the recent annual meeting of the Council of Social Welfare Ministers of Australia, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea, the Ministers and I agreed to move towards a common definition of child abuse to enable a national assessment of the serious problem to be made. That definition will include emotional as well as physical injury and will include sexual exploitation. It may be of interest to honourable senators that a national conference has been planned to be held in Queensland early in 198.1 to discuss the problems of child abuse. That conference will be attended by and have the support of members of the Council of Social Welfare Ministers. But as far as the general question is concerned, at present no statistics on child abuse are collected at the Commonwealth level. There are different ways in which the States collect statistics and deal with those matters. But at the Commonwealth level, as yet no common collection of information is made.

page 2310

QUESTION

NATIONAL HEALTH PROMOTION PROGRAM

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. I refer to the announcement by the Minister for Health of the establishment of the National Health Promotion Program, which seeks to place emphasis on the prevention of disease and unhealthy lifestyles. Can the Minister say whether the Government has noted the various statements by scientists and nutritionists that consumption of fast food and excessive consumption of sugar and salt contribute to the ill health of great numbers of Australians? Has the Government seen the current issue of New Doctor, which details evidence that dramatic changes in the food industry have resulted in the production and excessive advertising of processed food, with the resultant progressive deterioration of the Australian diet? The publication also states that 20 major companies producing such processed food are foreign owned. Can the Minister assure the Senate that the statement of the Minister for Health that ‘despite huge national expenditure on health services the overall health of Australians is not improving’ means that the Government will seriously begin a campaign to educate the community about such dietary problems, or is this just another piece of Government gimmickry?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I have noted the many matters raised by Senator Gietzelt with regard to the eating habits of Australians and the effect this has on the general health of members of the community. I am advised by Senator Baume that the matter raised by Senator Gietzelt was referred to and discussed at the conference of the Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science. I think that the Minister for Health was drawing attention to the health of the Australian community, the need for preventive medicine in many ways and programs to alert people to their own responsibilities with regard to their health care and the health care of members of their families. I will seek from the Minister details of any programs which he would link with the statement he made recently.

page 2310

QUESTION

QUEENSLAND SCHOOLCHILDREN

Senator COLLARD:
QUEENSLAND

– My question, which I address to the Minister for Education, concerns a report in today’s Australian showing that Queensland school children are the brightest in Australia and perform better in almost all categories of tests involving the traditional three Rs. It is obvious that this high standard is reflected in the majority of Queensland representatives in this chamber. Will the Minister advise whether his Department can give a definitive reason for this higher standard? Are the results being studied to see whether there are any advantages in the Queensland system that could be used in the other States? Will the Minister agree that instead of the gratuitous advice so freely given to Queensland by those honourable senators who oppose the State they would be better advised to heed Queensland and her contribution to the Commonwealth as this would be to their edification and the ultimate benefit of Australia as a whole?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I saw a newspaper report which purported to say what Senator Collard has said. I would challenge it on only one basis: Until now I had felt that I could accept as true any result published by the Australian Council for Educational Research. But Senator Collard cannot have failed to remember that very recently one of his Queensland colleagues, happily from the other side of the chamber, failed abysmally in a numeracy and literacy test. Therefore I am bound to say that my confidence is somewhat shaken. Nevertheless, 1 can understand that the enormous advantages of living in a State as progressive and as attractive as Queensland would add to the general enlightenment of the population. If what the honourable senator has said is true I have no doubt that we will find the other five States equally and keenly competing for the future.

page 2310

QUESTION

INCOME EQUALISATION DEPOSITS

Senator WALSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question, which I direct to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, follows a question 1 asked last week in answer to which the Minister asked me to supply a copy of the analysis which demonstrated that the use of income equalisation deposits could often increase the amount of tax paid by farmers. Last Friday I supplied his office with the references to those articles which are in the Parliamentary Library. I ask again: Is the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Sinclair, aware of this study? If so, why does he continue to exhort farmers to put money into IEDs?

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

– I acknowledge the first part of the honourable senator’s question. I was asked in the last part of the question whether I am aware that Mr Sinclair has particular knowledge on this matter. I regret that I am not able to answer that part of the question.

page 2311

QUESTION

STUART HIGHWAY

Senator JESSOP:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport about the disgraceful state of the Stuart Highway. Is the Minister aware that his colleague, Mr Nixon, was forced to postpone his visit to Coober Pedy last week due to the closure of the Coober Pedy airport owing to bad weather? Is he also aware that the Minister travelled by car from Pimba to Lake Hart to inspect the condition of the road, acting on the suggestion from Mr Ken Harrison, the public relations officer of the Australian Roads Federation who claimed that this section of road was among the worst along the Highway? Is it also a fact that the Federal Minister has restated his interest in an increased allocation by the State Government out of national highway funds for the purpose of constructing this road and that the State Government should give this highway a greater priority? Is it a fact that Mr Nixon proposes to visit Coober Pedy later this year to discuss transport matters in general with local residents?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

- Senator Jessop ‘s question neatly dovetails with a question asked a little earlier by Senator Bishop and it seeks an explanation of some of the facts which were queried in Senator Bishop’s question. I must say that it is consistent with Mr Nixon’s well-known devotion to duty and application to the transport affairs of Australia that only the closure of an airport would force him to postpone an engagement in Coober Pedy. I certainly accept that it would be a fact that Mr Nixon would wish to go back there as soon as he can. The fact that he travelled on the worst section of the Stuart Highway is again consistent with Mr Nixon’s attitude to his job, which is to get right on with it.

I was very pleased that in the third part of the question Senator Jessop underlined the point which I was able to make in response to Senator Bishop’s question. The Federal Minister, Mr Nixon, certainly has restated his interest in increased allocations for the Stuart Highway. I am pleased to see that after many years of trying he seems to have awakened the South Australian Government’s interest. As I said previously, I think the allocation has gone from Sim to $4m. I congratulate Mr Nixon on his persistence in the matter.

page 2311

QUESTION

IMPORTATION OF AIRPOTS

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. Will the Minister and his officers have immediate talks with Mr Syd Einfield, the New South Wales Minister for Consumer Affairs, in regard to the denial of justice by Grace Bros Pty Ltd of Sydney and its assessors, K. M. Miller of 189 Kent Street, Sydney, to the people who suffered severe scalds when hot coffee escaped from a type of airpot imported from Taiwan? In addition to the consumer restitution that is needed, will they consider a tighter import policy in regard to the importation of such unsafe utensils?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I am not aware of the incident to which Senator Mulvihill refers. I am not a coffee drinker, so some of the hazards of coffee drinking, even the international hazards, have escaped me. I would have thought that the matter was primarily one for the relevant State Minister. It concerns what is allegedly on the surface a faulty product which comes under the sales of goods legislation if my recollection of commercial and industrial law is right. Therefore, it is a matter for the relevant State Minister. Nevertheless, I will be happy to refer the question to my Federal colleague and seek his action on it, if any.

Senator MULVIHILL:

– I have a supplementary question. I think that the Minister probably overlooked what I was getting at. I have already seen Mr Fife with regards to other matters. The fact that obviously the Federal Government would control imports is the reason I thought the Minister could take the matter on board for Mr Fife.

Senator CARRICK:

– I will refer that comment to the Minister too.

page 2311

QUESTION

AVAILABILITY OF AVIATION GASOLENE IN REMOTE AREAS

Senator MAUNSELL:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for National Development. Because cattle properties in northern Australia rely heavily on helicopters to muster cattle for market and because one could expect people in remote areas to be last on the list to receive fuel when a shortage occurs, will the Minister request the oil companies to ensure that adequate supplies of aviation gasolene are made available to this important export industry, particularly over the next few months?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I can appreciate the significance with which Senator Maunsell regards this question. My understanding is that because there were supply shortages in the southern States the Mobil company has introduced an Australia-wide allocation for aviation gasolene. The Altona refinery of Mobil, which is the sole producer of aviation gasolene in Australia, is currently working at full capacity; but it will take a few months for the situation to ease because of the stock run-down that has occurred over recent months. The allocation system is as fair a method of ensuring supplies being available to all consumers as the company can devise. I am afraid that that includes cattle properties in the Northern Territory. That is the situation in the short term. I will bring the matter to the attention of the Minister and see whether any further action could be taken.

page 2312

QUESTION

AIRCRAFT SAFETY

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and is similar to the one asked by Senator Townley earlier. It involves perhaps a note of urgency because most honourable senators will be using aircraft at the weekend. Has any metal fatigue and/or corrosion been detected in engines in the DC9 and /or Boeing aircraft operated by Ansett Airlines of Australia or Trans-Australia Airlines? If so, could the Minister identify the aircraft and components that have been affected? Do the manufacturers of DC9 and Boeing aircraft, or the Department of Transport, specify maximum safe operating hours for air frames and engines? If so, what are they? Are any of the DC9 and Boeing aircraft operated by Ansett and TAA nearing this limit? Which aircraft are affected?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I hope these questions are not intended to cause alarm because, as I said in my answer to an earlier question, we really do have a record of very stringent control of air operations in this country. I have no doubt that in the sorts of areas raised by the honourable senator very careful tests are applied. I will refer his question, as 1 will the other question, to the Minister for Transport, but I think that all honourable senators would agree that this is an area in which alarm is really unnecessary. There has been no suggestion that the Boeing 727 or the DC9 has problems in any way related to those which apparently have arisen with the

DC 10. I am sure that honourable senators are not merely concerned because they themselves fly, but because thousands of their fellow Australians fly every day. The fact that we will be flying in a couple of days is utterly irrelevant.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I wish to ask a supplementary question. I resent the Minister’s suggestion that I am asking a question as a scare tactic. I ask him whether, as a matter of urgency, he can get that information for this chamber.

Senator CHANEY:

– I have indicated that I will refer the matter to the Minister for Transport, and I am sure that it will be treated as a matter of urgency. If honourable senators were really concerned about this matter they would have taken it up with the Department of Transport, or the Minister, immediately it arose, and not waited until Question Time at 3 o’clock this afternoon.

page 2312

QUESTION

HUMAN RIGHTS

Senator PUPLICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs been drawn to recent reports by various groups of jurists in the United States about the number of persons alleged to have disappeared, been tortured or imprisoned by the fascist regime in Argentina? Has his attention been drawn to Press reports today indicating that, in preparation for the visit of His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, to Poland, the communist government of that country is involved in the systematic rounding up of alleged dissidents and people who might wish to make contact with His Holiness, and confining them to psychiatric institutions? What action does the Australian Government intend to take on these two matters to bring them to the attention of some appropriate international forum such as the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, of which Australia is a member?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– As to the first two parts of Senator Puplick ‘s question, I believe that I have read in the Press items to that effect. My attention has been drawn to the allegation that in Poland the rounding up of dissidents is proceeding and that the outrageous system used throughout communist countries of committing people to psychiatric institutions is being employed. I am not able to speak on behalf of my colleague the Minister for Foreign Affairs concerning the action that this Government is taking in that regard. I will refer the honourable senator’s question to him and seek his comment.

page 2313

QUESTION

LEAD CONTENT IN PETROL

Senator MASON:

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health, but it also has some implications for her portfolio of Social Security. Has the Government noted a report in last Monday’s Melbourne Age of what is said to be definitive research of the Harvard University research team covering more than 2,000 children over three years? This report says that lead in the body, even in relatively low amounts, causes ‘mental deficits’ in young children- specifically, lower IQs and more classroom behaviour problems. Will the Government make its own investigation of this important research study, especially its reported assertions that lead in the body ranks after only nutritional problems and accidents as a child health hazard? If the Government agrees that the conclusions of the report are substantially correct, will it take urgent measures to reduce the lead content in Australian petrol?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– The attention of the Minister for Health was attracted to the article referred to by Senator Mason. The report to which that article referred is one of many which are under study by the Department of Health and the committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council. Lead in the body was previously believed to have no significant effects unless it reached the level of producing classical lead poisoning. However, research has indicated that much lower lead levels may produce significant effects on the body, particularly on the nervous system and particularly with regard to developing children. Such effects may cause lowering of learning ability, lowering of the intelligence quotient and various behavioural changes. However, I understand that no firm figures have been established at this stage to indicate the tissue levels at which such effects may occur.

The National Health and Medical Research Council assisted in the funding of research into the lead burden of Sydney school children. I understand that the report of that research is to be released very shortly. The report suggested that lead in the body comes behind only nutritional problems and accidents as a child health hazard. The extent to which lead may be affecting children is still under investigation and the statement remains open to debate. It would not be appropriate to relate such a conclusion to the Australian scene until we are able to assess further the research which is being undertaken.

The reference by Senator Mason to vehicles leads me to say that motor vehicles do contribute up to 90 per cent of air lead levels, particularly in the urban environment. The National Health and Medical Research Council first recommended a lower content of lead in petrol in 1973. Its recommendations have been implemented largely by three States. The conclusions of the report that was referred to by Senator Mason are being closely considered by the Council. The lead issue is seen as part of the wider problem of pollution caused by motor vehicles and the Council is working to establish health oriented guidelines in relation to the most significant pollutants.

page 2313

QUESTION

GREAT BARRIER REEF: OIL EXPLORATION

Senator MELZER:

– I direct my question to the Minister for Science and the Environment. Last week I asked the Minister whether there were seismic vessels in the Great Barrier Reef area at this time, how many were there and for what oil companies they were working. At that time the Minister said that he was not aware of such ships being in the area. Since that time, has the Minister received any further information on this matter; if not, does he intend to seek such information?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I think I heard the honourable senator correctly; she referred to seismic ships in the area of the Great Barrier Reef. That question is obviously one for the Minister for National Development. So far as my interests in science and the environment are concerned, I know of no vessels that are carrying out seismic work in that area. From time to time seismic surveys have been taken through the Great Barrier Reef area, as well as in all areas throughout Australia. If the honourable senator really wishes an answer to that question, if she will place it on the Notice Paper, I will get the information for her.

page 2313

QUESTION

OUTBACK PETROL PRICES

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. I preface my question by saying that the Minister will no doubt be aware that the Prices Justification Tribunal gave the right to oil companies to put a surcharge on fuel in 44 gallon drums. The surcharge represents approximately $4 a drum which, particularly in the outback areas in States such as Queensland, represents to the consumer an increase of over 9c a gallon. Will the Government do something to assist the people of the outback, particularly in Queensland, to whom this extra cost of fuel will be a great burden?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The Government is very well aware of the importance of fuel to people in remote areas and, indeed, to people engaged in farming and agriculture. Over a period it has taken steps to provide some kind of equalisation. I am not aware of the matters to which Senator Bonner referred. I will bring them to the attention of my colleague and ask him to study them.

page 2314

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT

Senator ELSTOB:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I ask the Leader of the Government whether he can tell the Senate what happened to the promise made by the Prime Minister in November 1975 that ‘only under a Liberal-National Country Party Government will there be jobs for all who want to work’. He made a further promise in November 1977 that unemployment will fall from February and keep falling’. On behalf of all Australians who are out of work, I ask: When will these promises be fulfilled?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

- Senator Elstob gives me the opportunity to remind the Senate and the people of Australia that over two decades governments of Liberal-National Country Party faith brought sustained full employment to this country whereas the Whitlam Government brought to Australia the onset of total and disastrous unemployment. The Prime Minister was quite right in pointing to the fact that it is Liberal-National Country Party governments that bring about a return towards full employment.

Opposition senators interjecting-

Senator CARRICK:

-If the honourable senators who are now interjecting look at the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ publications of recent months they will find that month after month consistently there has been an increase in real employment in Australia. Every business statistic which is published in Australia today is indicating a return to strength in the economy, despite the wrecking and damage done by the Whitlam Labor Party Government, the supporters of which are now interjecting.

page 2314

QUESTION

BANKING

Senator WATSON:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. In view of the fact that a final decision has not yet been taken by the Board of the Bank of Adelaide regarding the merger of that bank with the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited, will the Government recognise the growing dissension caused by such a proposed amalgamation and encourage, through the Reserve Bank of Australia, a new group to emerge with a banking licence, comprising the Bank of Adelaide, fringe banking groups and possibly an overseas bank, providing there is at least a 5 1 per cent Australian equity shareholding?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– That is a matter for the Treasurer. I will bring it to his attention and invite him to study it.

page 2314

QUESTION

QUARANTINE REQUIREMENTS

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I draw the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Health to a photograph in the 15 May issue of the Mount Gambier newspaper, The Border Watch. It shows the Prime Minister alighting from a VIP aircraft which, it is stated in the caption alongside the photograph, had flown direct from Bali. I ask the Minister: Were quarantine officers from the Commonwealth Department of Health present at Mount Gambier for the arrival of this flight? If so, did they carry out all the necessary precautions that are required to be enacted prior to any passenger being allowed to disembark at the first port of call of any aircraft arriving from overseas? Is the Minister aware that foot and mouth disease is prevalent in the Bali area and that if this disease is introduced into Australia it will bring absolute disaster to Australian primary industry? I will supply the Minister with the photograph and article.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I was not aware of the article in The Border Watch. I hope that it has been brought to the attention of Senator Wheeldon, who may have been away on 1 5 May and missed that particular edition. I am not able to respond to the question with regard to quarantine requirements but I will refer it to the Minister for Health and seek the information for Senator McLaren.

page 2314

QUESTION

VIETNAMESE REFUGEES

Senator TEAGUE:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. It is similar to questions asked today by Senator Sim and Senator Puplick. The Chinese Government has made horrific allegations that officials of the Vietnamese Government have extorted bribes from refugee groups and then have placed time bombs on the refugee boats, so that the boats, with their passengers, have been destroyed at sea. Moreover, the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has recently claimed that about 200,000 Vietnamese refugees have drowned while attempting to flee from Vietnam. I ask: What evidence has been available to the Government to assess these matters? If these reports are confirmed by the Government, what protests have been and will be made by the Australian Government to the Government of Vietnam?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I am aware of the claims that -

Senator Georges:

– It is propaganda. The claims are made by the Chinese.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator Georges:

– You are going to–

The PR ESI DENT- Order ?

Senator CARRICK:

– I hope that the people of Australia hear Senator Georges defying your call to order, Mr President. He is suggesting that there is no truth in the claims and that they are propaganda of the Chinese. He ought to be called to order because that is what he was implying.

Senator Georges:

– I will make a personal explanation if you want me to.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator CARRICK:

– Claims of payments being made by those leaving Vietnam to Government officials in Vietnam are nothing new. Indeed, there has been evidence available for some time to substantiate these claims. They are not Chinese propaganda. A common amount referred to by the refugees is a payment per person of five leaves of gold- the equivalent of about 5 ounces of gold. We have not been able to obtain any evidence relating to the time bomb charges. I am advised that the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs based his figures on United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees sources, which have advised that some 50 per cent of boat refugees leaving Vietnam perish at sea. I presume that that is Chinese propaganda! The source of that information is the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. We have made our concern known to the Vietnamese on a number of occasions, and most recently this month in Jakarta at an international meeting called to consider the Association of South East Asian Nations proposal for the establishment of a special refugee processing centre. We shall continue to express our concern whenever it is clear that accepted rules of humanitarian behaviour have been transgressed. We shall continue to stress that countries not abiding by such rules must be held responsible for the human suffering occasioned by those situations.

Senator Georges:

– Not before time.

Senator CARRICK:

– I have no recollection at all of official Labor Party protests on the injustices and the tortures that are being imposed on the Vietnamese. Therefore it is highly hypocritical for the Labor Party Whip to call out: ‘Not before time’, lt is not before time for members of the Opposition to be bipartisan by protesting against murder, torture, bribery and corruption.

page 2315

QUESTION

VIETNAMESE REFUGEES

Senator GEORGES:

– I take this opportunity to ask the Leader of the Government a question on Vietnam. Since he is so concerned about the refugees who flow from Vietnam- a concern, if it is honest, which is shared by the Oppositionwould it not be to the advantage of the Vietnamese if the Government were to re-establish aid to Vietnam in order to make conditions there much more satisfactory than they are at present? Is it not hypocritical for the Leader of the Government to make such statements against Vietnam when the Government has ceased aid to Vietnam? Will the Government not accept some responsibility for the situation which leads to many Vietnamese refugees being drowned at sea?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– It is always a joy to me that Senator Georges can be relied upon to give me the opportunity to state the truth of a matter. The Australian Government noted that the Vietnamese Government was using its resources largely to destroy decent people in Kampuchea. It believed that bloody murder was not an investment for the Australian taxpayers. The Government believed that it was wrong for it to aid such a country so that it could put more of its treasure into the bloody murder of innocent people. No, we do not accept what Senator Georges has said. I repeat that to my knowledge there has never been an official statement by the Australian Labor Party deploring what has been going on in Vietnam and Kampuchea.

Senator Wriedt:

- Mr President, I raise a point of order. I ask you whether it is appropriate that a senior Minister of this Government should make statements of that nature in this Parliament concerning actions of another government?

Senator Webster:

– Ha!

Senator Wriedt:

– It is not funny. A person of the mentality of the Minister would think that it is. Irrespective of who is asking the question, Mr President, will you permit the sort of statement that we have just heard from the Leader of the Government in this place? Obviously it is only exacerbating feelings that already exist between governments in the area regarding this matter. I ask you to ask him to exercise a little restraint and responsibility in the position he occupies.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The Minister may use his judgment in replying to questions directed to him.

page 2316

QUESTION

HOME SAVINGS GRANTS SCHEME

Senator ROCHER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction aware of the favourable reaction of the Real Estate Institute of Australia to modifications announced last week to the home savings grants scheme? Will the amended measure enhance the Government’s primary objective of helping those first home buyers who are in genuine need for such assistance?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I noted some favourable reaction from the Real Estate Institute of Australia to the modifications announced last week to the home savings grants scheme. It appears that that Institute responded most commendably and very responsibly to the statements that had been made. I feel that the people involved in the Institute have obviously placed the full recovery of the Australian economy above the benefits which they might seek from development in their own field. I feel that the Institute realises that restraint is the prerequisite to recovery but at the same time it is possible and desirable that within certain limitations provision should be made through the home savings grants scheme for first home buyers who are in genuine need of assistance.

Senator Button:

- Mr President, I raise a point of order on the matter of relevance. Senator Webster was asked whether he had noticed a comment by real estate agents about this matter. Presumably the answer to the question is yes or no. Currently he is engaged in telling honourable senators the feelings of the Real Estate Institute of Australia. I know that the Minister thinks he has extraordinary powers. But a Minister cannot, in all seriousness, do that when answering a question relevantly.

The PRESIDENT:

– The Minister may reply to the question in the way he sees fit.

Senator WEBSTER:

-Clearly, with 85 per cent of the beneficiaries of the grant purchasing homes valued at less than $40,000- as was the case in 1977-78- the scheme will continue to assist those people who are most in need. I am sure that that is what the honourable senator from Western Australia feels should be done. I think that any group which takes such a responsibility, perhaps to its own disadvantage, should be congratulated.

page 2316

QUESTION

REPORT ON ABORIGINAL COMMUNITIES

Senator ROBERTSON:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I direct my question to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Has the Department of Health produced a report entitled An Environmental Survey of Aboriginal Communities 1977-78’? If so, when and where will this report be tabled? If it is not to be tabled in this chamber, will the Minister arrange for copies to be made available to all honourable senators, and an opportunity provided to debate the important matters covered by the report?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I do not recall seeing any such report, which the honourable senator suggests was prepared by the Department of Health. I will check with my own Department and the Department of Health, and let the honourable senator have a reply.

page 2316

QUESTION

METRIC CONVERSION

Senator LEWIS:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Science and the Environment. I can assure the Opposition that it is not a Dorothy Dixer. It is about metric conversion. In the urgent interests of public safety, and so that the whole community may readily understand the purport of special messages, will the Minister ask radio and television broadcasting stations in Australia to use both metric and imperial measurements when broadcasting police messages involving such things as the height of a missing person or an accused person, storm warnings, and other similar emergency messages. Alternatively, will the Minister undertake not to oppose such initiatives on the part of radio and television stations which might adopt them?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I have noted that Senator Lewis and other honourable senators have been presenting petitions relating to the metric system in Australia. I acknowledge the honourable senator’s point that perhaps people are having some difficulty understanding a person’s height if it is expressed in metric units. My understanding is that some time ago it was suggested that announcements relating to people the police were seeking should use imperial measurements. I think at present both systems are being used- in New South Wales at least.

As Minister in charge of the Metric Conversion Act, it is difficult for me to understand why, after an intensive investigation by the Senate in the late 1960s into the benefits that would flow from the eventual adoption of the metric system of measurement, honourable senators should be encouraging those in the community who basically are opposed to the metric system. Of course, under the national standards in this country there must be one legal system of measurement. Senator Lewis will recognise that when we decided to convert from pounds, shillings and pence to decimal currency- the honourable senator shakes his head, and I acknowledge that he may have had some difficulty at the time- we knew that it would be necessary to have only one system. At that stage, along with other honourable senators, I found the new decimal system quite difficult and found myself converting amounts to the old currency.

Senator Lewis:

– That is different. Decimal currency presented no difficulty.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I am pleased that people in the Western Districts did not find decimal currency a problem. Undoubtedly, conditions must have been very good in that area at the time.

We are well advanced with the conversion to the metric system. I am advised that over 80 per cent of the community has now converted to that system. As the conversion program progresses towards finalisation the difficulties are becoming more obvious. The States have found it necessary, indeed imperative, that metric units be used in commercial dealings in supermarkets and other areas. For instance, in order to make sales somebody might be tempted to advertise an item at so much per lb but then from his scales he would have to calculate the price at so much a kilogram. There must be some authority to control weights and measures. Indeed, the States have seen to it that their weights and measures authorities ensure that only one system is used. I think we must acknowledge that we should press towards the adoption of one system as quickly as possible.

page 2317

QUESTION

OVERSEAS VISIT BY PRIME MINISTER

Senator MCINTOSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister’s recent visit to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development and his failure during that Conference to announce any contribution by Australia to the Common Fund being set up to improve the terms of trade in commodities throughout the world. I ask the Minister whether the Government is to make a contribution to this fund? If so, when will an announcement be made on this? Is the Minister presently able to give any indication of what amounts are being considered as a proper contribution to this fund?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I think Senator Mcintosh will know that the concept of a common fund was partially the creation of the Australian Prime Minister. Certainly among the great advocates of the Common Fund were the Australian Government and its Prime Minister. So the interest which this Government has in the Common Fund is very real indeed. I am not aware of what amount the Commonwealth Government is proposing. I will seek the information and let the honourable senator know.

page 2317

QUESTION

OVERSEAS VISIT BY PRIME MINISTER

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– During Question Time today Senator McLaren asked me a question regarding the return of the Prime Minister from overseas. I am advised that the Prime Minister went through the normal health checking requirements in Darwin before proceeding to Mount Gambier, or wherever else it was that he arrived.

Senator McLaren:

– Then the Press report is incorrect.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– Yes.

page 2317

BRUCELLOSIS CONTROL

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-On 28 May Senator Archer asked me whether the national brucellosis eradication campaign was on schedule. The Minister for Primary Industry is satisfied that the national brucellosis eradication campaign is on schedule, working towards the 1 984 target date for provisional brucellosis freedom. The latest figures available indicate that, at 31 March 1979, 47 per cent of all herds in the Commonwealth were free of brucellosis. At that date, 44 per cent of all herds had still not had their brucellosis status assessed. However, the number of herds in that category is dropping rapidly. At 30 September 1978, 64 per cent of herds had not been assessed. Three months later, at 31 December 1978, the percentage had dropped to 55 per cent. I expect that progress in assessing those herds will continue over the next 18 months. The critical measurement is the number of herds going into the negative or free categories and remaining in those categories.

page 2317

QUESTION

SOUTH AUSTRALIAN LAND COMMISSION

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-On 28 May 1979 Senator Messner asked me a question about the South Australian Land Commission. The Minister for National Development has provided the following supplementary information: Since 1973-74 Commonwealth loan funds totalling $52.726m have been made available to the

South Australian Government for expenditure by the South Australian Land Commission. The program was commenced in the period of the Labor Administration and financial agreements entered into at that time called for the provision of on-going financial assistance up to and including 1977-78. The present Government has honoured those legal obligations. The funds were made available to the South Australian Government as loans to be repaid over 30 years at the long term bond rate of interest. Provision was made also for a 10-year deferment of repayments of principal and interest, during which time interest is capitalised. The first repayment is due in 1983-84. Accrued interest at December 1978 amounted to $ 17.32m. The financial agreement between the Commonwealth Government and the South Australian Government provide for a review of the terms and conditions on which Commonwealth funds were provided. The South Australian Government has requested a review and discussions have commenced.

page 2318

QUESTION

AIRCRAFT SAFETY

Senator CHANEY:
LP

-During Question Time I had a question from Senator Townley and subsequently one from Senator Keeffe relating to the DC 10 aircraft and other matters flowing from that. I have been advised on a number of points which were raised in the questions. Firstly, the engine bolts of the DC 10 aircraft are a MacDonnell Douglas part number, but at this stage I do not have any information about who was the manufacturer of that part. Other aspects of the questions relating to bolts will be provided as soon as possible. In regard to the engine attachment matter, in the case of the 727 and DC9 aircraft, the engines are not wing mounted and the attachment system differs considerably from that employed in the DC 10-type aircraft. In the case of Boeing 747 aircraft, the engines are wing mounted, but here again the attachment system differs considerably from that of the DC 10. That is as much information as I have been able to obtain at this stage. I can assure honourable senators that I will seek further information as soon as possible.

page 2318

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

- Mr President, I claim to have been misrepresented.

The PRESIDENT:

– Does the honourable senator wish to make a personal explanation?

Senator ARCHER (Tasmania)-Yes. Yesterday at Question Time, I became an unwilling party to a rather poorly contrived stunt from a member of the Opposition. At the conclusion of questions, the matter was continued and I fully advised the chamber of the total errors of the claims made by that member. During the afternoon, I had a phone call from a person claiming to be a Simon Nasht, a person I had never heard of before. In spite of the information I had given to the Senate, this person sought my concurrence on his own statements of the position. I fully explained the matter to him and left no doubts at all that he, too, was just as wrong as had been the Opposition in suggesting that I either had some discussion with Senator Webster prior to Question Time or had a question directly from Senator Webster.

Today it has been drawn to my attention that a person of the name quoted to me yesterday has seen fit to contrive a story for the Age which is both contrary to the facts and totally contrary to the information with which I provided that person. I find it desirable to clarify this matter in this way and to draw to the attention of the Senate the fact that those who report this place should not write stories setting out a process of events which are not in accordance with the facts as stated by a senator without at least acknowledging that the writer, having checked his source, fails to mention that the details printed do not coincide with the discussions.

page 2318

OIL EXPLORATION ON THE GREAT BARRIER REEF

Matter of Urgency

The PRESIDENT:

– I inform the Senate that I have received the following letter dated 29 May 1 979 from Senator Wriedt:

Dear Mr President,

In accordance with Standing Order 64, I give notice that tomorrow (Wednesday, 30 May) I shall move:

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

That, in view of the Prime Minister’s complete and unequivocal guarantee that the Government would not allow drilling that would do any damage to the Reef, and in view of the Queensland Government’s intention to allow drilling in the region of the Reef, the Commonwealth Government maintain full jurisdiction and control over the Great Barrier Reef region ‘.

Yours sincerely, K. S. WRIEDT

Is the motion supported?

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

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I move:

The Opposition in the last three or four weeks has moved a number of motions and asked many questions concerning the current position of the Great Barrier Reef and the prospects of drilling on that reef. It is interesting to see that at least some senators on the Government side are staying to hear this debate. During the course of these debates and questions that we have asked, we have had good reason to believe that the Federal Government has been negotiating with the Queensland Government with a view to permitting drilling to take place on the Barrier Reef. It is for that reason that, today, I do not intend to go into the same detail as I have on previous occasions when this matter was debated because the details are now well known. We are concerned that this Senate should consider a resolution which calls upon the Australian Government to do what the great majority of Australians want it to do, that is, to ensure that under no circumstances is there to be drilling in the region of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and that the undertaking given by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) will be abided by.

A considerable threat is posed to the safety of the reef. That threat is the likelihood that the Queensland Government will gain control of the waters surrounding the reef and possibly the reef itself. It is in the hands of the Commonwealth to remove the likelihood of that threat and the purpose of this motion is to call upon it to do so. The threat arises from the following factors. Firstly, the Queensland Government has expressed its intention to conduct drilling for oil in the vicinity of the reef; secondly, the Commonwealth has indicated that it would not allow anything that would do damage to the reef; thirdly, the Commonwealth has exclusive jurisdiction to control the reef and the waters surrounding it; and, fourthly, the Queensland Government has sought exclusive control of various parts of the Great Barrier Reef region. On 17 May these views were aired at a meeting between the Commonwealth and the State Ministers dealing with the transfer of powers over areas of the reef to the Queensland Government. The Commonwealth’s consideration of the results of that meeting, of course, will be vital to the future of the reef

I want to deal with four of those points in more detail. There is now no doubt that the Queensland Government not only is willing to permit drilling on the reef but also is determined to see that drilling takes place. On Christmas Eve last year the Queensland Minister for Mines, Mr Camm, expressed the view that there was no possible reason for any objection to off-shore exploration in Queensland. He went on to suggest that experiments on the effects of crude oil on the coral had shown that no damage had been caused; in other words, Mr Camm was laying the groundwork for a change in attitude to the opposition to drilling on the reef. After a major campaign that was conducted during 1969 the former Liberal Prime Minister, John Gorton, decided to establish a royal commission to inquire into the dangers of reef oil drilling. During the public hearings Queensland Government witnesses consistently advocated drilling on the reef.

As we know now, the royal commission was divided on the need for long term research before any drilling was carried out in the vicinity of the reef. Because of Labor Government opposition to such drilling, the permits which had been suspended previously were not acted on and have not been acted on since that time. The statement by the Queensland Minister for Mines on Christmas Eve was the first shot in publicly reviving the issue on behalf of the oil companies.

It is unfortunate that the Queensland Government’s attitude had support in the Cabinet of this Government. The Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Anthony, and the Minister for National Development, Mr Newman, have been constant advocates of the renewal of those permits, particularly those held by the Australian Gulf Oil Co. in the Capricornia Channel. The actions of those Ministers have held up proclamation of relevant sections of the Marine Park and consideration by the Government of the issues involved in long term research into the effect of oil spills on the reef. No doubt encouraged by this support and the attitude of the mining industry, the Queensland Government has taken a tough line on this issue. Although flying in the face of public opinion, especially in Queensland, the Premier, Mr Bjelke-Petersen, and senior Ministers of his Government have indicated that that State will insist on getting control of off-shore waters and will allow drilling as soon as that occurs. For example, during a news conference on 27 February this year Mr Bjelke-Petersen said:

Nobody is going to suggest we are going to drill on the reef: But there is a tremendous lot of water and area where there is no reef. Most of our reef is under water and even if there was a blow-out it would go on top of it and it would not be affected.

After a statement like that it is clear that the Queensland Premier, who of course has a private commercial interest in off-shore drilling, would not even be concerned about the results of research before he authorised drilling, if he got half a chance. In the face of considerable public pressure which has built up in recent weeks, his Mines Minister, Mr Camm, has been equally intransigent. He is much more concerned with the profits of oil companies than with the safety of the Great Barrier Reef which it is duty to protect. His attitude was:

Wc want to keep faith with the companies we have encouraged to come to Australia to assist us in the development of our mineral resources.

When he was asked whether renewal of permits would be a good thing for the reef, he said:

It’s a good thing for the economy of Australia. Do you want another Fraser Island?

We all know Mr Camm’s attitude to Fraser Island. On 15 April this year he criticised the Prime Minister over the decision to ban sand mining on Fraser Island. At that time his comment was:

The sand mining operations should never have been closed in the first place.

These Ministers in the Queensland Government have not the slightest interest in the conservation of the reef. They seem to be totally unaware that the reef is one of the great parts of the world’s heritage. They do not even appear to have concern for the effects on the tourist industry, although it is evident already that pollution has affected the reef in those areas where tourism is a major industry. In short, the Queensland Government can be relied upon to drill the reef region with little or no consideration of the environmental aspects, no matter how catastrophic they may be.

On the other hand, the Federal Government claims it is committed to protect the reef. In February of this year the Prime Minister made his oft-quoted statement:

Let me give a complete and unequivocal guarantee. This Government will not allow drilling or any mining that would do anything to damage the reef.

In that he was supported by the Deputy Prime Minister who, just over a month earlier, had said:

The attitude of the Government is there won’t be any mining on the Great Barrier Reef. That’s been our attitude all along.

But in view of the contents of correspondence revealed since that statement, Mr Anthony’s views carry somewhat less weight. In any event, we have been told in this chamber again and again that the views of the Prime Minister are the ones to rely on and from that we can assume that whatever decisions the Commonwealth makes it will act on that complete and unequivocal guarantee. In my view it is very worrying that that attitude does not seem to be shared by a number of ministers, and in particular the Minister for National Development.

We of the Opposition say that if the Commonwealth is genuine about its commitment to protect the reef, it has the power to act on that commitment. It has that power as a result of the High Court decision in the Seas and Submerged Lands case, which decided that all waters below the low-water mark are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commonwealth. In those circumstances, there is no justification for there being any fears about the safety of the Great Barrier Reef if the Commonwealth is genuine in its commitment. The fact that the Commonwealth has this complete authority was spelt out clearly by the Federal Attorney-General, Senator Durack, as recently as 24 May. During the censure motion on Senator Webster misleading the Senate, the Attorney-General said:

The Federal Government has full power of control in relation to this area. The Federal Government has an ultimate constitutional power here to ensure that the policies are carried out and to ensure the exercise of its responsibilities.

Not only has the Federal Government power over the Great Barrier Reef region, it also has a responsibility under its own legislation to do nothing which would damage the reef, unless there is no feasible and prudent alternative. The reef region is on the register of the Australian Heritage Commission. Section 30 of the Heritage Commission Act requires Commonwealth ministers and departments to take no action which adversely affects the reef unless they are satisfied that there is no feasible and prudent alternative. As transfer of the reef to the Queensland Government would clearly adversely affect the reef in the light of Queensland Government intentions to drill the reef, the Commonwealth is under an obligation not to take that step.

When the Prime Minister sought Queensland Government support that the reef be nominated for inclusion in the world heritage list, that support was not forthcoming. The Premier would agree to support the inclusion of only those areas of the reef that had been assessed and surveyed as having prime ecological significance and which were considered suitable for declaration as marine parks. It is clear from that response that the Premier of Queensland will do nothing that will inhibit the prospect of drilling the reef for profit.

The publicly-expressed Commonwealth attitudes would be reassuring if the Commonwealth were not busily trying to transfer control of offshore waters back to State governments. During the debate on this issue in this chamber on 10 May, I disclosed to the Senate the lengths to which the Commonwealth was prepared to go to carry out that plan. Using dubious legal means, the Commonwealth was going to hand back control of the three-mile limit to State governments and enter into some type of joint control arrangement over areas such as petroleum leases and marine parks. I pointed out that the Commonwealth had always been on notice about the attitude of a number of State governments, but particularly those of Queensland and Western Australia. Those two governments argued at the most recent Premiers’ Conference that they did not want joint control of oil exploration areas but wanted exclusive control for themselves. Those statements were a clear indication that the fight for control over those areas will go on as long as the Commonwealth holds out any prospect that it will transfer control of these issues back to the States.

Since the Premiers’ Conference, discussions between officials and correspondence between the Prime Minister and the Queensland Premier made it clear that the Queensland Government would adopt a tough line over these issues. In the face of this pressure, Federal Cabinet, on 7 May, agreed to hand over the territorial sea to Queensland and make the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority a joint authority, with the Queensland Government. At this stage Commonwealth ministers refused to disclose what attitude was put to the Queensland Government at the meeting on 1 7 May, but no doubt the position was consistent with the Cabinet decision of ten days earlier. If that is so, then the Commonwealth Government has already moved a long way towards suggesting a transfer of powers to Queensland. There is also no doubt that the Queensland Government is insisting on the transfer of control of the reef region from the Commonwealth to itself. I have already indicated the attitude that the Queensland Government took at the Premiers’ Conference in 1978. That tough line was echoed during the meeting of 17 May when it insisted that the Great Barrier Reef region should be re-defined to include areas of reef only, thus excluding from the reef region significant areas of territorial sea adjacent to the Queensland coast. The Queensland Government refused any suggestion of a body having joint control in the area where it wanted exclusive jurisdiction, but was prepared to agree to joint control in any areas where the Commonwealth had exclusive jurisdiction. This position was confirmed after the meeting by the Queensland Minister for Justice, Mr Lickiss.

In other words, there is no gratitude on the part of the Queensland Government for the Commonwealth’s generous offer to hand over control of off-shore waters. Rather, that Government believes that it is entitled to such control and will seek to encroach on Commonwealth areas at every available opportunity. There is a real fear that, in the face of pressure from

Queensland, the Federal Government will take a weak line. I have already referred to Senator Durack ‘s comments during the debate last Thursday about the Commonwealth having ultimate constitutional power. At the time I asked, by way of interjection, that the Attorney-General give a guarantee about retaining jurisdiction. Senator Durack ‘s response was:

We are not talking about giving away the ultimate constitutional power of this Parliament.

I say, with respect, to the Attorney-General, that that is not the issue. It is of no consolation to the people of Australia that the Commonwealth has ultimate constitutional power if it permits the Queensland Government to act as that Government sees fit and to allow drilling on the Reef. One has only to think of the so-called joint arrangements over Aurukun and Mornington Island to realise just how little protection those arrangements offer. We saw, in Queensland’s treatment of the Aboriginal people in those areas, that ultimate constitutional power in the hands of the Commonwealth Government is worthless if it is prepared to allow the Queensland Government to take over the administration of those activities. Such is almost certain to be the case with the question of oil drilling on the Barrier Reef. The Queensland Government is determined that drilling on the reef will take place if the Commonwealth allows it to get control over those areas- even if the Commonwealth retains ultimate constitutional power- such drilling is inevitable.

The Federal Government has given certain assurances in relation to the reef. It has the power to act on those assurances. The public expects the Federal Government to act in the national interest. A recent survey indicated that 66 per cent of people believe that no drilling should be allowed on or near the reef. In Queensland, objection to drilling on the reef was even greater- 69 per cent expressed opposition to such drilling. In those circumstances, the Commonwealth has a clear duty to protect the reef. It can do so only by maintaining full control over it. By this motion we call on the Federal Government to maintain that control and thus act in the interests of Australia, and indeed the world.

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

– The motion which raises an alleged matter of urgency in the Senate is in two parts. The first part draws attention to:

  1. . the Prime Minister’s complete and unequivocal guarantee that the Government would not allow drilling that would do any damage to the Reef-

In other words, the motion accepts the objective which I think is a common objective for all Australians. The second part of the motion seeks a mechanism to bring about that objective. Over the weeks, Senator Wriedt has alleged that there will be drilling on the Great Barrier Reef. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony), the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) and many other Ministers have said without qualification that there will be no drilling on the reef and that there will be no mining or drilling that will in any way damage the reef. I make that perfectly clear. The Australian Labor Party is trying to put up Aunt Sallies to knock down just to create fears and apprehensions. I repeat that the Commonwealth Government has always understood very clearly what a unique heritage lies in the Great Barrier Reef.

I remind the Senate that it was this Commonwealth Government that set up the Australian Institute of Marine Science to undertake a detailed study in Australia of the reef. The Great Barrier Reef is the largest coral reef in the world. There is no doubt that its marine ecosystem is unique. Without any qualification, I repeat what the Prime Minister and his Ministers have said because it is important to gain an understanding of this motion: There will be no drilling on the reef. There will be no drilling or mining anywhere adjacent to the reef that will damage the reef. That is quite clear, and it has been said quite unconditionally. I shall read the relevant statements. On 2 1 February 1979 the Prime Minister stated:

Let me give a complete and unequivocal guarantee that this Government will not allow any drilling or any mining that would do anything to damage the reef. If there were to be any doubt that activity would not take place.

Having reaffirmed the position that the Government would not permit any drilling on the Great Barrier Reef or any drilling or mining that would damage the reef, on 22 May the Prime Minister emphasised:

  1. . that is a categoric and absolute guarantee. I have indicated on other occasions that more information is required for the permanent preservation of the reef in a number of circumstances. Accordingly, the Government has taken steps towards the consideration of what information is required concerning the reef environment and what research ought to be undertaken. The Australian Marine Sciences and Technologies Advisory Committee- AMSTAC- has been asked to submit advice on a program of research on the reef environment for consideration in the Budget context.

He concluded by stating unequivocally:

  1. . we would not allow anything to occur that could in any way damage the reef. If there is a doubt about whether an activity would damage the reef, that activity would not take place.

It is also clear that on 1 5 January this year the Deputy Prime Minister stated the attitude of the Government. He said that there would not be any mining on the Great Barrier Reef. The Royal Commissions into petroleum drilling in the area of the Great Barrier Reef brought in their findings. There was no dissension on one main finding. There was some dissension on possible activities adjacent to the reef. Earlier, the Government set up the Australian Institute of Marine Science. It has set the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation about its tasks and it has set a number of major research projects in action to determine how the reef may be preserved and how it may be managed. In order to understand how the reef may be preserved, a long term scientific inquiry must take place. Clearly, that inquiry will take some years because the management and understanding of the reef involves not only the effect of drilling or of oil spills but also the whole of the ecosystem- the tourist industry, the fishing industry and the wide range of activities that ebb and flow across the reef.

Fundamentally, by way of scientific inquiry the Government is seeking an overall concept so that it will understand the ecosystem and do nothing, wittingly or unwittingly, to hinder it. It does Senator Wriedt ‘s credibility no good to continue repeating that there is good reason to believe that the Federal Government is negotiating with the Queensland Government to achieve drilling on the reef. There is no reason to believe that. There is no negotiation by the Federal Government with the Queensland Government for drilling on the reef. In fact, there is no activation of permits and there is no contemplation of drilling. These are red herrings raised by Senator Wriedt who is now trying to interject. He has had his opportunity to speak. He dragged a whole host of rumours and red herrings across the trail and now, when the facts are coming out, he leaves the chamber because he does not even have the courtesy to stay and hear the rebuttal of the rubbish that he has put out. I ask the people of Australia to take note of the fact that this is the measure- (Quorum formed). Again, I invite the Senate and the people of Australia to note the device that the Labor Party Whip has tried to use to deflect me from drawing the attention of the people of Australia to the complete hypocrisy of the Labor Party and, indeed, the withdrawal of the Leader of the Opposition from the Senate. That is the measure of the debate- a series of absolutely groundless allegations with no support. They are incomplete allegations.

Senator Webster:

– There are four Labor senators present. That shows the Opposition’s interest in the matter.

Senator CARRICK:

– Yes, four Labor men are present. That shows the Opposition’s basic interest in the matter.

Opposition senators interjecting-

Senator CARRICK:

– They may call out but the fact is that that shows their interest in this matter. All they want to do is conduct a scattergun kind of campaign. It is the Federal Government which has given the categorical assurances in this matter. It is the Federal Government which has set up the scientific inquiries into this matter. It has set up the Australian Institute of Marine Science, lt is the Federal Government which has the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation making studies. We are working in association with the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority in the hope that fairly soon the Capricornia section of the proposed Great Barrier Reef National Park shall be declared. Honourable senators would know that it is possible under the Act for individual sections of the reef to be declared. This will be so.

Senator Georges:

– Why don’t you declare the whole of the reef and be done with it?

Senator CARRICK:

- Mr Deputy President, Senator Georges interjects. I remind him that the remark: ‘Sometimes he had shafts of enlightened silence’ applies as much to him as it did to Lord Macaulay. The honourable senator has not had them often enough for the sanity of the Australian people. The fact of the matter is that we are taking steps systematically to declare sections. We have every confidence that the Capricornia section will be declared. As Senator Wriedt has said, the reef itself is listed in the register of the National Estate. We acknowledge the fact that it is unique. It was the Fraser Government that took steps to nominate the Barrier Reef for listing in the world heritage lists. One would have thought that on the Opposition side there was some kind of monopoly on everything except shafts of enlightened silence. There are none of those. The fact is that all the practical steps that could be taken have been taken by this Government. When the Labor Government had its opportunities it did not take them. It had its three years so that the locusts had eaten. It did not do so. It now has a belated vision.

I come to the second part of the motion. It seeks to narrow the corridor for the solution of this matter. The Commonwealth Government has made it abundantly clear that it will achieve its goals. Let me make that clear. It will use whatever actions and whatever of its constitutional powers are necessary to achieve the objective of preserving the Great Barrier Reef. That is utterly clear. Senator Durack made it perfectly clear. I read from the Senate Hansard of 24 May where he is reported as saying:

The Federal Government has full power of control in relation to this area. The Federal Government has the ultimate constitutional power here to ensure that the policies are carried out and to ensure the exercise of its responsibilities. That clear undertaking on policy was given by the Prime Minister as recently as Tuesday, 22 May.

He went on to state:

I have just said that the Commonwealth has the ultimate constitutional power in this area. We are discussing with the States issues about the territorial seas around Australia. As I said in a similar debate recently, the discussions with the States are on the basis of the exercise by this Parliament- not anybody else- of its constitutional power.

That is clear enough. He continued:

We are not talking about giving away the ultimate constitutional power of this Parliament. Let that be clear. The Government has not as yet considered the report of the royal commission, far less made any decision in relation to it. Let me make it quite clear to Senator Wriedt that when 1 say the Government I mean the Cabinet.

So he went on. That was a clear statement which I reiterate. The Government fully understands that it has the full constitutional powers. It will use whatever constitutional powers are necessary to achieve its objective- the total protection of the Great Barrier Reef and the ecosystem and the establishment of the park. Unlike the Labor Government, which had three bleak years of absolute warfare with the States, the Commonwealth Government of today believes that Australia is a federation and that there should be a dialogue with the States. The Commonwealth Government of today, unlike the previous disastrous government, believes that rather than simply asserting its clout of power in relation to seas and submerged lands it should discuss with the States the sharing of territorial seas. Senator Wriedt has said much about Queensland and Western Australia wanting the territorial seas but what does he say about the three Labor States which are as profoundly eager as the Liberal States to achieve supervision over the territorial seas? What a mess, what a civil war there is between the State and Federal branches of the Labor Party. Let Senator Wriedt tell the three Labor States that he will use a unilateral clout. That is what he is saying now. He is saying: ‘Let the Labor Party come to power. It does not matter what happens. We will use our unilateral clout in the territorial seas’. That is for all purposes.

Senator Teague:

– Tasmania?

Senator CARRICK:

-Yes. Let me make it clear to the Tasmanian people that that is what is being implied. There is no question of a reasoned discussion between Federal and State governments. There is no question of trying to sort things out. The Labor Party is saying: ‘We will use the matilda tank ‘. Of course what I am saying hurts when it is applied to Tasmania, South Australia and New South Wales. Let Senator Wriedt tell Mr Wran in New South Wales that he would take control of the territorial seas. Mr Wran is having difficulty asserting his own sovereignty, much less than anybody else’s, at the moment.

We have a very simple situation. It is quite clear and utterly established that the Commonwealth Government is unequivocal in stating its goals, lt will ensure by every means available that there is a maintenance, a preservation, of the ecosystem of the Great Barrier Reef. Not only has it said that it will do this, but it has also set up a series of research projects to gain the information needed to carry out its aims. The Labor Party had three years in which to do that. It did nothing but talk. In fact, I understand that it was a Labor Government that granted these permits that are now alleged to be naughty. We are not activating them, but the Labor Government granted them. What a strange situation it is. Now honourable senators opposite are quiet. We have a clear pattern. Here is the Commonwealth Government giving an unqualified picture of its objectives. (Quorum formed). Only four Labor senators are now contributing to the quorum. That is counting Senator Georges as one. I am told that he is not standing up to be counted in Queensland at this moment. He has adopted something of an emigrant characteristic. I am told that he hopes that the Senate will sit for long enough to allow him to emigrate to Africa so that he does not have to go back to Queensland because he has matters other than the Great Barrier Reef to consider; he has his own ecosystem to consider.

I am reminded that within the area of the Great Barrier Reef region formal exploration under the authority to prospect system began in 1 955 under a State Labor government. The authority to prospect, costing 35d and covering 64,500 square miles, was granted in 1956. The humbug of it all is that the Opposition is now saying these kinds of things. We have established quite clearly that the Commonwealth has given an unqualified assurance not only to protect the reef but also to set up a scientific management within the whole area so that the ecosystem is, firstly, understood and then preserved. That is without qualification.

Senator MacGibbon:

– Furthermore, Senator, you are saying that the Government has done all that it is possible to do in the circumstances?

Senator CARRICK:

– The Government has indeed done very much, and the Labor Party has done nothing in this situation. The Government objects to the second part of the motion and will oppose the motion because it believes that it ought not to be herded into a Labor Party centralist approach in any kind of negotiations. I make this point clear: It may well be that the Government in resolving this matter will use its full constitutional powers. It will certainly act within them. Every discussion with the State Government is on the understanding that we are discussing the matter within the full constitutional powers of the Commonwealth Government. It may very well be that the Commonwealth Government will find it necessary to use its full powers. We believe in a Federal-State relationship. We believe that negotiations should continue. The fact is that the Cabinet in the weeks ahead will be considering the royal commission report. It will be considering the question of the implications of the long term scientific inquiry as to preservation. It will be looking at the control and management of the whole area and the control of the Park itself.

It will make all those decisions, I repeat, with the full knowledge that it has the powers to do so and with full emphasis on those. But it will be civilised in its discussions with the States concerned. It will bring about a situation in which the reef is preserved, and in which it is managed. Step by step it hopes to declare the Capricornia region soon. It hopes to declare the National Park and manage it. I regret very much indeed that the Labor Party should bring to this Senate a series of Aunt Sallys with no merit at all. I do not want anyone to misunderstand why the Government will oppose this motion. It is fundamentally in favour of the objective. In fact, it is the objective of the Government as stated. It does not want to be narrowly delimited into just one corner, as such. It acknowledges that it has the powers, it acknowledges that they are there for it to use and it acknowledges that it may use them. By the best means available it will do something that three years of the Whitlam Labor Government failed miserably to do.

Senator COLSTON:
Queensland

– For those people who are listening to the debate, I outline that this afternoon we are debating an urgency motion which states:

That, in view of the Prime Minister’s complete and unequivocal guarantee that the Government would not allow drilling that would do any damage to the Reef, and in view of the Queensland Government’s intention to allow drilling in the region of the Reef, the Commonwealth Government maintain full jurisdiction and control over the Great Barrier Reef region.

For the last 25 minutes or so we have been listening to Senator Carrick, the Leader of the Government in this place, who yesterday took great pleasure in playing school master and handing out Brownie points for literacy and numeracy. On his performance this afternoon I would offer two Brownie points to him for his efforts at literacy. On the other hand I would offer him 10 Brownie points for his admission throughout the whole of his speech that this Government will not retain control of the Great Barrier Reef. As I speak to this urgency motion, I will outline the need for the maintenance of full control by this Government and how Senator Carrick outlined that the Government would not do this.

A number of discussions have taken place in this chamber over recent weeks on the Great Barrier Reef. This is the first opportunity I have had of making a speech on this important matter during this session. As a senator for Queensland, I have a very special interest in the protection of the Great Barrier Reef. I do not speak this afternoon, as Senator Carrick has suggested, to throw some Aunt Sallys on this matter. It is a very important subject. The Reef extends for almost the full length of the eastern coast of Queensland. It stretches from the north near the mouth of the Fly River in Papua New Guinea to Lady Elliott Island. It stretches for a distance of 1,900 kilometres. The name Great Barrier Reef is a contradiction. It is not a single reef but a collection of coral reefs and islands. Indeed, the term Great Barrier Reef system has been suggested as a more suitable term than Great Barrier Reef. The extent of the Great Barrier Reef has been outlined on a number of occasions in this Senate. It is about twice the size in area of England. Whilst the Reef lies off the coast of Queensland it should not be regarded as Queensland’s reef. It should at least be regarded as Australia’s reef, a reef for the whole of our nation. As some would suggest, it should be a reef belonging to the entire world.

Although I am a Queenslander and have spent most of my life in Queensland, it was not until my early twenties that I first actually saw the reef, which is not unusual for many Queenslanders. There are still many Queenslanders who have not enjoyed the reef. Since my early twenties I have spent a great amount of time on the reef. Certainly since I have been a senator for Queensland my duties have often taken me to the Great Barrier Reef, right from the most southern part -

Government senators interjecting-

Senator COLSTON:

-Is it not amazing that honourable senators on the Government side regard the protection of the reef as a joke? They laugh and giggle. They think the Great Barrier Reef is something that they can let be destroyed and that would not hurt Australia at all. It is a pity that senators on the Government side, especially those from the southern climes who do not regard the reef as the prize that it is, do not listen to the arguments. It is a pity that Government senators laugh and giggle at the argument. I have never ceased to be attracted by the reef. It is a pity that some honourable senators opposite do not take a trip in a helicopter to see the beauty of the reef. It is something that they will never forget. The whole of the reef is being threatened. When this debate commenced this afternoon, I thought that we would have some concensus from honourable senators opposite. It was not until I heard Senator Carrick speak- all his efforts were directed towards a literary masterpiece without logic- that I realised that this Government was not going to retain control of the reef when that is so absolutely necessary.

The Great Barrier Reef is threatened. It is at risk. This is because of the relentless drive of some companies to explore for oil. As the world ‘s supply of oil dwindles, it is inevitable that there will be an increase in the desire to search for new oil supplies, to stave off for a short time the inevitable lack of fuel- fuel on which we have become so dependent. Let honourable senators make no mistake. The reef is under threat. Oil and coral do not mix. Currently there are four companies which have oil exploration permits on the Great Barrier Reef. These were mentioned earlier by Senator Wriedt and Senator Carrick. The oil companies in question are the Australian Gulf Oil Company, the Texaco Overseas Oil Company, the California Associated Oil Company and Gulf Interstate Overseas Ltd. The latter company has recently been taken over by Offshore Oil NL. With the exception of that company, all are owned by the United States. The fact that they are United States owned is not pertinent to my opposition and the opposition of the Australian Labor Party to oil exploration on the reef. No matter who may undertake that exploration, we are opposed to the actual prospect of oil exploration taking place on the reef.

Earlier, Senator Carrick mentioned with respect to the first part of the urgency motion that the Government has said that it will not allow drilling that would do any damage to the reef. He said that this was a common objective for all Australians. Unfortunately it is not. A number of people in Queensland do not regard this as an objective and would very much like to carry out exploration on the reef. The Queensland Minister for Mines, Energy and Police has made it abundantly clear that he would like to see oil exploration on the reef and in nearby areas. Clearly he would like to see his State have full jurisdiction of and control over the Great Barrier Reef region.

Jurisdiction over and control of the reef are the matters pertinent to what we are discussing this afternoon. In December of last year, Mr Camm said amongst other things.

Off-shore oil drilling has been going on throughout the world with no danger to marine life . . . technological developments in the last decade have virtually eliminated the possibility of a major spill.

Mr Ray Jones, the member for Cairns in the Queensland Parliament, whose electorate borders part of the reef and who is a colleague of mine, said that Mr Camm is risking his seat in Parliament with such suggestions. Mr Camm represents the electorate of Whitsunday. Terrible damage could happen to the reef bordering that electorate if oil drilling took place. The facts simply do not accord with Mr Camm’s statement. The risk to the reef presented by oil spillage is far too great to permit oil drilling.

Too often we read of oil spillage from oil rigs at sea. With all the goodwill in the world, accidents still happen. To date we still do not know what effect spillage of oil will have on the coral reef. The Premier of Queensland has done nothing to suggest that he feels any different from his Minister for Mines, Energy and Police. If this matter is left in the hands of the Queensland Government, the Great Barrier Reef could be dealt a death blow. The reef, as has been pointed out today, is a complex ecosystem which is not yet fully understood. To suggest with our current knowledge that oil will not harm it is extremely risky and borders on complete folly. We do not have to go back to the tragic foundering of an oil tanker on the northern part of the reef to understand the extreme danger to the reef. We need only consider various blowouts that have happened throughout the world to see that any oil spillage would be extremely dangerous to the Great Barrier Reef.

I was attracted to an editorial in the Australian dated 26 April 1977 which outlined how a blowout in the North Sea had affected whole areas of sea along the north coast of Britain. Because each speaker is limited to only 15 minutes when debating urgency motions, I will not read the editorial. Even though it is 2 years old, I do commend to honourable senators a reading of that editorial on blowouts. With the exception of the prediction that any new discovery of oil will be offshore, the comments made 2 years ago are just as valid today as they were then. We cannot take risks with the reef, confident that it will not be damaged. Earlier, mention was made of the strong public opinion in Queensland against oil drilling on the reef. The opinions of those overwhelmingly against drilling on the reef reflect the argument in the editorial, which I commend to honourable senators.

In view of the threat posed to the reef by the attitude of the Queensland Government, it would seem logical to look towards the Federal Government for an assurance that it will not support oil exploration on the Great Barrier Reef. It is not often that I find comfort when I look towards the current Federal Government but on this occasion until the debate began this afternoon I did. I found some comfort in Mr Malcolm Fraser ‘s assurance that there would not be oil drilling on the reef. On 22 May 1979, in response to a question directed to him, Mr Fraser said:

I have already made it clear to the House that the Government will not permit any drilling on the Great Barrier Reef or any drilling or mining which could damage the reef. That is a categoric and absolute guarantee.

Later he suggested that he would not allow drilling that was in the area of the reef and which would damage it. The expressed attitude of the Prime Minister that he will not allow drilling near the reef seems to be different from that of the Premier of Queensland who said that there is a tremendous amount of water where there is no reef. Apparently Mr Bjelke-Petersen does not understand that the Reef cannot be separated for exploration purposes into reef and water. The water and the reef are part of a complex system. Drilling near the reef is just as dangerous to the system as drilling on it.

As a senator for the State of Queensland along whose shores the reef stretches, I see that, unless the Commonwealth Government maintains full jurisdiction and control over the Great Barrier Reef region, the reef will be in grave danger of suffering irreparable damage. For many years the reef’s vast expanse led Australians to become complacent and to believe that nothing could cause it significant damage. Unfortunately, this attitude still persists in some honourable senators on the Government side who have now left the chamber. They were jeering and joking about the whole matter. No honourable senator should entertain any compromise on the issue of oil drilling of the Great Barrier Reef. Even if there is a remote possibility that any part of this complex system will be destroyed, there must be a complete moratorium on oil drilling. I support the motion that has been moved by my colleague, Senator Wriedt.

Senator MASON:
New South Wales

-The Australian Democrats are concerned about the Great Barrier Reef in relation to this question of oil drilling. We believe that the Australian community also is concerned and is becoming increasingly concerned, perhaps more so than ever before in our history, and with good reason. The Australian Democrats are concerned because there are those in our community who are trying to appeal to the Australian society on several dishonest levels. The first such level says, in effect, that if we do not drill the reef, and soon, we will not have petrol to run our cars. That has actually been said in the Press. As I said a few minutes ago, this is not only put at the lowest possible level of greed, selfishness and sheer philistinism, but it is also specious and untrue. We do have plenty of options open to us in this society to keep our traffic moving. It is only a matter of honestly facing up to those problems and laying down an energy policy involving the use of fuel alcohol, electric cars, natural gas, the condensate from gas, and perhaps at some stage oil from coal or shale, and we can guarantee into the indefinite future the traffic mobility that we need to keep our society reasonably prosperous in our nation of such great distances. The Australian Democrats commend the Government for the action it is beginning to take in this regard, particularly the action concerning the use of alcohol supplements to fuel. Drilling the reef would not solve the problem of motor spirit. At best it might only delay the problem a few years, and so exacerbate it. As I hope to demonstrate, that would be achieved at appalling cost to our society.

The other thing I want to say is that the best professional assessment of oil on the reef area that I have seen to date is that the possibilities are poor to fair. On tests made so far, it would appear that there is probably no considerable amount of oil on the reef. It would have to be a very considerable resource, would it not, to be commercial, because of the much greater safeguards which would be needed in that area if the reef were to be developed and drilled for oil.

That brings me to my second point: Is it really worth it in cold economic terms- not aesthetically, not morally, although naturally the Australian Democrats support those values above all in this matter, but in sheer money terms? Of course not.

Senator Puplick:

– Good Lord!

Senator Chipp:

– Do you find that funny?

Senator Sim:

– Yes.

Senator Teague:

– It is not funny; it is pompous.

Senator MASON:

– In reply to those interjections I will say that I meant exactly what I said. I think I must say to Senator Puplick that moral and aesthetic values are held by many Australians. But I think it is also necessary to examine this matter in sheer money terms. The reef is a natural asset of world importance with sporting, fishing and tourist facilities. It has the potential to be probably the most important tourist attraction in the world, without any exception. It is a place to which hopefully in the future when people have more leisure, hundreds of thousands of people would be glad to come. I believe that this potential alone, intelligently, conservationally and carefully exploited, would be worth very much more than any oil which may be taken out of it in the meantime, and for very much longer. I emphasise that point. The oil, if it is there, would be useful for only a short time. As I have said, it can be readily replaced by other fuels, if we can get ourselves together sufficiently and find those alternatives. We would be a poor, weak people, would we not, if we could not do that with our natural advantages, if we were to say to ourselves that we have no alternative but to rip out what future generations may need, that we will not even try to do without this oil, that we are prepared to devastate natural resources just because we want it now, like a child wanting a toy.

Those people who accept the specious words being fed to us- and fed to us, it must be said, by the oil industry itself- that oil from the Great Barrier Reef might solve our future energy problems, are whistling in the dark. The oil industry says, and its political supporters confirm, that we could drill not actually the reef itself but other places in the reef region, without damaging the reef. They say: ‘Trust us, and everything will be fine’. But is this really so? I suggest it is not so, and here is the true importance and true significance of the sincere pledge that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has made.

The policy of the Australian Conservation Foundation, supported by the Australian Democrats, is that the entire continental shelf waters, from the Queensland coast to the outer extremities of the reef, are an intimately associated natural system. If we meddle with any part of it we stand a grave risk of damaging the reef itself. I am not making that assertion myself. In support of it, I should like to quote some highly respected authorities on this matter. I quote first a letter written by Professor F. H. Talbot, President of the Great Barrier Reef Committee and Director of the Centre for Environmental Studies, Macquarie University, to the Sydney Morning Herald. The letter reads:

Sir, Recently a number of politicians have talked of never drilling the corals of the Great Barrier Reef, but of drilling its waters. This is a misconception.

The waters that flow between the reefs carry essentially drifting planktonic food to the corals and carry nutrients to the plants. They also transport the eggs and larvae of fishes, coral and other reef animals for an important part of their life.

The Great Barrier Reef includes both the reef itself, its coral and its waters -

I commend these next words in particular to honourable senators: and if these waters are drilled the reef itself is being drilled. From recent overseas spills we also now know that oil kills and deforms eggs and larvae.

Drilling the reef may result in a rather doubtful short term oilfield. The alternative is the declaration of the greatest marine park on earth.

I quote next Sir Maurice Yonge, the world ‘s veteran authority on the Great Barrier Reef. This is a letter from Sir Maurice to the Sydney Morning Herald, a fine newspaper:

The Great Barrier Reef is the most important and biggest reef structure in the world. lt is a very elaborate and complicated ecological system.

No one can predict what could be the results on the reef of a major oil spillage.

The possibilities are that the whole reef could be killed or that sections of it could be seriously damaged for many years.

The damage to one reef near an oil spillage would affect the whole reef system because of the biological interconnection.

In contrast, I should like to quote a comment by that noted conservationist, the Queensland Minister for Mines and Energy, Mr Camm. It states:

The Great Barrier Reef area represents only a small fraction of the region over which petroleum exploration rights are being considered the Queensland Minister for Mines and Energy, Mr Camm, said yesterday.

He told Parliament he would have further talks with the companies concerned and the Federal Government to determine future exploration in the Reef area.

This would be done so that no harm would occur to the coral reefs themselves.

Honourable senators will notice how different is the view of this Queensland politician from the expert opinions I have earlier quoted, opinions of those who really know and have the interest of the reef at heart. I quote now from the Melbourne Age of May 2 1 , a comment by Mr David McGarry, Senior Vice-President of the Australian Petroleum Exploration Society. At least Mr McGarry is a little more honest than Mr Camm. The comment reads:

Mr McGarry would not rule out the possibility of an accident during production if oil was found in reef waters.

But companies working on the reef would be very careful because of the cost of cleaning up after spills.

Mr President, anyone who has seen the reef, its vast areas of shallow water often exposing the coral at low tide, knows that nothing bigger than a row boat could get into much of that vast complex. Granted all the money in the world, once the oil had drifted across the reef area, there is no way it could be cleaned up except by dropping detergent on it from the air, thereby sinking the tarry deposit and causing immediate coral damage. Any oil not cleared up would be deposited on vast areas of living coral at the next low tide. I repeat, there is no one who can guarantee or even reasonably promise to keep an oil spill originating anywhere on the continental shelf within the reef from damaging the reef. Hence the Australian Democrats find the Prime Minister’s assurances very welcome. But what would be the chance of oil spills or other damage from drilling? It would be very considerable. This area is subject regularly to cyclonic storms. That means that whatever oil platform is erected, or whatever structure is erected, would be subject to damage. I have heard this matter discussed before, but I have never heard any convincing answer to the point. But the oilmen tell us there will not be any trouble. How much of this can we believe? I am indebted to a good friend, Dr Norman K. Sanders, who was with the Department of Geography at the University of California, at Santa Barbara, Dr Sanders had occasion to put a submission before the Assembly Planning and Land Use Committee of the State of California on the environmental costs and benefits of off-shore oil drilling. He stated, among other things:

The oil companies have issued repeated assurances through the years that they have solved their pollution problems, but the record indicates otherwise. We in Santa Barbara received reassuring words before our disastrous 1 969 blowout which poured 3,500,000 gallons of crude oil on to our beaches. The residents of the shores of the Gulf of Mexico were told not to worry, that modern technology was fail-safe’ and then in 1970 had to watch in horror as a Chevron Oil Company platform caught fire and burned out of control. When dynamite finally killed the fire, oil continued to spill into the sea Tor an additional 2 1 days until its flow was stopped. After another flurry of press releases about advanced oilfield technology, a 22-well Shell Oil Company platform in the same region blew up in 1971. It took four months to stem the flow of oil- a process which cost four lives and $36,000,000.

I will continue to quote from this admirable report. Dr Sanders continues:

The Special Legislature Commission on Marine Boundaries and Resources of the Massachusetts State Senate’s report on offshore drilling is interesting. The Commission strongly recommended that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts oppose all phases of offshore oil development until a number of conditions are met, including waiting ‘until blow-out and spill prevention technology have sufficiently improved to be clearly fail-safe and until oil spill technology can adequately cope with an ocean spill in adverse seas and weather conditions so as not to cause any damage to the marine environment and public health from its own effects. ‘ The Commission also found that ‘American corporate oil interests have a serious detrimental influence on government resource management decisions and regulation, both through direct political influence and by partial, if not complete, corporate monopolization of alternative energy sources, e.g. gas, coal, and nuclear fuels. ‘

Dr Sanders continued:

Specific hazards attend every phase of offshore oil exploration, production and transportation. During the exploration phase, test wells are drilled into unknown geological structures from portable rigs. High potential exists for blowouts during this operation, especially in deeper water. If oil is encountered during the exploratory drilling operation, it is ignited and burned in a flaring device. Sometimes, however, the oil is simply dumped on the surface of the sea. When the test data is obtained, the exploratory holes are supposed to be capped. In the Santa Barbara area, considerable oil spills to the surface from inadequately capped test wells.

When exploration establishes the presence of oil, platforms are installed and more holes drilled. These wells are also subject to blowouts and furnish further pollution through accidental or intentional oil and mud discharge and dumping of acids used for increasing the flow of oil through the production zones. In addition, fire hazard can be great on oil rigs as shown by the Shell and Standard disasters in the Gulf of Mexico and two major fires in the Santa Barbara Channel. One fire destroyed 22 wells on a Mobil Oil pier near Santa Barbara and the other caused an estimated $1,000,000 damage to a 12-well Standard Oil platform offshore.

Mr President, I think that those matters are highly relevant to what we are discussing today. After all, we are discussing fundamentally whether the Queensland Government’s attitude that it is perfectly all right to drill for oil on the Great Barrier Reef region is justified and whether the Queensland Government should be allowed jurisdiction. I believe that, having made those points, I have said enough to question seriously the credibility of those people, including those people in the Queensland Government, who have said: ‘We we can drill the reef area and cause no damage to the reef itself. In a way, I can understand the attitude of foreign oil men who, after all, are interested in running their businesses. But it should be our responsibility to protect our assets- not theirs. We should not leave it to them. It is a matter of reassurance to the Australian Democrats that the Prime Minister has given the guarantee he has against the remotest possibility -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honourable senator’s time has expired. (Quorum formed).

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

-It is my pleasure to rise to speak in support of the Government on the urgency motion which is before the Senate today. Before turning to the substance of my speech, I must say that I was relieved to hear Senator Mason say at the end of his speech that what he had said was highly relevant to the motion. I look forward to reading his speech in Hansard tomorrow as he read the part which he was quoting at such a speed that I could not understand what he was saying. I, with other Government senators on this side of the chamber, just could not hear what he was saying, so I cannot make any comment on its relevance at this stage.

Senator Chipp interjected towards the beginning of Senator Mason’s speech when Senator Mason made some comment about morals and aesthetics and some mirth was displayed on this side of the chamber. Senator Chipp indicated that we found morals and aesthetics in some way amusing. I assure Senator Chipp that Government senators take the moral and aesthetic aspects of this matter very seriously indeed. What we found amusing, frankly, was the rather pompous, schoolmasterish way in which the remarks were delivered to us. It does not advance the case of the Australian Democrats at all for its members to patronise us in that way.

I cannot make any further comment on the content of Senator Mason’s speech because, as I said, it was virtually inaudible on this side of the chamber because of the pace at which it was read. But I do want to make some comments on what Senator Colston said. For Senator Colston’s sake I will repeat slowly some of the statements made by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Carrick, because apparently Senator Colston did not understand them when Senator Carrick made them. For Senator Colston’s sake I will repeat some of the things which the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) have said and that Senator Carrick has said on his own behalf. I shall refer just briefly to the total scope of the urgency motion and then mention the parts which Senator Colston needs yet to understand.

We have before us an urgency motion on the subject of the Great Barrier Reef. Mr President, I understand that this is the fourth debate we have had on that subject in the Senate in the last three weeks of sitting. One would have thought that by now the message would have got through fairly clearly. When first I read the urgency motion it appeared that that was so and that the Opposition had at least read and heard what the Government has been saying for a long time. The first part of the motion refers to the fact that the Prime Minister has given a complete and unequivocal guarantee that the Government would not allow drilling that would do any damage to the reef. The House of Representatives Hansard for 2 1 February 1 979 shows that the Prime Minister said:

But let me give a complete and unequivocal guarantee that this Government would not allow any drilling or any mining that would do anything to damage the reef. If there were to be any doubt about that, activity would not take place.

For Senator Colston’s benefit I repeat yet again what the Prime Minister said on 22 May. He said:

Accordingly, the Government has taken steps towards the consideration of what information is required concerning the reef environment and what research ought to be undertaken. The Australian Marine Sciences and Technologies Advisory Committee- AMSTAC- has been asked to submit advice on a program of research on the reef environment for consideration in the Budget context.

Surely that is what we all, including the Democrats, want. The Prime Minister continued:

I hope all honourable gentlemen will be able to look upon the accomplishment of that research under the proposals of AMSTAC as something which will advance the cause of the preservation of the reef in all circumstances.

I shall read the next part very slowly for Senator Colston ‘s benefit. The Prime Minister then said:

Let me say in the most clear and categoric terms that we would not allow anything to occur that would in any way or could in any way damage the reef. If there is a doubt about whether an activity would damage the reef, that activity would not take place.

The second part of the Opposition’s motion refers to the Queensland Government’s attitude and 1 will come back to that. For a moment I want to go in the context of those sorts of quotations to remind Senator Colston and other Opposition senators of some of the things the Attorney-General has said on aspects raised by the third part of the urgency motion. In the same debate from which I have just quoted- the debate that took place in the Senate last week- the Attorney-General said:

The Federal Government has full power of control in relation to this area. The Federal Government has the ultimate constitutional power here to ensure that the policies are carried out and to ensure the exercise of its responsibilities. That clear undertaking on policy was given by the Prime Minister as recently as Tuesday, 22 May.

Senator Georges:

– How do you know that?

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– Further on in the same speech Senator Durack said:

We are discussing with the States issues about the territorial seas around Australia.

I understand Senator Georges ‘s anxiety to learn. He needs to. 1 ask him to let me have my turn for the next 10 minutes. I will inform him of the position. Senator Durack went on to say:

As I said in a similar debate recently -

There has been a great deal of reiteration on this- . . the discussions with the States are on the basis of the exercise by this Parliament- not anybody else- of its constitutional power. We are not talking about giving away the ultimate constitutional power of this Parliament. Let that be clear.

One would have thought that the position could not have been put clearer. One had some wild fancy at first when Senator Wriedt commenced his speech that at last members of the Opposition had got that into their heads. But they went off on some tangents as, indeed, the motion does.

Our objection is this: We do not mind the Opposition in its urgency motion finally giving us credit for what we have been saying for months in quite clear and unequivocal terms. What we do mind is that the Opposition thinks it can preempt discussions with the States, that it can preempt this Government’s relationships with various State governments on the subject of territorial seas and tell us in the Senate today exactly what we are to do in the future. I remind the Senate and the people of Australia how disastrous the Labor Party was in government, in respect of its relations with the States when it tried to implement its policies. The Labor Party wants us yet again to pick up one of its failed policies. It is a pity that honourable senators opposite do not look at some of those failed policies and consider once again that it was a Labor government which issued the leases for mining on the reef. Whilst we do not accept dictation from the Australian Labor Party on what our policy should be, there is nothing in our stated policies to which it can take exception. One is not sure whether it is a case of the Opposition refusing to listen on occasions or whether it is a case of the truth hurting.

I said that I would quote some of the words Senator Carrick used in the Senate today. I think it is important that I do so in view of the fact that Senator Colston chose to try to indicate that Senator Carrick had somehow obscured the matter. In fact he did not. He gave the quotations that I have just given. I wrote down some of the words he used and I wish to quote some of them verbatim. In case there is any doubt about the accuracy of the quote, I point out that I am quoting from my own handwritten record of what he said. Senator Carrick said that the Government will ensure by every means available that there is a preservation, a maintenance, of the Barrier Reef ecosystem’. There is not any catch in it at all. It is quite unequivocal. That is what Senator Carrick said. I understood what he said. Senator Colston did not understand. I hope that what I have just said will allay all of Senator Colston’s worst fears. I just do not think that the position could be any plainer.

Senator Carrick also pointed out, as I would like to point out, that it is not in Queensland’s interest to damage the reef. A substantial section of Queensland’s economy is bound up with the maintenance and preservation of the Great Barrier Reef. The reef is an enormous resource for Queensland ‘s economy. It is a substantial source of tourist income. I do not take exception to what Senator Wriedt said about the damage that tourists can do. I agree that we must take certain steps to ensure that tourism itself does not damage our natural assets. But the fact is that for a long time a major part of the tourist industry in Queensland has been based on the reef. The reef is also a major fishing resource and fishing makes up a very substantial part of the rural income in Queensland. Queenslanders do not want the reef damaged. The Queensland Government has indicated that it acknowledges the enormous importance of the reef to Queensland. There is no dispute about the fact that people do not want the reef damaged.

I speak not in a jingoistic sense as a Queenslander. I acknowledge as a Queenslander not only that we have a great national resource lying off our State’s shores but also that we have a great world resource for which we have an international responsibility. I believe it ought to be established that it is not in Australia’s interest and it is certainly not in the Queensland Government’s interest to pursue policies which would do damage to the Barrier Reef. The Labor Party chooses when it runs out of words and excuses for the weak case it attempts to put forward on this subject to sweep aside the fact that its attitudes in the past have been different and to concentrate its policies on some anti-mining type propaganda which I will not even dignify with a response this afternoon. I think that the issues relating to the Barrier Reef are clear. The Government’s stand is abundantly clear and we have reiterated it in unequivocal terms. I think the

Senate ought to seek its fourth resolution on this subject in three weeks. I move:

Question put:

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

AYES: 31

NOES: 24

Majority……. 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question put:

That the motion (Senator Wriedt’s) be agreed to.

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

AYES: 24

NOES: 31

Majority……. 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 2332

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Prices Justification Amendment Bill 1979.

Norfolk Island Bill 1979.

Remuneration Tribunals Amendment Bill 1 979.

page 2332

TRADE NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the text of a statement by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) on Australia-European Economic Community trade negotiations.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-by leave- I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2332

LIFE INSURANCE COMMISSIONER

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– Pursuant to section 1 1 of the Life Insurance Act 1945 I present the annual report of the Life Insurance Commissioner for the year ended 3 1 December 1978.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-by leave- I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2332

AUSTRALIA-EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY BILATERAL TRADE NEGOTIATIONS

Senator CARRICK:
Minister for Education · New South Wales · LP

– On behalf of the Attorney-General (Senator Durack), for the information of honourable senators I present the text of a statement by the Minister for Special Trade Representations (Mr Garland) on Australia’s bilateral negotiations with the European Economic Community in the context of the Multilateral Trade Negotiations.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– by leave- I move:

I wish to speak briefly to the motion. The statement was read in the House of Representatives last night and was an adjunct to the statement which had been read previously by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and which has been tabled by Senator Carrick this afternoon. I do not think that there is very much one can say about the statements in terms of factual content, because there is no factual content. There are a number of glib assurances that major or significant concessions have been achieved in various areas, but we are not told what those concessions are. We are assured that Australia will have greater access to the European Economic Community market for a number of agricultural products in particular. We are told that quotas will be increased for meat, for example, but we are not told by how much quotas will be increased. The statements are completely nonspecific. It is quite clear that the only reason that these statements have been brought down by the Prime Minister and by the Minister for Special Trade Representations (Mr Garland) is to attempt to justify their globetrotting over the last two years.

Two years ago, when the Prime Minister was on his mid-summer world junket in Europe, he treated the world to a demonstration of what was called by the EEC Minister ‘wild buffalo diplomacy’. He rushed over to Europe recklessly issuing to assorted European nations threats as to what would happen if they did not open up their markets to Australian agricultural products. Finally he realised that there was no point in threatening any European nation on an individual basis because the members of the EEC subscribe to a common agricultural policy which is, indeed, the linchpin of the organisation. At least we have progressed to the point where the Government, and even the Prime Minister, realised that to negotiate in a meaningful way with the Community with respect to modifications of its common agricultural policy one has to do so en bloc.

Since then the Prime Minister has had another couple of stop-offs in Europe while on his regular globe-trotting missions. Our tourist Prime Minister, rather than make a meaningful contribution to trade negotiations with Europe, issued a few more statements designed for domestic consumption. His special representative, Mr Garland, spends about half the year trotting around the world.

The non-specific, nebulous statements that were read in the House of Representatives last night, and tabled here today, are a pathetic attempt by both the Prime Minister and the Minister for Special Trade Representations to justify their globe-trotting activities. If they ever produce anything specific, that means anything, perhaps we can have a meaningful discussion, but that is not possible at this stage. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2333

AUSTRALIAN PLAGUE LOCUST COMMISSION

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

– For the information of honourable senators, I present the annual report of the Australian Plague Locust Commission for the year ended 30 June 1 978.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

-by leave- I move:

From the quick perusal I have had of this document, it appears to be a comprehensive one that would make very good reading for anyone who was concerned about plague locusts. I would hope that farmers’ organisations in the three States involved would be given copies of it and would distribute them to as many members of their organisations as possible. From some of the charts it appears that plague locusts do not present much of a problem in Victoria. Queensland, New South Wales and South Australia appear to be the States that have the most to be concerned about. I hope that copies will be made available to farmers so that they can see that some valuable work has been done in trying to control plague locusts in Australia. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2333

AUSTRALIAN IONISING RADIATION ADVISORY COUNCIL

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

– For the information of honourable senators, I present a report by the Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council on Radiological Safety and Future Land Use at the Maralinga Atomic Weapons Test Range.

Senator MASON:
New South Wales

-by leave- I move:

I should like to refer briefly to chapter 7, ‘The Present Situation at Maralinga’ which appears at page 1 7. The report, although fairly recent, is a little out of date; it was published in January 1979. However, certain statements made on pages 16 and 17 do give cause for concern about the present state of plutonium deposits at risk at Maralinga. I ask the Government whether it can give some assurances in that regard. Under the section ‘Burial pits’, the following appears:

Nevertheless, the situation at present is unsatisfactory in one respect. . . . The airfield pit which contains 500 of plutonium, dispersed in about 1 tonne of salt in six steel drums, is covered only by a steel plate and a metre or so of soil. Its contents are accessible and, for that reason, unsafe even though a sensible person would not wish to interfere with them. Moreover, the security fence at this cemetery . . . has been removed.

Later, in chapter 8 at page 19 the report states, under the heading, ‘The Future at Maralinga ‘:

If some action is taken to remove or secure the retrievable plutonium at the airfield cemetery, and to make secure pits containing substantial amounts of cobalt-60, the same statement can be made about that burial area.

That statement relates to diminishing risk. Meanwhile, it appears that there may be at Maralinga a deposit of 500 grams of plutonium, a very considerable amount, which is not at present secure. Although the report states on the same page that the risk will diminish in the future we must bear in mind that the half-life of plutonium is some 24,400 years; so we are looking a long way into the future for that risk to diminish.

At page 16 in a comment under ‘Risk from Dispersed Plutonium’, the writer of the report hedges his bets pretty closely. He states:

Calculations on this basis, with cautious assumptions on local meteorological conditions, indicate that, under natural conditions, resuspended dust will very rarely, if ever, present a plutonium hazard.

A fact that is well known is that plutonium in the form of dust in minute amounts is a very ready creator of lung cancer. I would like also to draw that matter to the attention of the Government. The Australian Democrats are particularly interested in the fact that certain plutonium at Maralinga is stored in salt in steel drums and covered by only a steel plate and a metre or so of soil. We ask: Is that still the case? If so, can someone clean it up pretty quickly?

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I too am worried about this report. Firstly, although it is dated January 1979 it was not presented to this chamber until today, 30 May 1979- a lapse of many months. As Senator Mason has said, the half-life of plutonium is approximately 25,000 years. The report expresses, in regard to various areas, a number of doubts. I do not know whether it has been so phrased as to be convincing to geologists and other scientists who are able to work out the tables with great accuracy, but certainly some of the recommendations are quite clear. In almost every one a let-out clause has been inserted. I do not propose to refer to the points that have been made by Senator Mason, because they are clear in themselves. However, at page 56 of the report, under ‘Conclusions’, we read:

However, from the available data, the main conclusions are: The uptake of plutonium by plants appears to be a little higher than was expected, but this may have been due to the difficulty of washing the samples. In any event, these levels do not present a hazard to animals or man eating the plants.

On an earlier page, it points out that the plants were washed in alcohol and then in water. There seems to be some doubt whether it was a true sample. Another conclusion is:

There is only very minor uptake of plutonium by small animals. This is in agreement with other findings and is of no consequence.

Earlier, the document states that one animal, a rabbit, apparently registered a substantial amount but the explanation is that the plutonium was caught up in dust in the fur. Dingoes apparently showed no appreciable levels. Dingoes wander much more widely than rabbits, which are inclined to stay in a small area. The report also mentions:

Plutonium is distributed very unevenly with a wide concentration variation occurring at the three main sites.

An interesting observation earlier in the report is that plutonium is not supposed to seep into the ground, but is found only a few centimetres below the surface. Apparently evidence now available indicates that this is not so and it may be found at much greater depths. The report continues:

The prevailing meteorological conditions are such that only on very rare occasions (if ever) would the plutonium concentration in air from naturally resuspended dust in the processed areas exceed the maximum allowable figure for members of the public.

Dust raised artificially in the processed areas, e.g. by movement of vehicles, cattle or perhaps large numbers of people, could result in an airborne concentration of plutonium greater than the maximum lifetime recommendation for non-radiation workers. However, the concentration of the dust itself would be so high that it would make working conditions uncomfortable, particularly for extended periods.

Maralinga is not far from the homelands of Aborigines who are likely to walk through that area and perhaps spend fairly long times there. They are people who are used to walking in these areas, where there are arid conditions and high levels of dust. There are a number of safety factors that I do not think have been properly explained. To summarise, I quote from the foreword of the report. It states:

In June 1 974 the Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council (AIRAC), at its first meeting in its present form, was asked for its views on what land-use restrictions were still necessary at Maralinga. The question arose with respect to a proposal that the Australian Government should relinquish its administrative control over part or all of the range. The Council saw no reason why control over the greater part of the range should not be relinquished at once, but considered that control over the airfield cemetery, and the sites of the nuclear explosions, which included other burial grounds and contaminated areas, should be retained at least until an uptodate field study of the range had been carried out.

One of the side effects of mining uranium in this country will be that when the rich ore bodies are exhausted and the fields are abandonedwhether they are fields of the nature of Maralinga or fields such as Mary Kathleenthose areas will have to be put under constant watch, probably for thousands of years. To keep people away from these sites will cost a great deal of money.

In regard to the analysis of plutonium in plants, page 51 of the report contains this reference:

The probable explanation is that the washing procedure used on the plants before analysis, i.e. washing with alcohol (during transport) and then with 3 x 100 mL of water, may not have completely removed plutonium adhering to the plants. Any residual surface plutonium would then have been analysed along with that genuinely absorbed by the plant, thus leading to a high result.

Another possibility is that the plutonium dioxide may have become partially soluble during its twenty-year exposure on the ground, thus making it more available to plants; this again would lead to a higher result than expected.

It is not a sufficient excuse to say that people will not eat the plants in the area. We do not know what will happen in this area in 200 years. It might be irrigated and used for gardening. Radioactive waste has been found under schools and housing areas because the people who buried that waste many years ago did not realise the danger of uranium and its derivatives.

The final point I quote from the report is:

For some time it was believed that plutonium deposited on the soil surface did not move downward to any significant extent. However, with the development of more sensitive techniques for detecting plutonium, this material has been found at unexpected depths.

The report then cites the fact that plutonium has been found at a depth of 30 centimetres in some of the proving grounds. It continues: a study of Nevada test site soil profiles found that although in many cases over 95 per cent of the plutonium occurred in the top 5cm of soil, some plutonium could be detected to a depth of 25cm and possibly beyond.

The excuse given for not tracing it downwards is that apparently those concerned did not want to spend too much time in the area while carrying out these experimentations. I suggest that all honourable senators place great importance on the report that has been presented to this Chamber. It ought to be taken into consideration in the whole of our approach to mining uranium for the development of nuclear power.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

- Mr President, 1 wish to attract your attention to the front of the report of the Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council- it is not a large report- where there is a list of changes to the report. I thought that, being a scientific report, it would have been subject to the scrutiny which would have avoided the addition of a substantial roneoed list of corrections. I may appear to be raising a trivial point, but it is a scientific report and there is no room in it for such last minute corrections. The correction which brings the whole of the report under question involves line 14 of page 55. The list of errata states:

For ‘very high ‘ read’ relatively high ‘.

Line14 of page 55 reads:

Pit 6 is in an area of very high surface plutonium contamination . . .

By attaching the errata list, the authors want to delete ‘very high surface plutonium contamination’ and to insert ‘relatively high surface plutonium contamination’. I ask the Senate: How can merit be given to a scientific document of this sort if they wish to make a very important change of this type? Would the Mi nister for Science and the Environment (Senator Webster) be prepared to seek from those who are responsible for the report the reasons for the change and would he get them to give the Senate some explanation why such an important change should be made? It does throw the whole of the report into question. How can one reduce the importance of that line by this method and suddenly remove the emphasis of ‘very high’, and insert ‘relatively high’.

Perhaps the appointment of a committee of the Senate is required to take a very close look at this report and question whether it was a rushed report or whether the report was subject to subsequent editing of a scientific nature, not of a literary nature. I raise this matter because I consider it to be important. I think it is a disgrace that the report should be amended in this way after it was printed. It is also a disgrace that the scientific conclusions should be so altered after the report has been printed.

Senator Peter Baume:

– I move:

Senator Chipp:

- Mr President–

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Chipp desires to speak.

Senator Peter Baume:

– I understand that. I move:

Senator Chipp:

– I wish to take a point of order. I indicated to the Government Whip that I wanted one minute simply to ask the Government whether Senator Mason’s question about what has been done or is proposed to be done about the plutonium at the cemetery pit will be answered. I think that is a fair question. Through you, Mr President, I ask Senator Baume to withdraw his motion. I promise that I will be only one minute.

Senator Peter Baume:

- Mr President, on that basis I withdraw the motion.

The PRESIDENT:

– I call Senator Chipp.

Senator CHIPP:
Leader of the Australian Democrats · Victoria

– I will not repeat what Senator Mason said. The information is contained on pages 1 7 and 1 9 of the report of the Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council. As soon as Senator Mason asked the question, Senator Webster left the chamber, we presume to get the information. The report states:

The airfield pit which contains500g of plutonium, dispersed in about1 tonne of salt in six steel drums, is covered only by a steel plate and a metre or so of soil.

The half life of plutonium is 24,000 years. This report says: the risk will diminish in the future. If some action is taken to remove or secure the retrieval plutonium at the airfield cemetery, and to make secure pits containing substantial amounts of cobalt-60, the same statement can be made about that burial area.

It was referring to Taranaki. All I am asking is: Does the Government propose at some stage to answer Senator Mason’s question as to whether something has been or is proposed to be done about that problem?

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I will direct the attention of the Minister for Science and the Environment (Senator Webster) to Senator Georges’ question and to the matters raised by Senator Mason. The Minister is unavoidably out of the chamber. I acknowledge that this was an important matter and elected to be here to hear the remarks. I will obtain the answers.

Debate (on motion by Senator Peter Baume) adjourned.

page 2336

PATROL BOAT BASE: CAIRNS

Senator KILGARIFF:
Northern Territory

– In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1 969, 1 present the report relating to the following proposed work:

Patrol Boat Base at Cairns, Queensland.

page 2336

LEGISLATION PROGRAM

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– by leave- Mr President, on Monday I referred to the full but feasible program of legislation that the Government is bringing before the Senate in these sittings. I undertook to keep honourable senators advised of essential Bills as progress is made. All honourable senators will be well aware that progress with the legislation has been very slow. We will certainly need to consider Bills with more expedition if the sittings are not to be prolonged into time we would all wish to devote to other necessary duties outside the Parliament. Accordingly, with the thought of what a week’s work might have achieved, the Government proposes for passage today and tomorrow the Appropriation Bills, consideration of which is already well advanced and is towards an end, the two Wool Industry Bills, two Wheat Industry Stabilization Bills, the Wine Grape Bills and the Atomic Energy Amendment Bill.

page 2336

TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INTERCEPTION) BILL 1979 [No. 2]

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– On behalf of the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) I present the Telecommunications (Interception) Bill 1979 [No. 2].

Bill read a first time.

Standing Orders suspended.

Second Reading

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

I move:

This Bill replaces the Bill of the same title that the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) introduced into the Senate on 8 March 1979. The changes from the replaced Bill concern the procedures for granting interception warrants for narcotic inquiry purposes. They are consistent with the amendments to be moved by the Government in another place to the Customs Bill 1979. The Bill complements the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Bill 1979. It repeals and replaces the Telephonic Communications (Interception) Act 1960 which deals only with interception of information passing over the telephone system. The Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security recommended that ASIO’s powers of interception should be extended to interception of information passing over all telecommunications systems and this Bill so provides.

Part II of the Bill makes unlawful, subject to limited exceptions, the interception of communications passing over a telecommunication system. It is also made unlawful for an officer of ASIO or Customs to have access to telegrams except as provided in the legislation. The circumstances in which information obtained by interception of a communication passing over a telecommunication system or by virtue of a warrant under the Bill may be divulged are carefully regulated in clause 7. Provision is then made in Part III for the issue of warrants by the AttorneyGeneral and, in emergency circumstances, by the Director-General, authorising ASIO to intercept communications passing to or from specified telecommunication services subject to safeguards similar to those provided in the present Act.

Like provision is made in relation to telegrams. To meet the urgent national problem of narcotic offences, the Government has decided that the power of interception of all forms of telecommunications should be available to assist in the detection of Customs narcotic offences subject to the same safeguards as apply to interception by ASIO. Part IV of this Bill so provides. Recognising, however, that somewhat different considerations apply to interceptions for the purpose of inquiring into narcotic offences than apply in relation to security matters, the Bill provides for warrants to be issued by a judge of the Federal Court or a State or Territory Supreme Court authorising interceptions for these purposes. In view of the number of judges available there is no need to retain power in the Comptroller-General to give emergency warrants. The Bill represents an essential complement to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Bill. The importance of that Bill was amply recognised by senators on both sides of the Senate during the debate on that measure. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Button) adjourned.

page 2337

WHEAT INDUSTRY STABILIZATION AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Bills received from the House of Representatives.

Suspension of Sta nding Orders

Motion (by Senator Carrick) agreed to:

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

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

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

Second Readings

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I move:

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

Leave granted.

The speeches read as follows-

Wheat Industry Stabilization Amendment Bill 1979

This Bill accompanies the Wheat Industry Stabilization (Reimbursement of Borrowing Costs) Bill, 1979. Its purpose is to specify the existing powers of the Australian Wheat Board to raise moneys by the issue of approved securities and to empower the Minister for Primary Industry to provide a Commonwealth guarantee of repayment in connection with those securities. The Bill also makes provision for the exemption from stamp duty or similar taxes of securities issued by the Board and transactions in those securities as well as other documents or transactions of the Board relating to its borrowings or raising of moneys by other means. The extremely high level of wheat deliveries resulted in exceptionally large financing requirements for the Australian Wheat Board to meet its first advance obligations to growers and marketing expenses for the 1 978-79 season. The events of this season have brought about the need for consideration to be given to the financing of the operations of the Wheat Board. A consideration of the Board’s financing requirements resulted in the need to provide the Board with the capacity to obtain funds from a number of sources and in a variety of ways that is in the interests of both the wheat industry and the national economy generally.

The principles embodied in this Bill are designed to specify the existing general powers of the Board to borrow commercially to take advantage of types of money market facilities presently available to a body such as the Wheat Board for the raising of moneys. Specifically the Bill provides for the Board, with the approval of the Minister for Primary Industry, to issue securities including bills of exchange, promissory notes, unsecured notes or other similar instruments. The power of the Board to borrow commercially for example by bank overdraft, with the approval of the Minister, is of course also retained. The principal Act enables the Minister for Primary Industry to provide a Commonwealth guarantee of repayment of principal and interest in relation to the Wheat Board’s borrowings. This Bill specifically extends the power to provide for Commonwealth guarantees to apply to securities of the Board as approved by the Minister.

A further significant provision of the Bill is that dealing with the exemption of Board securities for stamp duty and similar taxes. Clause 5 of the Bill empowers the Minister for Primary Industry to determine that stamp duty, or similar tax imposed under laws of the Commonwealth, a State or Territory be not payable on certain classes of securities dealt with by the Board or in relation to certain borrowings by it. The objective of this provision is to remove doubts and disparities arising in respect of the requirement for payment of stamp duty in respect of Wheat Board securities in some States and so improve the marketability of the securities and provide the Board with a fund raising potential commensurate with other authorities with which it would be competing. The exemption from payment of stamp duty has particular relevance to the accompanying Bill, which provides for the Wheat Board to be reimbursed by the Commonwealth for costs of certain borrowings. Without the provision for the exemption from stamp duty, the Commonwealth could, in effect, be paying that tax in instances where States themselves are not prepared to grant exemption. Ip these circumstances it would be my intention, on the enactment of this legislation, to take the necessary steps to immediately specify exemption from stamp duty of securities of the kind issued or to be issued by the Board to raise moneys commercially in lieu of the borrowings from the Reserve Bank. This exemption would apply also in respect of the roll-over of securities already issued by the Board. This Bill facilitates the special financing arrangements entered into by the Board this season at the request of the Government. It also broadens the base for future financing operations of the Board. I commend the Bill.

Wheat Industry Stabilization (Reimbursement of Borrowing Costs) Bill 1979

The purpose of the Bill is to provide for the reimbursement of the Australian Wheat Board for costs incurred by it in making certain commercial borrowings to assist in financing the first advance payment to growers and marketing expenses of the 1978-79 season’s wheat pool. It is usual for the Government to announce before harvest each season the level of the first advance payable to wheatgrowers on delivery of their grain to the respective State bulk handling authorities. For the 1978-79 season, the Government set a first advance of $75 per tonne, less individual grower’s freight. This was an increase of $9 per tonne above the previous season’s level. Traditionally, the Government makes arrangements with the Rural Credits Department of the Reserve Bank to provide the Wheat Board with the funds necessary to cover the first advance payments and marketing expenses of a season’s pool. The repayment of these funds by the Board within the statutory 12 months applicable to borrowings for seasonal finance purposes has been guaranteed by the Commonwealth. Other rural industries are provided with seasonal finance by the Reserve Bank in a similar way.

The decision as to the level of the first advance was taken late in November and arrangements were then made for the Board to borrow sufficient funds from the Reserve Bank to meet first advance payments and Board expenses on the then estimated deliveries of 13 million tonnes. However the estimate of deliveries was progressively increased during the harvest because of the very favourable conditions late in the growing season that caused yields to increase phenomenally. The delivery estimate mounted rapidly to a final figure only a little less than 18 million tonnes, almost 4 million tonnes in excess of the previous record. The record crop meant that the Wheat Board ‘s Financing needs for the season amount to an unexpectedly large sum of approximately $ 1600m. Money advanced by the rural credits department of the Reserve Bank directly contributes to the money supply in the Australian economy.

The growth in money aggregates has been beyond that which was consistent with the Government’s economic policy objectives and accordingly a number of measures have been taken to stem prospective increases in interest rates. One of these measures decided on by the Government was that a change, in part, should be made this season to the traditional method of financing the wheat crop. The change involves the Wheat Board raising part of its financing requirements for the 1 978-79 season through the issue of commercial bills instead of by the traditional method of financing the crop. The Board has already refinanced $155m of its Reserve Bank borrowings in this way and is proceeding with a further issue of bills to raise $300m commercially for refinancing part of its indebtedness to the Reserve Bank.

Honourable senators will know that the exercise of the power to borrow commercially in this way rested on a resolution of the full Board and not just on a decision by its chairman, Sir Leslie Price. In acceding to the request that it raise the further $300m commerically the chairman stated that the Board’s decision was taken in the interests of the Australian community as a whole. The role of Board members and the chairman in this matter has been a proper one and their decisions have expressed their perception of the interests of the wheat industry. When the Board was asked to undertake this alternative means of funding the Government gave a commitment that any additional cost of the commerical borrowings would be borne by the Government so that wheatgrowers will receive the same cash payment for their, wheat. The Government’s undertaking to reimburse costs relates to borrowings that would have otherwise been made by the Board from the Reserve Bank and are outstanding at any time up to 31 March 1 980, the date by which repayment of such borrowings would be required under the legal obligations imposed on the Reserve Bank. This undertaking by the Government does not mean a subsidy to Australian wheatgrowers but means that a facility which enables the most effective handling of the crop can be continued and funded in the most effective way. That facility enables payments to growers on delivery leaving the Australian Wheat Board to negotiate sales at the highest commercial price over a reasonable time instead of at the price which the market would bear if the crop were required to be sold immediately. In accordance with the requirements of proper financial management from the point of view of the Commonwealth, the commercial borrowings that are being made in respect of the 1978-79 season’s financing requirements to which the Governments cost reimbursement undertaking applies are being negotiated by the Wheat Board against parameters approved by the Government.

The purpose of the Bill is to provide a specification of the basis of determining the costs associated with the commercial borrowings that will be met by the Commonwealth and to provide for the appropriation of moneys for the purpose of the reimbursement to the Board. The definitions in clause 3 of the Bill limit the expenses of borrowings that are reimbursable under other clauses to interest costs and other borrowing expenses that accrue up to 3 1 March, 1980. As I have mentioned this is the date by which borrowings by the traditional method of funding would need to be repaid to the Reserve Bank. They also have the effect of confining reimbursable costs to those associated only with borrowings by the Board in respect to wheat of the current- 1978-79- season including the borrowings made bythe Board before the commencement of the Act.

The question of funding the operations of the Australian Wheat Board and associated borrowing arrangements for the next five seasons is under consideration by the Government as part of the package of measures that will apply after the expiry of the current wheat plan on 30 September 1979. Legislative proposals embodying these matters will be brought before the Senate in due course. Clause 4 of the Bill specifies the basis for the determination by the Minister for Primary Industry of the amounts payable to the Board, as reimbursement of borrowing costs. In respect of the interest costs associated with the commercial borrowings the Board is to be reimbursed the difference between the amount of interest actually incurred by it and what would have been incurred if the borrowing had been made in the normal way from the Reserve Bank. In respect of borrowing costs other than interest the full amount of any such costs will be reimbursed where the borrowing is for the purpose of refinancing Reserve Bank drawings as these are costs which the Board would not have normally incurred. If the Board borrows commercially for direct financing purposes as distinct from refinancing a Reserve Bank borrowing only the costs additional to those that would be incurred in respect of a Reserve Bank borrowing would be reimbursed.

Clause 5 provides for advances to be made to the Board against amounts expected to become payable to it under the borrowing cost reimbursement arrangements. Clause 6 provides for the appropriation of the necessary funds to meet payments to the Board under the Bill. In general the Bill ensures that the Wheat Board and through it the wheat industry sustains no extra costs through undertaking alternative financing arrangements for the 1978-79 season’s crop and so contributing to the economic welfare of the nation as a whole. I stress that, contrary to some assertions I have read in the media, this Bill and the arrangements entered into by the Government will not in any way provide a subsidy to the wheat industry. The arrangements are designed so that the whole of the Australian community can benefit from the higher price which will be obtained as a result of the Wheat Board being able to sell this record crop over a reasonable period. If the Government were not to have those types of financing arrangements, not just wheat growers but the whole Australian community would suffer. I believe that the arrangement to ensure that the cost of the additional borrowings is no higher than it would have been if the funds had been provided through the Rural Credits Department is totally justified. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 2339

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 3) 1978-79

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 29 May.

page 2339

QUESTION

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, $ 1 1 , 696,000.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I want to deal firstly with a question I asked the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs when Senate Estimates Committee C was meeting. I asked what provision if any exists for a particular restaurant chain in Sydney to bring a chef from Peking. I was well aware of the procedure that applies to applications from Hong Kong. Subsequently I received a written answer which I cannot quite grasp. It reads:

Whilst no provision exists for a specialised chef to come to Australia from Peking, current policy provides for the admission from elsewhere . . .

The letter goes on to explain the procedure. Does this mean that because we have a vetting system in Hong Kong to assess applications and we do not have such a system in Peking, we refuse any application from Peking? I ask because next month I will be a member of an Opposition delegation to China led by a very illustrious member of the House of Representatives, Mr John Armitage, M.P. People in the Chinese community are asking me for guidance. When I am in China I want to be sure of my facts before I deal with the Chinese authorities I ask for a more specific response to my question.

I notice that the Minister at the table, Senator Guilfoyle, is fortified by having advisers present. Last night I raised the difficult situation of a person facing deportation. I do not want to pervert justice, if that is the term. This case was considered some months ago by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. It is a case about which one may have some doubt. People in such difficult situations may face a double penalty if they go back to their homelands. This case has gone on for some time. In the light of the expertise from the Department that is here, perhaps I could obtain an answer.

Senator SIM:
Western Australia

– I wish to direct my remarks to the appropriation for the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. In doing so I support the comments of my colleague in another place, the honourable member for Perth, Mr McLean, when he spoke last Thursday on Supply Bill (No. 1). He was critical of comments made by a Western Australian Minister regarding the Vietnamese refugee situation. I say firstly that I believe the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar) has handled this extremely difficult and sensitive situation with great sensitivity and compassion. I regret it when responsible Ministers make comments such as were made in Western Australia- that the refugee situation is out of control and that we should prevent these unfortunate people from landing in Australia. I regret this for two reasons. Firstly, it appeals to the racist and bigoted element of the community in Australia.

Senator Georges:

– Who is the Minister?

Senator SIM:

– I said ‘a Minister’. Just leave me to make my own speech.

Senator Georges:

– No, if you want to give information, why not tell us?

Senator SIM:

– I will make my speech in my own way.

Senator McLaren:

– A Minister in another place?

Senator SIM:

– No, I said a Minister in Western Australia. As I said, I regret the statement for two reasons. Firstly it gives encouragement to that bigoted and racist group, that small element we have in Australia, to continue its campaign. Secondly, it plays upon the fears and possibly the natural concern of many people in Australia regarding refugees generally. It shows a complete lack of compassion. I do not know what we are expected to do. It was not spelt out whether we should shoot them, sink their boats or mine the entrances to Australia. It seems to me to be a statement more calculated to gain support from racist sections of the community, than to be responsible. I believe we should put this matter in its proper perspective. To claim that the refugee situation is out of control because 2,000 boat people have arrived here since 1 975 seems to me to be a gross distortion of the truth. We must realise that in one day in Hong Kong 3,000 boat people arrived and 2,000 arrived on other days. We must consider the situation in Thailand where tens of thousands of refugees have crossed the border in one day, or in Malaysia where people have been arriving in their thousands.

The situation we face with refugees from Indochina, I think, is horrifying, when it is realised that the number of deaths of people escapingfor whatever reason- is as high as 250,000. Some estimates put the figure of those lost at sea at more than 50 per cent. If that is true it is really a horrifying story and one which should have the compassion of each and every one of us. The fact that these people are prepared to leave, for whatever reason, shows the depth of their despair. They are prepared to risk not only the elements, oceans and seas, but also the activities of pirates and others. I am afraid this situation is approaching a new and worse dimension.

If the present stories of the pressures that will be brought to bear on 1.5 million ethnic Chinese are true they show a degree of racism and inhumanity of which we should take note. This problem will not be solved by a few countries. Australia has a responsibility as a member of the international community to do what it can to help. Our record so far has been a good one that we should not be ashamed of. It is quite obvious that Australia will have to take a greater share of these unfortunate people. I believe that in time they will become very good citizens of Australia. It is a global problem. The Australian Government and other governments in the region have expressed disappointment that so few countries in the world have been prepared to face up to any sense of responsibility as members of the international community. I hope that other countries will show a greater sense of responsibility as members of the international community and help in some way to solve this problem.

If we believe that we are hard done by, because we have accepted some 2,000 people over the last three years, we should look at the situation in Thailand where the camps now have more than 160,000 refugees and where the situation is becoming worse every day because of the events in Kampuchea. We should look at the situation in Malaysia which is being swamped with these people. Other countries in South East Asia are under extreme pressure. The life of people in these camps should not cause any of us satisfaction but should fill our hearts with a great deal of compassion. It has been said by some critics that we should put more diplomatic pressure on the Government of Vietnam. We have done that. Australia, in concert with many other countries has tried to put diplomatic pressure on Vietnam at least to try to get a situation in which there is an orderly movement of people out of Vietnam. We have received assurances from responsible Ministers in Vietnam that they will do this. I am afraid that we must regard these assurances with some scepticism if the reports that we read are true.

I trust that Australia, to the limit of its capacity, will continue to take these Vietnamese people even if it causes us some inconvenience. The inconvenience caused to us is far less, and we are more able to bear it, than that caused to countries such as Hong Kong in close proximity to Vietnam. I welcome the offer made by the Government of Indonesia with the support of the other countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations and Australia to make available an island for the temporary settlement of these refugees. In one sense, this may stop the pressure caused by the arrival of boat people. We should be prepared to do everything in our power to solve this problem. I support Mr McLean and express my regret that a Minister in Western Australia should make these comments which I believe do not help to solve this difficult problem.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

-I wish to speak to the estimates for the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. No doubt the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) will recall questions not only from me but also from other honourable senators when the new NUMAS migration system was adopted. It was stated that there would be appropriate reviews of the system. I have the impression that, in relation to the cases upon which I have made representations to the Minister and/or the department there appears to be a general tightening up or restriction- more than was anticipated when the new system was adopted. It was acknowledged to be a new system of marking the qualities of the applicants for migration to Australia. After talking to my colleagues I find that they share this opinion. I accept all the reasons for the rigid guidelines being laid down in relation to occupational classifications. I deal with these matters frequently because I often take up representations made to State Ministers in relation to Commonwealth matters. I would be interested to know whether the Minister could tell us on behalf of the Department what has happened since the new system has started. Has a more restricted practice developed? For example, people who have come from the conventional migration countries and who nominate relatives to come to this country tell me that the situation is becoming more difficult. As honourable senators probably know when those applications are rejected the people concerned become very irate about the Government and sometimes about the Senate. I think that it is almost six months since the new system was adopted. I would like to know and I am sure that the Committee would like to know the general observations and views about it.

Senator Mulvihill:
Senator BISHOP:

– Yes, it is called NUMAS.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– I add to Senator Sim’s compassionate remarks concerning refugees from Vietnam. Although I do not know the incident to which he has referred- it involved a statement by a Western Australian Minister- nevertheless it appears that the statement was made. Every honourable senator would dissociate himself from that statement. However, today certain comments have been made which I consider to be inflammatory and which ought not be considered by the officers in the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs when dealing with the problem of refugees from Vietnam. I think that it is necessary to accept what the Minister in Vietnam stated. He said that Vietnam was prepared to cooperate in setting up a holding place for Vietnamese refugees and would attempt to stem the flow from that country. This offer should not be discounted or pushed to one side. It should be accepted as a sincere offer. It can be recognised that without the co-operation of the Vietnamese authorities the refugee problem in which we are very much involved cannot be solved. It certainly cannot be solved by the inflammatory answers that the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick) gave at Question Time today. We must accept some responsibility for the situation which has developed in Vietnam.

Sitting suspended from 6.1 to 8 p.m.

Senator GEORGES:

- Mr Chairman, before the suspension of the sitting for dinner I was addressing my remarks to the subject of immigration and ethnic affairs and responding to some comments made by Senator Sim. I realise that we have drifted into a second reading situation at the Committee stage of the Appropriation Bills. Nevertheless, having heard Senator Sim, I think it is necessary to make a few comments and allow the Committee to proceed. I doubt whether the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) would be able to answer specifically what I am saying, because I am speaking in general terms. However, I believe that we must consider this problem as a serious one.

Not only did Senator Sim complain of moves at a very high level in Western Australia to stop the flow of Vietnamese refugees to Australia but I notice that the Returned Services League State Congress in Queensland is also seeking that Australia refuse the intake of refugees. What Senator Sim was putting was that we ought to be viewing this matter with compassion. What I am saying is that the Opposition supports that view, but that our solution is somewhat different from the solution that Senator Sim put. He seemed to place all the responsibility for the refugee problem upon the Government of Vietnam. I suggest that it would be easier to stem the flow of refugees if we were to reverse our policy on aid to Vietnam. Rather than bring it to an end in an abrupt manner, we should restore it to former levels.

Senator Peter Baume:

– Would it help the refugee problem?

Senator GEORGES:

– Yes, it would. The economic situation in Vietnam is so desperate, because of a variety of climatic conditions, and because of the withdraw by the People’s Republic of China of many millions of dollars in economic aid. I think some 80 projects have been brought to a sudden end. Not only did China bring aid to an end, but also the United States of America did not keep the promise given by President Nixon of substantial reconstruction aid for Vietnam.

Senator Bonner:

– That is a lot of nonsense, and you know it.

Senator GEORGES:

-What I say is quite correct.

Senator Bonner:

– It is not correct, and you know it.

Senator GEORGES:

– I would suggest that Senator Bonner would be in a better position to judge these matters than most of us. The honourable senator understands the position of people who have been deprived of assistance when they most need it. I am not going to canvass the rights and wrongs of the Vietnam war. What I am suggesting is that now the war is over we should be endeavouring to assist Vietnam to wrench itself free from dependence on two major powers. One major power is the People’s Republic of China, which has withdrawn aid, possibly because of Vietnam ‘s dependence on the Soviet Union.

Senator Bonner:

– Why are they forcing the people who can help them to leave?

Senator GEORGES:

– The honourable senator would have to do a little more in-depth reading to appreciate the problem.

Senator Bonner:

– I have met the people and I have talked to the people. It appears that you have not.

Senator GEORGES:

– If the honourable senator is going to continue his interruption, I am prepared to listen to his interjections and try to answer the questions he is raising. I too was in Vietnam in the middle of last year and I saw at first hand the desperate problems which Vietnam faced in seeking to carry out reconstruction programs while still under pressure from Kampuchea and China on its borders, pressures which were being applied in order to wrench Vietnam away from the influence of the Soviet Union. All I am doing is appealing to Senator Bonner to recognise the problems that Vietnam faces and to recognise that it is necessary to improve the economic conditions within Vietnam if we are in any way to stem the flow of refugees fleeing not so much from the ideology of Vietnam, but from the depressed economic conditions which exist there for the variety of reasons that I have given. I suggest that it would be far -

Senator Bonner:

– These people can do so much for the economy of the country. They are being victimised and sent out of the country. It appears to me that you do not know what you are talking about.

Senator GEORGES:

-This is a debate into which Senator Bonner can enter with ease. In four minutes I will be required to resume my seat. If he has a case, let him put it on the record. My case is that we need to assist Vietnam with major reconstruction programs in order to improve the economic situation there.

Senator Bonner has referred to a problem which exists in Vietnam with the Hoa people, that is, people of Chinese ethnic background. Those poor people have been caught in a vice. Many of them fled from the Mao Tse-tung revolution to many places. One of the places they fled to was Vietnam. It is rather ironic that the people who caused them to flee in the first place are those who are now coming to their support. That is the irony of the situation. We are faced with that in foreign policy time and time again. The Hoa people were told distinctly that there would be trouble between China and Vietnam over Kampuchea and that they were to realise that if they stayed in Vietnam they were likely to be disadvantaged because of the struggle, because China would be on the side of Kampuchea. They were also told that if they did not leave they would be considered traitors. Under this pressure from China, because of the conflict between China and Vietnam, which is really a conflict between China and the Soviet Union, many hundreds and thousands of people of Chinese origin began to leave Vietnam. Some of them started to go back into China, only to find that that retreat, that refuge, was closed. So they began to flow in another direction. In a rather tragic way, in circumstances which Senator Sim explained earlier, they are flowing into the South East Asian area and to Australia.

What we are saying is that if they come to Australia for compassionate reasons we must accept them. What we are saying is that we cannot possibly allow the flow of refugees from Vietnam or from any other South East Asian country to continue. We must seek the root of the problem and try to correct it. In my view we can correct it if the United States of America, the People’s Republic of China and all the South East Asian countries are prepared to assist in the reconstruction of Vietnam. The flow of refugees would then be considerably reduced.

It is no use coming into this place and making inflammatory statements such as the Leader of the Government (Senator Carrick) made today. They do not help. If the compassion which the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar) showed to the Vietnamese refugees in the Philippines were to be shown in foreign policy, the larger arena, and if we made an effort to understand that Vietnam needs to be assisted, the problem of the refugees would not be so great and we would not have the RSL demanding that refugees be stopped from entering Australia. By what means are we to stop them? By sinking their boats as they approach? By drowning them off the coast of Australia? What does the RSL expect us to do? Does it expect us to do that? It is impossible for us to do that. If we are to solve the problem, let us seek another means. I have suggested the means.

Senator BONNER:
Queensland

– I would not have entered this debate, but I feel I must because I have had the opportunity of visiting some of the refugee camps and of speaking to the people there.

Senator Georges:

– Have you been to Vietnam itself?

Senator BONNER:

– In November last year I visited the Philippines and Thailand. I visited the refugee camps and I spoke to the people there. I cannot agree with Senator Georges ‘s contention that those people are not fleeing. They are not fleeing from the kinds of things that we in this country understand; they are fleeing from something that is worse than death.

Senator Georges:

– Rubbish.

Senator BONNER:

-Of course they are. It is no good Senator Georges saying that they are not. I have spoken to those people. I have met with them in their camps. I have sat down and talked with them. I have fed their children. I can show honourable senators photographs of me sitting in the camps and talking with the Vietnamese people who have come from those places. It is no good the Opposition saying that those people are not fleeing. They are fleeing from something which is worse than death. They would not take the chances they are taking if that were not so. They are taking chances on boats which are not fit even for carrying sheep or cattle. I happened to be at one of the refugee camps in the Philippines when a boat arrived with 62 people on board. I would not have put 62 animals on it. On four occasions those people had been accosted by pirates of the sea. They were fleeing from something which is worse than death.

It is no good the Opposition saying that the present Vietnamese regime is treating those people in a proper and compassionate way. It is not. Those people are intelligent people. They are people who could make a great contribution to our country or to any other country to which they want to go. Australia will be lacking if we do not accept those people into our country and give them a chance to rehabilitate, to reassess and to make their lives anew in this country, where we have full and plenty for all people. It is wrong to say that those people are not fleeing from the communist regime in their country. Of course they are. To say otherwise is stupid. My colleague on the other side of the chamber is blowing in the wind when he says that those people are not fleeing from that regime. They are intelligent people, people who are prepared to and capable of making a contribution to any country which is prepared to take them and to give them a chance to start their lives anew.

I was at a camp in Laim Sing in the Philippines. When I saw a boat come in and saw the people on it I talked and listened to them. It is a pity that some senators opposite do not listen to people who are fleeing from what they believe to be a life that is worse than death under the communist regimes which exist at the moment in Vietnam, Kampuchea and other such places. Those people are not fleeing from those countries because of their own ideas; they are fleeing because of the regimes which exist in those countries and the lifestyle which is imposed on them. Let us be realistic about this matter. Fortunately, we live in a country in which we have freedom of speech and expression, which people in those countries do not have. I say to you, Mr Chairman, that Australia has a very grave obligation to take in those people and to give them a chance, which they do not have in the countries from which they are fleeing.

Senator Georges said that the fact that we do not give support to Vietnam is a lot of nonsense. Why should we give support to Vietnam, which is a communist country with a communist regime? We do not believe in communism. I thank God that we do not. We will not support the communist regime of Vietnam, but we will support the people who are fleeing from it. I hope and pray that this country will be prepared to take those people who are fleeing from such a regime in their country. They might not be Vietnamese people in the true sense of the word; they are Chinese people. But they are decent people. They are people who are prepared to work and to do their best. Senator Georges can shake his head, wipe his head and do whatever he likes.

Senator Georges:

– How can you twist it? Sit down and give me a chance again.

Senator BONNER:

– Oh no, we are not going to give Senator Georges a chance again. He had his chance and he muffed it. He wants to support the communist regime which exists in Vietnam. We are not prepared to support that regime. What we are prepared to do is to assist the people who are fleeing from it. I congratulate the

Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar) for showing a compassionate understanding of the problems of the people who are fleeing from that kind of regime in Vietnam. I support him and I will continue to do so because I know what the feelings of those people are, what they understand and the kind of life that they are leading. They are running away from something which, thank God, honourable senators and I have never experienced. When honourable senators opposite have experienced that kind of thing perhaps they will have an understanding of why those people are fleeing their country and looking for a place of refuge- a place where they can reassess their position and readjust. I hope that we in Australia will have compassion and understanding for those people- a kind of understanding and feeling which honourable senators opposite have never known. I know because I have felt those feelings.

Senator McLaren:

– Ah!

Senator BONNER:

- Senator McLaren can say Ah’ if he wants. He has never known that kind of feeling anyway. He has never known what it is to be oppressed and deprived. Of course he would not know what it is like. But I do. Senator McLaren has never known what it is like to live in a blacks camp on the banks of creeks. But the people who are fleeing those countries know what it means to be oppressed and deprived. I have a feeling for those people. I hope that the people of this country will open their hearts and minds. I as an Aborigine have a real feeling for those people.

Honourable senators opposite talk about the boat people ‘. Most of their ancestors were boat people. Governor Phillip certainly did not have a jumbo jet to come out to this country in; he came out in a boat. Most of the ancestors of honourable senators opposite came out in a boat. They should not denigrate the people who are coming here in boats now. They might be jumping the queue but they are desperate. They are fleeing from something which the white people of this country have never known because they have been the conquerors of this country. Those people are coming here in an attempt to find a place of refuge. I believe that we as decent people have a Christian responsibility to give those people refuge from a situation which honourable senators opposite have never known.

Senator Georges:

– We’re not denying that.

Senator BONNER:

– Of course they are denying that. They are saying that we should give help to Vietnam. What in the name of God will that do? It will keep Vietnam’s present regime going while those people are fleeing and looking for a refuge where they can enjoy the freedom which honourable senators opposite enjoy. I hope and I pray that Australians will be big enough to continue to provide that refuge to the people who are fleeing from Vietnam- from something which they believe and I believe is a fate worse than death.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I intervene in the debate only to comment on one or two matters raised in the debate. I appreciate the sentiments that have been expressed by Senator Bonner and Senator Georges. The cold hard fact is that one has to have reasonable ratios in any refugee program. Senator Bonner spoke about what was happening in South East Asia. We also know what is happening in Latin America today. The United States Bar Association says that 10,000 Argentinians are missing. We know that all the Latin American countries have perfected the torture techniques of placing electrodes on people’s extremities- and 1 can put it no clearer than that. The Minister and her officers would well know that one has to work on a component basis in any immigration program. People are accepted on the basis of family reunion or job category or because they are political refugees.

I think next year we will start with a commitment of 10,000 people from South Vietnam. I do not cavil at that. Anyone who has come in contact with people from Latin America and many other countries would have been told about the persecutions that are being carried out in these countries. Trade unionists have been gaoled and mutilated because of their views. I believe that Australia has an equal obligation to ensure that the ratio of people from Latin American countries is reasonable, no matter what the overall total is.

I turn to another aspect of political discrimination- compulsory job transfer. I think in the broad sense of a Nazi Europe dominated by Hitler and the tragedy of Jews going to the gas chamber is far different from the South-East Asian position. There will be the difficulty of people going , from an urban to a rural occupation. 1 simply add this note of caution: We are entitled to say to the fat cat European Common Market countries that they should take their share of these people. Let me demonstrate the complete complexity of the situation. One only has to consider the example of the Ambonese who backed the Dutch Government against the liberating actions of the Indonesians. It is not a question of people saying what might have been. Holland was fairly generous in that it allowed a large intake of Ambonese. But, as a result of technological and climatic changes, the Ambonese people experienced a considerable amount of unrest. Ironically, the Ambonese people living in Holland have been offside with respective Dutch governments and they now want to return to Indonesia which is under a government of a different complexion headed by Suharto.

I do not seek to take political points. However, I think the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle), who is at the table, and the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs know the complexities. At the risk of using the incorrect or doubtful terminology, I say it is difficult to achieve the desired mix. But, looking at the political realities, we know that people from Latin America who have come to Australia are taxpayers, belong to clubs and associations, and are members of trade unions and business organisations. When these people come to me to plead for their relations in Uruguay, Peru and other Latin American countries where people are being mutilated, I for one would never say to them that they may fail because the number of Latin American migrants has to be many less than those from other areas.

I make this simple plea to the Minister and to the Government. I know that the quota of 10,000 Vietnamese will not be the overall intake. I am told that it might be about 50,000. But a proportion of 10,000 refugees out of 40,000 or 50,000 is very high when one considers the other groups, which with considerable political backing- not all from my Party- feel that they are entitled to some consideration. One only has to look at the Armenian situation. I suppose it could be said that in Iran those who are not Moslems may eventually suffer discrimination. It is pretty difficult to get some definition in the area.

I entered the debate only to repeat what I have said to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar) and his officers at various immigration seminars. I believe that a quota system will be more equitable. It is said that it is not enough to be just; one also must appear to be just. This is one of the difficulties that the Minister has at the moment. The Labor Government and its Minister for Labor and Immigration, Mr Clyde Cameron, were fairly reasonable to the Cypriots and to the first of the Chileans. The present Government had problems with the Lebanese. The difficulty is that some people who are left behind in these countries have the hope that if things do not improve they will be able to come here. How can we tell them that the Government has a prior commitment to one group to the extent of 10,000? How can such a decision be rationalised with the needs of other groups? It is at that point that discontent and bitterness can arise.

I appreciate to the full the problem faced by the Minister. I respectfully suggest that in all honesty we must ensure that a reasonable quota applies to people from all countries so that they will feel at least that they have a fair crack of the whip, or discontent and envy will be bred. That is the message that I give to the Committee tonight.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– I thank the Senate for the discussion on the Estimates of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. There are a number of matters to which I need to respond. In particular I wish to refer to some questions that were raised earlier by Senator Mulvihill. Some questions that he asked during the Senate Estimates Committee hearings were not answered. I take this opportunity to have these answers recorded. Senator Mulvihill asked questions on Friday, 4 May. I refer to page 1 73 of the Hansard report of Estimates Committee C of that date. Senator Mulvihill asked a question concerning a man from the railway workshops at Eveleigh.

Senator Mulvihill:

– I think he was a Chilean national.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– That is right. The answer to the question is that a recommendation has been submitted to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar) and a direct reply on this matter will be sent to Senator Mulvihill as soon as possible.

There was a further question noted on page 181 of the Hansard report of 4 May. Senator Mulvihill inquired about the legislation of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and the proposed tribunal which could affect persons denied citizenship. I am advised that the answer to the question which was raised is that there have not been any preliminary talks between the Attorney-General’s Department and the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and it is unlikely to be a matter on which the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs would become involved.

Last night, Senator Mulvihill incorporated some documents and raised some matters. I have a response from the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to those questions. The first incorporation was a letter from the Regional Director of the Department of Immigration and

Ethnic Affairs in Sydney relating to an application for citizenship by Mr Viriato Pires on which a decision has not been reached. I am advised that whilst the majority of applications for citizenship are decided as quickly as possible some do involve factors which necessitate more lengthy consideration. The Minister assures Senator Mulvihill that Mr Pires ‘s case is being actively considered and it is expected that a decision will be reached in the near future.

Senator Mulvihill:

- Senator Puplick has been backing that one too.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I think the honourable senator’s own interest in it has meant that it is being given active consideration by the Minister.

The second matter referred to by Senator Mulvihill last night was an inquiry regarding a deportation case. The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has informed me that an appeal to the Federal Court is understood to have been entered against the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirming the Minister’s decision. Confirmation is being sought. If an appeal has been entered it would be inappropriate for me to comment further at this stage but if there is further information I will see that Senator Mulvihill is advised on that matter.

I respond to the third point raised by Senator Mulvihill. I advise him that the Australian Government is prepared to consider the admission of individuals or groups of refugees or displaced persons in accordance with the criteria which relate to each situation. The criteria is framed against the background of factors such as the immediacy and needs of the individual. One common criteria is that all applicants for admission under refugee policy must be outside their country and unable or unwilling to return in circumstances defined under the refugee convention. This means that a person cannot be a refugee in his or her own country.

A subsidiary point is that a refugee permanently resettled in a third country is no longer endangered or homeless and consequently cannot be regarded as having the same rights to being resettled yet again. In the case of Miss Helia Allebi, the letter of 7 March from the Home Office makes it abundantly clear that she now enjoys the rights of permanent residence in the United Kingdom. In these circumstances her eligibility for immigration to Australia is the same as for any other permanent resident of the United Kingdom. Her relationship with family members residing in Australia would not seem to bring her within the categories eligible for admission on family reunion grounds. Her eligibility would rest on an assessment of the personal economic and settlement factors. This woman is welcome to approach Australian immigration officers and apply for migrant entry. Perhaps Senator Mulvihill can take it from there. Senator Mulvihill opened his consideration of the Estimates today by mentioning the staff requirement problems of a restaurant chain in Sydney. I am unable to respond to that matter, but I will refer it to the appropriate Minister.

Senator Mulvihill:

– It was in the Peking context, not the Hong Kong one.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I realise that. I have noted the question and I will get some information on it for the honourable senator. Senator Sim then opened the discussion on refugees, which ranged around the chamber, starting with a discussion of Vietnamese refugees and the record of Australia, which is a good one in that we have observed international responsibilities. The same matter was raised by Senators Georges and Bonner and again by Senator Mulvihill who, I think, stated objectively the complexities which face this country and others in the world community with regard to the refugee problem and the resettlement of people who are displaced. I feel sure that the discussion in the chamber this evening, in which different points of view on a very complex problem were presented, will be of assistance to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar). Because the Minister has made many statements on this matter, I do not need to say that it is constantly under consideration by the Government and that it needs some national understanding in support of the Government, which believes that we have international responsibilities. I will seek from the Minister more information than I am able to give with regard to the refugee program and other things which may need more definite answers, but I would refer to other statements that I know he has made publicly on this matter. It is a complex matter which is constantly changing but in no way diminishing as an international responsibility.

I turn now to the question raised by Senator Bishop who sought a comment with regard to the operation of the Numerical Multi-Factor Assessment System. Senator Bishop said rightly that this system has been used for some time and that it is appropriate that there should be some review of it. He asked whether there may be a general tightening up of the system of selection. I am advised that NUMAS is certainly the system that is currently in operation, but that most of the applications which are being processed were lodged prior to the introduction of NUMAS. NUMAS will ensure a system of nondiscrimination and a clear definition of qualification factors within acceptable immigration categories. I can respond to Senator Bishop by telling him that it is a little early at this stage to be more definite as to its effect and how it relates to the earlier system under which we dealt with applications. I am sure that when any comments can be made about it or its effectiveness, the Minister would make available the appropriate information. As questions raised in the Senate Estimate committee were dealt with in writing, I believe there are no other unanswered matters in relation to the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, with the exception of the two questions which I dealt with for Senator Mulvihill tonight.

Senator KILGARIFF:
Northern Territory

– As a member of Estimates Committee C I must say that in the hearings which took place on Friday, 4 May, we saw the departments of Social Security, Finance, Health, Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Veterans’ Affairs come forward with very complete accounting of their estimates. I believe that the information that was given to the Committee by the officers from those departments was extremely good. Since the previous occasion that the Committee met officers from the various departments many matters have been cleared up and on that day, therefore, there was a very free flow of information which was beneficial to all. Most of the financial and technical matters have been cleared up extremely well. Those who wish to get information about the estimates of those departments will find the answers and the information in the Hansard record of the proceedings of Estimates Committee C on Friday, 4 May.

On the previous occasion there was one item which gave me concern, although on 4 May matters had improved tremendously. I refer to the staffing of the Department of Social Security. On the previous occasion I and other members of the Committee had indicated, through questions, our concern that the Department of Social Security appeared to be understaffed and under considerable pressure. Honourable senators will remember that at that time there was considerable comment about the over-expenditure of money on welfare. When we looked at the problem it appeared to be due to the lack of staff which put the Department under pressure. On 4 May we went into this matter immediately the Committee met. I asked what had taken place since the last Estimates committee hearing. Mr Corrigan replied:

At 30 June 1978, the previous financial year, our total operative staff was 9,99 1 . As I indicated previously, our ceiling has been lifted to 1 1,394. We have been able to allocate staff numbers to all our key areas. We are now carrying out all the essential functions for which the Department is responsible. This includes all methods of verifying payments and checking eligibility. With the type of administration we have we will probably never achieve perfection in our work. It is something we will continually aim at but we are certainly much better off than we were 1 2 months ago.

One realises that a department which has such a large staff and so many complexities and responsibilities throughout Australia will never be in the perfect situation. But when honourable senators and the people of Australia hear the statement I have just quoted they will be assured that matters are under control. When I asked Mr Corrigan about the discussions which I knew were taking place with the Public Service Board, he said:

The joint review with the Public Service Board of the Department’s operations highlighted some of the troubles we were having.

Indeed, they should have done. He continued:

The Board subsequently has given us both positions and improved classifications of positions to deal with the situation.

I then asked:

Has this increase covered the senior positions which needed establishing?

Mr Corrigan replied:

Yes, particularly in the middle management ranges.

I think this must assure many people that in this area the Department of Social Security has done a considerable amount and has overcome many of its problems. I go on to a further question which I asked of the officers, the answer to which has been returned to me. It is on page 5 of the document containing answers to questions from Estimates Committee C. I was interested in the number of staff located in regional offices. The Department has indicated that the number of staff located in the regional offices has increased significantly this financial year for two reasons: A general increase in staffing levels to enable existing officers to cope with increasing workloads, and the opening of new offices and the decentralisation of functions to existing offices. The information goes on to say that a following table shows the increase in staff located in regional offices during the period 30 June 1978 to 30 April 1 979. It shows that the increase in staff in regional offices has increased in New South Wales by 1 7.3 per cent, in Victoria by 63.2 per cent, in Queensland by 33.4 per cent, in South Australia by 39.3 per cent, in Western Australia by 68.3 per cent, in Tasmania by 20 per cent and in the Northern Territory by 9.2 per cent. The reason that this matter has been brought up is that over a period members of Parliament have received complaints regarding the staffing situation in offices of the Department of Social Security throughout Australia.

I commend the Department and the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) upon the work that has been done. Not only has an increase in staff taken place but also there has been decentralisation. Staff members have moved out into country centres to overcome problems there. That is good. However, reference was made to the need for more evaluation in a report of a committee which dealt with health. Severe criticism was levelled at the general situation in some Government departments and the need for them to carry out evaluation was emphasised. During previous hearings of the Estimates Committees questions had been asked on the subject, and officers of the various departments had indicated that their aim was indeed to carry out evaluation.

In the intervening period- I am speaking broadly, but the Departments of Social Security, Health and Immigration and Ethnic Affairs were mentioned- it had become obvious that the need for evaluation had been realised. Indeed, with the growing pressures, the increasing complexities of our way of life in Australia and the various systems that are in operation, the time has come when a continuing process of evaluation must be pursued. The departments have indicated that in some areas of activity evaluation is proceeding. I refer to activities in regard to aged persons and so on. It appears also that at times there has been inadequate staff to enable evaluation to take place. But it has become imperative that the financial affairs of Australia be put in order. That is, of course, the aim of the Government. The demands on the Government for funding are such that departments must not only pursue the continuing evaluation of their own efficiency- a matter about which I am sure heads of departments and other senior officers would be concernedbut also the continuing evaluation of the various projects that are being carried out under their administration. There must be an evaluation to see whether good is resulting from a particular project, or whether it is beset by problems and money is being spent illadvisedly.

I do not suggest that Parliament should be a kind of Big Brother, but I point out that such large numbers of organisations are at present being funded through various departments that there must be closer scrutiny of the way in which they spend public money. In the first place, the organisations make application to the Government for funding for various purposes. In the hands of some of them- I know that I am speaking of a minority only, and certainly not all organisations- money is ill-spent. It is spent in various ways that were not envisaged when it was granted.

Therefore, I believe it to be necessary that organisations which are funded by the taxpayers produce financial statements to the various departments to ensure that public money is being spent correctly and that the aims of the organisations are being pursued. I would go even further and suggest that so many organisations are now so heavily funded, that departments should indicate to the Estimates committees whether there has been any gross failure- or a fault has developed- in the way in which those organisations spend public money. Any such failure should be brought to the notice of the Parliament.

Senator McLaren:

– What organisations are you referring to, senator?

Senator KILGARIFF:

– There are very many organisations, and it is not my wish to name any of them or to embarrass them by bringing them to public notice.

Senator Georges:

– You are going to damn the lot, are you?

Senator KILGARIFF:

– I am just saying that it is up to the Commonwealth departments to oversee the spending of public money, and to ensure that it is spent in accordance with the reasons for which it was granted.- Further, if any gross negligence becomes apparent it should be reported. I have nothing further to say on the matter except that I hope what I have proposed will be carried out. Time is against me in regard to joining in the debate on the matter of refugees.

Senator Georges:

– Don’t let it trouble you. You can have an opportunity later. Possibly you will be as bad as Senator Bonner.

Senator KILGARIFF:

– As I understand it, Mr Chairman- if the honourable senator will stop making so much noise and allow you to hear me- I have only two minutes left.

The CHAIRMAN:
Senator Georges:

– You can have another 15 minutes later.

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY · NCP

-Then I will conclude now and rise later. There are many things that I wish to present on this aspect.

Senator Georges:

– I will rise now to give you the opportunity to rise again later. That is rubbish.

Senator KILGARIFF:

– I do not mind staying here all night to discuss matters such as are before us. I support Senator Sim. I wish now merely to thank the officers of the various departments who have been extremely patient in attending here for the last two day. The debate has been drawn out considerably and I extend to them my regret that they have been delayed.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– I do offer Senator Kilgariff an opportunity to carry on his contribution.

Senator Kilgariff:

– I will.

Senator GEORGES:

– I interjected and called his contribution rubbish, but now that I am on my feet I will have to be responsible and say that he had the right to say what he wished; but it is just as well to get it down on the record, so that many other people will note his comments.

I find the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle), as always, very disarming in the way in which she deals with the business before the House. I suppose that without her charm we would be in greater trouble than we are at the moment. I am not trying to promote her to be appointed as leader in this place, but it would not be a bad idea. Most of the trouble tonight has emerged from the answer that the Leader of the Government (Senator Carrick) gave to a question which I believe came from Senator Sim. He placed on Vietnam a heavy responsibility for the problem that we face in having to accept refugees from that country. It is just as well that Senator Carrick is not the Foreign Minister. I believe that Mr Peacock would have a more responsible approach and would give a more reasonable answer to questions such as that posed by Senator Sim. Senator Bonner thrust upon us an alleged lack of compassion that was quite contrary to what I had been saying. There needs to be compassion. We realise the difficulties faced by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar) in dealing with the tremendous number of people who have reached this shore without going through the normal procedures. I think that we have conceded that the Minister and the Government have exercised compassion in this regard, just as the Opposition would have done in similar circumstances. However, what Senator Bonner forces me -

Senator McLaren:

– Where is Senator Bonner now?

Senator GEORGES:

– I do not know but I suppose that we could forgive him his emotions at this time of night. I am forced now to say that the Government is selective in its compassion. Senator Bonner spoke of a fate worse than death. I point out that this country forced death upon some people close to our shores when it refused to go to their defence and accept them here with the same compassion with which we have accepted Vietnamese refugees. I refer to the Timorese. I did not want to enter this debate. But when we talk about compassion and our points of view, let us look at what Australia did in respect of Timor, how we closed ourselves off because we wished to serve the interests of Indonesia. We sacrificed many thousands of people by so doing. Australia refused to accept refugees from Timor and Portugal in the same way that we have accepted refugees from Vietnam. This shows up the Government as being selective. If the refugees are from a socialist or communist regime, they are accepted easily, readily and in great numbers. If they happen to be refugees from fascist oppression- from Chile or Timor- the barriers go up.

I did not want to raise this matter tonight. I merely wanted to talk about the Vietnamese problem and how Australia in some way could lessen the need to take large numbers of these people at a time when we are economically depressed and unemployment is high. If that were not the case I suppose Australia could receive great numbers of these people with ease. The Government has endeavoured to have the international community accept its responsibilities. I do not think that anyone could criticise Australia for the responsibility it has accepted. But it is not right for Senator Bonner to become personal about the matter. As I said before, perhaps tomorrow he will regret some of the statements that he made.

I now wish to move from the general situation to deal with particular cases. I want to raise with the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs cases which have been shown up in all their stark reality. I am referring to people who have come to this country, overstayed their visas, come to certain domestic arrangements within Australia, such as having children here, and then suddenly have been deported. I ask the Minister: Why is not the same compassion shown in these individual cases as is shown to many other people? Why is not the compassion shown that was shown to the Vietnamese youngster of 17 years of age who was allowed to enter this country from the Philippines? No objection was raised in that case. Why is it that we should suddenly lose our compassion when it concerns a Greek couple with a child born here or Fijians with children born here? For that matter, in a general sense, there are also Fijian footballers who we bring into this country. We enjoy their skills for a couple of years and then bundle them out of Australia at the end of those two years. In those situations why can we not show our compassion and discretion? Surely that would enhance not only the reputation of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs but also it would enhance Australia ‘s reputation.

It is no use saying that if we do it for one person we have to do it for others. Selectively, we have to show our compassion. Occasionally these situations arise. We should exercise what we all consider ourselves to have- Australian compassion, the compassion of an advanced society. Perhaps the Minister for Social Security could express to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs the concern of some honourable senators at the failure to exercise compassionate discretion on behalf of such people when these cases arise. Possibly. Senator Mulvihill could cite dozens of cases. If there are that many cases, let us accept the responsibility for them and let us not be cruel or harsh.

The final matter that I wish to raise involves what I call the misuse of the powers of Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs officers to seize and imprison people who perhaps have overstayed their visas or who are here illegally. We must recognise the pressures that these people face. If I am not supposed to talk about suppressed economic conditions in Vietnam because it happens to be a communist-socialist country and that places it completely out of the realms of consideration, let me talk about Fiji and Papua New Guinea. The depressed economic conditions in those countries have forced people to move to an area of greater economic security- the Australian society. Why should we not recognise the great need, the great drive and the great desire of those people to come here? We put up the barriers and try as much as possible to establish quotas. But occasionally some of the more astute persons by some device escape those barriers. In those cases, let us not oppress these people by snatching them off the street by using warrants to which apparently the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has access. In some cases such people are imprisoned for 48 hours without any consideration of bail. Bail is not available; they are just plucked off the street and thrown into the watch-house where they can be kept for 48 hours before being brought before a magistrate. I say that that is a misuse of a power and it ought to be investigated. That power ought to be taken away from the bureaucrats who misuse it. Fortunately, only a small number of them are involved. However, the small amount of abuse is sufficient to bring all of them into disrepute.

I also ask the Minister how it is possible for a Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs official to enter a house without the occupant being present, to search that house and to confiscate passports? Is that within the power of an official of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs? I have gone from the general Cases about which I spoke before to these specific cases- the misuse of the powers of immigration officials and the taking away of the freedom of those people who in some way may have misused their entitlement. 1 was going to use the word ‘privilege’. If it is not a privilege, it is an entitlement. I seek answers to those questions at this time. I know that the overall problems of the Department are becoming more difficult because of the depressed economic conditions in this country. Senator Bonner forced me to say that the Government is selective. Senator Mulvihill has shown some evidence of selectiveness against Chilean migrants because they flee not from a communist regime but from a fascist regime. For some reason, the Government does not seem to be able to distinguish between the two or, if it does distinguish, it favours the fascist regime. I find that reprehensible. Having stated the case in respect of these matters, perhaps in the same disarming way as she did previously, the Minister for Social Security can give me a reply. If she cannot at this moment perhaps she can refer them to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. The matter that I consider to be most important is that which concerns the treatment of people who have suddenly found themselves in breach of Australian laws and are bundled out of the country in a way that is not acceptable to us.

Senator ROBERTSON:
Northern Territory

– I have been tempted to enter this debate because I have a particular interest in these matters. The boat people arrive in Australia at Darwin, my home town, so obviously I have an interest. I have been down to the harbour many times, as others have, to talk to the people as they come in. In addition, I wish to refer to a matter that Senator Georges raised and which is very dear to my heart, namely, the plight of the Timorese refugees who, under the present situation, do not appear to be getting much help. There are also many Asians in Darwin who would like to bring their families to Australia. Over the last 12 months there seems to have been a tightening of the situation. Whilst I am tempted to enter into that debate, I will not do so.

I want to discuss another matter and ask a couple of questions about an associated areathat of health- which is closer to the portfolio of the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle). I refer to the quarantine situation in relation to the boat people. The Minister will know that there are many Vietnamese boats in the Darwin harbour at the present time. These are basically wooden vessels. In some cases they are moored and in other cases they are beached. They are certainly not attractive and they are costing the Australian taxpayer a lot of money. There are a number of questions I want to ask about these Vietnamese boats in the Darwin harbour. Firstly 1 would like to have some indication of the cost of the continual spraying of these vessels. I understand that the six-inch planks of which some of them are made up have to be sprayed every three months with methyl bromide or some other appropriate disinfectant. It is a continual ongoing process. It must be expensive. Can we have some indication of what it is costing the Australian taxpayer? I do not ask the following question facetiously, although I do not think that the Minister can be of as much help in relation to it. How much of this money can be recouped from the owners of these vessels, the Vietnamese people? Could this cost be passed back to the Vietnamese Government? It is the body which claims ownership of these boats. Can this cost be recouped from the Vietnamese Government?

The next question is a fairly obvious one. What action can be taken to destroy these boats? Their ownership does not appear to be in doubt. The Vietnamese Government says they belong to it. Can action be taken to destroy the boats? If so, why has this action not been taken? Many of them have been there for quite some time. I understand that the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) will not allow the boats to be sold because he feels that such sale would affect the boat builders in Australia. I make the point to the Minister that we do not have many boat builders in Darwin. Not many people there produce small craft. Is this matter worth looking at? Is it realistic to leave the boats there when people want to buy them? I am not trying to attack the local industry. If there is an industry there, by all means protect it. But if we have no industry, why not let the boats be sold rather than be a continual burden on the Australian taxpayer? I just put those two very simple questions. The ongoing expenses do not appear to be justified. What can be done about them, and can some action be taken either to shoot back the responsibility for the boats to the Vietnamese Government or to make arrangements for their destruction?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– 1 do not want to delay the Committee, but matters were raised by Senator Georges, which require an answer. In particular he mentioned illegal migrants or those who had overstayed their visas. He put points that I think need the attention of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar). They concerned the powers of the immigration officers and the manner in which we deal with situations of this kind. I will seek that information.

I take this opportunity to speak on the different approach that is taken with illegal migrants and refugees. I shall state simply our responsibilities with regard to genuine refugees as they are internationally understood to be refugees. I refer again to the Numerical Multifactor Assessment System which has been effective from 1 January of this year. I am advised that it is expected that total migration approvals in 1979-80, which will be the first full year of operation of NUMAS, will significantly exceed approvals for the previous year. It is known that the NUMAS system and the new policy place considerable importance on occupational factors but such considerations are no longer permitted to override all other characteristics of applicants. In addition the new policy makes special provision for a range of special categories of relatives not previously provided for in the earlier policy. I will seek information with regard to the matters raised by honourable senators.

I now have a response for Senator Mulvihill with regard to the Chinese chefs. I am able to advise him that migration to Australia from Peking is governed by a family reunion agreement between the governments of Australia and the People’s Republic of China. Only persons coming within the family reunion categories are therefore eligible to emigrate from Peking or other parts of China to Australia. On the other hand, chefs and applicants in other occupational categories applying in Hong Kong are required to meet the basic criteria applicable to prospective migrants generally throughout the world. I think that information deals with that question. I noted the comments of Senator Kilgariff with regard to the staffing in my Department and I acknowledge his interest in that matter.

Senator Robertson:

– Has the Minister any answer to my comments?

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I am sorry but 1 am not able to deal with the specific matters raised by Senator Robertson concerning the costs of spraying, possible recoupment from Vietnamese owners of boats, action that may be taken and so on. I will need to put those questions on notice for the attention of the Minister.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I wish to raise several matters. The first is an appropriation of nearly $6m for the Department of Health. It seems quite ironical that we are dealing with an appropriation of $6m for health and yet within the next week we are to deal with a health Bill associated with a statement put down by the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) which could well have been made when these estimates were before the Estimates Committees. We know- it is on record- that the Government was considering the massive alterations to Medibank which will cause serious disadvantage to many thousands of people in this country who cannot afford the extra that they are to be called upon to pay because of the Government’s repudiation of its election promise not to interfere with Medibank. Of course we all know that Medibank is now completely destroyed because of the breaking of this Government’s promise through the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). That is why I say that it is quite ironical that we should be asked to pass an appropriation for health here tonight when next week we will have before us a Bill bringing forward all the ramifications of what is going to happen to the deserving people of this community.

Senator Kilgariff:

– It is mainly salaries.

Senator McLAREN:

– It might be mainly salaries, but we had no opportunity in the Estimates Committees to debate what the Government is trying to save. That is the purpose of the Estimates Committees. Senator Kilgariff would well know that when there has been an increase or decrease in expenditure in the Appropriation Bills senators sitting on those committees through the Minister at the table and the chairman, are allowed to ask departmental officers for reasons. Had we known about the new health arrangements when the Estimates Committees were sitting we could have asked questions about them. But, no, the Government saw fit to hold these matters in reserve until the Estimates Committees had completed their hearings. I am talking particularly about the estimates for the Department of Health. The Government held these matters in reserve until the estimates had been dealt with by the Estimates committees. Then we had a statement from the Minister last Thursday telling us what the Government is going to take away from the needy people of this country. The Government prevented us from conducting any examination in committee of its intentions. It knew full well at the time that it was going to carry out this exercise.

I ask a question of the Minister- I hope she will give me an answer- concerning the Department of Veterans’ Affairs and of artificial limbs for people who are unfortunate enough to have to be fitted with them. During the Christmas period I had brought to my attention the case of a person in my State having to be hospitalised. This person was told that he needed a replacement for his artificial leg but because all of the staff in the artificial limbs section of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs in Adelaide took their leave at the one time- over Christmas- this person had to languish in a country hospital waiting for the staff to come back on duty. I do not know how many trips were made from that country hospital to Adelaide for fittings. Is the Government recruiting any apprentices for the making of artificial limbs and is it the firm policy of the Government that all the staff in the artificial limb section of the Department take their annual leave at the one time so that nobody is on duty in an emergency to make an artificial limb for a person who has to have a limb replaced?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– I will need to refer the matter of artificial limbs and their manufacture to the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Mr Adermann) to seek the information for Senator McLaren. I have noted what he said about the difficulties at Christmas holiday time but I am not able to answer his query. I will need to seek that information for him.

Proposed expenditures agreed to.

page 2353

GROUP D

Department of Science and the Environment

Proposed expenditure. $3,974,000.

Department of Primary Industry

Proposed expenditure, $ 1 ,403,000.

Department of Home Affairs

Proposed expenditure, $947,000.

Department of the Capital Territory

Proposed expenditure, $2,2 13,000.

Department of Housing and Construction

Proposed expenditure. $591 .000.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I confine my remarks to the Department of Science and the Environment. Firstly, I am assuming a sort of administrative Diogenes on the ramifications of the Department. I take the Committee back to the occasion when the second report of the Ranger Uranium Environment Inquiry was presented to the Senate. Among the communiques issues was one in which the then Minister for Minerals and Energy, Mr Anthony, stated that the Federal Government was to spend $300,000 on the rehabilitation of the Fin.nis River. Senators will recall that the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution under the chairmanship of Senator Davidson exposed certain inadequate safety provisions of the Atomic Energy Commission at Rum Jungle.

Senator Puplick:

– An excellent report, Senator.

Senator MULVIHILL:

– Yes, it was a very good report. It was a very good committee. I seek information on whether the bulk of the $300,000 for the rehabilitation of the Finnis River will be handed over to the Northern Territory Government now that the Northern Territory has assumed statehood or whether officers of the Department of Science and the Environmentwhom I regard as the custodians of the environment in the federal sense- are working in collaboration with the Northern Territory Government to see that the river is fully rehabilitated. That is the first matter on which I want information. I think Senator Kilgariff would well appreciate my concern. There has been a certain amount of friction between departmental officers and officers of the National Parks and Wildlife Service. I would like to know from the people under Senator Webster’s control how their opposite numbers in the Northern Territory will operate. When we talk about mineral riches I do not think mineral riches compare with the preservation of our rivers, which are of prime importance. Water is the real jewel in Australia. I want to know who is responsible for the expenditure of that $300,000 and the standards and conditions to be laid down.

Senator Kilgariff:

– You will be pleased to hear that the fish are coming back into the Finnis River.

Senator MULVIHILL:

– That is very pleasing.

Senator Maunsell:

– What about the kangaroos?

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I will deal with Senator Maunsell and marsupials next. I understand from Dr Boden of the Department that representatives of the States had to submit a report to the Department on the kangaroo population in their States and whether they thought the United States Government should through its Department of the Interior support a limited export of our kangaroo products. I say to people like Senator Maunsell who say that there are plenty of kangaroos: ‘Do not forget that in the 1929 era President Hoover of the United States of America, who might have had his minuses in the economic field, refused to allow Australian possums into the United States’. If it were not for him we would not have any possums in this country at all. So, checks and balances are needed. Has the Government made a submission to the United States Government that our effective tagging and controlled culling is justification for a sort of opening-of-the-door for the reintrod uction of kangaroo exports? What is the state of play there? If the answer is yes, what response have we got from the United States? Of equal importance, has the United States pledged to keep a close watch to see that the pendulum will not swing the other way and there is a virtual extermination of the animal concerned?

I raise two other matters. When the Committee met when Dr Boden was away on another assignment I was told that our delegation to the next International Workers Conference was in the process of being selected. Has the date for the next IWC been selected? Who will give the committee its riding instructions? Will it be the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) or Senator Webster, or will it be a dual operation?

I do not know whether Senator Webster heard my inquiries about the Finnis River. I will repeat my questions. I want to know whether the Government has any say on how the $300,000 earmarked for the rehabilitation of the Finnis River is to be applied. Is it given to the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly so that its Chief Minister and his people call the shots? The other matter which I wish to raise concerns a question I asked the other day. In answer to my supplementary question the Minister stated that things were a little frigid as far as the Kakadu Park and the Director’s desire to have an environmental code imposed are concerned. The Chief Minister of the Northern Territory had doubts about it. I do not know whether the Minister can give an updated version of what he told the Senate about a week ago.

Senator MAUNSELL:
Queensland

– During consideration of the estimates of the Department of the Australian Capital Territory by Estimates Committee D a great deal of confusion occurred in regard to the responsibility of the

Canberra Showground Trust. Officers of the Department were unable to explain to the Committee and indeed to the Auditor-General the estimates of receipts and expenditure of that body satisfactorily. We do not say that it is the fault of the officers concerned, but the way this trust has been set up. For that reason we have suggested that the matter be investigated by a Senate committee. Therefore I move:

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– Before Senator Guilfoyle replies, I have another question for her. It refers to the formula applied for conservation grants. I think most senators had a circular from the Australian Conservation Foundation. I know I did. It expressed some fears that a certain impression might have reached the Minister for Science and the Environment (Senator Webster) that because its membership may have declined there should be a cut in its annual grant. The circular 1 have refutes that impression. I was particularly concerned by an article in the very mischievous paper known as News Weekly. It always thrives on feuds and vendettas. Its particular hate at the moment is Dr Moseley, the highly efficient Director of the Australian Conservation Foundation. I would assume that Senator Guilfoyle ‘s advisers would be able to refute the statement that the membership of the ACF was eroding and therefore there should be a justification in reducing the size of its grant. My information is that the membership is viable. I hope that the misinformation from News Weekly sources will not be used to hobble the Australian Conservation Foundation in the vital role it plays as a custodian of our environment.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I want to say a few words on the same topic as Senator Mulvihill. He expressed his concern about the rehabilitation of the Rum Jungle area, in particular the Finnis River. During Senator Mulvihill’s remarks Senator Kilgariff interjected and said: ‘The fish are coming back into the Finnis River’. I would like the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) to tell the Committee how much it has cost to rehabilitate that area over a period of years. My understanding is that there has been an enormous amount spent to rehabilitate that area and it is nowhere near rehabilitated yet. There is a lot of work to be done, and if that is the way mining areas are to be left, particularly uranium mining areas, the people of Australia have a lot to be concerned about. I would like to know when the Department of Science and the Environment or the Atomic Energy Commission first started to rehabilitate the area, when the job will be completed and how much the job will cost.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– If an explanation of Senator Maunsell’s motion has not been given, perhaps he could give some reason why it is desired that the Canberra Showground Trust be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations.

Senator Maunsell:

– It is in the report, Senator Georges.

Senator GEORGES:

-Perhaps the Committee of the Whole should have the benefit of that report.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– As I understand, Estimates Committee D recommended that the affairs of the Canberra Showground Trust should be the subject of an inquiry by the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations, due amongst other things to the failure of the trust to compile proper accounts and records of its financial transactions and the consequent inability to submit financial statements to the Auditor-General. Parliament has been asked to provide funds to subsidise the noncommercial operations of the trust. I understand there has been correspondence between the Minister for Finance (Mr Eric Robinson) and the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Ellicott). A task force comprising officers of the two departments was established in January 1979 to examine the difficulties that the trust has had in meeting its financial objectives and to make appropriate recommendations to the Minister aimed at providing a long term solution to these difficulties. However, the motion has been moved in this Committee. It has the support of the Government. We think the trust should be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– There were some other matters raised by Senator Mulvihill regarding the environment. I do not know whether Senator Webster has information that he is able to offer on these items. I have no information here but I can seek it for Senator Mulvihill. He raised the matter of the International Whaling Commission and asked about the date. I am advised that the date has not yet been finalised. We are not able to provide any further information on that matter. Senator McLaren asked a question about costs. I do not have that information but I will seek it for him.

Senator ROBERTSON:
Northern Territory

– I move to the area of housing and construction and refer to the staff of the Department of Housing and Construction at Alice Springs. At the Estimates Committee hearings we were told that some members of the staff would be retained. I ask the following questions: How many will be retained and what will be the functions of these officers? In other words, what sort of officers will be retained in Alice Springs? What responsibilities will these officers have as they work in Alice Springs? Will they be responsible for advising Aboriginal communities and housing associations on housing and services? By ‘services’, I mean electricity, sewerage, water services and so on. Will the construction group at Alice Springs replace the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Housing Panel? We were told at the Estimates committees that the Department of Housing and Construction had accepted responsibility for the work previously done by the Panel. Honourable senators will recall that I spoke at some length on the wonderful work done by the Housing Panel and regretted its passing. What responsibility will the Northern Territory Government have in the area of Aboriginal housing and services? What relationship will exist between the Federal Government and the Territory government in this area?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– The honourable senator has asked a number of specific questions requiring information. I will refer them to the appropriate Minister and seek an early answer on these points.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I refer to the proposed provision of $947,000 for the Department of Home Affairs. The Committee will recall that yesterday I asked Senator Carrick a question arising out of an article that appeared in this week’s National Times regarding the cost of having the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) immortalised in oils. He has commissioned a person now resident overseas to carry out this work. I suggested that our well known cartoonist Larry Pickering be given the job so that we would not have to meet the cost of accommodation, fares and the like. I hope that the Prime Minister has a change of heart. Senator Carrick said that he would get the good oil on the matter and he asked me to put the question on notice. I did so and was astounded to read in this afternoon’s edition of the

Sydney Sun that a portrait of the Prime Minister will cost $5,000. The article reads:

Australian artist Brian Westwood now living in America says he has been sworn to secrecy over his portrait of the Prime Minister Mr Fraser which is believed to cost between $4,000 and $6,000. He told the Sun that he did not see how Austalians could live under such heavy taxation.

The Opposition has been saying this for some time. The Australian nation is wondering, because of the new measures that were introduced on Thursday, how on earth we are going to live under the heavy burden of taxation. I will deal with this matter at a later time. The artist, Mr Westwood, who has been commissioned by the Prime Minister, has posed the question: How do Australians live under such a heavy impost? The article on page 5 of the Sun states that the Department of Home Affairs told him to answer No comment’ to questions about the portrait but he says that as a matter of courtesy he is finding the ‘No comment’ rule difficult. According to the Sun the exact amount being paid is unknown but a spokesman for the Prime Minister had said that he thought it was between $4,000 and $6,000 and Mr Westwood had already received an advance.

The Minister has officers from the Department of Home Affairs sitting beside her. How much money has been paid to Mr Westwood as a down payment for this portrait in oils to immortalise the Prime Minister? Yesterday when we talked about his being immortalised in oils somebody interjected- it is unfortunate that it was not recorded in Hansard- that he ought to be boiled in oil. How much is the down payment for this portrait and what will be the total cost? lt is quite obvious that the officers from the Department of Home Affairs should know whether Mr Westwood is reported correctly when he says that he has been told by the Department of Home Affairs that the answer he must give to any question is ‘No comment’. Can the Minister give me an answer?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– I think Senator McLaren said that the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick) asked yesterday that he place the question on the Notice Paper. To my knowledge no information has come from the Department regarding the question that is on notice. I will see that it is drawn again to the attention of the Department and will seek an early answer for Senator McLaren.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– 1 wish to follow up this matter. I said at the outset of my remarks yesterday that Senator Carrick would not have the information at his fingertips. However, I take it that the Minister tonight has officers from the Department of Home Affairs advising her. If an officer of the Department advised Mr Westwood to answer any question with ‘No comment’ and if a down payment has been made surely we can be told tonight. Why should we wait until the Parliament rises and perhaps not even then get an answer? We have officers from the Department of Home Affairs in the chamber tonight and surely that answer can be provided. Surely we can be told whether it is correct that Mr Westwood has been sworn to say ‘No comment’ when any questions are asked of him. Surely the officers can say whether a down payment has been made on the portrait; if so, how much it was; and whether the newspaper article is correct in saying that the portrait will cost between $4,000 and $6,000. Surely that is not too much to ask.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– I am now advised by the officers of the Department of Home Affairs that they have no knowledge of the reason why the artist should say that he has been asked to respond ‘No comment’ to any questions that are raised with him. I am not able to go further on the matter. I have no knowledge of the requirements were made of the artist. I am able to say that a down payment of $ 1 ,000 has been paid to the artist and that the commission of the portrait is at a cost of $6,000.

Senator CHIPP:
Leader of the Australian Democrats · Victoria

– I raise a matter that will be incredibly boring to people listening to this parliamentary broadcast but it is important to the Senate. I make two criticisms, one of myself in regard to something that happened today and one of the procedures in the Senate. For the benefit of people listening to the broadcast, let me say that the Senate is now at the Committee stage debating department by department the Appropriation Bill, which is a Bill to provide the Government with certain moneys, and that the Senate looks at those expenditures more minutely than does the House of Representatives. We are examining five departments one of which is the Department of Science and the Environment. Fortuitously, today Senator Webster presented to the Senate a report on radiological safety and future land use at the Maralinga atomic weapons test range, prepared by the Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council. Senator Mason and I looked at the report for about 10 minutes. It is a complex technical document containing 99 pages but that is all the time we had in which to read it. Naturally enough, we turned to page 16, which gives the present and future situation at Maralinga. In both of those chapters there were sentences which leapt out at us caused us great concern. For example, there was the statement that there was about a pound of plutonium buried under the soil only a metre deep with just a steel plate on top of it.

Senator Jessop:

– That has been sent back to England. You don’t have to worry about it any more.

Senator CHIPP:

– The honorable senator has anticipated me. That is why I am criticising myself. On the page where it says this, and that there is a risk but that the risk will diminish, there is no mention of the fact that the plutonium has been sent back to the United Kingdom.

Senator Bishop:

– There is no report of the discussions.

Senator CHIPP:

-I thank the honourable senator for his interjection. On page 1 7 of the report there is a footnote which reads:

Since this was written, the Minister Tor National Development, Mr Kevin Newman, has announced that this plutonium has been removed from Maralinga.

I ask, which plutonium? I now want to be critical of the person who either wrote or edited this report; it is a disgrace. There is an asterisk at the bottom of that page. Plutonium is mentioned 14 times on that page, but I will give $100 to any civil servant in the Gallery who can find an asterisk on that page, unless it is the one at the bottom. So one sees the asterisk and then looks at the page to see to which one of the 14 references to plutonium the asterisk refers. But there is no asterisk there. I raised the question and the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick) was good enough to say that he would provide an answer. In the five hours since I have received the report I have read it and I have found the answer.

I intend to be critical of the procedures because they seem to be almost insane. I think from memory it was a few months ago that it was front page news in every newspaper in the country that there was dangerous plutonium at Maralinga. The newspapers considered it to be a good story and played it up. But the story dies with barely a whimper when this report comes into the Senate. No senator, except those who are leaders of parties, have had a chance to have a prior look at it, other than for a short time only. The report is introduced by a Minister, and a member of the Opposition then seeks leave to move a motion. Only after leave is given- if it is given, and it is not always given; my colleague Senator Mason was refused leave some time ago- is a .member of the Opposition able to move that the Senate take note of the paper and make a few remarks about it. I ask: What sort of sensible, sensitive, intelligent comment can anyone make, even a person in the class of genius, on a most technical report of 99 pages on a very serious subject, after having seen it for only a few minutes? This is not a criticism of the Government; it is a criticism of the system. I ask: Is it not possible for the Minister to table the report and at least give members of the Opposition 24 hours in which to study it in order to see whether some sensible response can be made to it?

This is not the only instance of this kind. From memory, this week we have had some incredibly important papers and reports laid down by Ministers. There was the Industrial Relations Bureau report. That came into my purview about 10 minutes before it was moved, seconded and voted upon in this chamber. The other point is that once this process takes place and the Minister, on the presentation of papers, produces the report, and then somebody moves a motion that the Senate take note of the report, the debate is adjourned to a future day of sitting. It is then put right down at the bottom of the Notice Paper, but no senator here believes that it will ever be resurrected for sensible debate unless there is enormous pressure.

I make a point of saying that I have now seen the report. On my quick reading of it, much of my fear has been removed. I do not want to steal my friend Senator Georges’ thunder, but what an absolute disgrace this report is to the Department or whoever was responsible for it. It is dated January 1979 and relates to a matter which was front page news. Apparently it was delivered to the Minister on 2 February 1979, with a typewritten list of errata on the front which would lose three marks out of 10 for a matriculation student doing an essay. One must be critical of whoever did that. If Senator Georges does not mind me repeating a point that he raised today-

Senator Georges:

– I do not mind- especially the last one.

Senator CHIPP:

– The point that he raised related to page 55, where the comment is made:

Pit 6 is in this area of very high surface plutonium contamination.

In this crummy little errata sheet, stuck on the front of the report with a stapler, it says:

Page 55, line 14, for very high read relatively high

It is almost ludicrous, and it is a reflection on the very distinguished people who were on this Committee, that they would even let a report like this go out in this condition.

Madam Chairman, I conclude my remarks by taking this opportunity to criticise not only this report but also the basic procedures of the Senate where some incredibly important documents are tabled and very few senators have any time or opportunity to make a sensible or sensitive response to them.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– I want to add my support to the points which have been raised tonight by Senator Georges and Senator Chipp. Although honourable senators are becoming used to being told in the Senate and in Estimates Committees that reports are not available for one reason or another, there has to be some firm action by the Government and by Ministers in respect of these reports. As both honourable senators have pointed out, we received this document during the day. During the day senators have many obligations with regard to committees and have other work to do, and obviously they cannot always study information contained in the reports in the way it should be studied in order to be able to add some some sort of depth and criteria to the discussions in the chamber.

I am more concerned that in this report there is no evidence and no comment on what took place about matters relating to plutonium, and the discussions which took place between scientists from the United Kingdom and Australia and government representatives. But these matters have been reported in the Press and have been the subject of many questions in the Senate. As honourable senators will recall, there has been a flow of information to honourable senators about this matter. This information is often late. Reports such as this should be added to by way of extra information relating to the current position on the particular question. It would seem to me that what is required, and I do not make this request by way of criticism of the Minister, is a firm policy of the Government that when reports are made they should contain the most up to date information about what could be a very complex situation. Already Senator Georges and Senator Chipp have drawn attention to defects in the report, a very complex report which laymen cannot be expected to comment upon without some deep consideration and advice. I am concerned also about the necessity to have in these reports, not only in this report but also in other reports which come before the Senate, the latest information available when the Parliament is talking about the necessary appropriations. It is very important, and it is a matter which the Government should consider very seriously. I hope that the Minister will take note of the comments made by honourable senators and make a suitable recommendation to the Department about these matters.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Coleman:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Before I call Senator Jessop, I remind the Committee that the report was tabled this morning. A motion was moved that the Senate take note of that report. Appropriate time will be allowed for debate on it. I do not want to stifle debate, but I think it is wise to draw the attention of the Committee back to the subject under discussion, which is Group D.

Senator Chipp:

– In theory that is right, but not in practice.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– I accept your point, Senator Chipp. As I said, I do not want to stifle debate. If any further comment on the report is made I will consider it when it is made. I suggest that we should now return to considering Group D, which covers those particular papers.

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

– Before I refer to Document A, division 543, I would like to endorse what Senator Chipp said about the inadequacy of some of the reports we receive. It seems to. me that a lot is left to be desired in that area. We must remember that information to the public and to members of parliament quite often is gleaned from the annual reports which are presented. I suggest that this Committee should emphasise the importance of early presentation of a report from an interdepartmental committee which has been established by the Government. It should report as soon as possible to facilitate the preparation of annual reports for the 1978-79 financial year and to be of maximum value to parliamentarians and the public. That was an observation made in the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment which was presented here in March this year. I believe that that is important in view of what Senator Chipp has said. It would be unfortunate if further unsatisfactory annual reports were produced because of lack of guidance from the Executive Government. I made that critical comment earlier in the year. What Senator Chipp has said emphasises the need for departments, statutory authorities and so on to have regard to the importance of those various reports.

When I commenced I stated that I wanted to talk about division 543, which relates to the Antarctic Division of the Department of Science and the Environment. My remarks follow a question asked by Senator Robertson at the hearing of Estimates Committee D concerning an amount of $100,000 which was allocated for design work on an Antarctic purpose ship. I think that is a very important question because at the present time the Government is chartering two vessels from Norway, the Nella Dan and the Thalia Dan, at a cost of something like $1.5m a year. The question was answered by Mr Webster of the Department, who said:

That work Icd to a design brief and, flowing from that, an invitation was advertised throughout the world for proposals for design and construction of vessels. I understand some 40 to SO proposals were received about last November. This was a large number of proposals. A number of firms gave a great deal of elaboration in their proposals. The examination of these proposals is currently being carried out by the Department with the assistance of the Department of Defence and the Shipbuilding Division of the Department of Industry and Commerce. We received so much information in response to that first invitation- (Quorum formed). 1 am surprised that the Opposition should have chosen to waste the time of the Committee, considering its disgraceful performance last night when it wasted no less than one and three-quarter hours of this chamber’s time on frivolous and unnecessary debate. I regard that as quite incredible. If honourable senators opposite are kept here until 2 or 3 o ‘clock tomorrow morning it will be their fault. That is the way in which the Government should respond to irresponsibility on the part of the Opposition. Before the quorum formed, I was supporting the concern expressed by Senator Robertson concerning the allocation of funds for design work for an Antarctic purpose ship. I mentioned that $ 1.5 m currently is being spent on chartering vessels from Norway for that purpose. I was saying that Mr Webster from the Department of Science and the Environment said at the Estimates Committee hearing that a great number of firms gave a great deal of elaboration in their proposals and that the Department had received 40 or 50 such proposals to the design request. Mr Webster went on to state:

The examination of these proposals is currently being carried out by the Department with the assistance of the Department of Defence and the Shipbuilding Division of the Department of Industry and Commerce. We received so much information in response to that first invitation that it will take us more than six months to digest it all. As a result, we will not require that $ 100,000 this year . . .

I find that an incredible statement. We have known for a long time that the transport facilities from Australia to the Antarctic have been not as adequate as some of us would like. The research work being carried out ax the Antarctic is important to Australia. We claim 42 per cent of that area. I do not think that at the present time we are carrying out sufficient research work there. So in my view- I gather from Senator Robertson’s question that he would agree- it is important that the work should be carried out as a matter of expediency and urgency. I understand that the ship which is envisaged would be able to transport far more personnel to the Antarctic than can now be transported. It is very important that we maximise our research effort in that area. I would like the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) to suggest to her colleague that this matter should be re-examined and that, if we are to justify our claim to 42 per cent of the Antarctic, we should give priority to increasing our research effort there.

Senator ROCHER:
Western Australia

– I wish to raise several matters for the attention of the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle). The first is a matter which came to my attention during the hearing of Estimates Committee D when an officer was questioned concerning the appropriation for ‘Operational expenses’ for the Australian Capital Territory Fire Brigade. It concerns long service leave and provision for sick leave and is not exclusive to the Australian Capital Territory Fire Brigade. It seems that long service leave is not provided for adequately in the original Estimates because requests for long service leave are made during the year but they cannot readily be identified when the Budget is put together. The name of the officer concerned is irrelevant; I merely indicate what he said. On further questioning he instanced his situation as an example and indicated that he had accrued long service leave for 22 years service. That exemplified the problem.

It occurs to me that it is time budgeting was able to take into account the reasonable estimation of expenditure on long service and annual leave. This may be difficult because of the point I now propose to make. In doing so, I question the wisdom of allowing the accumulation of long service leave and annual leave on two grounds: Firstly, surely a leave entitlement exists primarily to permit the recipient to take a break from his job, to enjoy recreation leave or to follow any other pursuit that he desires. I also mention the matter in this context tonight because it creates budgetary problems. I think it will be readily apparent that if many employees were allowed to accrue leave in this way and if their entitlements could not be identified at the beginning of the financial year we could have this constant problem of inaccurate budget estimations at the beginning of the financial year forever and a day. I put it to the Minister that on two grounds at least we should take some note of this practice and its effect on budgeting and on the orderly organisation of funds.

I want to refer briefly to division 220.1.02 in the esimates of the Department of Housing and Construction. It relates to overtime and deals specifically with overtime payable to foremen. During the hearings of Senate Estimates Committee D, it was pointed out to me that some foremen were to be transferred from the day labour force to staff status. I emphasise that I am speaking about the overtime section of their remuneration. Because additional money was not required for salaries, specific mention was not made of the fact that salaries also would be paid under staff arrangements rather than day labour arrangements. I assume that, in fact, foremen salaries in this context will be paid as part of the appropriation for staff salaries.

It occurs to me that by the stroke of a publicservant’s pen, costs which were previously recoverable from authorities or departments which are clients of the Department of Housing and Construction are not now recoverable by that Department. In other words, having made this transfer of status, the Department of Housing and Construction now pays. It also means that the costs- ( Quorum formed). The situation I have described is unique by any standards, even those imposed on Commonwealth Government departments. Direct supervision of people such as foremen is part of a cost of a building contract. Jobs undertaken by private contractors include similar costs. I draw this matter to the attention of the Minister for Social Security who is at the table. I ask that she look into it and take it up with the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Groom ) in another place.

I next want to deal briefly with division 83 1 . 1 . 1 3 which concerns expenditure by the Department of Housing and Construction on behalf of the Department of Health. This involved an extra appropriation for a claim for additional costs made by a contractor–

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Coleman:

– Order! Senator Rocher, would you again state the division to which you are referring?

Senator ROCHER:

-Yes. It is division 831.1.13.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– You are relating your remarks to Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1978-79. Could you make your remarks when we are debating that legislation? At the moment we are dealing with the estimates of the Department of Housing and Construction under Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1978-79.

Senator ROCHER:

– Thank you. I will reserve my comments for later on.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– A number of matters have been raised since the last occasion on which I spoke. Sentor Chipp, Senator Bishop and Senator Jessop made comments with regard to annual reports. Senator Chipp in particular spoke about a report which was tabled today. He made known his concern about matters in the report. I point out that when the report was tabled, Senator Mason moved that the Senate take note of the report. That motion in relation to the report is on the Notice Paper and in the normal course of Senate business can be discussed in the sort of detail that we heard tonight from those honourable senators who referred to it. Senator Jessop raised the wider question of annual reports and made some comments that I believe have been made by a number of honourable senators on a number of occasions. I think that all honourable senators would support the approach that Senator Jessop and other honourable senators are taking with regard to the presentation of annual reports from Government departments and Government instrumentalities.

Senator Jessop also made reference to division 543 which deals with research in the Antarctic. He said that the degree of research being undertaken should be re-examined and expressed his concern about the matter. I will refer his remarks to the Minister although I noted that the same comments were made during the hearings of Senate Estimates Committee D. Senator Rocher referred to overtime in respect of the Australian Capital Territory Fire Brigade. He also referred to some matters with regard to the Department of Housing and Construction. He is concerned about the way in which long service leave is dealt with in government accounting. He suggested that in his opinion some estimation of payment should be required or that some provision should be made for the contingency payment of long service leave. I do not think it is necessary to say that there is an established uniform method of government accounting. Under the system that is used in Australia we are not able to anticipate funds that may be required. An estimate is made of the payments that are expected to be made in a particular year. No provision is made, as there may be in private accounting, for contingent expenditure or real expenditure that we know will occur in future years. However, I will draw the attention of the Minister for Finance (Mr Eric Robinson) to the comments that were made.

The honourable senator also drew attention to division 220.1.02 and expressed concern about costs recoverable by the Department of Housing and Construction. He referred to the direct supervision of foremen. I draw his attention to the general comment on page 4 of the explanatory notes under that item which states that these payments and other administration expenses relating to day labour works are separately costed to works projects. I feel that this covers the point that he raised with the Committee. I draw his attention to the fact that they are separately costed to works projects and that recovery by the Department in this way is certainly adhered to. I think that they are the only matters that were raised with regard to this group of proposed expenditures. I commend them to the Committee.

Proposed expenditures agreed to.

page 2361

QUESTION

GROUP E

Department of Aboriginal Affairs

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

Department of Transport

Proposed expenditure, $1 1,713,000.

Department of Industry and Commerce

Proposed expenditure, $2,032,000.

Department of Administrative Services

Proposed expenditure, $8,522,000.

Department of Productivity

Proposed expenditure, $3,287,000.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– I want to refer to divisions 655 and 662 in the estimates for the Department of Transport. Today I asked a further question about the Stuart Highway. Honourable senators will recall that who should fund the reconstruction of the Stuart Highway has been the subject of frequent questions in this place and of a debate during the consideration of Estimates in November last year. At that time I moved this motion:

That the Committee is of the opinion that the Australian Government should provide special funding to enable a continuing program of construction of the Stuart Highway to be undertaken, as unanimously requested by the recent representative deputation to the Minister for Transport from South Australia and the Northern Territory.

The persistence of other honourable senators and myself in raising this question arises from the lamentable absence of Federal Government support for the project, although on 25 November 1977, which was an election year, such special funding was promised by the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Sinclair. Today in the Adelaide Advertiser there was again general support for Australian Government funding for the construction of the Stuart Highway. Over the years there has been a general acceptance by not only Opposition members of the Parliament but also some Government members that such special funding was necessary, logical and just. An editorial in today’s Adelaide Advertiser to which I referred in a question this morning, brought these questions to a head. I asked when the Government was going to meet its commitment. I start by quoting again what was promised to the electorate in 1977. In a statement headed ‘Stuart Highway’ which was issued by the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Sinclair, and which was dated 25 November it was stated:

The communication needs of Alice Springs and in particular the reconstruction of the Stuart Highway are of prime importance in the Centre, the Minister for Primary Industry, the Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair said today. He said:

The allocation of moneys expressly for national highway construction forms part of the regular Commonwealth contributions to State Governments. Priorities given by the South Australian Government, however, have meant that there has been little work done on upgrading the Stuart Highway. The Federal Minister for Transport, Mr Peter Nixon, has, however, firmly committed the Country-Liberal Party Government to commence work on the reconstruction of the Stuart Highway in 1 978.

After discussing the issue with Mr Sam Calder, M.P., and Senator Bernie Kilgariff, I believe it necessary to identify a special fund allocation specifically for the reconstruction of the Stuart Highway. This would mean, in addition to funds provided to the South Australian Government as part of the national program and for allocation at their direction, there would be a specific sum provided to upgrade the Stuart Highway over a period of years.

That notion has been given support by most honourable senators, not only Labor senators but also Government senators. Last year that support resulted in a deputation to Mr Nixon which consisted of the following people: Mr Smith, the Mayor of Alice Springs; Mr Sam Calder, M.P.; Senator Kilgariff; Senator Robertson; Mr Roger Steele, Cabinet Member for Transport in the Northern Territory; and from South Australia, Laurie Wallis; the Hon. Geoff Virgo, the South Australian Minister of Transport; Senator Young; Senator Jessop; and myself. We made a request to the Minister for that special funding. Following the meeting with the delegation Senator Jessop, who asked a question about this matter today, made a statement to the Advertiser supporting such a proposition. I raise this question not to gain political favour or to accentuate the political -

Senator Jessop:

– Not much.

Senator BISHOP:

– I do not. Senator Jessop will recall that during the consideration of Appropriation Bill (No. 1 ) last November I made a very moderate approach to him to support the motion. Although he had committed himself to the main principles of the motion, when it came to a vote he decided not to support it.

Senator Jessop:

– I supported it, didn’t I?

Senator BISHOP:

-No, you did not. Following our deputation Senator Jessop stated in the Adelaide Advertiser that he wanted this special grant. But when the matter was taken to a vote Senator Jessop did not vote for it. The Journals of the Senate show that the question was put that Senator Bishop’s motion be agreed to and that the Committee divided. They show there were 23 ayes and 29 noes. Included in the ayes were Senators Bishop, Button, Cavanagh, McAuliffe, Douglas McClelland, McLaren, Chipp, Colston, Elstob, Evans, Georges, Gietzelt, Grimes, Harradine, Keeffe, Mcintosh, Wriedt, Tate, Sibraa, Ryan, Robertson, Primmer and Melzer. The noes included Senator Jessop and Senator-

Honourable senators interjecting-

Senator BISHOP:

– I am sorry. I had forgotten that Senator Jessop walked out and did not vote. Rather than my arguing about what we tried to do, I would be glad if Senator Jessop tonight were to give support for what is a necessary request purely for South Australia. The Adelaide Advertiser, which is no supporter of the Labor Party, has said that there is great justice in the South Australian Government’s claim. Mr Virgo has appropriated this year more than 25 per cent of the total appropriation of $ 16m for roads to the construction of the highway. It has been said by the Mayor of Alice Springs and by a representative of the Road Transport Federation that this road is a national obligation. I think most honourable senators would agree with that notion. The only way we can get Federal support for such a proposition is to seek the support of honourable senators opposite. All members of the deputation that I have mentioned, including the honourable senators from the Government side, told Mr Nixon that they considered that the road was a national road and should be specially funded. The matter is receiving a great deal of publicity in South Australia from the people who are affected by the state of the road.

This is not purely a South Australian road but is a national road. Over a number of weeks, including weeks when there has been very heavy rain and communities have been disturbed by interruptions to transportation, the Advertiser has printed some very depressing stories and comments by people in the community who have asked to see the Minister and/or his representatives. So far he has not seen them. I am not saying that he will not see them. I know that he has not changed his mind, but I hope that as a result of the discussions in this chamber the Minister will change his mind. I hope that he will again go to Cabinet, as he told us he did previously. Senator Jessop may remember that the Minister was reluctant to say that there should be a special grant but finally agreed to put to Cabinet that there should be a grant of $2m. He told us later that that $2m was not available because his submission had been turned down. I am sorry to say that since that happened it would seem that some of the support we had formerly has diminished and that honourable senators who should be supporting what is purely a South Australian claim are not now doing so.

I wish to quote from the Adelaide Advertiser of today’s date. A special report headed ‘Rain stops play . . . again ‘states:

Mixed together, the Stuart Highway, heavy rain and the Federal Minister for Transport, Mr Nixon, had all the ingredients of a good story.

Mr Nixon was to inspect the highway north and south of Coober Pedy then attend a public meeting with the locals.

They wanted to discuss the infamous road which is said to have potholes big enough to swallow cars and corrugations similar to a good three-metre wave on the South Coast.

The report goes on to relate that the Minister never arrived because he could not get there in his plane. However, he and some members of the party made journeys of inspection. Mr Wally Turner, the secretary of the Coober Pedy Progress and Miners Association, the local governing body, is reported to have said that he was most disappointed that Mr Nixon had not been able to see the road as it slowly deteriorated with more rain. The report continues:

Miss Faye Nayler, the owner manager of the Opal Cave, a tourist centre, said the Stuart Highway was of growing importance to the town.

I think it is a disgrace, because of its condition and its continuing deterioration’, she said.

What the Government does not realise is that the amount of traffic using it to get to the centre of Australia is increasing, and so is its deterioration’.

The previous day the Advertiser carried reports, received by telephone from local residents, that the Coober Pedy people were fed up to the back teeth with the road. One resident said that, regardless of the weather, Mr Nixon would be seeing one of the best parts of the highway, that the worst bit was near Kingoonya and Woomera and he would not even be seeing that. The newspaper went on to report that South Australia had made a handsome allocation from its funds for work on the highway. My information from the Department is that the major part of the highway is extremely bad, particularly the area around Woomera and Kingoonya; that is, it is no better than the area around Marla Bore, which is very bad. Marla Bore is situated on the borderline between Granite Downs Station and Welbourne Hill halfway between the Northern Territory border and Coober Pedy.

Nearly six months ago we brought to the Senate a very moderate motion which simply expressed the view of the deputation which met the Minister. That deputation included a wide range of people, among them representatives of the Australian Road Transport Federation, and the Mayor of Alice Springs. At the time they all agreed that a special grant should be made by the Federal Government. That is obviously necessary to carry out such a commitment. At that time the work would probably have cost $80m. Today as much as $100m might be needed.

If the work is left to the South Australian Government obviously that Government, with its other commitments, will not be able to do very much about it and the project will take perhaps 20 years to complete. There is a need for South Australian senators to act. I say that because I have been a senator for long enough to know that on most occasions South Australia’s senators, irrespective of party, have supported their State Government. I was here when we fought with Tom Playford, the South Australian Premier, to get funds for the standardisation of railways. I expect South Australian senators from both sides to support what is a just claim. I hope that, as a result of these discussions tonight, those senators will again support us.

Senator TOWNLEY:
Tasmania

– I am pleased to see in the Chair, at a time when I intend to question a few of the costs incurred by the Department of Transport, a senator who knows something about transport, particularly the aviation aspects. (Quorum formed). I have before me a document headed ‘Department of Transport’ which sets out the hours flown by, and the total cost of, departmental aircraft during the period July 1978 to March 1 979 inclusive. To save the time of the Committee I will seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard. It is a simple document and easily incorporated.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

Senator TOWNLEY:

– I thank the Committee. An examination of the document will show that the Department of Transport has, amongst many aircraft, three F28 aircraft. The F28 is a twinengine jet which I believe is similar to those operated by MacRobertson-Miller Airline Services in Western Australia which covers quite a large part of that State. The area covered represents a large part of this country. For those nine months, the three aircraft were flown for 447, 453 and 496 hours respectively, or an average of 470 hours for each aircraft. That would amount to approximately 650 or 660 hours a year. That seems to be a very low rate of utilisation for aircraft that are as expensive to operate and own as are the F28s.

Senator Wriedt:

– You are talking about departmental aircraft?

Senator TOWNLEY:
Senator Wriedt:

– Checking navigation aids and such things?

Senator TOWNLEY:

-Yes, but one should be able to get from an aircraft more than 650 hours service. I cannot see why we need the number of aircraft that we have in the Department of Transport. Honourable senators may think I have a thing about the number of aircraft that are being operated around this country by the Government in one area or another.

Senator Wriedt:

– Such as the VIP flights.

Senator TOWNLEY:

– I will deal with that tomorrow, not today. I am advised that the F28s are used for checking out things such as navigation aids. I suppose some of that must be done during the day and some at night. I would question why we need three aircraft for this work. Perhaps we need two, but why three? I ask that question because, if we must have three, we must have three sets of crews. I would like to know just how many people constitute a crew of a F28 when it is engaged in checking, and the number of crews that are associated with the F28s. I would also ask whether any use is made of the F28s for VIP purposes. If that is so, how many hours were devoted to that use during the last 12 months or, if it is easier to obtain, during the last nine months- the first nine months of this financial year? How much was recouped and on what basis was that money recouped from the people who used the F-28s as VIP aircraft? I would like to know how much an hour it costs to operate one of these aircraft and whether it is anticipated that that will rise a great deal during the coming year due to increased fuel prices.

Are any VIP aircraft given special treatment on approach or departure from airports that are controlled by the Department of Transport? In other words, if a VIP aircraft is en route to, say, Melbourne from Canberra, are regular transport operators made to hold so that the VIP aircraft can get special treatment? If there is special treatment- I would be surprised if there is not- I would like to have the suggestions that are made to those in control of the aircraft in the air either incorporated in Hansard or tabled in the Senate. Next, I ask whether the Department of Transport had anything to do with the choosing and purchase of the new Boeing 707 jet aircraft that are to be used by the VIP fleet. What is the Department’s attitude to the engines that are presently in those 707 aircraft? Is the Department happy with the noise and pollution outputs of those engines?

Senator Lewis:

– What sort of aircraft do you suggest should have been bought?

Senator TOWNLEY:

– I have plenty of time if honourable senators would like me to go into that.

Senator Lewis:

– What have you got against the 707 aircraft that makes you in favour of some other aircraft?

Senator TOWNLEY:

-With the approval of the Committee, I would quickly like to go into what aircraft I would like to see used as VIP aircraft.

Senator Lewis:

– The question was: What sort of aircraft should have been obtained?

Senator TOWNLEY:

– This is not the time to go into that matter. If honourable senators wish, I will proceed with it. I have quite a file on the matter and would be only too pleased to answer that question.

Senator Puplick:

– Ask him to put it on notice.

Senator TOWNLEY:

– 1 do not believe that the honourable senator should have to put anything on notice. That is something that Ministers usually have to do. The Department of Defence is attending later; perhaps 1 can raise the matter then. I was advised that the aircraft originally suggested to the Department of Transport or to the Department of Defence were long range Boeing 727-100 series aircraft which could have been serviced by the commercial airlines, Ansett Airlines of Australia or Trans-Australia Airlines. Those aircraft would have had the over-water range, with one motor out and depressurisation, and they would not have created a situation of a fleet -

Senator Lewis:

– Do you think that the Air Force should have its aircraft serviced by Ansett and TAA?

Senator TOWNLEY:

-They would not then have created the situation where we have a VIP fleet that has two Boeing 707 aircraft, two BAC1 1 1 aircraft, three Mystere jets and two HS 748 aircraft. That is a crazy set-up of aircraft ownership for anybody, whether it be a government or private organisation. Senator Lewis asks whether I think that the Royal Australian Air Force should have its motors serviced by a private company, either TAA or Ansett. I say certainly. I ask: Who will fix the motors of the Boeing 707 aircraft we have now? Will it be the Air Force, or Qantas? Who will do the training, and who will own the simulator?

Senator Sibraa:

– We have already paid for the simulator.

Senator TOWNLEY:

– One of my questions was to be whether Qantas will retain the simulator or sell it to the Air Force.

Senator Wriedt:

– Who is going to fix the aircraft that you pranged at Geelong Airport?

Senator TOWNLEY:

-That was unfixable and it was not in Hobart. 1 am running out of time and I know honourable senators will not give me an extension. I now move on to the security of airports. I refer to the report to the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr McLeay) on the organisation of police resources in the Commonwealth area and other related matters. Page 1 3 refers to the security of airports and suggests that the system of random security that we now have in Australia is not good enough. When is the security in this country to be made so that anybody with an IQ greater than 50 can be detected by the system? Who in their right mind would walk up to, usually, two ladies and one gentleman checking people at an airport, if they have a hand grenade or gun in their pocket?

Surely if they want to get on a flight they will wait until those people are not there. All we are doing at the moment is wasting money hand over fist with a security system that cannot possibly work. The same section suggests rather obtusely that we buy VIP aircraft to subtract our Prime Minister and other important people from the mainstream of passengers. There is this worry about the security of Australian airports. When will a suitable system be brought in that will make sure that anybody who wants to hijack an aircraft will not be able to? For the benefit of the Senate, I seek leave to incorporate section 20 of that report.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

  1. The system of random security checks at airports throughout Australia seems to me of questionable value. Notwithstanding that Australia has been happily free from hijacking or bombing incidents in relation to aircraft, other nations have found this to be a particular worrying threat. Throughout the United States of America and Great Britain security checks are maintained al airports as a matter of routine and are strictly enforced. This is so vulnerable an area that in the interests of passengers and air crew it is essential that consideration should be given to the establishment of security checks on every outgoing flight at the ten security sensitive Australian airports as a routine measure of high priority. Consideration should also bc given to the extension of this procedure to other airports in the light of threat assessment. lt is, of course, assumed that chief police officers bearing the ultimate responsibility for dealing with the security at airports will liaise continually with the civil authorities responsible for their administration. The cost will not be great in comparison, for example, with that borne by the United States and could, of course, quite properly be borne by the passengers, lt will be too late to contemplate this obviously necessary precaution after the first hijacking or bombing of an aircraft. In a country so dependent on air travel internally and externally the use of VIP aircraft which subtract attractive targets from the mainstream of passengers has much to commend it as a counter terrorist measure.
Senator TOWNLEY:

– I realise that some of the questions that I have asked may not be able to be answered immediately. If they are not immediately answerable, 1 would be grateful to have advice on them reasonably soon.

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

- Mr Chairman, I also speak about transport. I wish to make a few comments about the Stuart Highway. I believe that most members of this Senate will appreciate that I have an interest in the construction of that highway. It is of great importance to South Australia. I also recall on many previous occasions attending deputations. Senator Bishop in his speech referred to one deputation which involved the South Australian Minister for Transport, Mr Virgo, Senator Bishop, members from the Northern Territory, myself and Senator Young. 1 think members of the Australian Roads Federation and the Mayor of Alice Springs attended also. Collectively, we supported the concept of providing special funding for the Stuart Highway. As a result of that conference, which was of unanimous feeling, 1 drafted a letter which was ultimately sent to the Federal Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon).

Senator Bishop:

– We all signed it.

Senator JESSOP:

– That is right. Let me give the honourable senator due credit. I will come to a matter later that he might not like. I give due credit to Senator Bishop that he approved the letter that I drafted, and signed it. It is also true that at the time the Minister agreed to present to Cabinet a special request for extra funds for that highway. I think Senator Bishop mentioned a figure of $2m. Subsequent to that occasion, I recall mentioning publicly that a letter had been sent to the Minister requesting that the Federal Government reimburse the South Australian Government to a degree with respect to this type of funding.

Senator Young:

– We also discussed that with the Minister at the time.

Senator JESSOP:

- Senator Young reminds me that we discussed the matter with the Minister at the time. That is perfectly true. But Senator Bishop will recall that after that event the Cabinet refused to accede to the Minister’s request for additional funds because it happened to be against policy with respect to national highways funding. Senator Bishop then devised a mischievious motion- an urgency motionwhich he introduced into this place and to which he has referred. It was mischievous because he knew that honourable senators on this side of the House had supported the proposition of additional funds for the highway but that the Government had refused the funds previously on the grounds that it was against current policy. I suggested at the time that the honourable senator might regard the motion as one of national urgency because other national highways came within a similar category. I suggested that he widen his motion to include a proposition to the Government which I believe was valid. I believe that if he had done so he would have attracted total support from this side of the House and would have motivated the Government to a change of policy.

But no, Senator Bishop would not have that. He wanted to get the Government senators from South Australia on the hook. He knows that he was playing politics and now he is attempting to capitalise on it. My proposition- I put it again to the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) who is in the chamber- was that the

Government should leave the national highway funding as it was. In other words, the Government should give money to the States to allocate according to their own priorities, but provide an additional fund to the Federal Minister so that he is able to provide special funding to a proposal of his own priority. I regard the Stuart Highway as being of top priority and I would support such a proposition, as I know Senator Bishop would. I am being generous in saying that, but I know that he would. I believe that such action would have been constructive. But, no, Senator Bishop would not have that. Then, having refused my constructive suggestion, he accused Senator Kilgariff and I of walking out and not voting on the motion.

Senator Cavanagh:

– So you did.

Senator JESSOP:

-I walked out on the motion, but the honourable senator is trying to disillusion people. In doing that we weakened the Government’s opposition to Senator Bishop’s motion. In effect, we supported the motion in principle. I believe that is true. Honourable senators opposite should think about that and if anyone from Coober Pedy is listening he or she ought to think about it too. In effect, Senator Kilgariff and I supported Senator Bishop in that particular proposal. Senator Bishop stood up here and talked of our disinterest in that particular highway. He mentioned last week that the Minister travelled to Woomera because he was invited there by Mr Calder, Senator Young, Senator Kilgariff and 1 to look at Coober Pedy en route to the Northern Territory. He did that in good faith. When he landed at Woomera the weather was bad. He acted on the advice of the Australian Road Federation, whose public relations officer had said: ‘Well, the Minister is going to travel over the road near Coober Pedy, which is a good section of the road. He should travel over the road down in the south, which is the worst section’.

So the Minister changed his mind and decided to travel by car over the road from Pimba to Lake Hart to look at what apparently is regarded by the Australian Roads Federation as a bad stretch of road. When he arrived back at Woomera he received a radio message from an aircraft that had tried to land at Coober Pedy saying that the weather was such that the airport was closed. So, regrettably, the Minister had to postpone his visit to Coober Pedy. In retrospect, that might have been a good thing. I am glad to say that he has agreed- to return, perhaps for a longer period. He will go back in October or November this year and spend more time discussing transport matters in general with the

Coober Pedy representatives. Members of the Labor Party stand up in this chamber and make references to Governmenr senators and Ministers, yet I cannot recall a Minister for Transport in the Labor Party Government going to Coober Pedy. I cannot recall the Labor Party when in Government taking any more interest in the Stuart Highway than the Labor Party in South Australia does at the present time.

Senator Young:

– The Labor Government promised all sorts of things for the Stuart Highway but did not provide even a bulldozer.

Senator JESSOP:

- Senator Young is quite right. Mr Whitlam, when he was Prime Minister, said: ‘Yes, the Labor Party will provide a dual sealed highway to the Northern Territory’. He also said something about providing an international airport for Townsville and Brisbane. But none of those things ever eventuated. Senator Bishop has the confounded impertinence, gall and hide to denigrate members of this House in a mischievous way although the Labor Party did nothing when it was in Government and the State Government of South Australia regards the Stuart Highway as having a low priority. I am proud to say that our Minister for Transport, Mr Nixon, has restated his affirmation that that road is important. He has also restated his determination to persuade the State Government to allocate a high priority to that road. As long as I am a member of this Senate I will support that contention. I suggest to Senator Bishop that, rather than try michieviously to denigrate me and my colleagues on this side of the chamber, he ought to be more constructive. If he is interested in South Australia and the development of the Northern Territory and South Australia together which is very important, he ought to get behind the proposition that I have restated. I believe that if he had done so at the time he would have gained more creditibility because he would have had the total support of the Senate. 1 ask him to reflect on that in the future whenever he mentions my name in the context of the Stuart Highway. I ask him to reflect also on the fact which he knows very well, that what Senator Kilgariff and I did was very much in support of his proposition.

Senator MacGIBBON:
Queensland

– I will be very brief, since we have so many articulate and eager speakers on the other side. I wish to refer to the division 662. subdivision I, which deals with an additional estimate of $3,774,000.

Senator Georges:

– What are you doing, referring to a line? You are the only one who has done it tonight. You are completely out of order.

Senator MacGIBBON:

– I have been adequately briefed. The purpose of this item is to provide expenditure requirements to meet the level of operating losses incurred by the Australian National Railways Commission in 1 978-79. 1 believe that out of the actual projected expenditure of $63,640,000, $14,930,000 is to be allocated to the Tasmanian railways. The losses in South Australia account for$48m-odd. This is an inherited situation. In one sense it baffles my imagination that even a Labor government in a State which has only one really large city can have a loss of $48m in one year, but it is a testimony to the financial incompetence of the Labor Government in South Australia that we have this situation on our hands. So much for that, it is ancient history. In the Committee we asked what was being done about this loss and we were advised that there was a five-year corporate plan. That is a delightful term- corporate plan. But another officer advanced the advice that a 10-year corporate plan was being advanced. With a loss of about $63m a year I think we need something a little faster than a 10-year plan to deal with it. We do not have a little bleed; we are virtually haemorrhaging to death at that rate. I suggest that the Department of Transport move with great urgency to stop that loss.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I am very pleased I have received the call because the rules of this chamber seem to be completely out of order. We had three speakers from the other side and none from this side. We heard Senator Townley, Senator Jessop and then Senator MacGibbon. I want to reply to some of the statements made by Senator Jessop when he attacked Senator Bishop most viciously and accused him of being mischievous. We saw a weak effort by a person trying to extricate himself from promises over the Stuart Highway he has made in the northern areas of South Australia over a number of years. He has backed himself into a corner. We only have to read Hansard to see how he has contradicted himself here tonight. I intend to refer to his contradictions.

Of course, one of the persons who has done most alongside Senator Bishop in an endeavour to get the Stuart Highway sealed between Port Augusta and Alice Springs, is Mr Laurie Wallis, the honourable member for Grey. He has gone about that in a tradesmanlike way. He has made a wonderful effort. But of course Press releases put out by Senator Jessop from time to time have not supported him. On some occasions Mr Wallis was not even advised of deputations to the Minister for Transport which took place. The honourable member for Grey, Mr Wallis, has been completely ignored. He was ignored recently when a VIP aircraft went to his area last week. As ( asked Senator Jessop by interjection today, I would like to know who were the passengers on the VIP aircraft. I have been told that there are certain rules about the people who are allowed to travel on VIP aircraft. I would like to know how the people carried came to be on that VIP aircraft. Senator Jessop, in endeavouring to prove the argument against Senator Bishop, accused him of being mischievous. He also admitted that he drafted a letter after a meeting. He referred to that letter during the debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1978-79 on 16 November 1 978. 1 intend to quote what he said and to refer to a letter that he quoted.

Senator Young:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Temporary Chairman. I tried to make the situation clear to Senator McLaren by attempted interjection when he challenged who were on the VIP aircraft- implying that Senator Jessop was on it- but he totally ignored me. I say that Senator Jessop was not on that VIP aircraft.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Collard:
QUEENSLAND

– There is no point of order. There will be time at a later stage for you to make your point.

Senator McLAREN:

– As usual Senator Young has tried to distort what I am saying. What I said was that I wanted to know who was on the VIP aircraft. I made no accusation as to who was on it. When by interjection earlier today I asked who was on it Senator Jessop made a gesture which seemed to indicate that he was on the aircraft. So, I took it that he was on it by his own admission. He apparently misled me when he made that gesture. It cannot be recorded in Hansard but he gave a signal which indicated that he was on the aircraft. I return to what Senator Jessop said when he was speaking to Appropriation Bill (No. 1) and a motion put forward by Senator Bishop, on 16 November last year. He said: 1 have before me u letter that was written to the Minister for Transport ( Mr Nixon) following a deputation in May this year to which Senator Bishop referred. I will read it. It was drafted by Senator Bishop and myself -

But of course Senator Jessop claimed tonight that he drafted it himself. He did not mention Senator Bishop. But he did on 16 November. He misled the Senate either on 1 6 November or tonight. He wenton to say: . . and signed by the senators who attended that deputation and by Mr Wallis and Mr Calder who also attended. We wrote to the Minister for Transport:

In view of the importance of the Stuart Highway to the development of South Australia and the Northern Territory and the unanimous concern expressed by the delegation today that additional Commonwealth funds be provided to accelerate the planning and construction of this road -

Referring to the Stuart Highway- we respectfully request that you make a further approach to Cabinet for a special allocation for this purpose.

But further on in his speech when he was put under the hammer- I refer to page 2131 of the Senate Hansard of 16 November- referring to Senator Bishop, Senator Jessop s’aid:

If he wanted to highlight the Stuart Highway in particular, I would be happy to support him.

What was the motion that Senator Bishop put to the Senate? The motion stated:

That the Committee is of the opinion that the-Australian Government should provide special funding to enable a continuing program of construction of the Stuart Highway to be undertaken as unanimously requested by the recent representative deputation to the Minister for Transport from South Australia and the Northern Territory. .

That is also the tenor of the letter that Senator Jessop wrote to the Minister for Transport, Mr Nixon. He went on to say in that debate–

Senator Jessop:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Temporary Chairman. I regard what Senator McLaren is saying as tedious repetition. What he is saying has already been said earlier in the debate. I suggest you should rule him out of order.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Collard:

– There is no point of order.

Senator McLAREN:

– As I said earlier in my remarks, we witnessed here tonight an exhibition of a senator trying to extricate himself from promises and Press statements he has put out over the years which he has completely repudiated by his remarks in this chamber. Of course, now he does not like me repeating them. I will repeat them again. In answer to that motion moved by Senator Bishop, Senator Jessop said:

If he -

He was referring to Senator Bishop- wanted to highlight the Stuart Highway in particular, I would be happy to support him.

I have read out the motion put down by Senator Bishop. Later Senator Jessop went on to say:

  1. . I would be happy to support him. As the motion is worded now it really weakens the argument that I am putting to the Minister on a national basis.

He said a few words before that that he would support Senator Bishop if he specified the Stuart Highway. Talk about an acrobat! Then he said:

I will continue to help Senator Cavanagh in his efforts to get this highway built. I have helped Mr Wallis . . .

Mr Wallis does not think you have helped him. Senator Jessop went on to say:

I certainly will give my total support to anything that they care to do, provided it will influence the Government on a national basis to change its policy.

Of course, Senator Jessop completely turned around. He said further:

Wc cannot just pick off roads here and there, willy-nilly. Wc have tried. We have supported the idea of special funding for that road but we have been rejected by the Government on that basis.

Of course, Senator Jessop repeatedly stands in this Parliament and says that he is a man of independent mind, that he is not bound by party policy. Why does he go into the electorate of Grey and repeatedly tell the people at Kingoonya and Coober Pedy and places further north, that he is fighting for the Stuart Highway? He was given the opportunity in this Parliament on that very day to vote for a motion put down by Senator Bishop but he walked out of the House along with his colleague Senator Kilgariff.

Senator Jessop:

– That is right.

Senator McLAREN:

– That has nailed Senator Jessop to the wall. He was not prepared to vote for the very things that he was saying in the electorate ought to be done. Let us look at some more broken promises. Ju>t prior to the Federal election in 1977 Mr Sinclair went to Alice Springs. An article in the Centralian is headed: The following telex was circulated to the news media in the NT. on 25.1 1.79’. This was a week or two before the last election. The telex reads:

The communication needs of Alice Springs and in particular the reconstruction of the Stuart Highway are of prime importance in the Centre, Mr Sinclair said today.

The allocation of monies expressly for National Highway Construction forms part of the regular Commonwealth contributions to State Governments. Priorities given by the South Australian Government, however, have meant that there has been little work done on upgrading the Stuart Highway. The Federal Minister for Transport, Mr Peter Nixon, has, however, firmly committed the Country/Liberal Parly Government to commence work on the reconstruction ofthe Stuart Highway in 1978.

After discussing the issue with Mr Sam Calder, M.P., and Senator Bernie Kilgariff. I believe it necessary to identify a special fund allocation specifically for the reconstruction of the Stuart Highway.

This would mean, in addition to funds provided to the South Australian Government as part of the National program and for allocation at their direction, there would be a specific sum provided to up-grade the Stuart Highway over a period of years.

Those solemn promises were made by Mr Sinclair to win votes for Mr Calder in the Northern Territory. They were not even worth the paper they were written on because we know that they have been repudiated. Senator Jessop has proved that tonight by trying to vilify Senator Bishop in this chamber. The Government that he belongs to- he says that he is proud to be a member of it- has ducked out on another promise. I will look at some of the vilifications used by Mr Nixon against the South Australian Minister, Mr Virgo. In a Press release issued only last Thursday, Mr Nixon said:

It seemed clear that Mr Virgo had been intent on concentrating finances on the South Eastern Freeway, between Adelaide and the Swanport Bridge, at the expense of the Stuart Highway and people living in the north of South Australia.

I am proud to be able to say to Senator Jessop that only this morning the south eastern freeway was opened and the new bridge over the River Murray at Swanport just below Murray Bridge where I live was opened also. I am proud that the South Australian Government had the common sense to go ahead and complete the work which was started years ago by one man, Tom Playford, of whom honourable senators opposite claim to be proud. I refer to the construction of a freeway between Adelaide and the River Murray. The South Australian Labor Government was proud to carry out this work. Mr Sinclair was suggesting that we should cut off that job in midstream and shift all the equipment to the Stuart Highway.

Honourable senators opposite concentrate all their remarks on the Stuart Highway at present. They conveniently forget about the history of the Eyre Highway. What did honourable senators opposite do to see that that road was sealed when they were in government? They did absolutely nothing. It took the Dunstan Government to say to Mr McMahon, ‘If you will not carry out your responsibilities we will have to do it out of State funds’. It was only then that the Government of which Senator Jessop is a member came forward and made the money available. It was done but we had to threaten the Government to get it done. Honourable senators opposite cannot advance a reasonable argument. They argue that they are in favour of the sealing of the Stuart Highway but their argument is full of holes.

What do we find in the announcement by Mr Nixon which is attached to a statement made the other day? He has announced a 7 per cent increase in funds to the South Australian Government when we know full that we have an inflation rate of 8Vi per cent at present. By the end of the financial year it will be nearer to 10 per cent. In real terms, South Australia will get considerably less money from the Federal Government for its roads works than it is entitled to receive. In the few minutes left to me, I want to refer to comments made by Mr Virgo in reply to that statement by Mr Nixon. An article in the Adelaide Advertiser of Friday, 25 May 1979 reads:

In Adelaide last night, Mr Virgo said he was ‘amazed and appalled ‘ by the Federal Minister’s statements.

It’s incredible, ‘ Mr Virgo said.

I have just announced that SA is seeking his permission to spend more than a quarter of its $16m Federal national highways construction grant on the Stuart Highway in the coming financial year.

More than a quarter on one of our many highways- and he wants us to spend still more.

It’s unbelievable. I’m glad that the people of our Far North are too clever not to see right through his pontificating and smoke-screening.

They’ll laugh him right out of the desert. Senator Jessop knows that they will if he ever gets to Coober Pedy to talk to the people. I don’t know whether Senator Jessop has been in tough with the people at Coober Pedy after the abortive visit last week. He went to great pains to tell us they went by road to a certain place. I ask Senator Jessop whether that was a sealed road or a dirt road?

Senator Jessop:

– It was a dirt road.

Senator McLAREN:

– I do not think that it was. If the honourable senator could travel to that point on a dirt road in a motor vehicle the other day, why could he not go to Coober Pedy? Answer me that?

Senator Jessop:

– Give me a chance. Sit down and I will.

Senator McLAREN:

– We find that in the next issue of the Advertiser of 26 May 1979 there is an announcement about the funds. Mr Virgo had this to say under the headline ‘Not told, says Virgo’:

In Adelaide, the South Australian Minister of Transport, Mr Virgo, yesterday criticised the allocation, and warned that the States roadworks program might have to be cut.

He said Mr Nixon had not yet told the South Australian Government of its allocation . . .

We have had to rely on the media for the information, Mr Virgo said.

That is what always happens. We find Mr Nixon and Senator Jessop running to the Press with statements about what should be done in South Australia and what money is allocated without any consultation with Mr Virgo. Senator Jessop and Mr Nixon are prepared only to criticise and vilify the South Australian Minister. If they talked to the people in the country, they would realise that Mr Virgo is doing a good job. It is not only the Stuart Highway that has to be sealed; we have many other highways. He gives funds to them on a priority basis. The people in the

Coober Pedy area can rest assured that in time Mr Virgo will see that they get a sealed highway despite the ramifications and the false promises made by this Government.

Senator ROBERTSON:
Northern Territory

– I shall speak briefly in this debate, not only because time is running out but also because two previous speakers to whom Senator MacGibbon referred, are both articulate and experienced and have covered most of the arguments. However, there are one or two extra points that I would like to add to the comments made by my colleagues. I support what Senator Bishop has said tonight, as I have previously. But while he stressed the importance of the road to South Australia I will deal with its importance to the Northern Territory because it is a vital link to the Northern Territory. This point has been made by Senator McLaren who has always been a friend to the Northern Territory. I do not think that there is any need to recapitulate on the need for a road. This has been done well, not only tonight but in previous debates.

The question must then be asked: Whose responsibility is it to find the funds to do this job for which we have recognised the need. Having listened to the speakers in the debate tonight, it seems that there is no disagreement on whose responsibility it is. We have agreed that it is a national road. We all know that it is part of a national network and that the aim of the national network is to link the capitals of Australia. This will link Darwin with Alice Springs which is already connected by road to Darwin. It is the last link in the chain to connect capital cities around Australia. If it is a national road it is clearly the responsibility of the Federal Government. This has been accepted over the years. When the delegation to which two other honourable senators have referred met with the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) he put the argument that Western Australia was looking for money to push extra roads further north. He said that Queensland was looking for money to do this also. While we accept that these propositions have been put forward we submit that the Minister missed the point entirely. The road in Western Australia going north or the road in Queensland going north will not assist in linking the capital cities. Certainly, the road in Western Australia, if it followed the correct path, could eventually get to Darwin. But it would not link in the same way because the link between Alice Springs and southern roads would be broken.

One could speak on the developmental needs and the defence needs and point out that this road is absolutely essential. But as I have said, I do not think there is any need to recapitulate on this matter. We need only return to the question that was asked originally: Who is responsible? It is clear that the national Government- the Federal Government- has the responsibility for this. Some comments have been made about the statements by Mr Sinclair when he was in Alice Springs. He said quite clearly that he saw it as a Federal Government responsibility. Mr Sinclair went further than this. As well as being a Federal Government responsibility, he actually promised that the Government would commit funds to do this. Recently the Minister for Transport, Mr Nixon, made a statement that South Australia should give more of its money, and do more. This is the same sort of argument he put to the delegation. What absolute rubbish this is. South Australia has four national highways to worry about. If it made an allocation for the construction of roads leading to the Northern Territory it would take 30, 40 or 50 years to obtain the required amount. It has to worry about the Princess Highway, the Stuart Highway and the Eyre Highway. The pressure is on South Australia to do this. The need for ongoing funds for this project from the Federal Government is clear.

Senator Jessop made some extraordinary statements in what I thought was a fairly hysterical outburst. He agreed that it is a national highway but he supported the proposition that Senator Bishop put forward in a strange way. He walked out on the vote. This is the strangest sort of support that I have ever seen. I would have thought that if anyone wanted to support something he would vote for it. The honourable senator then made the statement: ‘Mr Whitlam said that he would provide, and what did he do?’ Again, complete histrionics. Whitlam had three years in which to do something during which time the then Opposition took him to the polls twice. If we add up the time that the present Government has had and the time its LiberalCountry Party predecessor had, the coalition parties have had 27 (h years to do it, and they have done nothing. So what nonsense it is to ask: What did Whitlam do in three years?’

Consideration interrupted.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Collard:

– Order! It being 1 1 p.m., in conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question:

That the Temporary Chairman do now leave the chair and report to the Senate.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. B. Scott)

AYES: 23

NOES: 31

Majority……. 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Consideration resumed.

Whitlam would have done about the Stuart Highway in his 3 years of office. I was stressing the point that Mr Whitlam had 3 years in office and during that time he had to face 2 elections. So it is quite clear that the people sitting opposite who had 27!6 years to do something about the Stuart Highway did not really give Mr Whitlam and his government much chance. I make the point quite sincerely, and I do not believe that it can be challenged, that if Mr Whitlam made a promise he would make every endeavour to fulfil that promise. Most of the promises that were made were kept. This is in quite clear contrast to the actions of certain leaders at present. Almost every newspaper in the country, including one which was exhibited in this place last night, has made it abundantly clear that some people do not keep the promises that they make. So quite clearly, if Mr Whitlam ‘s Government said that it was going to put down the highway it would have done so if it had been given the chance.

I make this suggestion to Senator Jessop: If he is really keen to see us support him on a motion which calls on the Federal Government to accept full responsibility for the Stuart Highway and to make funds available, he should move that motion. He should either put it through his party and bring it forward or he should introduce a private member’s Bill on the matter. I tell him quite clearly now, without having to discuss the matter with my colleagues, that he will get the support from this side of the chamber which he did not give us when we put forward the proposition.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– A number of honourable senators have spoken on the urgency of upgrading the Stuart Highway. I have noted the comments and I am sure that the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) is aware of the attitudes of all of those senators who have spoken and of other senators from South Australia. It is fair to say that this matter was canvassed fairly well in this place in the Budget debate of last year. The activities which have taken place since with the meetings with the Minister and other discussions in this chamber in regard to it-

Senator Georges:

– Wouldn’t it be easier on everyone if we just sealed the highway and be done with it? Then we would not have this argument every year.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I do not know that I could just rashly agree with the proposition put by Senator Georges. But I do think that we have a very strong South Australian spirit in this chamber, one which is being exerted in regard to the South Australian highway, the Stuart Highway. However, the matters which were raised will be drawn to the attention of the Minister. I think we would all share the hope that some improvement in the highway be made and that that be done as a matter of national urgency.

Senator Townley raised many matters in regard to the Department of Transport. He referred in particular to the F28 aircraft. I am told that the estimated utilisation of that aircraft for 1978-79 would be 1,900 hours and for 1979-80 it would be 2,600 hours. Those aircraft were acquired two years ago and there has been a gradual phasing-in to full utilisation of them. Many questions were raised by Senator Townley, one of which was whether there was any special treatment in regard to that aircraft. We are not aware of any special treatment being given in regard to landing arrangements or any other arrangements which can be made. A question was asked in regard to the operating cost. I am advised that the full recoverable cost would be approximately $1,700 per hour. That would be recouped in such instances as when the F28s were used for VIP flights or for flight testing of Royal Australian Air Force facilities.

Questions were raised in regard to VIP aircraft, one of which asked when the Department of Transport aircraft might be used for special flights. I am advised that the departmental aircraft are used for special purposes on occasions when RAAF planes are fully utilised. The expenditure in recent financial years has been limited to about $10,000 to $15,000 a year for that purpose. Other questions raised by Senator Townley related to the Boeing 707s. Those questions do not relate specifically to the Department of Transport, but to the Department of Defence. I draw the attention of the Committee to the Hansard record of the hearings of Estimates Committee F, when a discussion was held in regard to the Boeing 707s. The record of that discussion starts at page 118. Much of the information which was required by Senator Townley can be obtained from that Hansard record. If further information is required, I will be pleased to see that it is provided by the Department of Defence.

Senator MacGibbon raised the matter of the Australian National Railways and the subsidy to meet operating losses. Since March last year, when the ANR started to run the railways concerned, the loss sustained in each year has been reduced. It is to be hoped that we will be able to run those railways effectively at a much lower cost than has been the case in past years. Senator McLaren, Senator Robertson and other senators talked about the Stuart Highway. Mr Chairman, with those remarks I commend the estimates examined by Estimates Committee F to this Committee.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I seek some information about what will happen following the handing down in Queensland yesterday by Mr Justice Matthews of a judgment in relation to the payment of award wages to Aborigines on the various reserves in Queensland and those who live off the reserves and who are covered by the relevant Act. I understand that the Queensland Minister for Aboriginal and Islander Affairs and the Deputy Premier of Queensland arrived in Canberra a few hours ago to try to sort out this matter. I am not sure whether enough money is being appropriated in this group of estimates to cover the payment of award wages. I ask the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) whether the money will come out of unexpended allocations for Aboriginal affairs or whether it will be necessary to allocate additional funds?

In order to make it quite clear to those who read Hansard I shall cite briefly some of the history of this struggle. Later- probably within the next 10 minutes or so- I would like to incorporate in Hansard a short statement which was published in today’s Australian Financial Review. I am happy to pass the article to the Minister and to you, Mr Chairman, for scrutiny before I seek its incorporation. I am sure that there will not be any objection to it because it is a straightforward news item.

The 1965 Act which operated in Queensland precluded the payment of award wages to Aborigines on any reserves. In addition, it precluded Aborigines working away from the reserves from getting the full award rate. The arrangement was that the employer would pay so much to the department responsible for Aboriginal affairs and the worker would get so much in his hand. Many of those bank accounts, of course, disappeared. Many employers, in fact, never paid in the money. The money was also handled by people known as native protectors, who were normally the local policemen. Great problems were experienced in making sure that the money reached its rightful owner at any time even in the long term.

The people who had money paid in for them under those circumstances and who wanted to buy a transistor radio, a tennis racquet or cricket bat had to go on hands and knees to the manager of the reserve and ask whether they could withdraw a particular sum of money from their passbooks. Frequently this request was refused. Under the Act at that time the personal movements of all Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders were strictly controlled. There were things like red lists that prevented people from returning home to their families and relatives during Christmas and Easter for traditional holiday celebrations. About 50 people were on the red list for Palm Island. Not only were wages restricted but also personal freedom was restricted. Evidence which I have cited in this chamber before shows that a reserve manager in fact said that he was the only person who had the necessary authority even after the establishment of councils. The award wage for the ordinary unskilled labourer in those days was something like $50 or $60 a week, but nursing aides at Thursday Island hospital were getting about $8 per fortnight and on other reserves the breadwinners used to get the magnificent sums of $10 to $20 per fortnight. If they occupied a departmental house they were required to pay $6 per fortnight from that.

The sum of $1.50 used to be deducted in a blanket sort of arrangement for the payment of income tax. It was not until the late 1960s that we found that this money was being sidetrackedprobably back into the department- because taxation returns were not filled in by or on behalf of the people for whom the deduction was made. They were the days, of course, when a will was not valid unless it was signed by the manager of a reserve. The country stores in many areas made a rake-off out of this very small amount of wages because, even in those rare instances when an Aboriginal mother received child endowment, she would have to get the local policeman to collect her cheque and then perhaps he would give her a chit so that she could go to the store and buy food for her child or children. So, all of these restrictions in fact were widespread. In addition to this, they were not entitled to any social security benefits unless they belonged to that small group in the community which was not subject to the Act of the day. So, the unemployment benefit, the widows’ pension and so on were quite unknown. These people had to live on charity as from the days when the cash economy was established. Before that, of course, they received no wages anyway. They were given corn beef, salt and a few other things that made up their normal weekly ration.

Country pubs in those times, of course, were not supposed to sell alcohol to Aboriginals. They did. They sold it in large quantities at the back door at about three times the price the white people could get it over the bar or through the bottle department. In those days children were still locked in dormitories. No child endowment was paid but they went on to the ordinary reserve ration scheme. At sundown, of course, girls in particular were locked into many fire traps and the doors were not opened till the next day.

People defined under the regulations and bylaws were subject to very harsh prison penalties. In the very early days- between 1961 and 1962- a man named Vincent Starlight, who today is a psychiatric case at Mosman Hall in Charters Towers, was sentenced for a very minor offence to six months’ solitary confinement on Punishment Island which is a little island in the Palm Island group. In fact he received two of those sentences. When he was released the second time he was expelled to the mainland. We finally were able to get him an invalid pension because the man was broken down mentally and physically. He was not allowed to go back to see his wife and two children except under strict supervision. Another case concerns a man over 65 years of age with only one arm who was badly savaged by a brumby horse in, I think, the Northern Territory. He was not subject to the Act. In the early 1960s, he was refused for a considerable period an age pension until such time as he was able to prove that he was in fact 65 years of age or older and that he was no longer able to work.

About 10 years ago, the Federated Engine Drivers and Firemen’s Association, which is an industrial union registered in Queensland, took up a case at my request to endeavour to have award wages paid. The case went to the Industrial Commission. The case was rejected at that time on the grounds that the Commission did not override the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders enactment which at that time was made up of two pieces of legislation, one of which applied to Torres Strait Islanders and the other which applied to Aboriginals. A judgment was handed down yesterday in that Industrial Commission following a case that was taken originally at Yarrabah under the Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders (Queensland Discriminatory Laws) Act. The judgment was handed down under normal arbitration laws.

According to an article which has been published in today’s Press and which has been supplemented or backed up today and tonight by other people who know the background, the very great prolem now arises that the Queensland Department of Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement has no money to pay the wages. I understand that Mr Porter has arrived in Canberra with empty hands and is asking for something like $8m. Of course, Mr Viner once said that if award wages were paid the Commonwealth would have to front up to its responsibilities. In addition, during the days of the Whitlam Labor Government, when grants were made to the States they were made on the condition that award wages would be paid wherever Commonwealth funds were used on projects on reserves, or off reserves for that matter.

I understand further that, because of the massive job involved in the Commonwealth Government policing this funding, it was not always sure that award wages in fact were paid. I can say, quite frankly and truthfully, that when the water reticulation system was installed on Palm Island in Queensland, and it was totally funded by Commonwealth funds, award wages were not paid. It was at that time that I asked the Federated Engine Drivers and Firemen ‘s Association to take action through the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. I am further informed, I think very reliably, that not only did the situation apply to this particular job but it applied also to the dam being built on the Jardine River near Bamaga on the Torres Strait Islands. In fact, as far as we can ascertain, it applied at all reserves in Queensland. In other words, the Premier of the State thumbed his nose at the Commonwealth Government, as he usually does, and decided that he would go his own remarkable way. It would be appropriate at this stage to seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the newspaper article by Laurie Boccabella which appeared in today’s Australian Financial Review. I therefore seek leave to incorporate that article.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

ABORIGINAL PAY RULING SET TO SPARK NEW QLD ROW

By Laurie Boccabella

Another wrangle between the Queensland Government and Canberra over Aborigines is looming following an Industrial Court decision that the State does not have power to pay below-award wages to blacks living on reserves.

The Queensland Minister for Aboriginal and Islander Affairs, Mr Charles Porter, said last night the decision would mean that $7.5m would have to be found to pay award wages to Aborigines now on the payroll.

He said the State had no prospect of meeting this bill and it would be up to the Federal Government to help meet the shortfall.

Mr Porter said he had warned the Federal Government at the time of the transfer of the Aurukun and Mornington Island reserves to local authority status that the move would create a wage flow-on effect to other communities.

The industrial court ruling stemmed from an action by an Aborigine on the Yarrabah reserve in the Far North of Queensland to recover the difference between the award wage and the wage paid to him by the State Aboriginal and Islander Affairs Department.

Although the regulations under the controversial Aborigines Act provide that Aborigines working off reserves should be paid award wages, the department interpreted the failure to mention the conditions of blacks on reserves as meaning that award wages did not apply there.

The Government then relied on other sections of the Aborigines Act which invalidated any awards inconsistent with regulations.

Mr Justice Matthews of the industrial court said in his judgment: ‘Awards have the force of law and confer material and significant rights on employees entitled to the benefit of them.

Before a regulation Ls thought to prevail over an award, the inconsistency should be clear for the language used in the regulation.

The situation calls for application of a principle of construction comparable ‘to that which requires that a statute, which is intended to abridge the liberty of the subject, should use plain language to express that intention.

I do not think that by regulation the governor-in-council has plainly expressed the necessary intention, and the regulation is capable of being, and in my opinion should bc, read as preserving rights of Aborigines employed outside a reserve and as a direction to employers other than those who employ Aborigines on a reserve.

If this were not so, an employer bound by award in respect of work done for him by an Aborigine outside a reserve could require the same employee to do the same sort of work on a reserve without benefit ofthe award.’

The Queensland Government is a major employer of blacks on reserves. They work on local authority jobs such as the roads, sawmilling, etc.

Last night Mr Porter warned that high Aboriginal unemployment could follow the court decision.

As well as facing future high wage payments, the Department of Aboriginal and Islander Affairs could also be forced to meet substantial back pay entitlements.

Under Queensland industrial legislation, an employee can claim such back pay for up to ‘.2 months.

But the department may be saved by the requirement that government employees must be members of a union to obtain the benefits ofthe award.

Because Mr Justice Matthews ruled on the question of construction of a Queensland law, he was able to avoid ruling on the application ofthe Commonwealth legislation, the Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders (Queensland Discriminatory Laws) Act, which was enacted by the Whitlam Labor Government in 1975.

That legislation made it illegal for an Aborigine to be paid less than a wage paid to a non-Aborigine.

Last night. Mr Porter said although he would be consulting with Crown law officers it would be unlikely that his department would appeal. (Quorum formed)

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– I am sorry that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) is not here tonight. No doubt he is in conference with his two interstate visitors. However, I ask: Will the Commonwealth, through these appropriations, be able to meet the fairly massive wage bill that will result from the court’s judgment, which I think is a very just judgment, or will the people of Queensland be abandoned by the Commonwealth Government? This would lead to a massive rate of unemployment on all reserves in Queensland. In fact, I think that probably up to 90 per cent of the people now getting slave wages will be immediately dismissed by the Queensland Government. Those dismissals probably will start this Friday. I ask what is likely to happen.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– It is known that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) is meeting tonight on this matter with Mr Porter and Dr Edwards, the Queensland Ministers. He and I are aware that the President of the Queensland Industrial Court, Mr Justice Matthews, has handed down his decision that the State does not have the power to pay below award wages to Aboriginals living on reserves. It is understood that the judge related the question to the construction of the Queensland laws. He made no decision regarding the appropriateness of the Commonwealth ‘s Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders (Queensland Discriminatory Laws) Act 1975.

I understand that the Queensland Minister for Aboriginal and Islander Affairs, Mr Porter, is of the view that the decision will amount to a requirement for an additional $7.5 million to be funded by the Queensland Government to pay award wages to Aboriginals now on the payroll. The State of Queensland foreshadowed a request to the Commonwealth prior to the handing down of the decision. That is the matter that is being examined by relevant Commonwealth departments and no doubt is the subject of the discussions presently being held. With regard to Commonwealth expenditure, provision has been included in the Department of Aboriginal Affairs’ Additional Estimates to pay award wages to turtle farmers working on Applied Ecology Pty Ltd projects. Under direct grants to Aboriginal organisations, those organisations are responsible for the payment of wages to their employees. I am sure that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs will be interested in the comments that have been made on this matter in the chamber this evening.

Senator KILGARIFF:
Northern Territory

– Much has been said tonight about two statements put out by the honourable Peter Nixon, the Minister for Transport, on 24 May. I think that in fairness to him 1 should say that parts of them have been taken out of context. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard these two statements of 24 May.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Who are they from?

Senator KILGARIFF:

– I said that they have been issued by the honourable Peter Nixon, the Minister for Transport. These are the statements relating to the Stuart Highway. Many honourable senators have referred to sections of them tonight.

Senator Cavanagh:

– But they are not accurate.

Senator KILGARIFF:

- Mr Chairman, I will leave it to your judgment as to whether or not they are accurate.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Is leave granted? If there is no objection, leave is granted. I call Senator Kilgariff.

Senator Cavanagh:

– No, leave is not granted.

Senator KILGARIFF:

– I think that this is a rather ridiculous situation. I will read them but it will take up time and we will have to sit later. Honourable senators opposite have referred tonight to these news releases.

Senator Georges:

– Are they already in Hansard?

Senator KILGARIFF:

– Just one or two sentences have been put into Hansard and I say that they were out of context. I am saying that in fairness to the Minister the complete news releases should be inserted in Hansard and I have sought leave for them to be incorporated in Hansard.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Is leave granted?

Senator Cavanagh:

– No.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Leave is not granted.

Senator KILGARIFF:

– Then off we go. In the first statement issued by Mr Peter Nixon on 24 May it was stated:

The Minister for Transport, Mr Peter Nixon, today welcomed reports that the South Australian Government intended to allocate more than $4 million from Commonwealth funds for new construction work on the Stuart Highway in the coming financial year.

Mr Nixon said it was high time the South Australian Government became serious about upgrading the highway.

Up to this point of time the State Transport Minister, Mr Virgo seems to have been most unwilling to commit funds to the upgrading of the Stuart Highway’, Mr Nixon said.

I have persistently been asking Mr Virgo to increase the level of funding for this highway. It was well into the current year before he agreed to my request to program expenditure of $1 million. And I have been pressing him to allocate at least $3 million for the 1979-80 year.

Given Mr Virgo’s past apparent disinterest in the Stuart Highway, it is most pleasing that he is now meeting my request to put forward a larger program.

In fact, I would be more than happy if Mr Virgo suggested allocating even more than the $4.3 million for 1979-80 that I understand he is proposing.’

Mr Nixon said it seemed clear that Mr Virgo had been intent on concentrating finances on the South Eastern Freeway, between Adelaide and the Swanport Bridge, at the expense of the Stuart Highway and people living in the north of South Australia.

He said the Commonwealth had long confirmed that it placed high priority on upgrading the Stuart Highway in South Australia.

That high priority is being maintained from the Commonwealth ‘s point of view.

Before the end of 1980,I expect that sealing of the highway between Port Augusta and Pimba will have been completed.

Work is already under way on the formation of the highway along the new alignment from Pimba towards Bakers Well ‘, Mr Nixon said.

I expect the rate of expenditure on the Stuart Highway to be stepped up considerably in the future.

The intention of the Commonwealth is to have the outstanding 755 kilometres of highway from Wirrappa near Pimba to the Northern Territory border, completed within the next ten years. It is estimated that this will cost about $70m.’

Mr Nixon said development of the highway would improve access to Woomera and the Roxby Downs area; open up spectacular scenic attractions to tourists at Island Lagoon; and open up Coober Pedy as the main tourist and service centre in the north of South Australia.

Coober Pedy has much to gain from the upgrading of the highway, ‘ Mr Nixon said.

I hope this latest announcement by Mr Virgo indicates that the State Government is finally coming around to appreciate, as the Commonwealth has done for a long time, that the Stuart Highway is a vital part of Australia ‘s National Highway system, ‘ Mr Nixon said.

Mr Nixon was accompanied on his visit to Coober Pedy and the Stuart Highway by the member for the Northern Territory, Mr Sam Calder, and South Australian Liberal Senator Don Jessop.

But of course the weather intervened. A follow-up statement on 24 May from Mr Peter Nixon, the Minister for Transport, reads:

Addition to previous statement on Stuart Highway

Due to wet weather, the Minister for Transport, Mr Peter Nixon, was unable to land at Coober Pedy. However, he inspected the Stuart Highway between Pimba and Lake Hart to the west of Woomera.

Mr Nixon was accompanied by the Member for the Northern Territory, Mr Sam Calder, and South Australian Liberal Senator, Don Jessop.

One would think from listening to all the noise about the South Road that something has been done only in the last year or two. The story of the South Road commenced in Alice Springs about 12 to 15 years ago. As one of the people interested at that stage in the South Road,I established an organisation called ASPARDOThe Alice Springs-Port Augusta Road Development Organisation. After a time the Federal

Government came to the party. It heeded the requests made by the Northern Territory authorities. The result is that over the years 220 miles to 240 miles of road from Alice Springs south to the Northern Territory-South Australia border has been turned into a highway. The road linking the South Australian-Northern Territory border to Port Augusta needs upgrading.

I suggest that it is about time everyone pulled together because this is a national highway which means a great deal to the people of the Territory. They still do not have all-weather road access to the rest of Australia. There is some sort of access road to Queensland through the Barkly Tableland. It is in this regard that South Australia has missed out to a great extent in favour of Queensland. I believe that the road to South Australia should have been built much earlier but of course funds were being spent on the Eyre Highway. At one stage 300 miles of that road was incomplete but eventually the Federal Government came to the party.

Senator McLaren:

– Eventually. Jolly well you said ‘eventually’.

Senator KILGARIFF:

– Yes, and it also provided funds to Western Australia which has given that State a tremendous roads scheme. But there was little interest in sealing the South Road by the people in South Australia. They have now learned that Queensland has taken from South Australia trade to the tune of some $90m a year. Of course, the South Australian Government is now waking up. The organisation called ASPARDO went to South Australia and asked all parliamentarians and industry representatives whether they would participate in a joint approach to the Government. I was one of those people who organised a coach trip with Stateliner Pty Ltd from Adelaide. Everyone who was interested, including people who lived along the road, South Australian parliamentarians, Northern Territory parliamentarians, Federal parliamentarians and industry representatives, were asked to come along in this coach to see for themselves what the road surface was like and what needed to be done.

Senator Jessop:

– They were invited by the Australian Road Federation.

Senator KILGARIFF:

- Mr Harrison of the Australian Road Federation took up the matter and it was under his guiding hand that all the arrangements were made.

Senator McLaren:

– They didn’t invite all South Australians. I never got an invite.

Senator KILGARIFF:

– Everyone was invited. Honourable senators opposite are now getting noisy. Not one of the people on the other side of this chamber who are making all these charges tonight accepted the invitation to come and view the road between Port Augusta and Alice Springs, and it is to their discredit. Now, of course, they are making all this noise and all these charges. One can well imagine that, having ignored this invitation and shown absolutely no interest in it, they would now play political games, as they did in a similar situation in the Senate a few months ago. Little wonder that honourable senators on this side will not play a part in that.

Surely by now there has been enough fighting on both sides. I for one have no wish that political wrangles over the South Road should continue. Again we say: ‘Let us get together and, through Federal-State co-ordination and cooperation, get the job done ‘. That is the only way in which it can be done. Under Federal policy, funds for national highways are made available to the States, which must then act as constructing agents in expending those funds. Obviously, Federal-State effort is required. Both Federal and South Australian Governments having indicated their interest; surely we can now get on with the job and complete it as quickly as possible.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I rise to speak mainly on the question of Aboriginal affairs, but I must answer the last speaker and also explain my own attitude. I did not want to be harsh by not permitting the incorporation of the documents in Hansard, but knowing what they were and how the Illawarra Mercury treats such statements–

Senator Georges:

– What did the Illawarra Mercury say?

Senator CAVANAGH:

-What it would have said if it had had knowledge of the documents would have been unparliamentary and I may have suffered the same fate as Senator McLaren suffered yesterday. There was not one iota of truth in the submission of the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon). As is well known, it was intended for publicity purposes only. The road badly needs upgrading, but is used at present as a subject of political propaganda.

I received from the Australian Road Federation the invitation to accompany the delegation on the occasion mentioned. I replied that everyone knew how bad the road was. Why was it necessary to go over it? Why did not someone do something more than merely preach from the sidelines that something was being done- merely for political purposes. The Federation was being used by Liberal Party politicians for propaganda purposes because that Party knew that its prestige in the area was low. I support Senator Kilgariff’s statement that co-operation is needed if we are to get the job done. Senator Bishop would be willing at any time to propose another motion that, in the opinion of the Senate, this work should be done. He would do so immediately he received an indication from Senator Kilgariff and Senator Jessop that they would not just say: ‘We supported you by not voting and thus depriving our side of two votes’. This merely shows the hyprocisy of Government supporters.

No one has mentioned that Mr Virgo wrote letter after letter asking the Minister to honour his undertaking to provide money for that road. Now the Minister says that because Geoff Virgo has scraped for funds, has withheld them from other road schemes and has taken out of his general road grant $4m for an interstate highway, he has at last done something. The Minister says: ‘I am glad of that because I wanted him to do so all the time’. During the period that the Whitlam Government was in office, interstate highways were a Federal responsibility. The Labor Government had plans for the upgrading of all highways in Australia until it was dismissed by the present Government with the support of Senators Jessop and Kilgariff. The present Government was not married to that scheme. It brought in road grants with the provision that all expenditure must have the approval of the Federal Minister. We argued about that in the Senate. Every penny that is paid to South Australia in relation to road grants can, by the direction of the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon), be spent on the Stuart Highway. That is provided in the legislation.

Senator Sheil:

– He does not direct. He approves.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– He does not. Perhaps I am wrong. He does approve. But he can disapprove and he can direct. He knows about unpopularity. If the road to Senator Jessop ‘s home is not kept in top order there would be a squeal and a complaint to the State Government. All the money could be diverted to country roads but the honourable senator knows that that cannot happen. Money for roads of that description has to be provided from a Federal allocation for capital roads.

Senator Jessop:

– Or highways.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Well, highways. Mr Nixon said that he was concerned about the matter but he is now happy that South Australia is spending $4m. That does not satisfy people in northern Australia. We have been warned that the allocation of $4m to South Australia will be reduced this year. Yet, by spending $4m a year, it will take 65 years to complete the road from Port Augusta to Alice Springs.

Senator Jessop:

– Come on. Your arithmetic is wrong.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Well, how long would it take? It would take 40 years to complete that road. It would take many years. Does the honourable senator who is praising that allocation think that it is appeasing the people of the Northern Territory? Why does the honourable senator not be honest? He is like Senator Kilgariff who does not practise what he preaches. Let honourable senators join together to say that the Senate is determined to support a motion that, in the opinion of the Senate, the Federal Government should make an allocation for that particular road. Senator Jessop nods his head, yet he said that he supported the proposal by walking out of the chamber and not voting. That is the hypocrisy of the matter. Then Senator Jessop wanted another trip. He went with the Minister for Transport on another trip- flying there- with all the Press publicity to make people believe that the Government was doing something. The Government is the hindrance. It is blocking every attempt that the Opposition has made to get this road built.

I refer to another matter. I have received a complaint. I believe that when Sir David Hay left the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, a reorganisation took place. I am told that the person who obtained the position of Deputy Secretary is also chairman of the National Aboriginal Sports Foundation, the Aboriginal Publishing Foundation and Aboriginal Hostels Ltd. As Deputy Secretary- apparently the second highest position in the Department- he has much influence on the allocation of the Department’s money to the many organisations which the Department assists with financial grants. There is concern within other organisations that he did not see fit to resign as chairman of the three Aboriginal associations upon receiving his appointment. The accusation has been made that those organisations are getting an unfair allocation from the limited amount made available through the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. Many accusations have been made that they are not carrying out their functions under the statute and are not reporting to their appointing branch. They are not carrying out the duties that they should be carrying out. I promised that I would raise this matter. I think that, in the interests of making everything appear to be fair, there should be at least some temporary resignation of the chairmen of many of these boards, or the persons who hold positions of influence in the Department in regard to the allocation of funds.

Senator ELSTOB:
South Australia

– I wish to speak about the Stuart Highway. There are a few relevant points that have not been raised. The Stuart Highway should be considered as a defence road. Unless it is an allweather road it cannot be used for defence purposes. Although in the near future there will be a good railway, for the defence of this nation there should be a good road in case that railway is knocked out. The road also will have to play other vital roles because in certain areas it has to carry very heavy traffic. When the old railwaythe Ghan- closes down at approximately the end of this year, the railway will finish at Maree. Oodnadatta is beyond Maree. There will be no railway to that town. An all-weather road has to be built from Maree to Cadney Park, which is the nearest town to Oodnadatta. It is about 130 kilometres away.

Not only must the South Australian Government try to build the Stuart Highway, but also it has to build connecting roads so that the people in these areas can have access to the new railway line. The road is close to the new railway line. This is impossible if one looks at the road grants- this year amounting to $46,439,000 that have been allocated to South Australia. That is the second lowest amount allocated in the Commonwealth. Yet South Australia has a very long road distance. Victoria, which is a comparatively small State, received $176m. The increase for this year was $3,232,000 which does not cover the 8.2 per cent increase in inflation. In real terms, it is not as much money as South Australia was granted last year. It will be impossible to build the Stuart Highway unless special Federal grants are provided. I wish to put on record what Mr Virgo said. A report in the Adelaide Advertiser of 26 May states:

In Adelaide, the SA Minister of Transport, Mr Virgo, yesterday criticised the allocation and warned that the State’s roadworks program might have to be cut.

He said Mr Nixon had not yet told the SA Government of its allocation.

Wc have had to rely on the media for the information,’ Mr Virgo said.

When he does inform us we will certainly have to examine in detail our road program for the next year.

Wc will not bc able to do any more road works in the coming year than wc did this year.

In this present financial year the Commonwealth Government returned less than one-third of the funds that they collected from road users via fuel tax to the building of roads, and next year that percentage will drop even further.

Motorists ought to be aware they are being fleeced left, right and centre by the Federal Government.’

That is the real issue. South Australia has never received money for beef roads. Many of the other States have. South Australia has received a small amount of funds for national roads but never for beef roads. Large quantities of beef will have to be transported along 130 kilometres of road from Oodnadatta. The only connecting link is a rough bush track, and if the area receives even five points of rain road access to the area ceases for at least a week. It is imperative that the Government look at this road. In the very near future people will again be isolated in this area. The Government should look at special funding. I think all honourable senators should support this.

While I am on my feet I want to mention flags of convenience ships. Senator Mulvihill asked a question on this matter and one of the answers which he received stated: . . employment conditions are the responsibility of the flag state. We have no control over the periods of service performed by personnel on foreign tankers. However, terminal operators have been encouraged to report immediately to their local departmental surveyors any problems or fears concerning the efficiency, experience or language barriers of ship’s personnel.

This answer was given to a question asked by Senator Mulvihill about spillages of oil by the Balder Borg tanker in Sydney. That spillage occurred on 7 August 1978. There was a further spillage from another ship on 16 November 1978. It has been my experience that crews on flags of convenience ships are grossly underpaid. They are also severely exploited. The crews of these ships, which are mainly Liberian or Panamanian, are paid virtually any rate the masters wish to pay.

Not only are they underpaid. In many cases captains and officers log the crews for minor misdemeanours and reduce the little bit of money that they are supposed to get. Consequently the crews on these ships become very disgruntled.

All major oil spillages throughout the world have been from flags of convenience ships. This is simply because of the conditions under which seamen on these ships must work. The Department of Transport said that it has no responsibility in this area. I believe that it does have a responsibility to see that crews are paid adequate wages. I believe that flags of convenience ships on the Australian coast should be regarded as suspect. Much has been said about the Great Barrier Reef. The crews of some ships that ply our coast become very disgruntled, as I have said, and it would take only a few seconds to put a ship on the rocks. This can happen. I am sure that it has happened in many parts of the world. The great oil spillages that have occurred around the world have been caused by flags of convenience ships. I personally know of the terrible conditions that these crews have to put up with. I think the Australian Government should be looking at this matter. If we get a spillage of oil it is going to be disastrous. The ships are getting bigger. Today they are all of 100,000 tonnes or more. I do not believe that we should have flags of convenience ships entering the waters of this country. I ask the Minister for a reply to both questions.

Thursday, 31 May 1979

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– It is one minute past twelve and we have quite a deal of business to do. I am certain that the Government is not going to hold the Opposition responsible for the honourable senators being here at this time. If the honourable senators recall, we supported the motion for the adjournment and the Government opposed it. But I imagine that we have quite a deal of questions yet to ask, especially in the area of aboriginal affairs. I wish to ask some questions concerning Applied Ecology Pty Ltd. There are questions which I consider important in view of the speech made by Senator Keeffe and the answer given by the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) concerning a certain court judgment on the payment of award wages. This would mean that the costs of Applied Ecology would blow out considerably because at present it is paying only training allowances whilst it should be paying award wages.

The point I am making is that a considerable number of questions remain in relation to group E and then we still have to deal with group F. That means that we could go on till about I o’clock or beyond. Also, a couple of opposition members wish to speak on the adjournment. I say that it would be absurd for us to continue this debate, especially since the Minister has been in charge not only of her own Department but also of Senator Webster’s Department. I cannot understand why that happened. She is also in charge of Senator Chaney ‘s Department, which is the one with which we are dealing at present. Although Senator Chaney may be talking to two Ministers from Queensland and it could take some time for him to put his point of view and have it accepted, I would have thought that he would have been here in order to answer for those departments for which he is responsible. I think it is unfair to keep the Minister for Social Security here all night.

Senator Harradine:

– She looks the brightest in the chamber.

Senator GEORGES:

– Yes. I do not know whether it would be a fair swap to get Senator Webster or, for that matter, Senator Chaney, here instead. Nevertheless I think it is fair to put to the Chairman that 12 o’clock is late enough. Surely we should wait until tomorrow’s sitting to discuss the rest of these Estimates. We have public servants here who have had a very long day, listening to what has gone on. I would imagine that that is more tiring than participating. To encourage the public servants, I inform the Senate that I have just got the latest statement by Mr Bjelke-Petersen. What he says is not very flattering but it is the latest in the long line of odd comments by him. He was talking about the increase in the Commonwealth bureaucracy. He said:

The build-up in the Commonwealth bureaucracy in comparison had done little more than increase the number of tall poppies, tea drinkers, academic theorists and paper shufflers in Canberra and elsewhere.

If each of the public servants here had a vote in Queensland I do not think that he or she would vote for Bjelke-Petersen. I am looking for a few supporters, incidentally. If anyone is thinking of going to Queensland, by all means they should do so. That statement ought to encourage some opposition to Bjelke-Petersen.

I indicate that a couple of Ministers can be caught in Kings Hall if senators want to challenge that later statement. In a moment I intend to move that progress be reported. I shall do that because we certainly will not get through the remaining items before 2 o’clock this morning, and I think this is extending the absurdity of the situation much too far. I move:

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– I wish to speak against the motion moved by Senator Georges. We must deal with the supplementary estimates of all departments. We have been moving through the Senate Estimates committee reports and the requests of senators this evening, although not with any great degree of rapidity. We have listened to speeches which should have been made during the second reading debate. They related to a number of matters. They did not seek specific information. The reason that the Government opposed the reporting of progress earlier was that we require to make some progress towards the completion of the program of the Government if we are to finish this session at some time approximating the time that has been suggested by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick). I suggest that if there are specific questions about items, the Government is prepared to provide that information if it is available. In regard to the matters that were raised by Senator Georges, I am able to tell him that award wages have been paid to Applied Ecology Pty Ltd turtle farmers on and from 26 April. As I said earlier, the additional Estimates make provision to pay award wages on Applied Ecology projects. Perhaps that deals with that matter.

Question put:

That progress be reported.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Senator D. B. Scott)

AYES: 23

NOES: 31

Majority………. 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

- Senator

Cavanagh raised a matter with regard to Aboriginal affairs.

Senator Keeffe:

– I raise a point of order. It relates to the fact that the Government will not agree to the proposition that progress be reported. The practice in the past has been for a meal to be made available for those who have to stay up till the early hours of the morning because the Senate has decided to sit until certain legislation is passed. I suggest that that custom ought to be adhered to and that the Committee should adjourn for at least half an hour to enable a meal to be served.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I think we have resolved that question. There is no point of order.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I was saying that Senator Cavanagh raised a matter with regard to Aboriginal affairs and expressed some concern about the appointment of the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. The influence that he has over departmental allocations has not been significantly affected by his appointment to the position of Deputy Secretary. His substantive position is First Assistant Secretary of Policy Division 1. He has no greater influence on the allocation of funds than he had in his previous position. However, as the matter has been raised, I will see that it is referred to the Minister and to the Acting Head of the Department. I will seek some response from them on the matter.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– As the Government was not prepared to accept the reasonable proposition that progress should be reported, I now take up some matters concerning the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. I deal with the support for ecological projects. I refer to certain questioning by Senator Bonner. I would have thought that Senator Bonner would have taken an active part in this debate by questioning certain aspects of the estimates of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs as a follow-up to the questions which he posed during the proceedings of the Estimates Committee. I am aware of Senator Bonner’s concern. I am aware of his compassion. I acknowledge his experience which he outlined earlier this evening. I am not trying to stir the honourable senator into participating in the debate at this late hour of the night. If the honourable senator wishes to rest quietly on his laurels, he is free to do so. I will take up these questions on Senator Bonner’s behalf.

In a document from Estimates Committee E, Written replies to questions asked during the Estimates Committee’s examination on proposed additional expenditure for 1978-79’, certain information was given. Senator Bonner said, as reported at page 64 of Senate Estimates Hansard of 3 May 1979:

The original appropriation of $lm for Applied Ecology Pty Ltd is a substantial amount. There are some explanations on page 20 of the explanatory notes such as capital items, salaries, associated expenses, et cetera. Exactly where is that money going? What arc the capital items? Who is receiving the salaries and maintenance? ls the money going to Aboriginals. Torres Strait Islanders. non-Aboriginals or nonTorres Strait Islanders?

This matter is quite important because for quite some time in all these projects we have been endeavouring to reverse the situation which was revealed some years ago; the bulk of the moneys was going to non-Aboriginal persons. I think it is for that reason that Senator Bonner asked the question. 1 am not sure what the answer which we received means. I hope the document is before the adviser. The reply talks about noncapital items, salaries, non-Aboriginal people and Islanders. 1 do not know what that means. Does it mean salaries of non-Aboriginal and non-Islander people? I take it that it means that.

If one totals up the salaries paid to the company secretary, two biologists, project coordinator (Torres Strait), farm manager (Edward River), three assistant farm managers (Emu project), oyster farm at Edward River, scientific investigation officer, company assistant secretary, clerical assistant, secretary to the company secretary, four crew members of Kashan including a captain and a cook- I take it that those people are all non-Aboriginals; I wonder whether that would be correct-

Senator Guilfoyle:

– Yes.

Senator GEORGES:

– If we total those figures, we have 17 non-Aboriginal, non-Torres Strait Island people, employed by Applied Ecology Pty Ltd -

Senator Bonner:

– On what do you base that?

Senator GEORGES:

– I have counted them; there are seventeen. The point that I am making is that those 17 white people receive a total of $225,000 in salary and wages. I ask the Committee to consider these figures: Salaries and wages of Aboriginal and Islander crews of $2 1,000, Aboriginal and Islander training allowances, $326,000, and Aboriginal and Islander award rates $31,000. It then sets out some associated costs, and the total is $668,000–

Senator Sim:

– They still love you in Queensland.

Senator GEORGES:

– Love me?

Senator Sim:

– Yes. God knows why, but they do.

Senator GEORGES:

-Mr Chairman, could I have an explanation of that interjection? I am not certain what it means.

Senator Sim:

– You work it out.

Senator GEORGES:

– If anyone makes a suggestion like that to me at half past twelve in the morning, it is generally somewhere else. That was a very inane interjection, as was the response. In order to get some sense into this question, I ask: How many Aboriginal and Islander crew members are paid salaries and wages, and how many receive Aboriginal and Islander training allowances and Aboriginal and Islander award rates? What does the phrase ‘associated costs’ mean? If I can get those answers, I will show that 17 people receive $225,000 and a whole host of Aboriginal people receive $400,000. It seems to me that that is not a fair proportion, and that is what we endeavoured to correct when we took a close look at Applied Ecology some time ago. If we can get the number of people who are paid the balance of the money, then my question and my complaint will be underlined.

Again, I want to refer to the answer given to me that people in Applied Ecology were receiving award rates. The document shows that payments at Aboriginal and Islander award rates amounted to $31,000, but for Aboriginal and Islander training allowances the amount shown is $326,000. Am I to understand that the Government is avoiding paying award rates by claiming that the payment is a training allowance and not a wage? If that is the case, 1 think the Government is slipping around the question that I asked before, and that award rates are not being paid but merely a training allowance, which is only part of the award rate. If award rates are to be paid there, then Applied Ecology is in a considerable amount of trouble. I have asked a series of questions. Perhaps I can have the answers before I go any further.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– As I said earlier, I am advised that award wages were paid to Applied Ecology turtle farmers on and from 26 April. The honourable senator will see reflected in the figures before him only part of a year as far as the cost of award rates is concerned. The additional cost for payment of award wages over a full year would be in the order of $200,000. That would be additional when the award wages are to be paid for a full year.

Senator Georges:

– Docs that mean $500,000, in effect?

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– An extra $200,000 over the $326,000.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– We are now in serious trouble with Applied Ecology, are we nol? Applied Ecology must be under test. We were informed that a review was to take place. We have a situation here where Applied Ecology will cost another $250,000 over and above what it is costing at the present time. The estimated cost of Applied Ecology since its inception is now close to $6m, and I think that figure has been accepted. Since this project started it has been the subject of considerable debate and acrimony in this place and has caused discomfort to a couple of Ministers and a couple of heads of departments. Since its inception it has cost $6m and there is nothing much to show for it. It ha s been a means of transmitting some money to Torres Strait Islanders, but a considerable amount is still going to nonAboriginal people. It seems to me that a third of the total moneys under the heading ‘Salaries and Wages’ is going to 17 whites and the balance is going to Aboriginal people. We still have not got the number of Aboriginal people involved. There are 17 whites and 100 non-whites. Could wc have that figure so that we can inquire a little more clearly into the problem of Applied Ecology which will cost at least $1,250,000 a year. How many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people are we assisting?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– We do not have the figures here but we can provide the numbers of Aboriginal and Islander people. I will see that they are obtained from the Department and given to Senator Georges as soon as possible. Senator Georges asked about the review of the Applied Ecology project. I understand that the report of that review will shortly be made to the Minister. It will then have his consideration. The matters which have been raised by Senator Georges will be part of that consideration. The fact that we are now paying award wages will add to the cost of this project in the way I have already outlined. As 1 said, the report of the review will shortly be considered.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– My next question is: Who is carrying out the review? This brings me back to the investigation of Applied Ecology by an overseas expert, a so-called expert economist called Mr L. Smart. He has been discussed in this place. He was associated with the co-operatives in Victoria.

Considerable problems were involved. His expertise came into question. Because of his report to the Labor Government, we continued with the project subject to an environmental impact statement. That environmental impact statement has not yet been produced. We spent $6m on this project and yet we still do not have that environmental impact statement. We do not know what the results are. What has been achieved in this project which was described by several people in this place as a hoax? We do not know the direction that the turtle project has taken and the impact it has had on the environment. Where is the environmental impact statement that the previous report called for? Who is carrying out the review? Is it an internal review? Is it a review by a government committee or will it be another whitewash as the previous investigation was a whitewash which led us to further expenditure on this project?

Senator BONNER:
Queensland

– I find it ironical that questions have been raised in relation to this matter. It seems ironical that when a project such as this is being carried out which could create employment and provide other advantages for Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders there is a great deal of questioning on its validity and whether it will be a success. It is creating employment for a number of Torres Strait Islanders and, in some cases, Aborigines. A number of other projects are going on in the community which seem to go without question. Tonight we are questioning a project which is creating employment for a number of people. I am at a loss to understand why the Opposition, particularly Senator Georges, seems to question this type of project. It is creating employment for a number of people in an area where there is no other employment. It could be a viable proposition. When the investigation is carried out we will probably find that it is a viable proposition that will create employment and a business enterprise for a number of people in the Torres Strait Islands and northern Queensland.

It seems to me that we are questioning something which could be a viable proposition for a minority group within our community. Although a number of other projects are going on, no one seems to question those. But when it comes to Aborigines or Torres Strait Islanders, we start to question in this place the whys and the wherefores. The Government is trying to do something in this area. The Department of Aboriginal Affairs has been studying this matter for a considerable time. Certainly some money is being spent on this project, but the ultimate and long term consideration should be what is in the best interests of the people who live in those areas where there are very few opportunities for people to become independent and to have a viable proposition that they can carry on. As far as I am concerned, despite the fact that a great deal of the taxpayers’ money may be ploughed into this project, in the long term, the ultimate aim must be-

Senator Georges:

– What is the ultimate aim?

Senator BONNER:

-The ultimate aim of the Department and of the Government is to provide a viable project for these people in those areas. I think we should be giving our unqualified support to the kind of thing that the Government is trying to do. I compliment the Minister who is handling this area of responsibility. I think Senator Georges should hang his head in shame. He is trying to denigrate something that could be a viable proposition for the Torres Strait Island people and people in the northern part of Queensland.

Senator Kilgariff:

– But weren’t you a director of it, Senator Georges?

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– Yes. Do not remind me of the period. I became a director at the request of the Minister at the time in order to bring the company into some sort of order. We all know that what was revealed during that period was debated in this place, and it was taken up by the Public Accounts Committee. We found that the director, Dr Bustard, was being paid some $30,000 a year, as well as having an open-ended expense account which he used to travel right around Australia. Senator Bonner remembers that. He knows exactly what I am talking about. I am talking about the moneys which are siphoned off for the benefit of quite a number of nonAboriginal spivs. That was what was happening in relation to Applied Ecology Pty Ltd. The honourable senator knows this as well as I do.

If the Government is interested merely in providing funds to the hundred Torres Strait Islanders that this project supports, then by all means it should take the $ 1 m, give them $ 10,000 each, let them spend their time down at the Gold Coast. But do not go into a project which is not a viable one. This project is not properly based, and environmenally and ecologically it is a farce and a waste of human effort. It has distorted the social life of the Torres Strait Islanders. It has provided some moneys to some people, in the guise of paying moneys to turtle farmers, to the disadvantage of others. The honourable senator knows just how it has affected the lifestyle ofthe

Torres Strait Islander people, lt is a disgrace to spend $lm a year to support 100 Torres Strait Island people in this way, and to mutilate the turtle population in the process. This chamber has discussed this matter before. The rookeries have been robbed of eggs and the baby turtles have been taken to other islands. The mortality rate of the turtles was absolutely abnormal. It was an intrusion into the ecology of the area, without proper investigation.

I am not questioning the right to pay moneys to the Aboriginal people. But I do not want to see that money wasted, because there are other projects which are just as deserving, if not more deserving. It seems to me outrageous that the honourable senator would support a proposition that we spend $ 1 m a year in order to support 100 Torres Strait Islanders and their families. If he wants to support them properly then he should see that they are not given a pittance of $80 a week, which is what their trading allowance was before the award rates came in. In fact some were receiving even less than that for having to go out to sea and gather fish. They had to prepare those fish. They had to feed them to the turtles. They had to change the turtles’ water twice a day. lt was an impossible project. It was doomed to failure from the very beginning, yet we are persisting with it. As far as I am concerned millions of dollars can be given to the hundred Torres Strait Island families but it should not be syphoned off in a variety of directions.

This report shows that the vessels the people bought were not properly surveyed. The vessels they are running backwards and forwards in the Torres Strait are not suited to the area. Furthermore, the turnover of scientists makes it impossible to have any sort of reasonable scientific continuity to the project. After all these years there is no impact statement and we are now being told that the thing is under review. We cannot extricate ourselves from this project because a hundred Torres Strait Island families depend on the moneys. What we have to do to get out of the project is to diversify into something else which is viable, and get out of this hoax that has been debated here time and time again.

Senator Bonner said that every time I rise to speak I am questioning payments to Torres Strait Islanders and to Aboriginal people. He may not realise it, but I am in support of those people. If this money is to be wasted, let it be wasted by Torres Strait Islanders and by Aboriginal people. The trouble is that at present it is wasted by whites. Most of the people who get themselves attached to projects of this sort turn out to be frauds. Anyone who supports the proposition that this Parliament should allocate $1,250,000 plus for this project next year and expects us to do so, 1 consider to be irresponsible. If we do that in the future we are just as irresponsible as the people who advise us to do so. The sooner we get that review, the better. The sooner we get that environmental statement, the better..

Senator BONNER:
Queensland

- Senator George’s speech just shows his complete misunderstanding of what turtle farming is all about. He does not understand what it is all about. He has never lived in the areas where turtle farming is carried out, so he could not possibly understand. After turtles lay their eggs on the beaches of the coast only one per cent of the total eggs laid survive. Senator Georges does not understand that. Turtles can lay between 200 and 300 eggs at a time. When those eggs hatch the baby turtles try to get to the water. On the way many of them are taken by seagulls and many of them are taken in the water. As I said, only one per cent of the total eggs laid survive.

Under this scheme turtles are taken by the people and put into these hatcheries. They are looked after. They are taken care of. They grow to a certain size and then they are released into the waters. This is the kind of thing that Senator Georges does not seem to understand. This project is creating employment and ultimately it will also create a food source for the people who live in the area. It could become a viable proposition because the people could make money from selling turtle meat to the rest of Australia and to the rest of the world.

Senator Georges:

– Oh, come on!

Senator BONNER:

-Of course they could and Senator Georges knows it. He just does not want to admit it. This project will create employment and an opportunity for the people, in those areas to engage in a viable proposition. It is no good Senator Georges sitting there smirking and carrying on like that. He does not understand what is going on. He has never lived in the area. He would not know what was going on there. I have lived there. I know what the whole story is about.

Senator Georges:

– Don’t tell me that again! For goodness sake, you have lived everywhere!

Senator BONNER:

-No, but I have lived in that area. That is something which Senator Georges would not understand. I have hunted in those sorts of areas. I have hunted for turtles. I know what it is like to hunt for turtles and to be able to cut up those turtles and take them home to the people on the island. Senator Georges would not know about that, but I do. Turtles are becoming scarce because nature is not allowing the turtle population to develop. Under this scheme they will be allowed to develop. Senator Georges said tonight that to have that scheme is wrong. I can only say that he is wrong because under that scheme we are doing two things: Firstly, we are saving the turtle population; secondly, we are creating employment for a number of people in the Torres Strait islands who otherwise would not be employed. If that is costing us a few dollars, what the heck? After all, what have those people got? They have nothing because Senator Georges and his kind have taken everything away from them.

Senator Georges:

– Oh!

Senator BONNER:

- Senator Georges should not say ‘oh’, because that is true and he knows it. The islanders are entitled to receive what we are doing for them.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– We have had a lot of discussion about the turtle project. It has had many difficulties throughout its history. I think we have paid a great deal of attention to the project in this chamber. Because of Senator George’s concern about an environmental impact study, I draw his attention to the fact that within these additional Estimates increased funds are sought to cover the cost of essential scientific equipment for use in an environmental impact study. I also draw his attention to the fact that it is the Government’s policy to keep the project in a no-growth situation until the review I mentioned has been undertaken and the report considered.

That report is shortly to be received by the Government and will be considered by it. I think that at that time it will be appropriate for this chamber to debate further some of the matters which we have been canvassing again and again while we have been waiting for that review. If the report is received shortly and decisions need to be taken, I think that a lot of the discussion which has been held time and again in this chamber could well be subjected to scrutiny at that time and applied to the report and to any future decisions which need to be taken.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I enter this debate to raise another topic in the consideration of the Estimates before the Committee. I do so at the request of a Mr Fred Rouse, a member of the Commonwealth Public Service. The matter concerns evidence appearing at page 92 of the Hansard record of the hearings of Estimates Committee E on appropriations under division 291. Senator Elstob,

Senator Jessop and I asked probing questions concerning staff problems at the canteen at the Commonwealth Government Centre in Sydney. Page 92 of the Hansard record contains evidence given by Mr Hook, the General Manager of Commonwealth Accommodation and Catering Services Ltd, concerning difficulties experienced in the early part of this year with the Liquor Trades Union and its rank and file members. Mr Rouse saw me and was concerned that he was the only Commonwealth public servant who had been mentioned by name in Mr Hook’s evidence. Actually, he had left the area concerned the year before the incident occurred.

We were concerned about events which occurred this year.

To put the record straight. I simply emphasise the fact that in the dialogue appearing in the Hansard record it does not come out as clearly as it might that, irrespective of what Mr Hook said about who laid down certain financial targets, the industrial friction about which we were asking our probing questions occurred this year. Mr Fred Rouse, the officer mentioned by Mr Hook, had left that area of work well before then. He certainly was not involved in the matter to which we were referring. That issue has not been resolved. It has been the subject of a report which is now with the Liquor Trades Union. I place those remarks on the Hansard record to remove any stigma which might unwittingly have been attached to Mr Fred Rouse.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– I would have liked not to speak about Applied Ecology, but I am certainly not going to put up with the abuse that was levelled at me by Senator Bonner. Senator Bonner ought to be aware of the problems that this project has faced for so many years. He ought to be aware also that the project has produced no results. I therefore ask the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) to ask her advisers to obtain information on the stocks of turtles held at present. If that information is obtained honourable senators will realise how the attempts over the past six year have failed and how raid after raid on the rookeries has achieved little result.

Senator McLaren:

– Where is Senator Bonner now?

Senator GEORGES:

- Senator Bonner cannot be helped; he is an impossible person.

Senator McLaren:

– He waffles on and then he walks out.

Senator GEORGES:

- Senator Bonner has a tendency to strike at those who try to assist him. I am really trying to assist the Aboriginal people, as we are all in our various ways. We have done our best to shore up enterprises which have been ill-considered and which have become ill-fated. Surely we can assist the Aboriginal people and the Torres Strait Islanders by a reasonable scrutiny of the expenditure.

The ready availability of large sums of money has led to a whole host of people coming forward with a variety of ideas which are completely unworkable. I think that on many occasions an inexperienced and unsophisticated people have been taken for a ride. If any project ever took anyone for a ride, it was the turtle farming project in the Torres Strait. What has been achieved after six year of raising turtles in the way Senator Bonner has suggested- from the egg stage through to meat being supplied to the market? Senator Bonner should admit that it is impossible to raise turtles in the Torres Strait by the methods presently being employed. He ought to admit also that the project upon which this scheme was based- it was run by the Mariculture company in the Caribbean- has failed. It cost the shareholders of that company throughout the world millions of dollars. We are trying to emulate that failure in the Torres Strait by pumping money into a project at the rate of $ 1 ,250,000 a year.

Senator Bonner says that the scheme has been set up to produce foodstuffs for the people of the area. It would have been far better if the original proposition were accepted. The rookeries would be protected, the turtle population monitored and the Torres Strait Islanders allowed to harvest according to population levels. If that had been done we would not have needed to go to the trouble of building a turtle compound, of all things, in some of the roughest and most intemperate seas around Australia. The turtles have to be put inside these compounds. What is fed to the turtles? They, are fed with compound turtle feed which costs $18,000. Compressed feed or pellets are brought in from the south to feed the turtles inside the compound. The first attempts to build compounds, both in the Caribbean by the Mariculture company and in the Torres Strait, were failures because they were not built secure enough or high enough. The great failure with the Mariculture company was that high tides allowed the turtles to swim over the top of the compound.

Les Smart recommended that we should build a turtle compound in the Torres Strait at a cost of $ 1 m. It would have been necessary to use sophisticated engineering skills in an area remote from the centres of industry which provide the materials. It is bad enough building the Stuart

Highway. But we are talking about a turtle compound in which turtles are placed until they are raised to a weight of 40 lb and then transported right across the world to be sold at about $70 each. Any reasonable person who looked at this project from the start would have realised it was a hoax. Various governments and Ministers have been responsible for these projects. At one time it was Wentworth ‘s responsibility. He used to fight vigorously with the head of his Department over projects of this sort. The responsiblity went from Wentworth to Bryant to Cavanagh to Viner and to Chaney.. We still have the wretched project. We are trapped because we have to assist 100 families in the Torres Strait. We cannot get out of the fix because we refuse to diversify; we refuse to accelerate a review; we refuse to get an environmental impact statement so that we can do away with the project and give the people of the Torres Strait Islands something else to do.

If I get excited it is because I am stirred by Senator Bonner. Honourable senators know as well as I do that every time I hear the word turtle’ I go into a sort of frenzy. I have travelled from island to island. The people in this area laughed at us. They were paid $50 as soon as they had 150 baby turtles. That was all right when the turtles were about the aquarium size. The Islanders had to maintain 150 baby turtles to receive payment. So a trade in baby turtles developed. The people of (he islands bought turtles from one another to keep their number at 150. They were paying 50c for a baby turtle. So we developed a trade backwards and forwards in baby turtles. But from the baby turtles’ point of view it was disaster.

Honourable senators ask me why I get excited. The turtles were kept in rusty half 44-gallon. drums; they were kept in old jars; they were kept all over the place. They were covered with galvanised iron as they grew bigger. When one approached Murray Island one could smell the turtles from at least three miles off. That is not an exaggeration.

Senator Bonner suggested that the Islanders were raising the turtles to eat. George Mye, for whom I have the greatest admiration, says: ‘I used to enjoy turtle but raising turtles put me off them for life’. Who would eat a turtle that was reared in such conditions? They lived in their own excretion and they smelled like it. This is what was done to the baby turtles. The ponds were overcrowded to the point where the turtles cannibalised one another. Their back flippers were eaten away. If the prevention of cruelty people had ever gone to that area they would have issued a writ against the lot of us for allowing such a project to go on. Honourable senators wonder why I get excited, especially when Senator Bonner accuses me of knocking any project that supports Aboriginal people. The true position is the opposite. It is the old Indian blanket trick all over again but instead of blankets turtles are being used.

Of course the Torres Strait Island people want us to continue the project because it is now their livelihood. They get some money paid by cheque for looking after these turtles. Instead of fishing and living off the environment they pay the money into the government store. This is why the Queensland Government and the department do not object to this arrangement. The money that we pay to the Torres Strait Islanders is being fed into their stores to the tune of some $300,000 a year. The Queensland Government is not objecting, and why should it? The Commonwealth is subsidising its stores.

With the advent of turtle farming for the first time some of the Islanders began to suffer from malnutrition. Originally they were using the money they received to buy frozen food for their diet. However, when they could not get out to catch fish to feed the turtles they fed them with frozen chickens and frozen peas. Do I have to go any further?

Senator Rocher:

– No.

Senator GEORGES:

-Have honourable senators got the message? Next time honourable senators look at the estimates and come up against Applied Ecology Pty Ltd I do not want them to knock that company because it has other projects which are likely to be more viable in those northern areas, such as crocodile farming. In regard to wichety grub farming, which was another project, and emu farming, I just do not know. I certainly know what is wrong with turtle farming and I hope I have impressed honourable senators. I ask the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) to take what I say seriously and, for goodness sake, will someone convince Senator Bonner that I happen to be on his side, not against him?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– I rise only to provide some information required by Senator Georges. I do not doubt his sincerity and his concern about the project. I think we have all been concerned about it for a number of years. We have spent a great deal of time investigating it, either through the Public Accounts Committee or the Senate committees. What the honourable senator says leads me to say again that the review is important. I think that further discussion ought to be deferred until that review is received and considered by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs.

Senator Georges did ask about numbers of turtles. 1 draw his attention to the annual report of the Department which gives some information. It states that turtle farms hold more than 2,000 turtles. That was at the end of June last year. The annual report of the company is tabled in Parliament and perhaps there is more information in it. 1 do not think anyone can benefit from discussing this project any further during this debate on the supplementary estimates. If there is some concern about it at the time of the review, I feel sure some parliamentary discussion then would be beneficial.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– The matter I want to raise does not concern turtles although I guess that Senator Teague has been very interested in the debate on turtles tonight and has learnt something. I think he has an interest in turtles but they may not be the live ones. The matter 1 wish to raise comes under division 130 which relates to the Department of Administrative Services. Many months ago I put a question on notice as to the cost of telephone charges incurred by Harry M. Miller. This was another exercise which involved the unnecessary expenditure of taxpayers’ money by this Government. I was astounded when I got the reply. I put the question on notice about 27 February and I got the reply back just recently. I found out that for two of the organisations on which I was told, on many occasions at Estimates committee hearings, that Harry M. Miller was serving in a voluntary capacity, he incurred a telephone expenditure in excess of $30,000. This comes under the Department of Administrative Services. Because of the lateness of the hour I am not going to go into details but honourable senators can read about it on page 1442 ofthe Hansard of 5 April where the answer given to me is recorded. These expenses, I might say, were incurred in a little over 12 months while this person held two administrative positions to which he was appointed by Mr Sinclair. Harry M. Miller showed a total lack of consideration for taxpayers’ money. He spent over $30,000 while, as 1 was told repeatedly, he was serving in a voluntary capacity.

There is another matter that I am really interested in at this stage. I have not got an answer to a question I put on notice on 22 February seeking information as to whether the immediate past Governor-General had a free telephone in his residence in London, where he now resides, for use between London and Australia. I put my question about Harry M. Miller on the notice paper about the same time or a week later and I got an answer a month or so ago- on 5 April. But I have not yet got an answer as to whether the immediate past GovernorGeneral has a free telephone. The question appears in my name and is addressed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Before I go any further I want to ask the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) if, in fact, the Department of Administrative Services is responsible under division 1 30.6, which relates to Overseas Property Services. We find that under that item $ 1,400,000 is required for rent and $82,000 is required for property, maintenance and services. Is the Department of Administrative Services responsible for the installation and the cost of the telephone service of the immediate past Governor-General?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– The answer is that the Department of Administrative Services is not the responsible department.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– I am sorry that I have to come back to the turtle farming project.

Senator Guilfoyle:

– You are joking, really.

Senator GEORGES:

– I must. The Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) has given me some information that the number of turtles is 2,000.

Senator Guilfoyle:

– That is in the annual report which was tabled in Parliament.

Senator GEORGES:

– 1 am sorry; either 1 did not read that part or I read over it. I would have added another figure to that one. Are 2,000 turtles being cared for by 100 turtle farmers at a cost of $300,000 a year? The figure, must be wrong surely. How many turtle farmers are there? I take it that there are 100 turtle farmers and that they are looking after 2,000 turtles. Who is carrying out the review? I do not want to get into a state of absolute despair at this time of night, but if we divide the 2,000 turtles by 100 turtles farmers we see that each farmer is looking after 20 turtles and is being paid the award wage, which is now $150 a week. I do not mind if we give the Torres Strait Islanders the $ 1 50 and we forget about the turtles. For goodness sake!

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– I have nothing further to add. I referred to the annual report of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and read some information from it. I referred also to the fact that the company tabled its annual report in Parliament which stated chat it would give separate information with regard to its research program and the activities of Applied Ecology Pty Ltd. I have nothing further to add by way of information. The figure that I quoted is in paragraph 2 on page 16 of the report where it is stated that turtle farms holding more than 2,000 turtles are operated by the company.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– I have had a look at that report. If we look at it carefully we see that it is one of these nicely presented reports with a lot of diagrams, circles and segments of circles. It is very impressive. Nevertheless, it is the first one we have had. I think we ought to be grateful for it. After struggling for years to get a report from the company we have finally got a report before the Parliament. Previously the company used to say: ‘We are a separate company. We hold no responsibility. We do not have to give any accounting’. We will take a closer look at the report when the full Estimates are before the Parliament. The Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) can rest assured that there is going to be strong resistance by a number of senators to the provision of that large sum of money to rear 2,000 turtles which are being supervised by 100 farmers, with an administrative cost of $225,000 a year plus all the additional materials that have to be found, the total cost being about $1,080,000. Because of the award wages, which are rightly going to be paid, it is going to cost over $ 1 ,250,000. It really does not go down very well now. It ought to be presented in a more palatable and reasonable fashion when the Estimates come before the Parliament in August, September or October of this year.

Proposed expenditures agreed to.

page 2389

QUESTION

GROUP F

Department of Defence

Proposed expenditure, $ 1 05.5 1 2,000.

Department of National Development

Proposed expenditure. $886,000.

Department of Business and Consumer Affairs

Proposed expenditure. $3,666,000.

Postal and Telecommunications Department

Proposed expenditure, $3,004,000.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I simply want to make a brief comment about the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs and relate it to a question that I asked yesterday of Senator Carrick who expressed surprise. I said that the portfolio held by

Mr Fife, besides its responsibility for business and consumer affairs, deals with Customs and would have some responsibility for imports. In my question yesterday to Senator Carrick I drew attention to an episode from which Grace Brothers Pty Ltd, a major Sydney retailer, and an assessor named K. M. Miller did not emerge in very fine style following complaints about certain inferior utensils marketed last spring inflicting scalds on a considerable number of people. Those people are still waiting for some form of restitution. I hasten to add that the consumer affairs authorities of New South Wales carried out rigid tests on those utensils. The utensils were proved to be badly designed. Warning labels have been placed on the remaining supplies of utensils.

I directed the question to Senator Carrick as the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs because I want to know what type of scrutiny certain imports from Taiwan, which is where these utensils were made, are subjected to. I am not questioning the initial role of the State consumer affairs authorities. The plain fact of the matter is that 1 bracketed Grace Brothers with K. M. Miller of Kent Street, Sydney, because it is claimed that they cannot get sufficient evidence to enable them to get reimbursement from the offending manufacturer in Taiwan. I know that no one is more qualified in this field than you, Madam Acting Deputy President Coleman, in view of your career as an advocate in consumer protection. I do not expect to be given an answer at this time of the morning but I would like information as to how the role of the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs meshes in with that of the State Ministers responsible for consumer affairs and also as to how we can curb the importation of inferior quality goods.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– I will provide that information when I can.

Senator THOMAS:
Western Australia

– The hour is late but in fairness to Senate Estimates Committee F, of which I was the Chairman, I would like to draw attention to the Committee’s report. There are three matters I would like to discuss. The first relates to the Postal and Telecommunications Department. Division 480.4.02 refers to the provision of a $60,000 contribution to the International Telecommunication Union. The Committee’s report reads:

This item provides for the payment of the Department’s share of Australia ‘s contribution towards the budget of the International Telecommunication Union. The Committee was advised thai the additional expenditure was required to meet exchange rate variations.

The Committee was satisfied with the Department’s explanations on this matter and it was satisfied that the Department was working within the guidelines established by the Department of Finance. But the Committee does urge the Department, now that Australia has adopted an exchange rate which fluctuates with a trade weighted basket of currencies, to ensure wherever possible that it deals in a currency which is less likely to be affected by adverse fluctuations.

The second item in the report which I draw to the attention of this chamber also comes under the Postal and Telecommunications Department. Division 480.2.07 provides for compensation payment of some $5,000 to Dr G. N. Evans. The Committee has no objections to the payment. The matter is fairly complicated so, if I may, I will read from the Committee’s report. It reads:

This item was included in Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1 978-79 for the ordinary annual services of the Government, a Bill which, under the Constitution, the Senate cannot amend.

Its purpose is to provide to an officer a lump sum compensation payment, as determined by the Prime Minister, for the termination of his services to the Broadcasting Control Board following its abolition in 1976.

Since it appeared to the Committee that this expenditure was not an ordinary annual service of the Government, the Department of Finance was asked why this item was not included in Appropriation Bill (No. 4) which the Senate, under the Constitution, is able to amend.

In writing, the Department explained that the lump sum compensation payment was calculated as the difference between the salary applicable to the position to which the officer was appointed following the abolition of the Board and the salary which the officer would have received had he completed his term of appointment. lt was further explained that the procedure followed was consistent wilh Public Service practice and, in effect, was a payment in lieu of salary. The item, therefore, was listed as an expenditure for the ordinary annual services of the Government. Despite this explanation, the Committee is not satisfied that the payment can be classified as an ‘ordinary’ or ‘annual’ expenditure. There has been no previous provision under any statute to pay the compensation. It is not ordinary’ because a determination by the Prime Minister on an appropriate amount has been required to effect the compensation. Also, the Officer has not received payment for services rendered to the Government since the amount is compensation payable to make up for salary lost by Government decision. Therefore, the Committee suggests that the amount cannot bc classified as ‘salary’ and should not have been included in Appropriation Bill (No. 3) as an ordinary annual service.

While, on this occasion, the amount involved is small, to the Committee the principle is not. The Committee re-states paragraph 31 of the Report from the Committee appointed by Government Senators on Appropriation Bills and the Ordinary Annual Services of the Government (Parliamentary Paper No. 55 of 1967):

The Government has the Constitutional right to introduce any proposed law appropriating revenue or moneys- it is only the Government through whom the Governor-General’s recommendation under section 56 of the Constitution can be submitted. But the decision as to the proper form of an Appropriation Bill does not belong to the Government- it is a decision to be made by the Parliament. This emphasises the importance of continuing the Parliamentary practice- or improving the definition of itwhich determines the form in which the amendable Bill will be acceptable to the Parliament.

To this the Committee can only add that under similar circumstances as described above where doubt may arise in deciding in which Appropriation Bill an item should appear, such doubt should be resolved by excluding the item from the Appropriation Bill for the ordinary annual services ofthe Government.

The third item to which I wish to draw the attention of the Committee is in relation to the provision for the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs under Division 195, subdivision 3, item 06. It has to do with ‘Sale of Petroleum Products (Northern Territory) Financial assistance, $1,100,000’. The item provides for payment of a subsidy to registered distributors in the Northern Territory of certain eligible petroleum products. The purpose of the subsidy is to reduce the price of petrol to consumers in isolated areas. Most of those who have been involved in that project would recognise is at the Petroleum Products Fuel Freight Subsidy Scheme. It was found, after a great deal of questioning, that the Department had no idea whether this subsidy was being passed to the consumer. This was of great concern to the Committee, which recommended that the Government arrive at a system of evaluating the effectiveness of the scheme so that the Commonwealth dollar would be passed on to the consumer.

Finally, I draw the attention of the Senate to a matter that arose out of the last item to which I have referred. Senator Gietzelt raised a question as to the breakdown of the amount that had been paid to the fuel companies. I should like to quote from a paper that has been provided to me on the subject:

During the consideration ofthe Estimates for the Department of Business and Consumer A flairs Senator Gietzelt sought information on the amounts of fuel freight subsidy paid to oil companies in the Northern Territory.

A written reply to Senator Gietzelt ‘s question was subsequently received by the Committee, but after the Committee’s report had been tabled.

The answer provided by the Department supplied the breakdown of fuel freight subsidy payments, as requested. However, the answer concluded-

You will appreciate that when produced this way the information discloses the market percentages achieved by the individual marketers in the Territory, lt is not available to the public or to marketers in this form. In other words, the Department regards it as confidential ‘.

This left the Committee in a somewhat difficult situation. Under the Standing Orders, committees are able to take evidence in open session only. Under present practice, unless otherwise determined by the Senate, Estimates committees are unable to receive in camera evidence. The Committee felt that it was faced with two options: Either to determine that confidentiality was not involved and table the answer, or to respect the Department’s plea, resolve not to receive the answer in its present form and return it to the Department. In the end, the Committee accepted the latter option; the answer was returned to the Department.

To some extent, the subject matter to which I refer might appear to many to be unimportant. However, the principle of information being withheld from Estimates committees, and hence from the Senate on the grounds of commercial confidentiality, in the opinion of the Committee is important. The Committee is firmly of the opinion that whatever public moneys are made available to departments, statutory authorities or, in this case, private companies, such information should be readily available for use by Estimates committees. In this instance, the information was made available but in a form which the Committee quite properly resolved it did not have the power to receive. Both accountability for expenditure of public moneys and the question of commercial confidentiality are related.

If it is proposed that Estimates committees should receive information in all areas where public moneys are expended, eventually the flow of information may be halted by the cry of commercial confidentiality. Information which committees may feel they are entitled to receive could continue to be withheld under the guise of commercial confidentiality. The question then remains: How can this information be properly received? Who is to determine whether a matter is confidential or whether the commercial operations of a statutory authority or a private company will be. adversely affected by public disclosure of certain information? Should it be the Minister or the Estimates Committee concerned? Under the present practice, the Estimates committees do not have the power to receive the information to determine whether, one way or the other, confidentiality is involved. The Committee, of course, is aware that by presenting its case to the Senate support can be obtained for the tabling of documents which currently may not be obtained through Estimates committees.

I am aware that this whole question of Estimates committees taking in camera evidence where commercial or other confidentiality is involved is currently being considered by the Standing Orders Committee. To some extent, the ability of this Committee to move a motion on the matter is inhibited by this fact. Consideration has been given to my moving a motion on behalf of Estimates Committee F concerning commercial accountability. However, out of deference to the Standing Orders Committee, I do not propose to move such a motion at this stage since this might be seen to pre-empt that Committee’s consideration of the matter. I feel that I speak for Estimates Committee F when I ask that the Standing Orders Committee determine its attitude on this whole matter and report to the Senate as soon as possible so that the whole question can be resolved.

I said before that I am sorry to take up the time of the Senate at this late hour, but I would also like to say how much the Committee has appreciated the tremendous response it has had from the various departments and, in particular, it would like to single out the Australian Broadcasting Commission for being so responsive. Some of the supplementary information it supplied this year was a little late but I guess that problem will be overcome next year.

Senator SIBRAA:
New South Wales

– I wish to raise an item under Divisions 230 to 234 in the Department of Defence. In Senate Estimates Committee F I asked Air ViceMarshal Cornish the precise cost of the two Boeing VIP 707s. I was told that the fly-away cost was $5m each. When I asked where I could find the cost of modernisation and the cost of refitting, Air Vice-Marshal Cornish stated: . . it is not actually stated in the appropriations. The Government approved a total expenditure of $l4.575m for the acquisition of these aircraft. That covers the actual purchase of the aircraft for $ 10m. Some avionics work was carried out at a cost of about $300,000. modification of the aircraft and also a major overhaul at a cost of $2m, spares and ground support equipment for about $ 1.24m, total training of$3l5,000.

Senator Gietzelt went on to ask whether it would not have been possible for the Committee to be given this sort of information and why it should not have been in a general item. Senator Guilfoyle replied:

I think that the information Senator Gietzelt is seeking will be in the next year’s Estimates. This $10.20 1 m is the expenditure in this year.

I then put some questions concerning the aircraft noise, and I asked:

I have been told that from next year in the United States there will be stringent noise abatement provisions required for Boeing 707 aircraft which operate in the United States. Have we taken this into account in any of the breakups?

Air Vice-Marshal Cornish replied, and I think this is very interesting:

No, it has not been taken into account. At the present time, the Boeing 707 aircraft complies with all international and Australian noise regulations. There will bc changes to these regulations and the Boeing 707 will not comply with the requirements of the new regulations. Of course, that is for civil aircraft. In Australia, the Department of Transport will require partial compliance by 1981 and full compliance by 1 985. Royal Australian Air Force aircraft will be military aircraft. There is no requirement for them to comply with the civil noise regulations and currently there are no plans to proceed with any noise suppression modifications to the engines.

I then went on to ask Air Vice Marshal Cornish how these aeroplanes would operate in the United States. He said:

There will not be any restrictions on military aircraft in the United States. Similar aircraft are operated by the United States military, lt will not apply to them.

The Chairman, Senator Thomas, asked him a question about how many Boeing 707 aircraft will be operating out of Australia, and he was told that there would be only two. Those aircraft are on lease to Air Niugini and probably will be phased out before the regulations come into effect in 1985. This led me to ask a question without notice in the Senate dealing with the matter of noise from these VIP aircraft. I asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney), who represents the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon): ls 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 Air Force VIP Boeings will become too noisy for civil airfields in the United States of America from I January 1 985 and that after 1 985 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 $1Om, 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?

The people who live near Botany Bay and near the Kingsford-Smith International Airport- the constituents of the electorates of Barton, St George, Grayndler, Sydney and KingsfordSmith are demanding to know whether the aircraft will be modified to prevent the excessive noise levels that will not be tolerated in the United States or anywhere else in the Western world after 1985. Earlier tonight Senator Townley asked some questions about the cost of the VIP fleet. He did not get answers at the time. I have looked at the Hansard reports of the estimates committees and I might be able to help him. I asked Air Vice Marshal Cornish:

Did we make any payments to Qantas for any of that training?

Air Vice Marshal Cornish replied:

The $20 1 ,000 here is for the training of RAAF personnel at Qantas and completed up to 3 1 March of this year.

I think Senator Townley also asked where the aircraft were to be repaired, serviced and maintained, and who would do this- whether it would be the Air Force or Qantas. The Chairman, Senator Thomas, asked:

My concern is the cost of major repairs. I take it that normal servicing will be carried out in Australia as it is now with overseas aircraft.

The Chairman did not receive a very successful answer, and three times he pushed the question of who was to do it. In the end, we obtained the following answer:

In many ways Qantas operated a large number of these aircraft. It has a great repository of expertise. In fact, it has a very large support area for these aircraft. Qantas will continue to hold that, or else eventually the RAAF might take over.

I assume from those questions that the answer to Senator Townley ‘s question would be that the maintenance at the moment will be carried out by Qantas.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

- Senator Thomas raised a number of matters. I believe the first was with regard to the contributions of the International Telecommunications Union. I am advised that the practice of allowing Australia ‘s exchange rate essentially to be determined in accordance with a basket of currencies tends, of itself, to minimise on average the variability of the Australian dollar against the currencies in the basket. The transaction currency in which particular dealings take place is determined primarily according to the place in which the goods or services are obtained. To the extent that it might be possible in advance to fix a contract in terms of a currency other than that of the country providing the goods or services, there can be no guarantee that that would be beneficial to Australia.

The second matter raised by Senator Thomas related to a compensation payment to Dr Evans. I am advised that the payment of compensation to Dr Evans was consistent with the general policy approach adopted by the Public Service Board where officers and employees are transferred to positions where they are paid a lower salary than they were paid in their former positions. Dr Evans was in continuous employment with the Commonwealth. He was seconded to the Broadcasting Control Board, a Commonwealth authority, from the Public Service and returned to the Service. The application to him of the Public Service Board ‘s policy was no more than an extension of that policy.

In accordance with the compact of 1965 the Government has undertaken to include in the Appropriation Bill, which is subject to amendment by the Senate, expenditure inter alia on new policies which are not authorised by special legislation. The payment to Dr Evans was in no way expenditure on a new policy and was appropriately placed in Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1978-79. It is, of course, the compact rather than simply the ordinary meaning of the words ‘ordinary* or ‘annual’ that gives guidance on the allocation of items between the two Bills. I hope that that response is of interest to the Senate committees in general.

A further matter was raised which related to the sale of petroleum products and to financial assistance in the Northern Territory. On this matter I am advised that the subsidy scheme aims to subsidise freight costs to the point of the last wholesale sale; that is, the sale from the distributor to the retailer or to those consumers able to purchase direct from distributors. Under the Constitution the Commonwealth has no powers to fix and to enforce price controls. Hence the legislation constitutes an arrangement with States and territories and relies upon Commonwealth and State and Territory legislation. The scheme does not oblige States to control prices at either the wholesale or retail level. However, some States do this. The Prices Justification Tribunal plays a useful role in the scheme through the scrutiny of wholesale prices and distribution costs. If any further matters were raised by Senator Thomas I will see that he is provided with the necessary information.

Senator Sibraa raised the matter of the Boeing 707 aircraft in the consideration of the estimates of the Department of Defence. He restated much of the evidence that is to be found on pages 1 18 and 1 19 of the Hansard record. I have no information other than that which is stated in Hansard. That information is the only information that is available on the matters raised. As far as repair plans and other matters that may have future consequences are concerned, there is no appropriation for these matters because they are not the subject of decisions made by government. The information given to the Estimates Committee is the only information available at this stage.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I would like to pursue the matter of the Boeing 707 aircraft. I raised this matter in Senate

Estimates Committee A. On that occasion I was told that these aircraft are not part of the VIP fleet, that, in fact, they were purchased for defence purposes. I shall read to the Senate what Mr Ayers said to me when he appeared before Senate Estimates A. He said:

The primary purpose of the 707 is for Defence purposes. As I understand it, there is no intention of disposing of these other aircraft.

I was asking whether it was the intention to dispose of some of the aircraft presently in the VIP fleet because we were getting these two extra aircraft. Mr Ayers further stated:

The two 707s do not belong to the VIP fleet. They will be stationed at Richmond and will be used for VIP travel only when they are not being used for Defence purposes.

What I want to know from the Defence Department is this: What other purposes will these aircraft serve, apart from taking personnel to Butterworth two or three times a year? Are they to be armed as fighter aircraft, or are they to be fitted out so that they can carry bombs?

Honourable senators:

– Ha, ha!

Senator McLAREN:

– It is all very well for the honourable senators to laugh, but the answer that I was provided with was to the effect that these planes were purchased for defence purposes.

Senator MacGibbon:

– Transport.

Senator McLAREN:

– Well, transport. The honourable senator says that they were purchased for transport purposes. The answer that I was given was that they would be used only occasionally. I will read to the Senate the answer I was given. I forgive Mr Ayres for saying this, but he said:

I am intruding into Defence territory but I think the question was asked recently in a Senate Estimates Committee hearing.

He must have meant another Estimates committee. He continued:

At the moment 1 think one of the 707s is transporting troops and their families to Butterworth. There are several of those trips a year which normally would bc by charter.

When I asked questions about the VIP fleet I was told that there are several trips a year and that only one of the planes is going to be used for transport, for ferrying personnel to Butterworth. While the officers from the Department of Defence are here, I ask: What is the real purpose of the 707 aircraft? Are they to be armed as defence aircraft and, if they are going to be used occasionally by the Prime Minister for VIP travel, will their costs be charged against the Prime Minister’s Department at the same rate at which the previous Prime Minister chartered equivalent planes from Qantas Airways Ltd for his overseas trips? I will wait to ask any further questions until 1 get the answers to those I have already asked.

Senator THOMAS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– 1 direct the attention of the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) to an answer she gave to a point I raised in relation to the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs on the sale of petroleum products. The departmental officers, when questioned admitted to Senate Estimates Committee F that they have no system of ascertaining whether the cost of the freight subsidy is passed on to the consumer. The purpose of raising this point in our report was to ask the Government whether there is any possible way in which this can be checked so that this chamber can be assured that the benefit of this money expended on behalf of the taxpayers is reaching the people for whom it is intended.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– The point that I was making on petroleum products under the estimates for the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs is that there is no constitutional authority to exercise price control at the Commonwealth level. I think if Senator Thomas accepts that point, his proposition does not follow. (Quorum formed). We were asked several questions by Senator McLaren with regard to the transport aeroplanes. As to whether they are armed, the answer is: No, they are not armed. As I understand it, for about 80 per cent of their time they will be used for defence purposes as transport planes.

Senator SIBRAA:
New South Wales

– I have one brief query on Divisions 480 to 484, of the estimates for the Postal and Telecommunications Department. I raise the matter because this afternoon I read a telex which stated:

Melbourne 30 May . . . The differences between the Australian Cricket Board . . . and media magnate Kerry Packer’s world series cricket organisation ended here this afternoon with the release of the terms of settlement of their two-year old feud.

ACB chairman Bob Parish announced at a news conference that Publishing and Broadcasting Sports Pty Ltd. a Kerry Packer company, had been granted exclusive rights for a ten-year term to promote cricket organised by the ACB

Mr Parish said that television rights for the first three years of the agreement had been granted to Mr Packer’s Channel Nine network which for the past two years has televised world series cricket.

The telex went on to spell out the other details of the deal. I asked a question when we were dealing with the estimates for the Postal and Telecommunications Department. Arising out of that in this chamber I asked the relevant Minister:

Is the Minister aware of the provisions in the relevant British legislation which provide for a sufficiently popular sporting event to be declared a broadcast of national importance, thus preventing commercial television stations from monopolising any particular sporting event, for example, the Olympic Games or international cricket, at the expense of the British Broadcasting Corporation.

My question went on:

Will the Federal Government consider introducing such changes to Australian legislation in order to protect the competitive position of the Australian Broadcasting Commission in relation to sporting events.

Senator Chaney said that he knew of the legislation. Of course, there were some differences between the situation in Australia and the situation in Great Britain. But he said that he would bring the matter to the attention of the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Staley). I am still waiting for a reply to that question. I think the situation is now extremely urgent. It is made quite clear that people in Western Australia, in north Queensland and in a lot of the far western areas of New South Wales will not be able to see the test cricket when it is broadcast because, as the News Release points out, the exclusive rights for a three year period have been granted to Mr Packer’s Channel Nine. I think the Government should do something about this situation as a matter of urgency.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

Dealing with the Postal and Telecommunications Department, I refer to divisions 480 and 484. 1 wish to refer particularly to the establishment recently by the Government of what is called the Ethnic Television Review Panel which is under the chairmanship of Mr Frank Galbally, a criminal barrister in Melbourne. I notice that for the purposes of conducting this inquiry he describes himself as Mr Frank Galbally, Q.C. Mr Galbally has no more claim to be a Q.C. than did Ned Kelly. It is an extraordinary claim for a person to make in public when he is chairing a government inquiry of this kind. The point I wish to make about the inquiry is that after taking a number of steps, the Government has now arrived at a stage when it has decided that it should conduct an inquiry into the development of a permanent ethnic television service in Australia.

Unfortunately, as a result of a series of decisions which have been made in the past, the dye is cast, as it were, and an inquiry of this kind is a little too late. In fact, two successful ethnic broadcasting organisations are operating in Australia at the moment. Firstly, there is the Ethnic Broadcasting Association of Queensland, which is not yet fully operative as a broadcasting station but which was granted a licence by the

Australian Broadcasting Tribunal after a full public inquiry. Earlier this week in the Senate I had occasion to ask Senator Chaney whether it was a fact that members of the Ethnic Broadcasting Association of Queensland had been interviewed by Commonwealth Police who had made inquiries, amongst other things, as to whether any members of the Association had been or are members of the Communist Party or of one of the communist parties and also about the source of programs which members of that Association were preparing for broadcast. I have received no answer to that question at this stage. But I am quite happy to allege that Commonwealth Police inquiries did take place. 1 am also happy to suggest that Commonwealth Police inquiries did take place at the instigation of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, which bitterly opposed the granting by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal of a licence to Ethnic Broadcasting Association of Queensland.

Senator MacGibbon:

– I am not aware of that, but I am aware, as a senator for Queensland, that it does not represent the ethnic community.

Senator BUTTON:

-That is the sort of potted judgment which I, with much more experience here than the honourable senator, would not feel competent to make and which I do not think any other honourable senator would feel competent to make. It is very difficult for the honourable senator to sit on the other side of the chamber and to say who represents ethnic communities. However, after a full public inquiry, to which people like the honourable senator could have given evidence if they had seen fit, the Broadcasting Tribunal decided that the Association was representative of ethnic communities and it granted a licence. That is something the honourable senator has to confront. It is not my problem; it is the Government’s. The appropriate body which granted the licence was set up by this Government for that very purpose- to conduct inquiries to see whether associations of that kind should receive licences. The second successful ethnic broadcasting organisation in Australia is station 5UV in Adelaide which is programmed by Ethnic Broadcasters Inc. of South Australia. For a number of years that station has produced highly successful programs and has had a great deal of rapport with the various ethnic communities.

I mention these two successful ethnic broadcasting operations because they are both run by the ethnic communities themselves. This Government saw fit in 1977 to impose on ethnic communities in this country an aberration called the Special Broadcasting Service. It is in respect of that matter that I want to draw attention to the Galbally inquiry, so called, which is now proceeding. The Special Broadcasting Service does not represent in any sense the ethnic communities in this country. It is a patrician effort by this Government and by sections of the Australian Public Service to impose an outside broadcasting service on ethnic communities and to tell them what they can broadcast and how they can broadcast it. If one has any doubts about that, one should look at the Act which sets up the Special Broadcasting Service. The warning that I am concerned to utter about this tragedy is that ethnic communities in this country should not be fooled by this display of money which is provided in this section of the Estimates or by the fact that the Special Broadcasting Service has a burgeoning staff with a vastly increasing rate of expenditure. The money is largely being spent on salaries and things of that kind and not on production. There is, of course, within the ethnic broadcasting service a very high number of Australian born Anglo-Saxons, for want of a better expression at a quarter to two in the morning, who are contributing to and directing such little program activity as is going on in that Special Broadcasting Service.

Senator Lajovic:

– That is not true.

Senator BUTTON:

– The honourable senator knows that it is true. He and his right wing cliques in New South Wales would not be interested in it, but every ethnic community in Australia knows that that is true. It is quite true to say that bodies like the National Ethnic Broadcasting Advisory Council and the State Ethnic Broadcasting Advisory Committees are advisory panels. If Senator Lajovic can show me that the majority of employees of the SBS are representative of ethnic communities, I will be very pleased to apologise to him. I invite him to do that. The fact is that the administration of SBS is not of that order at all.

Senator Lajovic:

– You look at the programmers.

Senator BUTTON:

– The honourable senator asks me to look at the programmers, but I am asking him to look at who runs the SBS. This is the whole point of the Special Broadcasting Service. It has been set up by this Government as a patrician organisation. The essential point is that because the Government rejects the notion of granting public broadcasting licences to ethnic communities to do their own thing in broadcasting, it is saying that there are two standards in Australia: There is one standard for white

Anglo-Saxon Protestant broadcasters, whether they be commercial, public or the Australian Broadcasting Commission and another standard for members of ethnic communities. Members of ethnic communities must have their broadcasting controlled by the Government and by the Special Broadcasting Service- as I said, by the Public Service.

Senator Lajovic:

– Like the ABC.

Senator BUTTON:

– By invitation; I understand that Senator Lajovic is the greatest apologist for the SBS in Australia for obvious reasons. But the point I am trying to make is that there are different standards which apply to the sorts of people who sit next to Senator Lajovic and different standards which apply to Senator Lajovic ‘s people if the honourable senator purports in any way to represent ethnic communities. The important point is that under these appropriations there is developing in the SBS a quite sinister bureaucracy in this country. Anybody who looks at the terms of the legislation which set that bureaucracy up will see precisely what 1 mean. It is a bureaucracy which is predicated on a notion of double standards as between Australian and members of ethnic communities and their capacity and ability to do their own thing in broadcasting. It is symptomatic of the sort of general broadcasting mess into which this Government has got itself and about which one could talk for some time under these appropriations. It is a highly appropriate time, I would think, to draw attention to this.

Another thing that illustrates exactly the same attitude by this Government towards ethnic communities is the suggestion which has flowed from the Government, which I understand has the approval of a silver-tailed criminal barrister from Melbourne, that the ethnic television services should be received on an ultra high frequency signal. I repeat that that is a confidence trick of the first order because at present it would be a very generous assessment to point out that 25 to 30 per cent of Australian residences, that is houses, have a television set which has a UHF capacity on it. Amongst migrant communities the percentage would probably be less. To brandish around this the sort of false promise to have ethnic television programs transmitted to a UHF receiver is another phoney act as monumental as the setting up of the Special Broadcasting Service. I express my concern about the section of the appropriations relevant to this matter.

Senator TOWNLEY:
Tasmania

– I have a couple of further questions relating to the purchase of VIP aircraft. I do not think

I would be consistent unless I asked these questions of the Department of Defence. I will try and keep my questions brief because of the time of night. Let me say at the outset that I do not believe that the Royal Australian Air Force would for one minute have asked for Boeing 707 aircraft if they were not for VIP use. It is said that the intention is that 80 per cent of the use will be for other than VIP use. I do not believe for one minute that we would have bought either of the two Boeings had it not been the intention to have them available primarily for VIP purposes. I am not entirely against an aircraft for overseas use by the Prime Minister, but I have not yet received a satisfactory explanation as to why two aircraft were chosen.

I believe that it is true that the RAAF asked for a long range 727-100 series before it asked for 707s. I ask whether that is correct. I would like to ask for the cost of operating the 707s. Does the RAAF intend to change the motorsand if so, at what cost to alleviate the noise and pollution that the present motors cause? If it is intended that 80 per cent of the use will be RAAF use, a figure which incidentally I doubt, how many hours a year is it intended that the RAAF will use the aircraft? In other words, how many hours a year will these aircraft be in the air? I would like an answer to those questions before I ask any more.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I was going to wait until some of the answers were given to Senator Townley before I spoke because he has asked questions similar to those I asked. However I probably put them in a different phrasing. The Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) did not answer most of the questions that I posed to her. She did tell me that the planes are not to be armed. So they are not going to be much good to the Government for defence. The Minister said that 80 per cent of their use would relate to defence. I take it that means that 20 per cent of their use will relate to VIP purposes. I also asked the Minister whether the aircraft are to be chartered by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet from the Department of Defence when they are required for VIP duties? She did not answer that question. If this is so, what rate will the Department of Defence charge the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet for the use of these aircraft? What Department will bear the costs of converting the aircraft from troop-carrying facilities to VIP facilities and vice versa? We saw the planes on Four Corners a week ago. We also saw the luxurious interior of one of them. I imagine that not more than 10 or 20 passengers would be carried on that plane when all those luxurious facilities are put in it for the use of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser).

Senator Sim:

– Gough would have wanted a gold toilet.

Senator McLAREN:

– No doubt the Prime Minister will have a gold toilet too. We have heard about Tiberius on the telephone and Mr McMahon; I suppose thai: the same statement could be applied to the present Prime Minister. Senator Sim is now on record as saying that they are going to have a gold toilet.

Senator Sim:

– I did not say that.

Senator McLAREN:

– The honourable senator did say that. He is on record as saying that there will be a gold toilet.

Senator Sim:

– I said that Gough would have wanted gold toilets.

Senator McLAREN:

– Gough did not buy any aircraft, as the honourable senator well knows. He was severely criticised because he chartered an aircraft from Qantas Airways Ltd, the Australian flag carrier. Its aircraft are not good enough for the present Prime Minister; he has to buy two of his own. I am very pleased to see that a member of the Government, Senator Townley, is bravely criticising the Prime Minister for the expenditure of taxpayers money on aircraft. Senator Townley said that he does not believe that they should have been purchased.

Senator Teague:

– He asked questions.

Senator McLAREN:

– I know. In the course of asking questions he said that he did not believe that the Prime Minister needed two aircraft of this type.

Senator Townley:

– I did not mention the Prime Minister.

Senator McLAREN:

– Well, they are for the VIP fleet. The honourable senator knows as well as I do that only one person wanted them and he gave the okay to purchase them. Nobody else. We know the underhand methods and the back door methods that were used to get the finance to purchase those aircraft. This has been admitted by the Government. It used devious means to get the money to purchase them. The appropriation did not come to this Parliament for examination until after the purchase had been made. A special fund was used to purchase the aircraft. I return to the questions I asked the Minister. Which Department will bear the cost of converting the aircraft from troop carrier to VIP use and vice versa each time? I am convinced that the Prime Minister will not be prepared to travel in a troop carrying aircraft when going overseas. Of course not. So that will cost something. I want to know who will bear the cost. I also want to know what terms will apply when the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet charters these aircraft for VIP travel.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– A number of questions have been asked by Senator McLaren. He asked some of them earlier and I omitted to answer him. With regard to cost sharing or the rates that have to be established between the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Department of Defence, these matters are at present under consideration and no figures can be given at this stage. There were a number of other questions raised by Senator McLaren and Senator Townley regarding items of detail. I am unable to answer them. I think that they are questions that need consideration. I draw the Committee’s attention to all of the information given on pages 1 18 and 1 19 of Senate Hansard of 3 May 1979. It will be seen from evidence given to Estimates Committee F by Air ViceMarshal Cornish that $ 14.575m is the total cost of the aircraft. He also made other comments on this expenditure. A number of questions have been answered in the Parliament.

I refute emphatically the statement of Senator McLaren about underhand methods being used for the financing of these planes. Their financing has been the subject of questions and answers. The honourable senator well knows that the procedure with regard to the financing of the planes is absolutely in accordance with established procedure of government accounting. I will refer the detailed questions to the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen), seek the information and see that the Senate is advised accordingly.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– There is one other question that the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) has not answered. I fail to see why she cannot answer it when officers from the Department of Defence are present. I want to know which department will foot the bill for the conversion of these aircraft from troop carrying facilities to VIP facilities. Surely with the officers from the Department of Defence here the Minister must be able to find out. These aircraft are at present undergoing a re-equipment program. Surely we can be told by the officers of the Department of Defence who will foot the bill.

Senator GUILFOYLE (Victoria-Minister for Social Security) 1.56 a.m.)- As I said, I will provide answers to the questions raised when they have had the consideration of the department concerned. I am unable to provide any further information on the matters that have been raised by a number of senators this evening.

Senator TOWNLEY:
Tasmania

– I had asked that the number of hours per year that the aircraft would be used be mentioned. The Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) is, unfortunately, unable to give that information. If I presume that the number of hours for each aircraft each year will be 700, the total number of hours for the two aircraft will be 1,400. If 20 per cent of that time is used for international travel it will mean that seven trips will be made around the world each year by these aircraft.

Senator Tate:

– Each or in total?

Senator TOWNLEY:

– In total. I thank the honourable senator. Twenty per cent of the time divided between two aircraft will mean that there will be seven trips around the world each year. That seems to be more trips than the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) or anybody else would make overseas. Can the Minister comment on that?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

- Senator Townley has made some assumptions from a starting point that he has established himself. I am unable to verify or agree with the starting point or the assumptions that have been drawn from it. Again, this matter can be the subject of consideration by the Department of Defence and a detailed answer can be given when I provide other information. The figure of approximately 80 per cent has been used in relation to the hours which the Royal Australian Air Force will use the planes. That figure is considered to be the amount of time that will meet the requirements of the Air Force when planes of this type are suitable for its use. 1 am unable to provide information in relation to the number of hours, but I undertake to see what further information can be given.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– It seems to me that we should ask why the Minister who is responsible for most of these matters is not in charge ofthe chamber. It is quite apparent, as I mentioned earlier, that the Minister presently in charge is acting in relation to a whole range of departments for which she has no responsibility. For that reason she would find it very difficult to give information that should be known by the Minister responsible. Why is Senator Carrick not here to answer questions on this matter? Possibly he would be able to answer the question I wish to ask arising from what Senator Townley and Senator McLaren have been saying. It seems to me that the advisers should be able to tell us when the two aircraft that have been purchased at prices which have been debated in this place will be permanently re-equipped. In other words, when will the configuration be changed to that of VIP aircraft?

Senator Sim:

– The configuration is changed every day on aircraft.

Senator GEORGES:

– In this case the configuration and order are being changed to satisfy VIP usage.

Senator Sim:

– They are changed in five minutes everyday in commercial aircraft.

Senator GEORGES:

– I know that. They are changed in commercial aircraft from economy to first class and vice versa.

Senator Sim:

– They move the seats backwards and forwards.

Senator GEORGES:

– And sometimes the whole lot are taken out and the aircraft are converted to transport aircraft. But with VIP aircraft, and Senator Sim has travelled in them, the configuration is permanently different. They have special cabins and special seating. The point I am trying to make is that the configuration is changed substantially and that substantial change in configuration would limit the use of the aircraft as troop carriers.

Senator Sim:

– It does not make any difference to changing them.

Senator GEORGES:

– It must. By putting special cabins in them we are limiting our ability to change the configuration of the two aircraft that we have purchased. If Senator Collard were not in the chair we would be able to take advantage of his expertise. It seems to me that by permanently changing the configuration of these aircraft we are limiting their use as troop carriers and that the cost of using them in that way- for defence purposes- will be excessive. Let me ask a straight question. If they are to be used as troop carriers, how many troops will they carry?

Senator Sim:

– How does Qantas change it aircraft from normal commercial use?

Senator GEORGES:

-But Qantas Airways Ltd does not set them up for Prime Ministerial use. Qantas does not set them up in such a way that there are separate cabins, different bulkheads, et cetera. I want to know exactly how many troops these aircraft will be able to carry if they are used as troop carriers? My view of this matter is that the Government has made a stupid purchase in this respect, lt has lumbered the Royal Australian Air Force with two costly aircraft which it will not be able to use efficiently, merely to satisfy the whim of the Prime Minister. If it had been left to the decision of the RAAF -

Senator Sim:

– Obviously late nights affect your brain.

Senator GEORGES:

– I am allowed a little latitude at two minutes past two in the morning. Honourable senators opposite voted on two occasions in favour of extending this debate to this hour, so suffer on.

Senator Sim:

– It doesn’t worry me.

Senator GEORGES:

-Obviously it does, otherwise Senator Sim would not be interjecting. I wish to know whether we have imposed upon the Air Force two aircraft that cannot be used properly for defence purposes, merely to satisfy the desires and the megalomania of the Prime Minister?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– As to the point raised by Senator Georges with regard to the use of certain VIP aircraft and the claim that they were given to the Royal Australian Air Force against its wishes or without consideration for the use that could be made of the aircraft I would draw his attention to the comments of Air ViceMarshall Cornish at page 1 18 of Hansard of 3 May 1 979 for Senate Estimates Committee F. He said: lt was a Government decision to purchase Boeing 707 aircraft. In looking at these special purpose aircraft, consideration was initially given to the Boeing 727 aircraft. Other types were also considered at an earlier stage. But on evaluation from the Air Force point of view for the task to be carried out, it was assessed that the Boeing 707 was the best aircraft for the job.

As far as the other detailed questions are concerned, I am unable to provide information this evening. I point out that when Senate Estimates Committee F met 34 officers from the Department of Defence were in attendance. They were there to answer in detail the questions which were raised with them by the honourable senators who were members of that Estimates Committee and any other honourable senator who wished to attend. This morning we do not have in attendance the Air Force officers or other members of the Department of Defence who would be able to deal with the very specific and detailed questions that have been raised. That is why I have undertaken to obtain that information from the Department and to see that it is provided in response to the questions that have been raised. Mr Temporary Chairman, I am unable to take the matter any further.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– The Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) has provoked me into replying to what she has said. She stated that either 24 or 34 officers from the Department of Defence were present when Estimates Committee F was looking at the estimates for the Department of Defence. The Minister would know that on 4 May Estimates committees C and F were sitting at the same time and that on 3 May Estimates committees D, E and F were sitting at the same time. So, it would have been physically impossible for many honourable senators who wanted to pursue some of these matters concerning the Department of Defence to do so as they were attending hearings of other committees.

When I ask questions at these committee hearings and I do not get the answer, as I have often done on Estimates Committee A, I am told that I can ask my questions again in the Committee of the Whole. That is just what honourable senators on this side of the chamber have been doing tonight- asking the questions to which they did not get answers earlier. But we cannot be in three places at once. It is physically impossible. When we ask a question on these committees and the answer cannot be provided we are told that they will be provided in the Committee of the Whole. The Minister is saying that she has come into the Committee of the Whole with a skeleton staff.

I am sure that the Minister is well aware that the purchase of the Boeing 707s is a matter that is exercising the mind of every thinking Australian. The Minister must have been aware that questions would be asked tonight about the cost and the use of these aircraft. I fail to see why the officers who would be able to give us that information should not be here tonight. The Government knows that it is under attack for the indulgence of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in purchasing these aircraft, yet we are told that there is only a skeleton staff” available, none of whom is able to give us the answers. Surely that is not the way in which to run the Parliament of Australia.

As I said earlier, devious means or back door methods were used to purchase these aircraft in the first place. When the Government purchased them, no statement was made to the Parliament where their purchase could be challenged. Their purchase was carried out by another appropriation which the Government said was normal practice. To my knowledge and to the knowledge of many of my colleagues, this is the first time such a practice has ever been used.

The Government knows that it is under attack for the purchase and the use of those aircraft. We have to sit here until 10 past 2 in the morning hoping to get answers when Estimates Committee F’s report is discussed and now we are told that there is only a skeleton staff available and that the appropriate officers are not here to give us the answers. I warn the Minister that, during the remainder of this week and next week, money Bills will be brought into this chamber. We will take the opportunity of the first reading of those Bills to pursue this matter. Therefore, I would advise the Minister to have the appropriate members of the Department of Defence here to give us the answers because the taxpayers of Australia, not just honourable senators on this side of the chamber, want to know why the Prime Minister is wasting their money by indulging himself in the purchase of these aircraft for his own use. We have been told that the aircraft will be used 80 per cent of the time for defence purposes. As far as I am concerned, that answer is not good enough and, the first opportunity 1 get on the first reading of one of the money Bills, I will pursue the matter.

Proposed expenditures agreed to.

Remainder of Bill- by leave- taken as a whole, and agreed to.

Bill reported without requests, but with a resolution containing a recommendation based on the report of Estimates Committee D; report adopted.

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Senator Guilfoyle) read a third time.

page 2400

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 4)

1978-79

Second Reading

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

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

- Mr President, you should not have invited me to speak at this hour- 2. 10 a.m.- but I wish to make a couple of comments, and if I make them now it will save me making them at the Committee stage. I thought that at 12 o’clock the Government would have accepted our proposition that we should report progress on our consideration of Appropriation Bill (No. 3) and Appropriation Bill (No. 4), on which I am speaking now. On previous occasions the consideration of Bills has gone on for at least an hour beyond the time set for the adjournment of the sitting in order to pass the Bills at that sitting. On those occasions it was within our reach to do so, but that has not been the case with these Bills. For that reason, we have been forced to sit here until 2.10 a.m. and still we have not reached the adjournment of the sitting. If Senator Sim is interested, let me say to him that if he wishes to sit until the early hours of the morning, by all means let us do so. But the passage of this sort of legislation will not be facilitated if the Government adopts the perverse methods which were adopted tonight. It is a long, long time since we sat until 2 a.m. considering legislation. We have previously sat beyond the time set for the adjournment of the sitting in order to pass legislation, but judging from the Government’s performance yesterday and the previous day, when it sought to assert its will rather unjustly upon the Opposition, it seems to me that the Government has found now that we are prepared to sit for as long as it wishes.

Senator Maunsell:

– Good.

Senator GEORGES:

– Yes, of course. We will search out detailed information because that is the only way in which the Opposition can respond to the Government’s attempts to take the debate on legislation beyond the normal hour. We would accept a reasonable proposition, but sitting until 2 a.m. is not reasonable. The Government might argue that it is our fault that we are here at this hour, and to some extent that may be so. Perhaps we have extended the debate somewhat and could have truncated it in some way. But if the Government takes us beyond 12 o’clock we will make certain that we take every possible–

Senator Sim:

– You are not threatening us, are you?

Senator GEORGES:

– No, I am just saying that honourable senators opposite have used methods to keep us here beyond a reasonable time. All I am saying to them is that immediately they do that, of course we will make certain that they are justified in going beyond that time. What has happened illustrates that this place functions much better with co-operation. It does not function when the Government endeavours to thrust its program down the throat of the Opposition. When that happens the Opposition will gag on it, and we have gagged our way along until 3.15 a.m. If honourable senators opposite wish to go beyond 12 o’clock, let them expect that we will go until 3 a.m.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages, without requests or debate.

page 2401

ADJOURNMENT

East Timor

Motion (by Senator Guilfoyle) proposed:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator COLEMAN:
Western Australia

– It was not my intention to detain the Senate when I discovered that we would be sitting past midnight, but I think honourable senators will bear with me when they hear the information I have to impart. It is a most important matter and not one that can be readily replied to by a Minister at Question Time. This afternoon I was given some information relating to a Mr Alarico Fernandes who, honourable senators might recall, was the Fretelin Minister for Information. He visited Australia in 1975 and returned to his country just prior to the Indonesian takeover of East Timor. He surrendered to the Indonesians some eight or nine months ago. The information I have received is that Mr Fernandes, some short time ago, having been in prison somewhere in Indonesia for the preceding eight or nine months, was bound hand and foot and taken in a helicopter and, as it was put to me, pushed out.

Members of this Parliament have expressed concern on a number of occasions about what is happening in East Timor. It is not so long ago that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) went to Timor. On his return he stated that he had had satisfactory talks. Because of the information I have just given to the Senate, I am compelled to ask some questions of the Minister for Science and the Environment (Senator Webster) who is in the cham ber at the moment.

Senator Kilgariff:

– The Prime Minister went to Indonesia, did he not, not to Timor?

Senator COLEMAN:

– He went to Indonesia. I have to ask these questions, Senator Kilgariff. Did the Prime Minister, while in Indonesia, raise the matter of the concern that Australian people are expressing about what is happening in East Timor? Did he raise the subject, for instance, that people in Australia have expressed concern before now at the disappearance of former leaders? The information that I am giving is not that a person has been killed in a battle. It is a straight out brutal murder of a person who had surrendered.

Senator Walters:

– Where?

Senator COLEMAN:

– In East Timor. Obviously the honourable senator was not listening. I am saying that the former Minister for Information in the Timor Government, Mr Alarico Fernandes, has been murdered by the

Indonesian Government. I am telling Senator Walters that this is not the first instance of such an occurrence. I am saying that information has been provided -

Senator Walters:

– What about the murders in Russia or China?

Senator COLEMAN:

– I am not concerning myself tonight, Senator Walters, with any murders that you say have been committed in Russia or China. I am concerned at the horrific murder of a man who had surrendered to a government that had taken over his country. I want to know what Australia is doing about it. I want to know whether the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) was aware that this had happened. I want to know when the murder occurred. I want to know whether the Minister is aware of the allegations that other people have been murdered in a like manner. I want to know, for instance, whether Australia will express concern at the murder.

Senator Teague:

– What is the source of your information?

Senator COLEMAN:

– I have to admit that the source of my information has to remain confidential. The person who has given me the information has relatives in Timor. I am sure that Senator Teague will understand why the source of my information has to remain confidential.

Senator Teague:

– Nevertheless, it weakens the case until we have a more substantial report.

Senator Tate:

– That is why the information is being sought.

Senator COLEMAN:

- Senator Teague, the information is being sought by the Minister to establish whether the Australian Government is aware that these allegations have been made, not just on this occasion about Mr Alarico Fernandes but on other occasions about other members of the Fretilin Government who are alleged to have been murdered in a like manner. We are talking about plain simple horrible murder. We are not talking, as I said earlier, about people who are killed in battle. We are talking about people who are deliberately bound hand and foot, taken up in helicopter and dropped.

Senator Walters:

– It happens every day in China.

Senator COLEMAN:

– I suggest to Senator Walters that if she wants to discuss a situation that may be occurring in China or some place else she should raise it. I am raising this matter on the adjournment because I am sick in my stomach at the thought that a man who surrendered himself to a government that had taken over his country should be murdered in such a manner. I would express the same concern if it had happened in another country. We have had reports in this place that it has happened elsewhere. I do not believe we have ever had a report that it has happened in this same horrible manner.

The Prime Minister went to Indonesia some time ago. When he returned he said that he had had satisfactory talks with the Government of Indonesia. I want to know whether in actual fact he raised the problems that Australian members of parliament have raised in this place in respect of East Timor; whether he raised the subject of what has happened, for instance, to those Fretilin leaders who have surrendered; whether he raised the problem of the reunification of families program on which the Indonesian Government has renegued. I want to know whether he asked any questions or expressed any concern about these matters.

I said earlier that the reason for my raising this matter on the adjournment is that sufficient or adequate time would not be available during Question Time for me to be provided with an answer. But because it is a matter of importance I think that the Minister for Science and the Environment, who is in charge of the House at the moment, should have it referred to the Department of Foreign Affairs tomorrow morning, at first light if necessary, and make sure that a reply is before the Senate preferably tomorrow or at the latest by Monday of next week when the Senate resumes after the weekend break.

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

– I will see that the remarks of the honourable senator are drawn to the attention of the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) at the earliest possible opportunity.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 2.23 a.m. (Thursday)

page 2403

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Chemical 2,4,5-T (Question No. 1123)

Senator Peter Baume:

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

Was any attempt made to determine whether there might have been any teratogenic or abortogenic excess in Council and Forestry workers in New South Wales with an increased exposure to the chemical 2.4,5-T, as described in the Medical Journal of Australia, 18 November 1978; if not, will the Minister seek such information, in view of the current controversies concerning 2,4.5-T in another State.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

I am advised that no attempt was made to determine whether there were any teratogenic or abortogenic excess in the council and forestry workers studied. I am further advised that no women were included in the survey.

As fur as the collection of information on such matters is concerned. I would draw attention to my statement in Parliament on 24 November 1978.I foreshadowed then the extension of existing statistical collections to provide for full nation-wide cover and the establishment of a national perinatal statistics unit. I have already asked my colleagues in the States to initiate the extension of collections. As well, applications were invited through advertisements in the press from appropriate bodies to establish the national perinatal statistics unit funds for which are being provided by the Commonwealth. Applications received are now being considered.

The extension and development of statistical data, as I have outlined, will provide a mechanism for collecting information on the population as a whole, including the families of workers such as those to whom the honourable senator referred.

Greek Social Security Beneficiaries (Question No. 1295)

Senator Grimes:
NEW SOUTH WALES

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

  1. 1 ) What was the reason for the delay until15 January 1979, in the departure of the medical team for Greece, when the Minister told Parliament on 24 November 1978 that the arrangements had been made several weeks earlier.
  2. How long was the medical team in Greece.
  3. When did the team return to Australia.
  4. How many invalid pensioners in Greece whose pensions had been cancelled were informed of the visit of the medical team.
  5. How many pensioners were seen in (a) Athens; and ( b ) elsewhere in Greece.
  6. How many pension cancellations were (a) confirmed; and (b) reversed, by the medical team.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Although a decision to send a medical team to Greece was taken prior to November 1978, the necessary arrangements took longer than was expected. This was the first time it had been necessary to handle large numbers of medical appeals overseas, a great deal of preliminary investigation and review work had to be completed, personnel of suitably high calibre had to be obtained and the imminence of the general closedown during the Christmas/New Year period all affected the departure date.
  2. and (3) The medical team arrived in Greece on 18 January 1979 and left Greece on 3 February 1979, arriving in Australia on 6 February 1979.
  3. All pensioners who had lodged appeals and were known to be still in Greece were so advised.
  4. (a)64;(b)Nil.
  5. Of the invalid pensioners the medical team examined in Athens:

    1. confirmed not permanently incapacitated- 61
    2. b) found to be permanently incapacitated- 2 (There is one case still under investigation.)

Alleged Social Security Frauds (Question No. 1296)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 2 1 February 1979:

  1. 1 ) How many invalid pensioners charged under the Crimes Act 1914 in the alleged New South Wales frauds now receive: (a) invalid pension; (b) sickness benefit; (c) special benefit; (d) unemployment benefit; and (e) other pension or benefit.
  2. How many sickness beneficiaries charged under the Crimes Act 1914 in the alleged New South Wales frauds now receive: (a) sickness benefit; (b) special benefit; (c) unemployment benefit and (d) other pension or benefit.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

I am advised that as at 2 May 1 979:

(a) 13,(b)22,(c)nil,(d)3,(e)1.

(a)27,(b)2,(c)12,(d)6.

Alleged Social Security Frauds (Question No. 1297)

Senator Grimes:

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

  1. 1 ) How many invalid pensioners charged under the Crimes Act 1914 in the alleged New South Wales frauds had held their pensions for: (a) two years or more: (b) between one and two years: (c) between six months and one year: and (d) less than six months, before their pensionswere cancelled.
  2. How many sickness beneficiaries charged under the Crimes Act 1914 in the alleged New South Wales frauds had been on sickness benefits for: (a) two years or more; (b) between one and two years; (c) between six months and one year; and (d) less than six months.
  3. How many of those charged under the Crimes Act 1914 in the alleged New South Wales frauds were involved in compensation cases awaiting settlement.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. (a) I2.(b)23.(c)8.(d) 12.
  2. (a)2l,(b)S7,(c)22.(d) 19.
  3. 4 of the above cases were involved in compensation cases which were unsettled at the time.

Greek Social Security Beneficiaries (Question No. 1300)

Senator Grimes:

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

  1. 1 ) How many invalid pensioners, receiving their pensions in Greece had these pensions cancelled, and when were the pensions cancelled.
  2. ) Between what dates were these cases first reviewed.
  3. How many pensioners were: (a) reviewed; and (b) given medical examinations, at that time.
  4. What form did the medical examination take and what was the average time taken for such medical examinations.
  5. How many invalid pensioners in Greece have had their pensions restored.
  6. What attempt was made to contact those pensioners in Greece whose pensions were cancelled but who did not attend the review.
  7. Arc continuing attempts being made to find those who did not attend the review, to ascertain that they are not in desperate circumstances.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) One hundred and five invalid pensioners receiving their pensions in Greece had their pensions cancelled after examinations by a Commonwealth Medical Officer and (where considered appropriate) by independent specialists. Three pensioners had their pensions cancelled when they failed to respond to a request to submit themselves for examination. Most ofthe cancellations took place in April 1978 but some cases were completed over the following two months.
  2. The cases were reviewed between April and June 1978, while those cases involving appeals were again reviewed by an independent medical team in January and February 1979.
  3. One hundred and thirty-eight pensioners were requested to attend for examination in April 1978, of whom three failed to attend and 135 were examined at that time.
  4. The medical examinations were carried out in the first instance by a Commonwealth Medical Officer located at the Australian Embassy in Athens, with further examinations being conducted by consulting specialists from the Greek medical profession in Athens where this was considered appropriate. The average time of examinations was not recorded.
  5. In 30 cases the pensions were continued on the recommendations of the Commonwealth Medical Officer. As at 9 May. five persons whose pensions had been cancelled in Greece had had their appeals allowed.
  6. 6 ) and ( 7 ) There were three cases in which pensions were cancelled after failing to respond to a request that they attend the Australian Embassy for a review. Notice was sent to these people at the addresses they had given for pension purposes.

Social Security Benefits: Eligibility Guidelines (Question No. 1309)

Senator Grimes:

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

  1. 1 ) Does the Director-General of Social Security issue guidelines to a departmental officer who is asked to review eligibility for sickness benefit or invalid pensions; if so, what are the guidelines.
  2. Do the guidelines differ for pensioners living in Australia and those living overseas.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The departmental Manuals of Instruction, copies of which have been made available to the honourable senator on a confidential basis, set out the Director-General’s guidelines to departmental officers asked to review eligibility for sickness benefit or invalid pensions. The basic principle is that the criteria laid down in the law itself must be complied with; i.e., to qualify for invalid pension, the claimant must have been permanently incapacitated for work, to the extent of at least 85 per centum, at the relevant date.
  2. The medical requirements for eligibility for invalid pensions are the same in Australia as in overseas countries, lt must be established that, at the relevant time, the claimant was incapacitated for work to the extent of at least 85 per cent and that the incapacity to that degree was permanent. The medical team which examined cases in Greece was assisted by an advice the terms of which were settled by the Secretary to the Attorney-General’s Department. Where applicable, the terms of that advice are being followed in reviewing the claims of pensioners living in Australia. There are, of course, special statutory requirements that must be satisfied before invalid pensions can be paid to persons resident outside Australia. In particular, it is necessary that eligibility shall have been established while resident in Australia.

Social Security Benefits: Eligibility Criteria (Question No. 1310)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 2 1 Feburary 1979:

Were the criteria used by the medical team sent to Greece to assess the eligibility of invalid pensioners the same as would be used in assessing eligibility in Australia; if not. how did they differ.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

I am advised that- the criteria for eligibility for invalid pensions are those laid down in the Social Services Act. The medical team carried out their enquiries with the aid of a written advice drawing attention to, and explaining, the effect of those provisions, particularly in relation to persons living overseas. The terms of this advice were settled by the Secretary to the Attorney-General’s Department. Insofar as it relates to the provisions of the Act which apply to persons in Australia, these principles are applied in assessing eligibility in Australia.

Alleged Social Security Frauds (Question No. 1312)

Senator Grimes:

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

  1. How many persons charged under the Crimes Act 1 914 in the alleged New South Wales frauds had: (a) invalid pension; (b) sickness benefit; and (c) other pension or benefit, cancelled, and when were the pensions or benefits cancelled.

    1. How many of those person:; were receiving: (a) invalid pension: (b) sickness benefit: (c) sickness benefit: (d) unemployment benefit: and (e) other pension or benefit, at the end of each month from April 1 978 to January 1979.
    2. Of the pensions and benefits not restored how many (a) invalid pensions; and (b) sickness benefits, were not restored on (i) medical: and (ii) income grounds.
    3. How many persons who had pensions and benefits restored to them or who were granted other benefits had them backdated to the dates of their cancellation.
    4. Where restored pensions and benefits or new benefits were not backdated, what were the reasons.
    5. Were the people affected informed of the reasons: if so, how.
    6. Were they told of their right to re-apply, and to press for backpayments, to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal.
    7. 8 ) How many did so.
    8. How many cases are still under investigation.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. I ) 1 am informed that the records of my Department in Sydney indicate that 37 of the persons charged under the Crimes Act in connection with the recent investigations had invalid pension cancelled and 34 had sickness benefit cancelled. The cancellation dates wen; as follows:
  1. to (4) The information is not readily available and I am not able to authorise the allocation of the resources that would be required to extract this information.
  2. 5 ) Where appeals against the cessation of in valid pensions were allowed payments wen: backdated. In the case of sickness benefit payment was subject to period covered by medical certificates, and new claims for special benefits were payable from the date of the claim.
  3. Yes, advice was given by letter in all cases except in some sickness benefit cases where the beneficiary had failed to respond to an earlier letter advising them of the suspension of benefit asking them to contact the Department.
  4. Medical appeals are not referred to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. In the case of the invalid pensioners they were interviewed by departmental officers and the cases referred to the Department of Health medical officers for medical examination. Those cases found to be no longer permanently incapacitated for work were informed by letter of cancellation and advised to register with the Commonwealth Employment Service for employment. Sickness beneficiaries were handled similarly except those who did not respond to the request to attend for an interview.
  5. Seventeen invalid pensioners have lodged appeals since April 1978 and 85 sickness beneficiaries either continued to receive benefit or re-applied and were re-granted sickness benefit.
  6. Asat 10 May. 10 cases were under investigation.

Greek Social Security Beneficiaries (Question No. 1396)

Senator Grimes:

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

  1. 1 ) How many of the invalid pensioners whose pensions were cancelled in Greece during April 1978 currently receive: (a) invalid pension; (b) age pension: and (c) no pension.
  2. ) How many cases are still being investigated in Greece.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

The Departmental records show that 105 people receiving invalid pensions in Greece had their pension cancelled after examination. There were three additional cancellations where pensioners did not respond to a request to attend for examination.

1) As at 9 May 1979, the position with regard to Australian pensions was as follows:

five received invalid pension:

b ) none received age pension:

one hundred and three did not receive any pension.

Three. This includes one case seen by the medical team in Greece and still under investigation, and two cases who failed to attend for a medical examination at the time the medical team was in Greece but are now under review.

Greek Social Security Beneficiaries (Question No. 1399)

Senator Grimes:

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

  1. 1 ) Who gave the order to terminate invalid pensions in Greece in April 1978.
  2. When was the order given.
  3. 3 ) When did the termination occur.
  4. Is the Minister satisfied that the reviews which took place initially were proper medical reviews.
  5. Was it the intention of the Minister to leave these people without any form of income for almost a year while their cases were being investigated.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. I ) As a result of investigations in Australia. 1 38 people in Greece received letters in April 1978 asking them to attend for a medical review to re-establish eligibility for invalid pensions.

    1. and (3) The cases were reviewed and dealt with progressively between April and June 1978, as the results of medical reviews become available.
    2. The Director-General advises me that the reviews which took place between April and June 1978 were properly conducted.
    3. Persons outside Australia who cease to be entitled to an Australian pension are not entitled to any other pension or benefit under the Social Services Act. They were notified of their right of appeal. This was the first instance in which the Commonwealth had taken steps to allow people to have an appeal heard in another country, and as I indicated to the Senate on 20 February (Hansard, page 9) the procedure took somewhat longer than anticipated.

Child Care Centre in East Launceston (Question No. 1453)

Senator Grimes:

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

When is it expected that the building in Stewart Street, East Launceston will be ready for use as a child care centre.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

I am advised by the Launceston City Council the time required to complete the alterations and renovations to the property is estimated at approximately ten months. Allowing for the finalisation of plans and arrangements for the construction work to be commenced it is expected that the property in Stewart Street, Launceston will be ready for use as a child care centre early March next year.

Common Fund: Copper (Question No. 1S24)

Senator Rocher:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 4 April 1979:

Will the Common Fund, which is expected to be created by an imminent meeting in Manila of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, establish an international copper selling cartel: if so, will Australian copper producers be consulted on the concept and their possible participation in the Common Fund.

Senator Durack:
Attorney-General · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

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

Agreement was reached on 20 March on the fundamental clements of the Common Fund, and I refer the honourable senator to the reply given in answer to question No. 3644 (House of Representatives, Hansard page 2219 of 22 May 1979) for details. However, as indicated in the reply to question No. 3644. many problems and issues remain to be resolved in the translation of these fundamental elements into a fully functioning and viable institution, and there is no possibility that the Common Fund will bc formally established by the Fifth Session ofthe UN Conference on Trade and Development, to be held in Manila from 7 May to 1 June 1979.

With respect to its relevance for copper, the Common Fund will certainly not represent a selling cartel. In this regard. I refer the honourable senator to the reply given in answer to question No. 3643 (House of Representatives, Hansard page 2219 of 22 May 1979) which sets out details of UNCTAD ‘s proposals in relation to copper and of the Government’s liaison with the domestic industry. The Common Fund’s involvement in any arrangements which might eventually bc agreed for copper will depend on whether, the member countries of any such international copper arrangement decide that the organisation should be associated with the Fund and would, in any event, be confined to the provision of finance for buffer stocks and for other measures meeting criteria yet to be determined.

Meals on Wheels (Question No. 1569)

Senator Grimes:

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

  1. 1 ) Do the functions ofthe Department of Social Security include the provision of appropriate statistics on funded services to organisations providing these services in order to assist planning decision.
  2. What statistics are published by the Department of Social Security on meals funded under the Delivered Meals (Subsidy) Act 1970 other than Tables 69 and 70 in the Annual Report of the Department, particularly in relation to: (a) the number of meals per annum provided by each municipality or organisation, with State and national totals: (b) the proportion of aged persons who used this service; (i) by municipality or other area of service: (ii) in each State: and (iii) nationally; (c) the proportion of subsidised meals provided in senior citizens .’…– (i) by municipality or organisation; (i) by muncipality or organisation; (ii) in each State; and (iii) nationally: and (d) the proportion of the cost of meals on wheels which is met by the Commonwealth subsidy.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes- statistics are maintained on the major programs involving funded services to organisations.

These statistics are primarily maintained in relation to my department’s broad planning and review responsibilities, but can also assist individual organisations in their planning. lt is clearly not appropriate for my department to publish or release statistics relating to a particular service, however as indicated in (2 ) below consolidations in suitable form can bc made available.

The regular statistical collections on Departmental programs are supplemented by information from coordinating and advisory bodies and surveys. Reports of many of these surveys are published and copies can bc obtained from the Department.

  1. Tables 69 and 70 in the Annual Report are the only statistics published on the Meals-on- Wheels service.

    1. ) The information could be made available.
    2. (i) (ii) and (iii) The only information on client use is as set out in Table 69.
    3. (i) and (ii) The information could be made available, (iii) The information is available from Table 69.
    4. Meaningful figures are difficult to obtain because of wide variations in cost-structure, relating to scale of operation, the type of service and sources of and production techniques for preparation of meals.

Meals on Wheels (Question No. 1571)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 1 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) Does the staff of the Department of Social Security provide an advisory service to organisations subsidised to provide meals on wheels.
  2. Does the departmental staff have appropriate expertise available to advise subsidised organisations on major planning decisions, such as whether to purchase frozen meals from a hospital or to construct new kitchens of their own.
  3. Are municipalities and other subsidised organisations frequently reviewing their meals on wheels services without adequate expertise available to them and are Council and

Commonwealth funds therefore not deployed in themost efficient manner.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) There is no formally established advisory service as such. However the staff of my department will assist organisations with advice and information on the operation of the program, or the operation of particular services.
  2. The Department has considerable expertise in this area but when advice of this nature is sought, my department does not only rely on its own resources. It provides whatever direct assistance is possible, as well as suggesting that organisations consult experts in the area, or other organisations providing similar services.
  3. The frequency of internal review of services by individual meals on wheels organisations is a matter for each organisation. However, my department aims to visit each service or organisation as often as possible in order to assist and advise as appropriate. These visits assist organisations to operate efficiently. Overall policy reviews of the mealsonwheels service are undertaken periodically.

Homeless Persons Assistance Act (Question No. 1574)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 1 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) What were the location and value of projects for which grants were made under the Homeless Persons Assistance Act 1974 in each State in (a) 1976-77; (b) 1977-78; and (c) between 1 July 1978 and 31 March 1979.
  2. Which of these were designated as youth refuges.
  3. How many applications for grants under the Act forwarded to the Department have not received approval but would be eligible for funds if money were available.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The location and value of projects for which grants were made are set out in the attached tables. It should be noted that the legislation provides for grants to be made for purchase, construction, alteration and equipping of approved centres: assistance towards rental, salaries, food and accommodation and meals services is available under the subsidy provisions of the Act.
  2. None of the projects is designated as a youth refuge, although all centres could be used on occasions by young persons.
  3. 3 ) There is on hand a total of 44 applications for assistance in the form of grants for purchase, construction, alteration and equipment costs of projects that would be eligible for funding through the Homeless Persons Assistance Act 1 974, and which have not been able to be funded.

Brisbane Airport (Question No. 1602)

Senator Colston:

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

Has a decision been made regarding land to be resumed at Nudgee Beach in connection with the acquisition of land for extensions to the Brisbane airport; if so, what land will be resumed and when.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

The extent of land which will be required depends on the final location of the western boundary of the floodway associated with the proposed airport development.

The design of the floodway is still under consideration between Commonwealth, State and local authorities concerned and a decision will be taken as soon as practicable.

River Murray Pollution

Senator Durack:
LP

-On 10 May 1979, Senator Jessop asked me a question relating to the availability of a report on pollution in the River Murray. The Acting Minister for National Development has provided the following information:

A report is being prepared by consultants for a steering committee of officers representing the governments of the Commonwealth, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia- not the River Murray Commission. The report has not yet been completed. It is proposed that an adaptation of the report suitable for general circulation will be tabled later this year.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 30 May 1979, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1979/19790530_senate_31_s81/>.