Senate
6 June 1979

31st Parliament · 1st Session



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

page 2705

PETITIONS

Uranium Mining and Enrichment

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

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

To the honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled the petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that the construction of a uranium enrichment plant in North Queensland and the mining of uranium in the Herveys Range area should not be proceeded with on the following grounds:

1 ) No safe method has yet been devised for the disposal of nuclear waste.

The mining of uranium ore exposes workers to considerable danger from radon gases.

3 ) The danger of poisonous chemicals seeping into surface and underground water supplies as a result of uranium or mining and refining of uranium ore could pose serious health hazards for persons living in the Townsville region.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should take all possible steps to abandon or postpone indefinitely the mining of uranium in the Herveys Range area, and the construction of an enrichment plant in the Townsville region.

Petition received and read.

Metric System

Senator CHIPP:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 55 citizens of Australia:

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

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

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

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

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

Your petitioners therefore pray:

That the Metric Conversion Act be repealed to ensure that the people are free to utilize whichever system they prefer and so enable the return to imperial weights and measures wherever the people so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

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

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

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

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

Petition received and read.

Indexation of Pensions

Senator CHIPP:

– I present two petitions from 127 and 163 citizens of Australia, respectfully, as follow:

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 strikea 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.

Petitions received and first petition read.

Metric System

Senator JESSOP:
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 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 MESSNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 12 citizens of Australia:

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

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

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

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

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

Your petitioners therefore pray:

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

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

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

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

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

Petition received and read.

Metric System

Senator LEWIS:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 65 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.

The Clerk:

– Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:

Metric System

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

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

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

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

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

Your petitioners therefore pray:

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

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

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

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

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senators Button, Evans, Keeffe, Martin, Puplick and Rocher.

Petitions received.

Indexation of Pensions

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

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

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

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

Accordingly, your petitioners call upon their legislators to:

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

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

Petition received.

page 2706

RESCISSION OF RESOLUTION

Suspension of Standing Order

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition in the Senate · Tasmania

– I move:

Senator Carrick:

– The Government will oppose this motion, andI intend to tell the Senate why. The fact is that throughout yesterday evening there was a course of conduct by

Senator Keeffe that was clearly definable and clearly aimed at taunting and tempting the Chair by way of brinkmanship, a course that was disorderly and provocative in itself. The Hansard record will show that. It will show, for example, that when I was on my feet earlier in the evening Senator Keeffe interjected on several occasions, saying that I was a liar. I ignored those interjections, knowing that he was being deliberately provocative with only one intention- being thrown out.

Senator Wriedt:

- Mr President, I must rise to order. I do not wish to interrupt the Leader of the Government in the Senate, but I wish to speak on a matter of procedure. I sat down after moving my motion on the assumption that I would speak to it and the Government would then oppose it. I cannot be precluded from speaking to the motion that I moved. I trust that it is not the intention of the Leader of the Government to prevent me from doing so. I ask you to clarify whether I am in order in speaking to my motion or whether the Leader of the Government is precluding me from doing so.

The PRESIDENT:

– You may speak to the motion, Senator Wriedt. You have moved the suspension of Standing Order 134. When you moved that motion as Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, I did not require a seconder for it.

Senator Wriedt:

– Could we just clarify the matter? I was under the impression that I would speak to my motion relating to the suspension of Senator Keeffe and then the Government would oppose it. I am not going to be precluded from putting the case that I intended to put.

Senator Carrick:

– If there is any disability at all and if because of a misunderstanding Senator Wriedt withheld a statement of his case, I will step aside for the moment. He can move the motion again and speak to it and then I will speak. I rose simply because the Opposition has moved the suspension of Standing Orders. I was indicating that the Government would oppose that move and I was stating why it would do so. That is the Government’s intention. If it will assist Senator Wriedt, I am perfectly happy to step aside for the moment. I invite him to speak to his motion.

The PRESIDENT:

– I call Senator Wriedt.

Senator WRIEDT:

- Mr President, that being your ruling, I will now indicate my reasons for moving the motion. I do not take any joy in taking up the time of the Senate, particularly prior to Question Time, in moving this motion. As we all know, it is unusual for a motion to be moved for the rescission of a Senate decision, but the events that took place very early this morning at about 2. 1 5 compel me and other Opposition senators to challenge the ruling of the Senate. We do so not only because of the injustice that we believe was done to Senator Keeffe but also because of the injustice that the Senate has done to itself. It appals me that we have to take up time on what in fact was such a puerile issue, which caused the kerfuffle here at 2 o’clock this morning. At 1 1 o’clock last night we knew from the comments that were made in the chamber that we were going to have a long night. We tried to avoid that. The Government insisted that certain legislation would be put through before the Senate rose. At 12 o’clock the Leader of the Government and I discussed the matter. He indicated to me that certain legislation, namely, the Income Tax (Rates and Assessment) Amendment Bill and the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill had to be passed before the Senate rose. It was after 2 o’clock by the time we were getting towards the end of the debate of the second of those Bills. Of course, we know that at that hour feelings naturally become a bit frayed and people tend to fall asleep or appear to be asleep.

Senator Gietzelt:

– They were asleep. Senator Webster was snoring.

Senator WRIEDT:

-I believe that they were asleep but I do not wish to canvass that point as it will only complicate the issue. The important point is that on the basis of saying that someone was asleep, or apparently asleep, an honourable senator was thrown out of this Senate. That to me, Mr President, was an absurdity. I am quite sure that any member of the public listening to this debate would think: ‘For goodness sake, why does such an issue have to be debated in the National Parliament?’ Unfortunately we do have to debate it because a precedent is involved. No honourable senator who comes into this chamber as an elected member of the Australian people should be put out of the chamber for saying something which is said on so many occasions across the chamber. Not only here but also in the other place members say: ‘So-and-so is asleep’ or ‘Wake up so-and-so’. Such remarks are brushed off. Nobody takes any notice of them. But all of a sudden a new precedent is set. No longer can any member of this Senate say that Senator so-and-so is asleep or appears to be asleep. That is totally absurd. The action should never have been taken. I believe that most honourable senators on the Government side agree with me.

I and other honourable senators endeavoured at the last minute to prevent the suspension of

Senator Keeffe. It is not just a matter of Senator Keeffe ‘s rights. The Senate should be concerned. It is demeaning to this chamber that we have to raise the matter. But, in conscience, we could not let it rest on the basis of the decision that was taken. I do not think there is any need for me to speak any longer. We all know the circumstances. We may debate whether or not certain people were asleep. I recall a knee sticking up over the top of a desk on the other side; I could not see any other part of the honourable senator. Whether the honourable senator was asleep is a matter for conjecture. I do not blame him if he was asleep. Anyone who can stay conscious in this place after 20 hours- some honourable senators caught aeroplanes at 6 o’clock in the morning and were still batting on at 2 o’clock the following morning- would need to have a cast iron constitution.

Be that as it may, I put primarily to the Senate, not so much the case of Senator Keeffe although his rights must be protected, that it is on record now that such action warrants dismissal from this chamber. No reasonable person could possibly accept that. In the Clerk’s work, Australian Senate Practice, which we have all read, especially the relevant sections about unparliamentary behaviour and those things which constitute grounds for dismissal of a senator from the chamber, he quite rightly makes the point that whatever may be said must be taken in the context in which it is said. That means not just the verbal context; it is the total context. We must consider the legislation before the Parliament, the hour of the day, the feelings of the Senate, the fact that nerves are frayed and so on. We know the conditions under which these things happen. Last night no honourable senator called for Senator Keeffe to withdraw the remark. Apparently the decision was made by the Acting Deputy President of his own volition. The Opposition feels it is not only a matter of protecting us or any future Opposition but also a matter of protecting the rules, fair play and the common sense of the Senate. This motion should be carried.

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

– I reiterate that the Government will oppose the suspension of Standing Orders. It will do so because the grounds are not as Senator Wriedt has said. The fact is that Senator Keeffe ‘s conduct was not just a fit of tired emotionalism at 2 a.m. this morning. Throughout the whole course of last evening he deliberately planned to be provocative, disorderly and to take the chair to the limits of its patience. Time after time in recent weeks the Opposition has attempted to go as far as it could to defy the Chair without incurring the normal processes of the Standing Orders. The matter does not simply involve a single remark plucked out of Hansard. It involves a course of conduct which in itself was disorderly. I remind the Senate of the kind of provocation used. I chose to ignore, when speaking earlier in the evening, grossly disorderly and deliberate provocation when I was told I was a liar. I did that because I knew, in the first place, that Senator Keeffe was trying to provoke me in order to get a response but I would not respond to him. I had hoped that he would learn from that. It was quite clear that that would not happen. It was quite clear that his intention was defiance and provocation. That is a sad situation. Indeed, he had the opportunity to apologise if he so desired.

The Acting Deputy President in the chair at the time, acting upon advice, made a ruling and the ordinary processes of Standing Order 440 were proceeded with, that being the only course available once the request had been made for withdrawal by Senator Keeffe and he had refused to do so and once Senator Keeffe had been asked by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, as he must be under Standing Order 440, to stand in his place and make any explanation or apology he might have thought fit. As Senator Keeffe did not withdraw or apologise there was no recourse under the Standing Orders but to suspend him. Mr President, it so happened that you, upon entering the chamber and being acquainted with the situation, were also acquainted with Standing Order 44 1 , which states:

If any Senator be suspended, his suspension on the first occasion shall be for the remainder of that day’s sitting; on the second occasion for one week; and on the third or any subsequent occasion for 14 days, such suspension occurring within the same Session.

Mr President, apparently you were acquainted with the fact that this was a second occasion and that therefore the offence, rather than requiring a suspension for the remainder of that day’s sitting, must require a suspension for a week. Because it was 2 a.m. and because it could be said that emotions were frayed, I rose in my place and moved that Standing Order 441 be put aside so that the suspension could be the minimal one, which would be virtually for the remaining hour of the sitting. The proper forms of the Senate were followed by the Chair on the advice of officers. Nevertheless, on behalf of the Government, I moved that motion because I recognised that emotions were running high. I put it to the Senate that the offence was committed as a considered course of conduct and is well documented as such. The matter having been put properly before the Chair, the proper forms of the Senate were followed.

Mr President, I would hope that there would be no reasons for suspending any honourable senator. It gives me no pleasure at all to be forced to rise in my place to carry out such procedures. In the past I have pleaded with honourable senators not to take themselves to the brink, but in recent weeks I have seen an honourable senator deliberately take himself to the brink knowing the consequences of what was happening. Mr President, I put it to you that if this Senate is to proceed properly the Standing Orders have to be obeyed. They require not only the maintenance of a course of conduct for one point of time and one phrase but also the following of a consistent course of conduct which is not disorderly and which is not dangerously walking in defiance of the Chair. I hope that in future the Senate will have no cause to take this action. I regret the incident very much. The Government last night could have readily left the suspension period at a week. It took the moderate course in good faith and in good understanding because of the time. The Government has no course but to uphold the Standing Orders, and the course taken by the Presiding Officer on the advice of his officers. We so do. I reject the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

– I rise to support the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders which has been moved by Senator Wriedt. There has been a lot of talk about the context in which the discussion took place last night. Unfortunately the Hansard is not yet available in order that we might examine that context in full. For example, my understanding of the matter -

Senator Walters:

– Opposition senators were home in bed.

Senator BUTTON:

-Senator Walters, who is already agitated- I assume, with guilt- said in the course of the discussion last night that more than half the Opposition senators were home in bed. That is a reflection on Opposition senators of a kind far worse than that made by Senator Keeffe in this place. I am particularly provoked to contribute to this discussion because it does seem to me that Senator Carrick in his reply to Senator Wriedt has introduced an entirely new concept into the matter; that is, that senators in this place are subject to trial, as it were, on what he chooses to describe as ‘a course of conduct’. What happened last night was that Senator Keeffe apparently made an allegation in this place that Government senators were asleep, or words to that effect. That was alleged to the Chair as being a reflection on Government senators. That is what happened and that is what the Hansard report will reveal.

The precedent which would be established in the Senate by the motion of last night not being rescinded would be that one honourable senator can say that half the Opposition senators were home in bed and another honourable senator can be suspended for saying that Government senators were asleep. That is an extraordinary puerile reflection on a chamber of this kind if that is the precedent which is to be established. This morning Senator Carrick wants to rewrite the Hansard report. This morning he wants to say: ‘No, what happened had very little to do with the allegation made by Senator Keeffe that Government senators were asleep. It was because we have been watching Senator Keeffe for a long time. He has been a naughty chap. He has followed a course of conduct which has justified his suspension’. With the greatest respect, I say that if Senator Carrick can point to anything in the Standing Orders in this place which says that a person can be suspended for a course of conduct judged by the Leader of the Government to be a wrong course of conduct, then he has better grounds on which to stand on than those he put up this morning.

Of course, the reality of the matter is that Senator Keeffe was suspended for a particular remark in a particular context. I have pointed to the hypocrisy of the context in which the remarks were made. But in reality Senator Carrick is introducing into this chamber an entirely new notion, namely, that Standing Orders are to be used in a disciplinary way in relation to what Senator Carrick is pleased to call a ‘course of conduct’. If he wants that in the Standing Orders he has power to take action in relation to it, but it is not in the Standing Orders at the moment. With the greatest respect, I say that it is a completely specious opposition to the motion moved by Senator Wriedt.

Senator DURACK:
Attorney-General · Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I think it is a pity that the decision of the Senate in relation to the incident which occurred last night is being redebated and revived today. Today is a new day.

Opposition senators interjecting-

Senator DURACK:

– It is a new parliamentary day. The Senate would be well advised to proceed with the business of the Senate without reviving a debate about an incident which occurred in the Senate at 2 o’clock this morning. Senator Wriedt has made a number of statements with which I entirely agree. There were good reasons for the Senate sitting at that hour because legislation had to be passed in order that the House of Representatives could receive it today. Senator Georges understood that and the Opposition understood it. We were here for good reasons. Of course, when such events occur, as they do from time to time in the life of a chamber of Parliament, strains and stresses and incidents occur which would not occur in ordinary circumstances. During the latter stages of the sitting of the Senate, in the early hours of this morning, such an incident did occur.

The other point on which I agree with Senator Wriedt is that any decision of this kind has to be looked at in all the circumstances. It is not a question of whether anyone was asleep. It is a question of whether allegations of that kind were made, the way in which they were made, the circumstances in which they were made, the decision of the Chair in relation to those allegations and the subsequent events, all justifying the decision of the Senate in regard to Senator Keeffe. Mr President, I suggest that all these factors have to be taken into account, but in particular the fact that your deputy, who was in the chair at the time, invited Senator Keeffe to withdraw a remark. The Chair had the responsibility of making that decision in those circumstances. The Acting Deputy President made his decision and asked Senator Keeffe to withdraw. Senator Keeffe, of course, refused to do so. He was very defiant in relation to the Chair when the request was made of him. That is a major factor that has to be taken into account, as well as the whole of the circumstances, as the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick) has already indicated.

I believe the issue now relates to the President’s decision and the decision of the Senate in upholding that decision. In point of fact, Senator Keeffe was suspended for only a relatively short time. The decision was made and shortly after the Senate rose. But one significant thing occurred. After the decision was taken, which would have suspended Senator Keeffe for a week, and which would have deprived him of his right to sit in this chamber for a week because he had been suspended on a previous occasion, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, no doubt having regard to all the circumstances with which the Senate was faced early this morning, moved a motion to limit the suspension of Senator Keeffe for the remainder of yesterday’s sitting which, in effect, deprived him of the right of being here for only a very short time. I do not have statistics but I do not think it was more than 10 minutes or a quarter of an hour. I do not want to be held to an exact time. That was a very generous and undoubtedly a very proper move for the Leader of the Government in the Senate to make. Early this morning the Senate readily adopted Senator Carrick ‘s proposal, and we have Senator Keeffe with us today. I would have thought that once again we are a happy family ready to start the day. I think that the sooner we get down to the business of the day, the better. I move:

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

AYES: 32

NOES: 26

Majority……. 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put-

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

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

AYES: 26

NOES: 32

Majority……. 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 2711

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

-by leave- Mr President, I claim to have been misrepresented by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Carrick. During Senator Carrick ‘s remarks on the matter which has just been resolved, he said that he saw a senator deliberately taking himself to the brink within the last week or so. He could have been referring to only one person and that is me because I was the person -

Honourable senators interjecting;

Senator McLAREN:

- Mr President, you know that I was the person who was suspended from this House last Tuesday because I refused to withdraw remarks I made when quoting from a newspaper. I gave my explanation to the Senate and then I was suspended. Senator Carrick is wrong in saying that I took myself to the brink. I did what I did on a matter of principle, not in order to disrupt this Parliament.

Honourable senators interjecting-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator McLaren, have you completed your explanation?

Senator McLAREN:

– I think I have made my explanation, Mr President. If I am the person Senator Carrick was referring to he has misrepresented me by saying I deliberately took myself to the brink. I said I did it on a matter of principle. All I was doing was quoting words from a newspaper. I ask the Minister to withdraw those remarks.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honourable senator has made his explanation.

page 2711

SITTINGS OF THE SENATE

Notice of Motion

Senator CARRICK:
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 Friday, 8 June 1979, at half-past ten a.m.
  2. That the Sessional Order relating to the adjournment of the Senate have effect at eleven p.m. on that day.

page 2711

TAXATION

Notice of Motion

Senator TATE:
Tasmania

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

That the Senate-

Is of the opinion that the taxation system is inequitable because of its erosion by tax avoidance schemes, many of which have been approved by the High Court;

b ) Express its grave concern at the recent increase in the use of these schemes by many persons, thus shifting the tax burden unfairly on to other Australians and denying the Government money for its programs; and

Requests the Government to urgently introduce such legislative and administrative measures as will ensure that all Australians contribute their fair share to the nation’s revenue.

page 2711

SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL WELFARE

Notice of Motion

Senator PETER BAUME:
New South Wales

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

  1. ) That, if the Senate be not sitting when the Standing Committee on Social Welfare has completed Volume Two of its Report on Evaluation in Australian Health and Welfare

Services, the Committee may send this Volume of its Report to the President of the Senate or, if the President is unavailable to the Deputy President, who is authorised to give directions for its printing and circulation, and in such event the President or Deputy President shall lay Volume Two of the Report upon the Table at the next sitting of the Senate.

  1. ) That the foregoing provision of this Resolution, so far as it is inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders.

page 2712

SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

Notice of Motion

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

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

  1. 1 ) That, if the Senate be not sitting when the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations has completed-

    1. Its Report on the Advance to the Minister for Finance; and
    2. Its Second Repon on Statutory Authorities of the Commonwealth,

The Committee may send either or both Reports to the President of the Senate, or if the President is unavailable, to the Deputy President, who is authorised to give directions for their printing and circulation, and in such event the President or Deputy President shall lay each Report received upon the Table at the next sitting of the Senate.

  1. That the foregoing provision of this Resolution, so far as it is inconsistent with the Standing Orders have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders.

page 2712

IMMIGRATION (AMENDMENT) ORDINANCE 1979

Notice of Motion

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

-I give notice that, 10 sitting days after today, I shall move:

That the Immigration (Amendment) Ordinance 1979, contained in the Territory of Cocos (Keeling) Islands Ordinance No. 1 of 1979, and made under the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act 1955, be disallowed.

I ask for leave to make a brief statement on this notice of motion.

Leave granted.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– This notice of motion is given on behalf of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee. Today is the last day for giving notice in relation to this Ordinance. The Committee has had some correspondence with the Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Ellicott) on the question of permits to enter external territories of Australia, which is involved in the Ordinance, and the Committee wishes to have more time to consider the matter. I have therefore given notice to allow the Committee time to conclude its deliberations.

page 2712

AUDIT (EXEMPT ACCOUNTS) REGULATIONS

Notice of Motion

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

– I give notice that, 10 sitting days after today, I shall move:

That the Audit (Exempt Accounts) Regulations, contained in Statutory Rules 1979 No. 67, and made under the Audit Act 1901, be disallowed.

I seek leave to make a brief statement on this notice of motion.

Leave granted.

Senator EVANS:

– Today is the last day for giving notice of motion in relation to these regulations. I give it on my own behalf rather than that of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee because the Committee is in fact divided in its opinion on this matter. The regulations in question have on their face the effect of making eligible for complete immunity from the scrutiny of the Auditor-General not only the whole accounts of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and the Australian Security Intelligence Service but also the whole of the accounts of the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs. They raise very important questions of principle which it is important that both the Committee and the relevant Ministers, with whom there has been some correspondence already on this matter, have further time to consider before the Senate deals with the matter. Accordingly I have given notice of motion in terms which would allow that further consideration to take place.

page 2712

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2712

QUESTION

EDUCATION: NON-GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS

Senator BUTTON:

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Education, relates to the statement on education that was brought down last night. I ask: Of the $ 14.2m extra in recurrent funds to be provided to non-government schools, what amount will be devoted to providing an increased subsidy to Level 6 schools and what amount will be devoted to maintaining the linkage between non-government and government school costs? Further, since some of the linkage money will be going to Level 1 and Level 2 schools, is it accurate to say, as the statement does, that their grants have been maintained for 1 980? Have they not in fact been increased?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– Before the end of Question Time I will obtain the exact sums from my office and make them available to the Senate.

The fact is that two clear policies are involved, both based on recommendations of the Schools Commission and of the Government and both, I would hope, utterly bipartisan in their effect regarding non-government schools. So that the situation may be understood, I remind honourable senators that non-government schools receive from governments, both State and Federal, only a fraction of what would be the total cost of maintaining a government school. For example, a non-government school may receive 20 per cent of its costs from the Commonwealth and 20 per cent from a State. Therefore, the remaining 60 per cent would have to be found from the parents concerned.

I say this against the fact that there is an entire misunderstanding in the community concerning the extent of affluence of non-government schools. The Schools Commission has indicated that 90 per cent of all primary school students in non-government schools are in Level 6- that is, the category of extreme disadvantage- and therefore have resources of the order of 65 to 69 per cent, or less, of those that a government school would have. Indeed, 65 per cent of the high school students in non-government schools are at the level of extreme disadvantage. So we are talking about Australian students who, in the judgment of the Schools Commission and certainly in the judgment of the Government, need increased resources and, if possible, the gap between those resources and the resources of government schools closed. We are talking about government schools which, happily, have now reached and passed the Schools Commission’s targets.

Two policies are at work. One is that the Government ensures that the per capita grants for non-government schools shall have an automatic percentage linking with the average cost of a pupil in a standard government school, so that if 20 per cent is being given by the Commonwealth we will ascertain what is 20 per cent of the standard cost and that 20 per cent will be escalated each year. Therefore, when the funding of government schools goes up, so too- in a percentage link but, of course, in a much lesser way- does that for non-government schools. A substantial part of that $ 14.2m- all but $3.3mrepresents the percentage link. The Level 6 schools are the schools at the level of the gravest disadvantage. To lift their resources in a very minor way, the government has allocated $3. 3m to Level 6 schools. That barely gives to primary school pupils an extra $5 a year and to secondary school pupils I think- subject to checking- $9 a year. This makes up the total of $ 1 4.2m.

In another part of my statement I referred not to the percentage links but to another policy of the Commonwealth Government, that is, the movement of Level 1 and Level 2 schools back to the basic minimum 20 per cent policy. That was the policy in 1 972. It was set aside but has been restored. It is the policy upon which all States provide parallel grants. The aim is that there should be a minimum 20 per cent Commonwealth and 20 per cent State contribution. The Commonwealth grants are below 20 per cent. Over a period of years, and in small amounts, we intend to move the funding for Level 1 and Level 2 to 20 per cent. Lest anyone has any idea that in talking of Level 2 schools in the non-government sector the Government is referring to exclusive schools, I point out that that is an illusion. The Schools Commission is now able to point out that an average government school in each of the six States has reached Level 2. So the Government has achieved a very substantial improvement in the situation. There will be no further step this year to bring Level 1 and Level 2 schools to the situation of recovering 20 per cent of costs. They will, however, receive a very minor amount because there is an automatic linkage. Before the end of Question Time I will let the honourable senator have the figures.

Senator BUTTON:

– I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. Does that minor amount represent a slight increase?

Senator CARRICK:

– The minor amount represents a slight increase. Commonwealth grants to Level 6 schools in 1980 will rise by $21 to $343 at primary level and by $33 to $5 12 at secondary level. Grants to Level 1 schools will rise by $7 to $161 at primary level and by $11 to $240 at secondary level. Level 1 schools will recover government school standard costs at the rate of 16 per cent at primary level and 15 per cent at secondary level. Level 2 schools will recover 20 per cent at primary level and 1 9 per cent at secondary level. Level 6 schools will recover 34 per cent at primary level and 32 per cent at secondary level. Mr President, if it is right to give money to all government schools so that they can reach Level 2 or beyond- many of them have reached Level 1- surely there is equity in giving a modest $7 to Level 1 primary schools and $11 to Level 1 secondary schools. It seems to me extraordinary that the Opposition seeks to perpetuate a system of elitism which it welcomesand which I greatly welcome- in government schools, but rejects such a system out of hand in non-government schools. There are no elite schools.

Senator Button:

– I raise a point of order, Mr President. The Minister is now debating the issue. I asked a quite simple question to which there is a quite simple answer, which the Minister has given.

The PRESIDENT:

– I do not sustain the point of order.

page 2714

QUESTION

EXCISE DUTY: PURCHASE OF AIRCRAFT

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the Treasurer. No doubt he is aware that the Senate will be dealing later today with a Bill which provides for a loan to Qantas Airways Limited to buy another Boeing 747 aircraft. Is the Minister aware that the 2 per cent excise duty which will be applied on imports following the mini-Budget will not apply to aircraft bought by Qantas but will apply to aircraft, engines and parts bought by Trans-Australia Airlines and Ansett Airlines of Australia and that even 2 per cent of such large amounts is a considerable sum? Is the Minister aware that airlines already pay heavy navigation charges and heavy fuel duties and that this new 2 per cent impost on aircraft and parts comes at a time when the airlines are in a cost squeeze? Will the Minister consider amending the Bill to exempt large aircraft, engines and spare parts from the 2 per cent impost?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I am aware, of course, that we are proposing to enable Qantas Airways Limited to buy two more 747 aircraft. Indeed, I introduced the Bill in the Senate last night. I am not aware of the differential impact of the 2 per cent excise and therefore I cannot adjudicate on it. I am not aware that, as Senator Townley suggests, it will not have an impact on Qantas but that it will on Trans-Australia Airlines and Ansett Airlines of Australia. I think the question raises some important matters. I will bring it to the attention of” my colleague in the other place, the Acting Minister for Transport, and seek a response.

page 2714

QUESTION

CHRISTMAS ISLAND: STAND DOWN OF WORKERS

Senator COLEMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services. Did the British Phosphate Commissioners on Christmas Island stand down 35 workers yesterday although there is no provision in the current agreement for stand-downs? Is it correct that when 16 of these workers reported for duty they were refused work and police were subsequently called to evict them? Will the Minister make urgent inquiries and, if these claims are correct, will he direct the British Phosphate Commission to stop this intimidatory behaviour?

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

– I will refer that matter to the Minister for Administrative Services for reply.

page 2714

QUESTION

TEXTILE INDUSTRY: PROTECTION

Senator SIM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. I refer to a report that Bradmill Industries Ltd is taking a commercial risk by engaging in a $30m modernisation program based on the assumption- according to the chief executive of Bradmill- that no government will substantially reduce protection of the textile industry by 1980 which is the end of the three-year protection guarantee period? Has the Government advised the textile industry to rationalise its operations during the grace period? Will the Government make it clear to the industry that no special consideration will be given to sections of the textile industry which gamble on the prediction that the Government will not act to reduce protection in this highly protected industry?

Senator DURACK:
LP

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

page 2714

QUESTION

LEAD: HARMFUL EFFECTS

Senator GIETZELT:

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Health whether his attention has been drawn to the voluminous report on the incidence of lead in the air and its harmful effects on children in Sydney arising from the growing use of petroleum products. Has the Government noted the remarks of Professor Lloyd Smythe that the National Energy Research Development and Demonstration Council has refused an application for funds to carry on his important research work and his statement that the Government does not seem to be too concerned about the adverse effects of energy consumption? Will the Government reconsider its position in view of its stated purposes to take steps to improve public health and prevent illnesses generally?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I suggest that the honourable senator put that question on the Notice Paper.

page 2714

QUESTION

OIL REFINERIES: STRIKES

Senator THOMAS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I draw the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs the recent series of strikes at oil refineries which placed the supply of fuel at risk. I also draw to his attention the low stocks of oil and fuel normally held in Australia and the fact that should farmers run short of fuel for only a few days at certain times of the year their income for the year could be substantially reduced. Will the Government consider the instigation of contingency plans so that in the event of shortages priority for the supply of fuel could be given to areas of high priority such as agricultural industries?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I think that question would be better directed to the Minister for National Development. I will refer it to both the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs and the Minister for National Development.

page 2715

QUESTION

STATISTICS: INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENTS AND DISEASE

Senator McINTOSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Productivity: Is it correct that at present the Australian Bureau of Statistics has gone part of the way in preparing a program for the uniform collection of Australiawide statistics on man hours lost due to industrial accidents and disease and on the causes of such accidents and disease but that this program cannot be instituted because of staff ceilings set by the Government?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I suggest that the honourable senator put that question on the Notice Paper.

page 2715

QUESTION

MRS THATCHER’S AUSTRALIAN VISIT

Senator MacGIBBON:
QUEENSLAND

– I draw the attention of the Leader of the Government in the Senate to the announcement made yesterday that Mrs Margaret Thatcher, the British Prime Minister, will visit Australia in the early part of next month. Is this further evidence of the high international regard that Australia’s economic recovery is attracting?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-Senator MacGibbon is quite right. The Western world looks at the rate of Australia’s economic recovery from the recession as an indication that the Fraser Government is a pacesetter in achieving economic recovery. When we came to government Australia, because of the Whitlam Government, had been placed in the top third of bad performers in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. We were amongst the highest inflation and highest interest rate performers. Today, Australia is looked upon- after Japan and West Germany- as being one of the great progressive Western countries, setting an example to the world. It is not surprising that representatives of the United Kingdom Government, having faced exactly the same economic disasters under the British Labour Party as Australia did under the Australian Labor Party, should be coming to Australia to see what our track record is, because it is one of high success.

page 2715

QUESTION

CHRISTMAS ISLAND: WAGE RATES

Senator SIBRAA:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to either the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs or the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services. I refer to the campaign being conducted by the Union of Christmas Island Workers to bring the wage levels of non-Australian workers working in the Australian Territory of Christmas Island to levels equal to those payable under equivalent Australian awards. In view of the obvious racial discrimination involved in the low wages currently being paid to the non-European employees of the British Phosphate Commission on Christmas Island, will the Minister recommend that the Federal Government become a party to the pending arbitration case involving these employees to ensure that they enjoy wage justice? Further, has the Minister or Officers of his Department discussed this matter with the Department of Foreign Affairs in view of the implications of the case for Australia’s reputation in the field of human rights, and particularly in view of our relations with member nations of the Association of South East Asian Nations?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

-The Minister for Administrative Services has responsibility for the British Phosphate Commission and the Minister for Home Affairs has responsibility for the general administration of the Territory to which the honourable senator referred. Therefore, the question that he raised is within the province of the Minister for Home Affairs and I will see that it is referred to that Minister for reply.

page 2715

QUESTION

HANSARD

Senator LAJOVIC:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-Mr President, I wish to draw your attention to pages 2916-7 of the Hansard report of the House of Representatives of yesterday where Senator Chipp ‘s contribution to this chamber is reported. Recognising that the honourable senator was once a member of the other place, I ask whether you will arrange for a correction of the misprint.

The PRESIDENT:

– I shall attend to that matter.

page 2716

QUESTION

HOSPITAL CORPORATION OF AMERICA

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to the subject matter raised in last night’s Australian Broadcasting Commission program Nationwide, which I have been raising in the Senate since last year, namely the involvement of the Hospital Corporation of America and similar companies in the Australian private hospital industry. The Minister for Health wrote to me on 25 May stating that he still could not answer my questions and was waiting for Treasury’s comments. I remind the Leader that the questions I raised included reference to specifically Health Department responsibilities such as the way the company maximises profits through sophisticated filling in of medical benefits claims. I had quoted a company official’s boast about that. As the Government is about to inquire into the entire hospital system in Australia, will the Leader of the Government suggest to the Prime Minister that the terms of reference of the inquiry be widened to cover the impact of these investor owned profit-making hospital companies on the provision of Australian health services in both Commonwealth and State areas?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I will bring the question to the attention of the Prime Minister and the Minister for Health.

page 2716

QUESTION

COMMUNITY RADIO STATION 3CR

Senator LEWIS:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. I refer to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal’s inquiry into Victorian community radio station 3CR, which has been adjourned for three months to allow talks between the Victorian Jewish Board of Deputies and 3CR to take place. Is it a fact that because of the activities of 3CR those talks have now broken down? Will the Government give consideration in the circumstances to the suspension of the licence of radio station 3CR until such time as it is ready to reopen meaningful negotiations?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I am not aware that the talks have broken down, which is suggested in the question by the honourable senator. I will ask the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, Mr Staley, to respond to it.

page 2716

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH ORGANISATION

Senator ELSTOB:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Science and the Environment.

The Central Information Service of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation publishes many valuable papers on various subjects. Two such papers are ‘Low Consumption House’ and ‘Insulating Your Home’. I ask the Minister: Is it possible to publish in the media a list of bulletins prepared by CSIRO and to indicate where the public can obtain them so that more and more people who intend to build or alter homes can plan for energy conservation? As yesterday was World Environment Day, which was celebrated throughout the world, does the Minister agree that the absence of a clearly thought out energy policy designed to minimise waste and to encourage alternative energy uses disadvantages the entire community?

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

-The honourable senator directed his question to two matters. Firstly, it is directed to the excellent information service which the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation conducts. The question is important in that area because the transfer of information, as the honourable senator has indicated, and the ability to get technical information into areas where it can be used, will be important aspects of technology during the forthcoming years. It is a most important question in that regard. Regarding the publications that are put out by CSIRO the senator has confined his remarks to the benefit that may come from the public’s knowing something of the energy conservation attitudes that CSIRO has. I will look at the question. CSIRO would be most anxious to ensure that the information it publishes receives the widest possible distribution. I am unaware whether the media would be prepared to publish a list of the publications that are put out. However, I will ensure that Senator Elstob receives a list of the publications put out by CSIRO, not only in the energy area but also in other areas which are very important.

The second part of the question related to the fact that yesterday was World Environment Day. He suggested that it may have been more appropriate to concentrate on alternative energy sources that may be available to the community and perhaps use that important day for discussion on energy within the community. Each nation under World Environment Day was able to decide its own theme. Those who were associated with that day in Australia thought out the title which was used, which I think was very appropriate, and indeed had good media coverage so that people could consider that which we wish to retain- our natural environment.

page 2717

QUESTION

AGRICULTURAL POLICIES

Senator MAUNSELL:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry whether during the forthcoming visit of the British Minister, Mrs Margaret Thatcher, he will ensure that the agricultural policies of the European Common Market are once again the subject of a strong protest. I also ask that particular emphasis be given to the refusal of the European Economic Community to sign the International Sugar Agreement and to the dumping by the EEC of highly subsidised sugar on Australia’s traditional markets.

Senator Mulvihill:

– You need Rex Patterson back.

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I heard the interjection that we need Rex Patterson back. We certainly do not need Rex Patterson while we have Senator Maunsell. He is a man well able, as he has shown over many years, to speak on behalf of Queensland in a most forceful and proper way. The question that he asked is an important one. I have noted that the British Prime Minister will be visiting Australia in the near future. Senator Maunsell urges me to say to the Minister for Primary Industry that one of the matters that must be mentioned to the British Prime Minister is the agricultural policies of the European Economic Community. He suggests that the EEC’s attitude to imports from Australia, particularly sugar, is a matter that must be forthrightly put to the British Prime Minister. It would be fair to say that I can assure Senator Maunsell that those matters will not be left out of discussions with the British Prime Minister when she visits Australia. I certainly will convey the Senator’s suggestion to the Minister whom I represent.

page 2717

QUESTION

COST OF LONG-DISTANCE TELEPHONE CALLS

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. The Minister has announced that the cost of long distance telephone calls will be reduced from May of next year. Can the Minister advise why such a scheme could not have been made effective from, say, 1 June of this year? If that was impossible, why was it thought necessary to make the announcement 12 months before the new rates are to become applicable?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I do not have all the information required by the honourable senator in order to respond to that question. I think she would be aware, as would many other honourable senators, that there has been very great public interest in this question of a call to the local exchange. A great number of requests have been made for some relief in this area. Certainly honourable senators on this side of the House have made representations. I would be very surprised if honourable senators opposite have not received representations from people in either outer suburban areas or in remote areas where the nearest service centre has to be contacted through a trunk line call. I suspect that the fact that the announcement has been made before the event simply reflects the very great public interest in this area. My impression is that technical requirements with respect to metering and so on will need to be sorted out before the system can be instituted. I would think that that would account for the relatively long lead time in bringing the system into operation. I will check with Mr Staley and if either of those impressions is incorrect I will let the honourable senator have the correct reply.

page 2717

QUESTION

NOMAD AIRCRAFT

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Productivity. I refer the Minister to a report in the Canberra Times today entitled ‘Design flaw in Nomad alleged’. The report states that radical changes should be made to the tail surface of the Nomad aircraft to remove features which make it potentially hazardous. Having in mind that this aircraft is now being used extensively by the Northern Territory medical service, as well as by the Army, and has been specified for several of the recent coastal surveillance contracts, is the Minister in a position to indicate whether the report is factual? If so, is it proposed to remove the Nomad from service? If not, what action are the authorities taking to overcome the problem which, according to one authority, can make the plane ‘very unsafe if flown to the sorts of limits that people who buy it are likely to expect from it’?

Senator Bishop:

– It was certified by the highest authority, the United States authority.

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I am grateful for the interjection from Senator Bishop, which refers to the certification of the aircraft by the highest authority, namely the United States civil authority.

Senator McAuliffe:

– He launched it.

Senator CHANEY:

– I am also grateful to be reminded by Senator McAuliffe that Senator Bishop is pushing his own barrow, rather than that of the Nomad, in the light of his earlier connection with that project. I will send the question to Mr Macphee for an answer.

page 2718

QUESTION

TAX EVASION

Senator TATE:

– I draw the attention of the Minister representing the Treasurer to an article in the Bulletin of 29 May 1979 in which a Mr Peter Clyne, described as a disbarred barrister and tenant evictor boasts:

I have not put in a return -

Being a tax return- for 1 5 years.

He concludes with these words:

What with appeals, I will not be compelled to file a tax return until about 1984. If 5,000 other people followed in my footsteps you can imagine the chaos it would cause.

What can the Government do under the range of powers available to it, perhaps under the postal or interstate trade and commerce powers, to prevent the dissemination by advertising or interview of these sorts of remarks or schemes so subversive of the national revenue and the community’s sense of fairness?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– Like Senator Tate, I saw the article and I deplored it. I am well aware of the particular gentleman’s claims over the years to be able to live without paying taxes, and to encourage others into what I regard as a completely dishonourable process. That simply means that a much smaller section of decent people has to carry the cost burden of government. That is completely immoral and unethical. I have no doubt in the world that the Taxation Commissioner, operating within the existing laws, has taken note of Mr Clyne ‘s claims on his personal estate. I know that the Treasurer has been directing his mind to this question of literature on and advocacy of tax avoidance in what amounts to a dishonourable way. I do not know the specific answer. I will seek it and let Senator Tate have it.

page 2718

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN REGISTER OF SHIPPING

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. I have asked previously questions concerning the establishment of an Australian register of shipping. Previous answers have indicated that it is the aim of the Government to set up such a register. Accordingly, I ask: Is there any indication that progress has been made or is likely to be made?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I am advised that progress is being made in the area to which the honourable senator has referred. There was a meeting of the Marine and Ports Council of

Australia at Darwin on 25 May. At the meeting Ministers noted the progress that has been made by officials on proposals to introduce an Australian register of snipping to replace the present arrangements under which ships are registered under the Imperial Act. Further discussions and studies are continuing on a number of complex matters on which clarification is required. It is hoped that the Commonwealth will be in a position in the reasonably near future to introduce a Bill into the Parliament. I am not in a position to say precisely when that might be.

page 2718

QUESTION

LEAD LEVELS IN PETROL

Senator MASON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question, like that asked by Senator Gietzelt, relates to the serious effects that lead levels in petrol appear to be having on the health of Australian children. In view of recent statements in the media attributed to the petroleum industry that it would cost more than 5c a litre to reduce existing lead levels and a counter claim by Professor Lloyd Smythe, Professor of Analytical Chemistry at the University of New South Wales, that it would cost less than lc a litre, will the Minister for Science and the Environment ask his Department to research this matter, inform the Senate of the result and issue an informed public statement as soon as possible?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I think that matter should be referred to the Minister for Health. In actual fact it is within his province. I will take the question on notice and see whether my Department will consider evaluating the levels of lead in petrol and whether anything can be done to reduce them in any way. I have not noted the comments of the scientist whom Senator Mason mentioned.

Senator MASON:

– I ask a supplementary question. I fear that the Minister may not have got my point, due to my inadequacies no doubt. I really ask whether his Department would consider the specific point of the cost of reducing the level of lead in petrol. I suggest that this is a matter for the Department of Science and the Environment. What has happened is that the industry has said that it would raise the price of petrol by 5c a litre, which is a big increase, to reduce the lead content, whereas Professor Smyth has said that it would cost less than lc a litre. This is what I have asked the Minister to have his Department research.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I will take the question on notice and see whether the Department of Science and the Environment can look at that matter.

page 2719

QUESTION

FOREIGN CAPITAL INFLOW

Senator WATSON:
TASMANIA

– Is the Minister representing the Treasurer aware that $3 13m of foreign investors’ capital funds flowed into Australia during the quarter ended 31 March 1979? Can the Minister indicate the areas to which these funds were directed?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I do not have the particular figures with me. In recent months there has been a very encouraging inflow of private investment capital into Australia. Of course, that is a very healthy sign and an indication of how people overseas see the recovery of the Australian economy. I am not aware as yet whether the Reserve Bank and the Treasury have details of the analysis of the direction of the flow of those funds, but I will invite the Treasurer to look at it and see whether he can give Senator Watson an answer.

page 2719

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE STAFF CEILINGS

Senator MCAULIFFE:

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs whether he is aware that staff in the Postal and Telecommunications Department in Brisbane have again been forced to take industrial action because of the increased work load involved in the licensing and policing of citizen band radios and the failure of the Public Service Board to lift the staff ceilings in the Department, which have resulted in most newly created positions not being filled. Will the Minister investigate the situation and take whatever action is necessary to overcome the problems created by politically imposed harsh and arbitrary staff ceilings?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– Presumably the question is directed to me as Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs in his capacity as Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service matters. The question has two different aspects altogether: One relates to staff ceilings and the other, I understand from the question, relates to industrial action which some staff members in the Australian Telecommunications Commission in Brisbane are taking. I say firmly that the Government and the Minister would not be in any way impressed by any resort to industrial reaction in relation to those matters. But I leave that aside because I think the question really relates to staff ceilings.

Over the years in which we have been in government, on a number of occasions in this Senate I have been asked questions about staff ceilings. It is an important aspect of government policy to impose staff ceilings. As a result, there has been a very considerable containment of the growth and the cost of the Public Service. Furthermore, it is a policy which increases efficiency because it makes the Public Service in all its activities look at the necessity for staff, at its work methods and at other aspects of its role, which is beneficial. It is true that, from time to time, as a result of the increased work load in certain areas of the Public Service, staff ceilings have to be reviewed. A notable example was in the area of the Commonwealth Employment Service.

Senator Bishop:

– And social services.

Senator DURACK:

– Yes, that is quite right. The example that Senator Bishop mentioned is probably an even better one. As I have said, it is a matter of government policy that, where the shoe does pinch and there is a need for review, and that need is brought to the Government’s attention, the Government has reviewed the matter and in fact has taken appropriate action in some notable instances. I will refer the question in relation to this particular problem to the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs. But, as I said at the beginning of my answer, taking industrial action is not the way in which to solve the problem.

page 2719

QUESTION

METRIC SYSTEM OF MEASUREMENT

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister for Science and the Environment: In view of the widespread concern expressed and the large number of petitions presented to the Senate in relation to the metric system of measurement, will the Minister now seriously consider the points raised in those petitions?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I can assure the honourable senator that I take notice of petitions as they are presented in the Senate. The matter of metric conversion has been with us for a number of years.

Senator Wriedt:

– It’s at page 476.

Senator WEBSTER:

– If I. might say one thing to the honourable senator above the chantings of the Leader of the Opposition, who seeks to get away from the heat in this kitchen and to go to a quieter place elsewhere, yesterday the comment was made to me that 2 million new citizens had come to Australia during recent years and the majority of those individuals in their upbringing had been schooled in and had been acquainted with the metric system. It has been necessary for them when they have come to Australia to adapt to our imperial system of measurement, which must have been most difficult. I do not think that it is appropriate for us, a supposedly well educated community, to complain when we find that we have to adapt to the metric system, which is the most simple system of measurement in the world. In the late 1960s a decision was made that this country eventualy should convert to using the metric system as the sole system of measurement of physical quantities. I think that Senator Bonner is aware of that. I think that in the time he has spent in the Senate he will recall the various debates which have gone on in relation to that matter. The point which we all must bear in mind is that today 99.8 per cent of the world ‘s population is in communities which either have converted to the metric system or at this point in time are converting to that system. Indeed, whilst I listen to the many petitions on the subject which have been presented in this place, I do not accept that the conversion to the metric system is of major concern to the community at the present time. I think that, as soon as it is practicable, Australia should proceed to adopting the metric system as the sole system of measurement in this country.

page 2720

QUESTION

THE ANTARCTIC: 200-MILE OFF-SHORE ZONE

Senator WRIEDT:

– I direct a question to the Minister for Science and the Environment. In doing so, I am really giving him the opportunity to cool some of the hot air he blows in this place. When will the Government put down a paper in the Senate on the 200-mile off-shore zone of the Antarctic? What has happened to the Antarctic Research Policy Advisory Committee which the Government established some time ago? Is the Minister able to advise whether that Committee has yet reported to the Government?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-The Leader of the Opposition offered some voluntary comment when he introduced his question. His comments towards me generally are not very pleasant, but I accept them. I am most anxious to see the honourable gentleman, who is caught up with factions within his party, find that not only his Senate seat in Tasmania is at risk but also his position of Leader of the Opposition in this place because of the capabilities of some of the more outstanding members of the back bench, particularly Senator Walsh, who has excellent- if I may say so, outstanding- capabilities. Obviously Senator Wriedt is bearing on his shoulders pressures to remove him from his position of Leader of the Opposition in this place.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Please answer the question.

Senator WEBSTER:

-Mr President, I think it is fair that I say that because it may not be very long before I will not be able to face Senator Wriedt in this place, and I do not mean that I will not be here. The Leader of the Opposition finally directed his question at two points. He asked when the Government would be bringing down a report relating to its attitude to the 200-mile limit off the Antarctic continent, which we have proclaimed. That matter is before Cabinet. Cabinet has not made a decision upon it. That will be a matter, finally, for the Attorney-General.

Mr President, the honourable senator in his usual way did not ask one question as you suggest honourable senators should. He also asked an entirely different question about a committee named the Antarctic Research Policy Advisory Committee. This committee has been appointed and it has met on two occasions. It has today forwarded to me a letter in respect of appropriate matters relating to Antarctic research. I have studied that information with great interest. The committee eventually will report to me on all matters which have been referred to it. The first meeting of ARPAC was held in Melbourne during May and I mentioned the subjects to which it should give attention.

Senator WRIEDT:

- Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I want the Minister to clarify the answer. Do I take it from the Minister that as yet the Government has not put down the paper on the 200-mile off-shore zone of the Antarctic?

Senator WEBSTER:

-There was a man called Tricky Dicky and I do not know whether he is now sitting on the Opposition side of the chamber. Senator Wriedt used words such as has the Government put down a paper’. Mr President, this is the usual situation with Senator Wriedt. I might ask him whether he was asking if the Government had put one down publicly or if one had been placed on the Cabinet table. If I answered accordingly, he would produce some letters from some unworthy source- probably some stolen source- and say: ‘Senator Webster, you are unfair; you have misled the Senate. When I asked whether a paper had been put down, I meant put down in some other place ‘.

Senator Wriedt:

- Mr President, I raise a point of order.

Senator WEBSTER:

-No public document has been put down on the 200-mile limit off the Antarctic continent.

Senator Wriedt:

- Mr President, once again I have to ask you to ask Senator Webster to withdraw the imputation in the reference to stolen documents.

The PRESIDENT:

– It is an imputation. Please withdraw, Mr Minister.

Senator WEBSTER:

-Mr President, at your request I withdraw.

page 2721

QUESTION

TAXATION

Senator TEAGUE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer to the continuing high importance of the Government’s policy and record towards the family. Can the Minister assure the Senate that in reaching taxation decisions in the forthcoming Budget the impact of these decisions on families, especially single income families with dependent children, will fully be taken into account? Should not tax be equitable in its effect upon a family whether the income of the family is derived from the direct earnings of one spouse or of both spouses? Moreover, should not tax be based on the principle of capacity to pay whereby the cost of supporting a dependent spouse and dependent children should be taken into account?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-It is very clear that the Fraser Government’s policies are based on assistance to the family. The family allowance programs, of course, are monumental in that regard. They transfer public income to the mother of the family in a very significant way. Senator Teague canvasses possible taxation reforms which would in themselves give better recognition to families, and in particular to single income families where the mother or one spouse, for whatever reason, stays home. There is no doubt in the world that there is a desirable need to achieve reforms which do aid families. But as Senator Teague will well know, in a context of Budget months he raises a policy matter. I can give him no indication other than to say to him that I will refer his question to the Treasurer and the Treasurer no doubt will take it into consideration when he makes whatever recommendations he thinks necessary in the framework of the next Budget.

page 2721

QUESTION

REDEPLOYMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE STAFF

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

-I direct a question to the Attorney-General. Has the Attorney-General’s Department received instructions from the Public Service Board to draft regulations prescribing a reason for redeployment of Public Service staff? If that is the case, would that not be in anticipation and direct contravention of legislation which has not passed this Parliament which states among other things that regulations prescribing a reason for redeployment of public servants shall not be made except after consultation with organisations representing the interests of employees?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I will make inquiries from my Department in relation to the question asked by Senator Georges.

page 2721

QUESTION

EDUCATION: AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY SCHOOLS

Senator KNIGHT:
ACT

– I ask the Minister for Education a question concerning recent reports that the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority may be considering the closure of some schools and a college. In relation to those reports I ask: Is it not a fact that under section 38 of the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority Ordinance school boards have the function of making recommendations to the Schools Authority on all matters relating to their schools? Was there in fact no consultation with relevant boards on the reported consideration by the Authority of the closure of some schools and a college?

Finally, since section 6 sub-section 3 of the ordinance states that ‘The Authority shall perform its function in accordance with any direction given by the Minister’, will the Minister direct the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority to consult all concerned before considering the closure of any schools or colleges in the Capital Territory and make it clear that no decision may be made until there has been thorough consultation with the community, and until demographic, economic, social and community factors have been properly considered and more adequate information has been provided?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I am very well aware of Senator Knight’s most practical interest in the schools in the Australian Capital Territory. Indeed, he and his colleague in another place, Mr Haslem, have repeatedly seen me to give me their views. In Canberra, due to demographic changes, some areas are waxing and some waning. The size of schools in some areas is diminishing whilst there is a demand for schools and colleges in others. This matter has been before the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority and is one for it to decide. I understand that it has had public consultation in the form of certainly one public meeting and perhaps others. I am not aware of whether there has been any consultation with school boards. Certainly there ought to be, and I acknowledge the requirements of section 38 of the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority Ordinance in that regard.. I would hope that the Schools Authority would consult fully all representative sections of the community before it makes any significant decisions. I will certainly bring that requirement to the attention of the Authority.

The Authority must weigh the problem in terms of the obvious desire of the community to retain community schools. There is no doubt that the school is a focal point of the community. One accepts that and notes with sympathetic interest the keenness of communities to preserve schools in their areas. An assessment must be made as to whether the educational interests of the student are best served by a school which is diminishing- and therefore offers less and less opportunity in regard to curricula- or by another school. I simply make these comments by way of reciting the difficulties that confront the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority. The Authority has been keeping me informed on what it is doing. I would urge it, as I have done in the past, to undertake the widest consultation on the matter. I will watch with sympathetic interest the proceedings in that regard. In fact, I would invite all sections of the community that have not already been consulted to get in touch with the Authority, the honourable senator or his colleague.

page 2722

QUESTION

ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT

Senator EVANS:

– My question, which is to the Attorney-General, relates to the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act and follows a number of earlier questions on that subject put in this chamber by both Senator Button and me. I ask: When will the Act be proclaimed? Will the Attorney-General table the Administrative Review Council ‘s report, to which he referred in his answer to Senator Button as long ago as 28 February? Further, is he now able to say how many requests for exclusion have been received by him from Government departments following their consideration of the Council ‘s report?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I cannot say specifically when the Act will be proclaimed. As I have stated in answer to earlier questions in the Senate, I have been endeavouring to push the matter forward as fast as I could, bearing in mind the problems that relate to the effect that it has on the whole of the Public Service, including the decisions of even quite junior public servants. It is a very large problem. I will give consideration to the question of tabling the report of the Administrative Review Council. I see no objection to it in principle.

Senator Evans:

– Will it be tabled before we get up?

Senator DURACK:

-No. Probably it will be tabled with an accompanying announcement of Government policy in relation to the subject of the first part of the honourable senator’s question- the date of proclamation. In regard to the third part of the honourable senator’s question, I have not counted the number of requests for exclusion that have been received from Government departments. Certainly, there have been quite a number. The terms of the Act have revealed a number of problem areas. I suppose that I could get someone in my Department to count the number of requests that have been received, but I do not think that that would really create the right impression.

Senator Evans:

– Just tell us whether any of the Act is left.

Senator DURACK:

– In due course the Government will be making a decision on it and that decision will be announced.

page 2722

QUESTION

GHANA: ALLEGED COUP

Senator LAJOVIC:

-I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs: Has the Government received confirmation of Press reports about a coup having taken place in Ghana? Is it a fact that the alleged leader of the coup is a flight-lieutenant by the name of Jerry Rawlings?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– My only information is that there have been reports of a coup d ‘etat in Ghana. The situation is not clear and the Australian Government is watching developments closely. I should add that all Australian High Commission staff in Accra are reported to be safe. There is no cause for concern at this stage about the safety of other Australians in Ghana. I am unable to say who is the alleged leader of the coup, although I have read in the Press that it may have been a particular officer of the services, as has been indicated by the honourable senator.

page 2722

QUESTION

FORMER GOVERNOR-GENERAL: TELEPHONE CHARGES

Senator McLAREN:

– My question, which is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, is not asked without notice. He will recall that on 22 February of this year, approximately 15 weeks ago, I asked whether the immediate past Governor-General had a free telephone service between his present residence in England and Australia. I asked further, if that was so, what was the cost of telephone calls, particularly during the writing and compilation of his book? As telephone accounts are rendered each six months, and the last one would have been submitted for payment by 3 1 January of this year, I again ask the Leader of the Government why I cannot get an answer to that question when a similar Question on Notice- concerning the telephone accounts of Harry M. Miller- has been answered. The answer given was that Mr Miller’s telephone charges had cost the Australian taxpayer in excess of $30,000 over a period of 12 months.

Senator Primmer:

– How much did you say?

Senator McLAREN:

– The amount was $30,000 for 12 months. Honourable senators will recall that Harry M. Miller was the entrepreneur who launched Mr Kerr’s book. Again I ask the Minister: Can I, before the House adjourns for the winter recess, be given a reply as to whether a free telephone service is provided to the former Governor-General and, if so, what has been the cost of telephone calls involved?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I will bring the question of the honourable senator to the attention of the Minister concerned.

page 2723

QUESTION

UNIFORM REGISTRATION OF FISHING VESSELS

Senator KILGARIFF:

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry whether he and State Ministers who have responsibilities for the fishing industry have considered the desirability of creating a nationally uniform system of registration of vessels to enable immediate recognition by Customs, fisheries, surveillance and other officers in pursuit of law breakers, particularly on the northern coast of Australia?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I am unable to answer the honourable senator’s question directly. I would imagine that the registration of fishing vessels would be carried out by State authorities. Whether the Commonwealth could, through the Department of Transport, encourage a uniform system of registration I am unable to say, but I will direct the honourable senator’s question to my colleague, Mr Sinclair, to see whether that would be possible, particularly in relation to the Northern Territory.

page 2723

QUESTION

BEEF IMPORTS BY THE UNITED STATES

Senator DURACK:
LP

-On Monday Senator Maunsell asked me the following question:

If the United States Congress passes the Ways and Means Committee’s recommendation that United States beef imports be restricted to 1.2 billion lb, does this mean that the Multilateral Trade Negotiations agreement entered into by Mr Anthony and the United States Administration will have to be renegotiated?

The answer to the question is as follows: The Government was most concerned to hear last Friday that the United States Congress Ways and Means Committee on 3 1 May recommended a counter-cyclical meat import Bill providing for a floor on meat imports of 1.2 billion lb. The Minister for Trade and Resources (Mr Anthony) only recently concluded Multilateral Trade Negotiations with the United States in which he received renewed assurances from the Administration that, as in 1 978 with similar legislation, its position would be that any such legislation must contain an access level for meat imports of at least 1.3 billion lb annually. It is most unfortunate that in this period when both governments are working towards implementation of our MTN settlement, the Ways and Means Committee should recommend a Bill providing for a floor which is inconsistent with the Administrations ‘s position.

The Minister for Trade and Resources on Friday last sent an urgent letter to Ambassador Strauss, the Special Trade Representative of President Carter, seeking his reassurance that the Administration will exert its strongest efforts to obtain a reinstatement of a floor of 1.3 billion lb prior to this legislation being finalised in Congress. The Minister has pointed out that the adoption of a floor at a lower level could have serious implications for our MTN settlement with the United States. It would seem clear that if the United States Administration did accept a law which involved such a substantial change in a major element of our MTN settlement, Australia would be forced to look carefully at the whole package.

page 2723

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Senator LAJOVIC:
New South Wales

-I wish to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT:

– Do you claim to have been misrepresented?

Senator LAJOVIC:

– Yes, Mr President. I wish to make a statement on behalf of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts. The Public Accounts Committee released a statement on 31 May 1979 giving detailed terms of reference for its proposed inquiry into the funding of tertiary education. I seek leave to have this statement incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The statement read as follows-

The Commiteee has determined that at least five newspapers reported this statement. However, not one reported it completely accurately. The Sun Pictorial and the Age did not distinguish between the activities of a parliamentary joint committee and the Government and referred to a government committee. The Committee believes this is of great significance because the committee is multiparty in composition and jealously guards the apolitical nature of its inquiries. Without that we cannot function. Others- notably, the Australian Financial Review and the Canberra Times- quoted incorrectly from the text of the statement. The Sun-Herald on Sunday 3 June reported that the Committee would be investigating claims of waste and deception by tertiary institutions. These claims were alleged to have originated from Cabinet.

Senator Georges:

– I raise a point of order. Whilst not saying that I do not consider this matter to be important, surely it is not a matter of misrepresentation. It is a statement which should be put down by the Public Accounts Committee at another time.

The PRESIDENT:

– I am listening to Senator Lajovic ‘s statement. It is a fact that as he has claimed misrepresentation his statement should be restricted to that. However, I ask him to continue.

Senator LAJOVIC:

-Thank you, Mr President.

Whilst we cannot comment upon their origin, they certainly did not come from evidence before the Public Accounts Committee. The committee will be examining the co-ordination of funding and expenditure of tertiary institutions. The evaluation of courses is only one part of its terms of reference.

The Sun-Herald finished its report by saying that the Committee will particularly investigate one specific allegation relating to a Victorian college. The Committee has received no such information and made no mention of such an allegation in its statement. It is a matter of regret and concern to the committee that its Press releases cannot be reported correctly. The Committee hopes that in future the Press will exercise greater care in reporting the activities of Parliamentary committees.

page 2724

QUESTION

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST MEMBER

The PRESIDENT:

– On 4 June Senator O ‘Byrne asked me the following question without notice:

During the last few weeks, was a barbecue set from the Senate courtyard missing for several days? Was the set eventually found in the Senate garden? Did the Acting Speaker call a member of the House of Representatives into his office for dicussions on the removal and use of the set?

In reply, the Secretary of the Joint House Department has advised me inquiries have been made into the matter raised by Senator O ‘Byrne and that no reports have been received that a barbecue set was missing from the Senate courtyard. The Acting Speaker of the House of Representatives has advised me that there is absolutely no substance in the latter part of the question.

Having answered Senator O ‘Byrne’s question, I now inform the Senate that the Acting Speaker and I have had discussions and we have jointly come to the conclusion that all proper avenues of inquiry have been explored and we are led to the conclusion that there is no substance in the allegations as originally raised by Senator Cavanagh or the matters raised in the form of question by Senator O ‘Byrne. It is proper that I should add that, following my statement to the Senate on 3 1 May acquainting the Senate of the result of my inquiries at that stage, Senator Cavanagh immediately apologised to anyone he had injured and to the Senate. In the circumstances, and in particular because of our conclusion that there is no substance in the allegations and because of Senator Cavanagh ‘s apology, it is not my intention to pursue the matter further.

page 2724

QUESTION

NABARLEK RADIOACTIVITY LEVELS

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-On Monday at Question Time Senator Kilgariff asked me a question relating basically to the Nabarlek uranium mine and the problems that may exist there. I have a further answer to Senator Kilgariff. As it consists of approximately one page of writing I seek leave to have the answer incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

Mr Collins’ reference to the Uranium Advisory Council as the Commonwealth watchdog on these matters’ betrays a lack of knowledge of the arrangements that have been established for the protection of the environment and uranium workers in the Alligator Rivers Region. The Uranium Advisory Council is an independent body of people representing a broad cross section of public and industry interests with the function of advising the government and reporting annually to Parliament on the export and use of Australian uranium, having in mind the hazards, dangers and problems which may be associated with the production of nuclear energy and the development of the uranium mining industry in Australia, including exploration. As recommended by the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry under the chairmanship of Mr Justice Fox, the health and environmental aspects of uranium mining are regulated under applicable Northern Territory law but the supervising scientist for the Alligator Rivers region, who is appointed under Commonwealth statute, has an overall supervisory and co-ordinative role. He is advised by a co-ordinating committee comprising representatives of all bodies and agencies with an interest in uranium mining in the region including the Northern Land Council.

A condition of the special mining lease issued by the N.T. Government to Queensland mines for their Nabarlek operations is that they meet stringent environmental requirements attached to the special mining lease which follow closely the environmental requirements imposed by the Commonwealth on the Ranger operation and which are based on the recommendations of the Ranger Uranium environmental inquiry. The company must also obtain authorisations from the Northern Territory Minister for Mines and Energy under the Northern Territory Uranium Mining ( Environmental Control) Act which also has appended to it as a schedule the same environmental requirements that are attached to the special mining lease. Under the environmental requirements the company has to have a basic monitoring program approved before the commencement of the excavation of the mine pit including a personal and environmental radiation monitoring program.

Under the Northern Territory Mines (Radiation Protection) Regulations the company is obliged to meet the requirements of the code of practice on radiation protection in the mining and milling of radioactive ores (published by the Australian Department of Health in August 1975) as amended from time to time by the regulations. The code lays down standards for the protection of workers involved in mining radioactive ores which the RUEI concluded was very comprehensive and consistent with internationally accepted standards and practices’.

The report from which Mr Collins has drawn in making his allegations was prepared in February by my department as a review of the final environmental impact statement submitted by Queensland mines. The report concluded that it was ‘difficult to make specific estimates of radiation levels based on calculations and model studies until field operations commence and the basic premises can be tested - . . continuous monitoring during the operations is required and the company’s proposals therefore need a high degree of flexibility so that operational procedures can be adjusted to meet predetermined criteria’.

The company’s proposals for radiation protection have been studied in detail by the Northern Territory Department of Health (advised by the Australian Radiation Laboratory), the N.T. Department of Mines and Energy and by the supervising scientist. These authorities are satisfied that radiation protection staff levels, qualifications and experience, monitoring equipment and backup facilities are adequate for the commencement of mining. The Australian Radiation Laboratory is closely involved in the field and is providing certain personal radiation monitoring services to the company. Queensland Mines’ monitoring program is also being supervised in the field by the N.T. Department of Mines and Energy.

As concluded by my Department, however, the supervising authorities have decided that final monitoring and protection arrangements should be determined in the light of experience with mining the actual ore body. The Northern Territory Minister for Mines and Energy has therefore stipulated in his authorisation to excavate the open pit that the company shall, within nine weeks of the commencement of excavation, or such later date as the Minister may determine, submit a schedule detailing the monitoring program and shall comply with such further directions as the Minister may issue from time to time.

I am assured by the authorities concerned that no mining will take place without the most exhaustive monitoring arrangements and that procedures will be varied if necessary to ensure that workers are subjected to the lowest practicable doses of radiation and are well within the safety limits recognised by international authorities.

page 2725

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Senator CHIPP:

– by leave- I claim to have been misrepresented and wish to make a brief statement. I have been misrepresented this time by Senator McLaren, but only mildly, for a change. When speaking last night in the debate on the Qantas Airways Ltd (Loan Guarantee) Bill, Senator McLaren said:

We find that Senator Puplick and Senator Martin and also Senator Chipp spoke from the other side.

Senator Georges:

– He was speaking in the debate on the statement about education.

Senator CHIPP:

– He was speaking in the debate on the statement on education. He went on:

Therefore, the Government cannot blame the Opposition for delaying the Senate tonight.

Senator Archer then said:

Don ‘t put Chipp on our side.

Senator McLaren then said:

He is not on our side . . .

I thank both honourable senators for clarifying the position. The Australian Democrats are on neither side. The point I want to make is that it is misrepresenting my speech for Senator McLaren to say that I was on the Government side. It is true that half of my speech complimented the Government in areas where I think it had done wise and courageous things. But the latter half of my speech in relation to the statement on education I think fairly and vigorously attacked that part of Senator Carrick ‘s statement where I believe that it ought to have been attacked.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– by leave- I too claim to have been mildly misrepresented. Senator Chipp said that I was speaking last night on the Qantas Airways Ltd (Loan Guarantee) Bill. As the Hansard record will reveal, I was not speaking on that Bill.

page 2725

ABORIGINAL ELECTORAL RIGHTS

Matter of Urgency

The PRESIDENT:

– I inform the Senate that I have received the following letter dated 5 June 1979 from Senator Walsh:

Dear Mr President,

Pursuant to Standing Order 64, I give notice that tomorrow I shall move ‘That in the opinion of the Senate the following is a matter of urgency:

That Aboriginals should have the same opportunity to enrol and record valid votes in State elections as in Federal elections ‘.

Yours sincerely,

A. WALSH Senator for Western Australia

Is the motion supported?

More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their placesSenator WALSH (Western Australia) ( 12.30)- I move:

The primary reason that the Opposition has raised this matter is the pending amendments to the Electoral Act of Western Australia, the purpose of which is substantially to disenfranchise

Aborigines, but it does have relevance to other States of Australia, particularly Queensland. The motion has been prompted by the proposed amendments to the Western Australian Electoral Act, and I will address myself mostly to those matters.

A three-year-old conspiracy exists in Western Australia. The objective of the conspirators is to deprive, by foul means, Aborigines of the right to vote. Although the conspiracy originally may have been conceived among the Kimberley Ku Klux Klan, which is a synonym for the Kimberley Division of the Liberal Party, the conspirators collaborated with three Ministers of the Western Australian Government, including the Premier, Sir Charles Court, and Noel CrichtonBrowne, the President of the Western Australian Division of the Liberal Party. Above all, it involved the local people, the O’Driscolls, the Rowells and the other luminaries of the Kimberley Division of the Liberal Party. Behind them all stands the sinister figure of the Premier.

The Western Australian Liberal Party’s determination to disenfranchise Aborigines has grown out of its conviction that Aborigines vote Labor and will continue to do so. That that is the belief of the present member for Kimberley will be substantiated in letters written by him which I will read later in my speech. In pursuit of its objective, the Western Australian Liberal Party has attempted, three times, to amend the State Electoral Act. The first time, in 1976, it did so successfully with a minor amendment to postal voting procedures. In 1977 a major Bill was thrown out of the Parliament because two members of Sir Charles Court’s party and half of the National Country Party could not stomach it. In 1 979 the current Bill was introduced into the Western Australian Parliament. It will be revived in the Spring session.

The excuse for all these attempts to amend the Western Australian Electoral Act is that malpractice and manipulation of illiterate voters have been practised on a wide scale. Notwithstanding that continued allegation by Western Australian Liberals, the Western Australian Government has made no attempt to initiate a voter education campaign in the Kimberleys or anywhere else. Belatedly, and to a very limited extent, a Federal Government move is currently underway. But, more importantly, no attempt has been made by the Liberal Party or by any of the people who have made these allegations of malpractice and manipulation to present any evidence to the Court of Disputed Returns, the electoral inquiry, the libel case in which a Liberal member of State Parliament was found to have defamed a Labor candidate for the Parliament. The accusations are always generalised. The Judge presiding over the Court of Disputed Returns, Mr Justice Smith, said:

It is of importance to emphasise that in his pleadings the respondent -

And the respondent is Alan Ridge, Minister of the Crown in the Government of Western Australia- did not allege any malpractice by the petitioner -

Who was named Bridge- or his agents during the electoral campaign or any manipulation of electors literate or otherwise and that throughout the protracted hearing, no evidence was adduced which would in any way support the suggestions of malpractice referred to in the documents handed to the lawyers.

That was the finding of Mr Justice Smith at the time he brought down his report in late 1 977. It remains true today. No evidence of malpractice has been produced by the Liberal Party members who continue to make generalised allegations of malpractice and manipulation. The only malpractice which Mr Justice Smith discerned was an organised Liberal Party campaign of malpractice of which the architects were the Liberal Party’s Kimberley luminaries, Broomhall, O’Driscoll and Rowell, but which ultimately involved three Ministers of the Western Australian Government.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Walsh, you must not make imputations against members of another parliament. Do you realise that?

Senator WALSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Yes, Mr President. I will quote documents later. Therefore the Opposition has brought this matter before the Federal Parliament. The reason we have done so is not only the Federal Government’s clear right but also its obligation, pursuant to the 1967 referendum, to protect the rights of Aborigines. We will test the integrity of this Government and see whether it has the intestinal fortitude to accept that obligation. I am assured by competent legal advice that the Commonwealth can pass an Act which would assert, among other things, that no Aborigine shall be deprived of a vote by any procedure for enrolment more difficult than that contained in the Federal Electoral Act. I am reliably assured that a number of other Bills asserting that right of the Federal Parliament could be passed. If the Western Australian Bill ultimately becomes an Act we will expect this Government to accept its obligations to protect the electoral rights of Aborigines in Western Australia. I am assured that such a Federal Act, providing it referred specifically to Aborigines, would invalidate the relevant sections of the State Act.

The reason we have brought this matter before the Senate is that the two Federal Ministers most directly responsible for this matter, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) and the Attorney-General (Senator Durack), sit in this chamber. We hope that they may be spurred on to force or induce the Government to take appropriate action if it becomes necessary. We also believe, I think correctly, that Senator Chaney and Senator Durack are two of the more prominent small ‘F Liberal members of the Western Australian Liberal Party who have a good deal of sympathy for Aboriginal people. We want to test whether that sympathy can be translated into action, particularly in the face of the seeming indifference of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). This is exemplified by an article in the Melbourne Age of 17 November 1978 which reported the findings by Mr Justice Smith in the Court of Disputed Returns. The article is reprinted from the West Australian. The article reads:

Despite persistent questioning, Mr Fraser refused to be drawn on the State Government’s proposals.

The article was referring to the State Government’s proposals to amend the Electoral Actproposals which were thrown out of Parliament. The article continued:

He said that the electoral amendment act was a matter for the Western Australian Government.

I do not know whether that is still the view of the Prime Minister. We are asserting that the Commonwealth Government is not accepting its responsibilities pursuant to the 1967 referendum if it fails to protect the electoral rights of Aborigines. The main feature of the Western Australian Bill currently before the Western Australian Parliament- it will be revived in the August session- is clause 8 on page 4. It provides that electors may be enrolled only if their application for enrolment is witnessed by a person coming within one of the following four categories: An electoral officer; a justice of the peace; a clerk of courts; or a policeman. Clause 8 is one critical clause. The only two categories of people with whom Aborigines in the remote parts of the State are likely to come into contact are justices of the peace and policemen. To the Aborigines they represent authority figures. Most of the Aborigines experience with authority has been an unhappy one. Usually their only contact with authority is when they are on the receiving end of the punitive arm of the law. It is no accident that the right to witness enrolment applications has been restricted in this way. There is no reasonable doubt that it has been deliberately engineered in this manner by the Government of

Western Australia to discourage Aborigines from enrolling. They may not actually encounter outright hostility or discouragement from policemen and justices of the peace in these areas but they would certainly be reluctant to approach them. It will create difficulties in other areas of the State but nowwhere will those difficulties be as intense, or their effects so discriminatory as they will be among the Aborigines in the more isolated parts of the State.

At a lower order of magnitude, clause 16 of the Electoral Act Amendment Bill of Western Australia provides for mobile polling booths, a move which has been generally welcomed, but no obligation is imposed on the electoral officer to advertise where the mobile polling booths will be visiting. Given the record of the present Government of Western Australia in this matter, there is no reason to believe that it will adequately advertise the areas which will be visited by mobile polling booths in the remote parts of the State. Clause 20 of the Bill requires that this mandatory question be asked of all people presenting themselves to vote: Have you already voted here or elsewhere in this election? Previously, the only mandatory questions directed to electors were about whether they were enrolled in the division and whether they were resident in the division. The Government plans to insert this mandatory question into the relevant Act: Have you already voted here or elsewhere in this election. That might sound a simple question to urban Anglo-Saxon Australians. It is not a simple question to Aboriginal people to whom English is not their native tongue, nor would it be a simple question to a number of non Anglo-Saxon European migrants.

Clause 18 (3) (c), which concerns directions by the presiding officer to voters who present themselves to vote, is a provision that the Opposition believes is open to abuse if misinterpreted in the way that provisions of the existing Act were deliberately misinterpreted by the Chief Electoral Officer, on instructions from the Minister of Justice and the Attorney-General, in 1977. In particular, the amendment fails to provide for what was one of the key findings of Mr Justice Smith in his Court of Disputed Returns judgment. Mr Justice Smith said:

The presentation of a list of How to Vote Card by an illiterate elector is a proper direction by such an elector, both as to the marking of his first and subsequent preferences provided that the Presiding Officers takes the direction of reading what is written on the List or Card to the Elector and by that or other means satisfies himself that the card reflects the wishes of the Elector before he marks the Ballot paper.

It would have been possible to state explicitly in the Act that the presentation of a how to vote card is, as Mr Justice Smith found, sufficient indication of the elector’s intention to vote. It has not been done. Given the record of the Western Australian Government, the Opposition believes that the reasons are sinister. Most of the recommendations of the electoral inquiry of Mr Justice Kay were based on the suppositions that manipulation and malpractice were widespread. I daresay that Senator Chaney will use that as a defence of the Western Australian Government, if he is to defend it. No evidence has been presented to the Kay inquiry, the Court of Disputed Returns presided over by Mr Justice Smith, to Parliament or in the libel case involving Mr Tozer that such manipulation and malpractice exists. So the Kay report must be suspect to at least that extent.

It is necessary to understand the people with whom we are dealing in this matter. Not necessarily in order of declining knavery, we have firstly, Mr O’Driscoll, a prominent Liberal Party member and resident of the Kimberleys, who, during the 1977 election campaign, lied to the presiding officer at the GoGo booth. He told the presiding officer that he had telephoned the returning officer and the returning officer had given directions regarding the procedures to be followed with illiterate voters. It was subsequently disclosed in the Court of Disputed Returns that no such telephone conversation took place. For that action, Mr O’Driscoll was congratulated by Alan Ridge, the member for Kimberley and a Minister in the Government of Western Australia, for the ‘trick at GoGo’. His exact words in the letter which he wrote to Mr O’Driscoll and which was subsequently produced in evidence at court were:

I wanted you to know also that I didn’t underestimate the value of your trick at GoGo on the 1 9th. We could have been in real trouble without the services of a person such as yourself as scrutineer and I am extremely grateful.

Secondly, we have Mr Medcalf, who is now the Attorney-General of Western Australia. He was found by Mr Justice Smith to have improperly influenced another Minister to instruct the Chief Electoral Officer to dispatch a telegram to attendants and presiding officers at Kimberley polling booths. I refer again to the judgment of Mr Justice Smith. He said:

I should hasten to say that Mr McIntyre’s integrity in the matter -

Mr McIntyre being the Chief Electoral Officer; was not in any way impugned. He found himself in a difficult situation and did what he thought he had to do. which was to obey the instructions of the Minister to whom he was responsible.

Further, Mr Justice Smith referred to a marginal notation on a letter written by Mr Mclntyre to the Minister which states:

Subsequently advised by C.E.O.

The Chief Electoral Officer- that the above telegram was well received by P.O.’s -

The presiding officers- and was of assistance to them.

Mr McIntyre identified in court that the handwriting in the marginal notation was that of the Minister. The judgment of Mr Justice Smith says that Mr McIntyre could not recall advising the Minister in these terms. The clear implication is that the Minister in that instance was falsifying evidence. He was claiming that he had been advised by the Chief Electoral Officer when he had not been advised.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! You said that the Minister falsified something. That is a direct reflection on that Minister. Withdraw it.

Senator WALSH:

– I withdraw it. Again I quote from what Mr Justice Smith had to say. He said that in the handwriting of the Minister a marginal notation appeared which reads:

Subsequently advised by C.E.O. that the above telegram was well received by P.O.’s and was of assistance to them. Mr MacIntyre could not recall advising the Minister in these terms.

The response of the Premier, Sir Charles Court, when Mr Justice Smith’s judgment was handed down was, firstly, to reject it out of hand and to say that it was the opinion of one man. With respect to Mr Justice Smith’s finding concerning the Attorney-General, Mr Medcalf, Sir Charles said:

I don ‘t care what the Judge said. Our Attorney-General is one of the most revered names in the legal profession in this State.

That was the Premier’s reaction.

The President of the Liberal Party in Western Australia is Mr Noel Crichton-Browne, who was a major shareholder in Burrill Investments. Most of his relatives were also major shareholders. Senator Rae will no doubt have a clear recollection of Burrill Investments which by fraudulent means made a profit of $1.3m during the Poseidon boom. Crichton-Browne, stock exchange racketeer, is President of the Liberal Party in Western Australia. He has been deeply involved in this matter. He is probably about to become -

Senator Rae:

– I raise a point of order.

Senator WALSH:

-I thought better of you.

Senator Rae:

– I ask Senator Walsh to wait a moment. By referring to me in his speech and then going on to say that he has no doubt that I would well remember certain things and then making some fairly sweeping and, I would have thought, unnecessary statements, such as ‘stock exchange racketeer’ and other extreme words, he is involving me in something to which I object. My views have been expressed clearly in a report on this matter. I do not wish my views to be taken further than those views which were very clearly and, I believe, quite strongly expressed in that report. I object to my views being taken further. In general terms I think it is unfortunate that Senator Walsh is using somewhat extravagant language -

Senator Button:

– Colourful.

Senator Rae:

– Colourful and somewhat extravagent language.

Senator WALSH:

– It was colourful and accurate. The fact is that Crichton-Browne was the major shareholder and the founding shareholder in Burrill Investments, which was found by the Senate Committee investigating the matter to have manipulated the stock exchange and to have made a profit of at least $ 1 .3m by misleading the stock exchange. If Senator Rae objects to the word ‘racketeer’ he can find some euphemism for it. But the fact is the Crichton-Browne became a very wealthy man by those means. He is the President of the Western Australian division of the Liberal Party, which tells us something about the prevailing ethical standards of that party in Western Australia. The other people heavily involved in this matter- Rowell, Broomhall and O ‘Driscoll -are nominally residents of the Kimberley area. They comprise the sort of imperial wizards of the Kimberley Ku Klux Clan. They conceived the strategy to misuse the office of the Chief Electoral Officer, having done that they sent a team of five lawyers to seven polling booths in the Kimberleys with the explicit purpose - as the Smith report confirms- of sabotaging the Aboriginal vote. The telegram which the Chief Electoral Officer was leaned upon or instructed to send was vigorously denounced also by the Smith inquiry. All of these people acted on behalf of the Liberal candidate, Mr Ridge. His attitude to Aborigines can be seen in reports to which I will refer. Reporting on the proceedings in the Court of Disputed Returns presided over by Mr Justice Smith the West Australian newspaper of 26 August 1 977 had this to say:

Keith Alan Ridge, the successful Liberal Party candidate in the disputed Kimberley election, complained six days later about having to spend the last two weeks of his campaign among Aborigines.

Ridge also claimed that his time could have been more realistically devoted towards encouraging some of the more intelligent people in the community to adopt the Liberal philosophy.

Intelligence is not necessarily correlated to morality, but I would have expected that once that view became public it certainly would not have induced anyone with any moral principles to align himself with the Liberal Party. In letters that Mr Ridge wrote, he made comments regarding his fears not that Aborigines were being manipulated or improperly influenced, but that they were taking advantage of their right to vote. In a letter to Mr David Foster, Mr Ridge said:

Unless the Act is amended in the forseeable future, I would have no intention of standing for election again in Kimberley because I believe that within three years there could be in the order of 4,000 Aborigines on the roll and I am sure you would agree we would be fighting a lost cause.

That gets to the heart of the objectives of the Liberal Party. The Liberals know that if the Aborigines in the Kimberleys are listed on the elected roll, they will not hold the seat. The situation could not have been put more clearly by Mr Ridge. I should mention that the only reason these letters were revealed, was that an Order of Discovery was made by the Court of Disputed Returns. In a letter to Mr John Fletcher, Mr Alan Ridge, a Minister for the Crown in Western Australia, said:

To me it seems madness that we should have to campaign amongst the Aborigines the way that we did and I am hopeful that at some time in the future the Electoral Act will be amended with a view to overcoming some of the difficulties which were experienced on polling day. I can foresee that unless this is done, there could be anything up to 4,000 Aborigines on the roll at the next election and, under these circumstances, the Liberal Party would probably be fighting a lost cause.

That spells out the purpose of the Western Australian amending Bill, which is to deprive the Aborigines of their right to vote. The Opposition is calling upon the Federal Government to exercise the authority vested in it and the obligation imposed on it by the 1967 referendum to ensure that this does not happen.

These are the sorts of people with whom we are dealing: The member for Pilbara has referred to the Aborigines in the north as ‘savages’. Mr Tozer, who was dragged into court by the Labor Party candidate, had $20,000 taken from him as a result of a defamation action. Rowell, Broomhall and O ‘Driscoll are the people who conceived the electoral strategy. They are the people who suggested that a Minister of the Western Australian Government should improperly instruct the Chief Electoral Officer to send telegrams to presiding officers in Kimberley polling booths. The purpose of that was to sabotage elections and to ensure that the Liberal Party candidate was returned regardless of what the people who lived in the Kimberleys actually thought or wanted. Mr Ridge, a Minister of the Government in Western Australia, wrote to one of his party workers congratulating him on having lied to a presiding officer about alleged instructions from the Chief Electoral Officer in a phone call he did not even make. Behind these people and approving of their actions we have the Premier, Sir Charles Court.

The Smith judgment revelations of electoral chicanery organised and implemented by the Liberal Party are devastating. They show the misuse of power by Ministers to subvert the Act and detail lies told by Liberal Party workers, for which they were congratulated by Mr Ridge, a Minister of the Crown. Finally, Mr Smith made the election void on those and on other grounds. The response of the Western Australian Premier was that that was one man’s opinion. When it was obvious that the Smith judgment was to find against Mr Ridge and against the Liberal Party, the Premier moved to disinfranchise Aborigines by means of his notorious 1977 electoral Bill which was subsequently thrown out of Parliament, primarily by the Labor Party but also as a result of a revolt from half the National Country Party, Mr Dadour, the Liberal member for Subiaco and, to his credit, the Speaker of the Western Australian Assembly, Mr Ian Thompson, a Liberal member. But it is a very sad commentary on the state of liberalism in Western Australia that that revolt in relation to his notorious Act on the non-Labor side was led not by Liberal members but by members of the National Country Party. The Melbourne Age said of the role of Sir Charles in this matter:

Anyone more sensitive and less arrogant that the Western Australian premier would have accepted the court’s findings, apologised to the electorate and taken steps to see that this disgraceful episode was not repeated. Instead, Sir Charles Court rushed in legislation which, he must have known was blatantly discriminatory.

The Premier did not get away with it that time but he is trying to do it again. That is the purpose of this motion: The Opposition is seeking an assurance from this Government that, having been given the power and the obligation to protect the rights of Aborigines, it at least guarantees- if necessary by an Act of the Federal Parliament pre-empting the Western Australian Act, if and when that is passed- the rights of Aborigines to vote at elections in Western Australia. It should also to do that in relation to other States if and when the situation arises.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

- Mr President, I rise to speak on the matter of urgency which was brought before the Senate by Senator Walsh earlier today. The Government has had its usual difficulty, when looking at this motion and listening to Senator Walshparticularly in listening to Senator Walsh’s speech- in separating the general abuse from the substance of the motion. But I will endeavour to define the Commonwealth Government’s attitude to the motion during the course of my speech. I have made some reference to abuse in Senator Walsh’s speech. I would suggest to the Senate that reference to the Liberal Party in Western Australia as the Ku Klux Klan -

Senator Walsh:

– It was in the Kimberleys, not Western Australia.

Senator CHANEY:

– In the Kimberleys it was referred to as the Ku Klux Klan. He used words such as conspiracy, sinister and malpractice. All these matters are not particularly informative, and would be about as useful as me coming in and saying that some part of the Labor Party in Western Australia, or perhaps the Trades and Labour Council, was the equivalent of the West Australian Soviet.

Senator Robertson:

– There is nothing comparable between the Liberal Party and the Labor Party.

Senator CHANEY:

- Mr President, I assure you that it would be just as easy to indulge in abuse of the Australian Labor Party as it would be to engage in abuse of the party which I represent in this place. I simply suggest that that action adds very little to the matters which are before us under this motion of urgency. The other matter is, of course, that although Senator Walsh was careful on occasions to quote from the report of the Court of Disputed Returns and other documents, he did make general allegations under the privileges of this House. I do suggest that that is a practice which we ought to be looking at very carefully, not in the sense that you should be looking at it, Mr President, but that each of us, as senators, should be looking at it, bearing in mind the privilege that we have in making allegations without anyone having any recourse.

The thought did cross my mind, as I was listening to Senator Walsh, that perhaps he was trying to entice us away from supporting the motion which he has put forward. It is difficult, in light of the speech which he made, to indicate any support for the proposition which that speech was supposedly supporting. But the Government is absolutely committed to the idea that it is of great importance to Aboriginal people that they should be able to exercise their vote. We see that as important in itself, and important to the Aboriginal people. I emphasise that it is part of the general view of the Government that not only Aboriginals but also other disadvantaged people in the community- disadvantaged in the sense that they are less able than others to take advantage of the electoral laws which exist to safeguard their rights to vote- should be assisted in regard to this matter. It is part of our general thrust to assist all of those disadvantaged groups. I underline the Government’s view by saying a few words as to why we regard this matter as important. I think it would be generally true to say that the disadvantaged voter, that is the person who does have these difficulties, is also disadvantaged in other respects. In other words, the difficulty in exercising the vote is not likely to be the only difficulty that that person faces, whether it is a migrant who is not able to speak or read English, or whether it is an Aboriginal who is not able to speak or perhaps to read or write English. These people, being in greater need of assistance, have a particular interest in who forms the Government of the country. For that reason, it is important that they have some say in who should govern the country, or indeed their State.

The second thing which I think is important is that if such people are voting, as they should be able to vote, then of course this is a fair guarantee that government will be more sensitive to their needs. I do not think there is anything more salutary to an elected politician than knowing that a substantial portion of his electorate is concerned about the policies which he is supporting. So there are good practical reasons why we should be encouraging Aboriginals, as well as other disadvantaged people, to be exercising their franchise.

I think I can say it is important to establish the commonality as well as the differences in these areas, and that the general thrust of this would be supported by the Opposition which has made it clear in bringing forward this motion- indeed even in Senator Walsh’s speech- that it is concerned about the electoral rights of Aboriginals. I am sure the Opposition would join me in expressing concern about the electoral rights of others. One gets into difficulties and differences between the Government and the Opposition when one gets down to precisely how the obligations of government ought to be met. Senator Walsh made a very direct plea- it is not part of the motion- by throwing out as a challenge the fact that the Commonwealth should be prepared to step in and override State electoral statutes on behalf of Aboriginal people. He put that forward and said that that was the course which ought to be followed by the Commonwealth Government. I make no final answer on that comment, but I would like to raise a number of matters which I think do indicate that careful consideration needs to be given to any proposal of that sort. The first is that notwithstanding the legal advice which has been given to us through Senator Walsh, I think there would be room certainly for some argument about the powers there. I do not argue that the power does not exist. I say that it is a matter which will almost certainly lead to legal disputation, and about which I think one could mount arguments either way. The other practical point is that if one were looking to special legislation of this sort, I query that one would single out Aboriginals only, because I believe that the disadvantages of Aboriginals are not peculiar. They are shared with other people, as I indicated earlier in my speech. The power under which it would be suggested that we would make such laws is the same power which enables us to make special laws for the people of any race. So one could argue, and raise a considerable argument, that Aboriginals should not be singled out as against other people who, in some areas, suffer from the burden of not being able to read or write English.

Senator Robertson:

– Unless there is an additional disadvantage.

Senator CHANEY:

-Yes, but I think that is one of the fundamental disadvantages. That, and of course lack of understanding of the electoral process, are matters with which I will be dealing at greater length later. There is another problem which I do not think seems to have been considered by the Opposition at all in putting forward this motion. The words of the motion are:

That Aborigines should have the same opportunity to enrol and record valid votes in State elections as in Federal elections.

I ask them to bear in mind that one can get situations where State electoral law can be more permissive in terms of helping such people to get votes than can Commonwealth legislation.

Senator Robertson:

– Or it can be the other way.

Senator CHANEY:

-That is right. If one were to take a strict reading of the motion which was put forward- I do not intend to do that and I have indicated that the Government will support the resolution- it does, subject to the qualifications I am making in this speech, provide that even if we look at Western Australia which has been subjected to so much criticism here today, one will find in fact that there are areas where the Aboriginal voter is advantaged under the State legislation as against the Commonwealth legislation. The particular example to which I draw the Senate’s attention is that the Commonwealth electoral legislation provides that an application for postal vote must be signed by the elector in his own handwriting. There is the starting point for getting an absent vote under our Electoral Act, with which I think, properly, we are pretty satisfied. The Commonwealth Electoral Act does not permit marksmen to sign postal vote applications. So that if an illiterate person or- perhaps to use a less offensive expression- an Aboriginal who cannot read or write English wished to get a postal vote for a Federal election, he would not be able to do so. Under the State electoral legislation he could. Senator Robertson may be a little puzzled. I think there is some difference in the Northern Territory as to whether one can get a vote for the House of Representatives or the Senate. But that is my understanding of the position for the rest of Australia. Looking at the States, legislation in New South Wales, Queensland and Tasmania is similar to the Commonwealth legislation. In other words, a person who cannot sign his name cannot apply for a postal vote. The legislation in Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory allows marksmen to apply for postal votes. The Kay report, which has been referred to in this debate, recommended that Western Australia’s legislation be amended to require a marksman’s thumbprint on a postal vote application. The legislation has been put before the Parliament of Western Australia but as yet has not been passed. It will not be passed until about August at the earliest. This proposed legislation does not incorporate this recommendation. In other words, the position remains the same, that one can apply for a postal vote without–

Senator Walsh:

– Would you like to amend the motion by substituting ‘at least equal’ for ‘the same ‘? I am sure we would agree to it.

Senator CHANEY:

– I made some inquiries and I understand that this motion cannot be amended. I would not wish the Opposition to think that I am making these comments in a technical manner to try to score legal points. I am trying to say to honourable senators that we pick up what we believe to be the spirit of the motion, with the vituperation removed, and say: ‘Yes, we are very anxious to see that Aboriginals who have some disadvantage are able to vote’. I understand that to be the thrust of what the Opposition has put forward. If we were to oppose this motion on the grounds that I have outlined, I have no doubt that some honourable senators opposite would say: ‘There you are. There is proof that the Commonwealth Government wishes to deprive Aboriginals of their voting rights’.

I go on to mention a couple of other comparisons between State and Federal elections. The compulsory enrolment provisions of the Commonwealth legislation do not extend to Aboriginal Australians. That judgment has been made by the Australian Parliament. The same position applies in Western Australia and the Northern Territory. The South Australian legislation does not make enrolment compulsory for anyone, but in New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and Queensland enrolment is compulsory for all persons who are eligible. So again there are differences between the State and Federal situations which involve the position of Aboriginal voters but which I do not believe are the sorts of differences and problems about which we need be deeply concerned. They are matters on which there is room for a difference of opinion and I do not see an overwhelming need for uniformity in such areas. The Commonwealth legislation provides only for voting in person, at a polling place or by post. It does not provide for mobile polling. Nor does the legislation in Victoria, Tasmania and the Northern Territory, whereas the legislation in New South Wales, Queensland, Western Australia and South Australia provides for some mobile polling. But short of the amendments which are about to be made to the Western Australian legislation there is no provision for mobile polling in remote areas. Again that is a substantial difference between legislation of the States and the Commonwealth, which difference I do not think is necessarily to the advantage of the Commonwealth.

Senator Robertson:

– That is for sure.

Senator CHANEY:

– I think that is a relevant point to make in light of the form in which the Opposition has brought this matter forward. I think that it would pose some difficulties simply and automatically to pick up the sort of option which was urged on the Government by Senator Walsh.

The problem which really arises in this area, in my view, is less a problem of the technical requirements of electoral law than a problem of the voting difficulties- the conceptual difficulties, in part, the communication difficulties and so on- which are faced by the disadvantaged. I think that there is far more progress to be made in this area than in relation to a particular concern about the precise provisions in State and Commonwealth legislation. I would put very squarely before the Senate the suggestion that we have a great obligation to ensure that Aboriginal people, and other disadvantaged people, know what to do when election time comes and how to do it. This can be effected in part by how the polling is conducted and by education. I want to touch quite briefly on both those matters.

I am of the view that in both those areas the Commonwealth is in a very strong position. I think that the work that has been done of late, although no doubt it is still not perfect, is very much to the credit of the Commonwealth and of the Australian Electoral Office, which has had the conduct of it. We have had discussions on that in the Senate previously. I have quoted previously in the Senate- and I would like to do so again- an extract from the magazine which is issued in Maningrida. I have not had a copy of it for a while, so it may have gone out of print. Gabalgu Jarra was produced by the Maningrida Council. Its edition following the elections in the Northern Territory contained an article which was headed: ‘Good Job, Electoral Office ‘. I think that that article is quite instructive in terms of giving a lead as to the way polling could be conducted to help Aboriginal people. I quote just a few parts of it as follows:

Before the elections some people were saying that Aboriginal people wouldn ‘t vote or that they shouldr ‘t vote because they didn’t understand what was going on. The Election Office -

I think that means the Electoral Office- helped Aboriginal people by asking the people in charge of the voting places all over the NT to help people who couldn ‘t read or write to make their vote. As well as that they found people who could speak Aboriginal languages to help at the voting places.

One of the recommendations of Mr Justice Kay was that people who speak Aboriginal languages should be used at polling booths. I quote further:

They also printed stories about the voting business in many of the languages of the Northern Territory. At the Maningrida voting place there were two balanda: -

Senator Robertson can translate that no doubt as Europeans or non-Aboriginals- who were working for the Electoral Office who could speak languages that everyone from the Maningrida area could understand. At Milingimbi the two men who were in charge of the voting place were both yolngu from that area. This meant that Aboriginal people who couldn ‘t read or writeespecially old people- were still able to have their vote. We say ‘Well done, Election Office!’- it should have happened years ago- we hope that now it will always happen.

The last comment in itself is instructive. Perhaps we are making progress in these fields. If progress is not uniform around Australia, that should lead us simply to increase our efforts.

In this area of Aboriginal education, which I put forward as being a very substantial contribution and even more important than the precise form of electoral law, the Commonwealth has been active; and it is important to note that it has been active in co-operation with the States. A lot of information has been put before the Senate, including extracts from the judgment of Mr Justice Smith relating to the Kimberley election which gave rise to the Kimberley by-election. Some quite heartening things came out of that series of events. One of them was that after the election which was challenged, the Commonwealth and the State in co-operation mounted an electoral education campaign in the Kimberley area. It was a joint Commonwealth-State effort and on all reports that I have been able to obtain it eased substantially the conduct of the voting in the subsequent by-election.

It is coincidental and perhaps a touch ironic that on the day that this motion has been moved one finds on page 3 of the Canberra Times a report that the Australian Electoral Office only yesterday dispatched two teams, one to South Australia and one to Western Australia, as part of the arrangements which have been made between the Electoral Office and the State departments in South Australia and Western Australia to commence an electoral educational campaign, for which we budgeted $100,000 in last year’s Budget. This is the sort of thing which represents, I think, the commitment which we have to the objectives which I believe are shared by both sides of the chamber, namely, that Aboriginal people should exercise properly their right to vote. On 15 November last year when I was the Minister for Administrative Services and briefly had the privilege of being responsible for the Electoral Office, I issued a statement in some detail about this program. I simply remind honourable senators of it. One finds in that statement, which is recorded in Hansard, that not only are we concerned about and mounting these programs with respect to Aborigines but also that we are mounting quite substantial campaigns to ensure that other groups in the community, in particular ethnic groups, get the necessary information which they require to exercise properly their right to vote. I had intended to quote quite a deal of this statement, but I simply will remind honourable senators that it is in Hansard for them to see if they wish.

Incidentally, our experience in the Northern Territory is that electoral education does appear to have successful results. My attention has been drawn to the fact that available statistics show that there has been a reduction in the proportion of informal voting since the Australian Electoral Office has been conducting those programs. I quote from an answer given by the Minister for Administrative Services, Mr McLeay, to a question on notice asked by Mr Wallis, which is recorded in the House of Representatives Hansard of 1 May 1979. The answer points out that various activities were carried out by the Electoral Office, both with respect to the conduct of elections and with respect to education. The answer includes the following:

The success of activities such as these is difficult to measure since many factors may influence the voting behaviour of individuals. In the case of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly election the Australian Electoral Office believes that it is significant that there was a reduction in the informal vote from 5.08 percent to the total vote in 1974 to 3.18 per cent of the total vote in 1 977.

Again, I think that that indicates that one can get over some of the sorts of difficulties which gave rise to the Kimberley by-election by having a better educated, better equipped and better prepared electorate.

Senator Gietzelt:

– Does the report deal only with this particular matter of Aborigines, or is it a general report?

Senator CHANEY:

– Which report is that, Senator?

Senator Gietzelt:

– The report from which you just quoted.

Senator CHANEY:

– I was quoting from an answer to a question.

Senator Gietzelt:

– Does it relate to Aborigines specifically or is it more general?

Senator CHANEY:

– It relates to Aborigines in particular. I stress that the key factor in this issue is that the programs which are being mounted are programs being conducted by the governments in co-operation. The State departments are involved and a single program is being conducted at Commonwealth cost and under the aegis of both governments. I believe that that is a very promising development and something which will take us away from the difficulties of the past. I have the Western Australian legislation under study. It came into my hands only recently. I think that it was brought into the Parliament within the last couple of weeks. It is under study in my Department. As honourable senators would expect, I have already received Aboriginal views on the report of Mr Justice Kay. I have no doubt that I will receive further views on the legislation from Aborigines. I will give that consideration and I certainly will consider the particular matters raised by Senator Walsh in his comments as areas about which the Opposition is concerned.

The report of Mr Justice Kay, to which I would like to refer briefly, is something I think many honourable senators might take the trouble to examine. I say that because I think it is very easy to say: ‘All right, I am going to read the report of the Court of Disputed Returns on the Kimberley election. I am going to see all this in conspiratorial terms and I am not going to worry about the fact that there are real practical difficulties which have to be faced ‘. I believe that Mr Justice Kay’s report repays reading in that it draws attention to the fact that there are simple, practical difficulties which have to be faced and which do permit the possibility of manipulation. Whatever one wants to argue about the reality of manipulation in a particular circumstance in a particular election, the fact is that the voting of people who are not able to read and write is open to manipulation. Those people must rely on other people; therefore, those other people are in a position to take advantage of them.

Senator Robertson:

– You are not suggesting the presiding officers, Senator, are you?

Senator CHANEY:

– No. I am not making allegations about anyone. All I am saying is that what Mr Justice Kay’s report brings out very well is the fact that, in various ways, it is possible to manipulate the system. Under various headings in the report, for example, with respect to the enrolment of voters, Mr Justice Kay made out his case as to why he believed it was necessary for some form of authorised witness to witness an application or a claim for a right to vote. After all, Mr Justice Kay pointed out in his report, that under the law as it stands at present a person who cannot read or write can be a witness to an electoral claim, not knowing what is in the card and possibly having no knowledge of the Electoral Act. We do have a rather ludicrous situation whereby a witness may have no idea of what it is that he is witnessing.

Senator Walsh:

– It is good enough for the Federal Act, isn’t it?

Senator CHANEY:

– I am simply saying that Mr Justice Kay pointed out that that presented an opportunity for manipulation. It seems to me that he is correct in saying that it does present an opportunity for manipulation. Clearly also, where one is dealing with a situation in which a person who is making a claim cannot read or write, it is open for somebody else to misrepresent to that person what is on the card that he is signing. There is room for debate as to the sort of people who ought to be singled out to witness those claims. That is a matter which I think one could consider at great length and debate at great length. But the principle of requiring a witness whom one can be satisfied is able properly to witness what is happening seems to me to be quite sound.

I refer very quickly to page 31 of Mr Justice Kay’s report for his comments on postal votes, which again 1 think are useful in pointing out the differences between the States and the difficulties of ensuring, when a marksman is involved, that one is getting a vote from the person who is claimed to have his name on the electoral roll. At page 33 of the report, Mr Justice Kay made a statement of principle which I think we could all consider. He said:

  1. . there are really no ways of effectively controlling all the abuses and manipulations which occur in the sphere of postal voting.

I break off there to say that perhaps that is the answer to Senator Walsh’s earlier interjection. The report continued:

However, we should endeavour to strike a balance between the right of the individual to have access to casting a vote and at the same time ensuring that Aboriginals are not being induced to enrol under the Act, that no illiterate person is induced to vote in a particular way and that no postal vote is allowed unless it can be established that the mark on the application and declaration is the mark of the elector.

I would say that most honourable senators in this chamber would have been involved in elections for a long time. They would know that there is room for abuse. Each honourable senator, on either side of the House, would admit that there have been occasions on which he has suspected people, perhaps from the other side of politics, of abusing the system in some way. I believe that we all ought to admit a common interest in ensuring that the system, whilst meeting the needs of Aboriginals, also is as foolproof as possible.

The last point I want to make relates to the very vexed issue of the presentation of the howtovote card. Here again, there is a real dilemma when a person comes in to a polling booth and says that he cannot read or write and then presents a piece of paper which someone else has given to him and says: ‘But that is how I wish to vote’. It raises an interesting question, does it not? How does one determine whether what is written on that bit of paper really does represent the intention of that person? In the various suggestions which have been put forward, Mr Justice Smith, for whom I have the highest regard, and Mr Justice Kay, for whom I have the highest regard also, have each put forward different views on how one can get over that problem. I simply ask members of the Senate to consider the fact that two men with no axe to grind, both men of considerable standing, have come to quite different conclusions on what is considered appropriate action to take.

The matters which have been brought before the Senate are matters of importance. The way in which we treat minority groups and people who are disadvantaged is, to a large extent, a measure of the sort of people we are. From that point of view, I am pleased that we have had an opportunity to debate this matter. Because of the difficulties of time, a debate on the Government’s view cannot be prolonged, but I hope that in the coming months honourable senators will bring to my attention any matters which they believe are relevant. I move:

Question put.

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

AYES: 29

NOES: 23

Majority……. 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2736

INDICATIVE PLANNING COUNCIL FOR THE HOUSING INDUSTRY

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the report of the Indicative Planning Council for the Housing Industry for 1979-80 to 1981-82.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– by leave -I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2736

URBAN AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– Pursuant to section 8 of the Urban and Regional Development (Financial Assistance) Act 1974 I present an agreement concluded on 30 March 1979 in relation to the provisions of financial assistance to New South Wales for programs relating to the restoration, preservation and improvement of landscapes and buildings of special significance.

page 2736

NATIONAL WOMEN’S ADVISORY COUNCIL

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present a report by the National Women’s Advisory Council entitled ‘Migrant Women Speak’. The report sets out a series of recommendations based on the views of migrant women themselves. I hope that the report will promote a discussion of the needs of migrant women, and I know it will be a valuable resource for the Government concerning our implementation of the Galbally report and our efforts to assist migrant women.

Senator RYAN:
Australian Capital Territory

-by leave- I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2736

SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Report

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

-I present the report and transcript of evidence from the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment on its inquiry into industrial research and development in Australia.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator JESSOP:

– by leave- I move:

The Senate, on 7 April 1 976, referred the following matter to the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment:

The continuing scrutiny of Australian science policy in the physical, social and life sciences. The direction, priorities, efficacy and ultimate application of Australian research and development efforts.

These terms of reference are very broad, covering the whole of Australian scientific and technological endeavour, together with its direction, and the influence it has on the community. My Committee therefore interpreted these terms of reference as giving discretion to establish priorities and determine which aspects of the matter should be investigated from time to time. A progress report relating to ‘Policy Matters for Science and Technology- An Outline’ was tabled by the Committee under this reference in November 1977.

On 27 May 1977 I advised the Senate that the Committee intended to carry out an inquiry into industrial research and development within the framework of the given terms of reference. The Committee appreciated from the outset that the scope of an inquiry into industrial research and development would be extremely wide. Even so, the importance and urgency of the main theme provided compelling reasons for a broad examination of industrial research and development in Australia. To the best of the Committee’s belief no such wide-ranging public inquiry into the subject has previously been attempted in this country.

As a result of the inquiry, the Committee has made some findings, the implications of which are extremely disturbing. The Committee’s recommendations to deal appropriately with them in the long term call for nothing less than a complete change of direction in the national approach to industrial research and development, particularly as this applies to manufacturing industry. The measure of this redirection is perhaps given by the 61 recommendations of the report covering a wide range of matters. I do not want to take up the time of the Senate at this point with a detailed description of all the recommendations. I would, however, like to pick out a few of the more significant points to give some idea of the main thrust of the report.

Industrial research and development is vital to the health of industry and consequent national development. But sometime during the last 10 years Australian industry lost its entrepreneurial drive. Not only this, but the Federal Acts intended to stimulate industrial research and development in Australia have failed in their purpose. Government incentives for industrial research and development are nowhere near commensurate with the need, nor do they bear any other than incidental relation to national objectives. Low levels of incentive grant lead to a frittering away of public money without any appreciable effect on the quality of the nation’s technology. Little fragments of information and expertise are not enough to start a development, build an export program or calculate multimillion dollar risks.

But at present no clear national policy for science and technology exists in this country. In consequence there can be little coherence, sense of purpose or direction in government support for industrial research and development. Yet a sense of direction and national purpose is desperately needed. Market, taxation and protection considerations conspire to produce a climate which is not conducive to industry’s taking a bold approach to innovation. Perhaps the most striking example of the unintended effect of government policy on innovation is the adverse influence which high levels of protection have on industrial creativity. The Government must also show, through its own purchasing and contracting policies, more confidence in the abilities of Australian industry. Those policies appear, often unjustifiably, to regard foreign firms as more capable than our own. If Australian industry, and not least manufacturing industry, is to move successfully into the coming decade, or even survive it, the barriers preventing it from engaging in research and development must be identified and removed.

If the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act is to be a really effective instrument of government policy, it must be related to national aims for industry and directed towards relevant priorities. Research and development projects must be selected for support with a clear idea of their relation to national policies and their likely effect on industrial progress and economic growth. If Australia is to retain industries capable of contributing significantly to employment and the economy, full advantage must be taken of the latest technology. Urgent action is needed to understand technological developments and give them recognition in national policies and plans.

This does not imply a neglect of the social consequences of technology. The economic and social consequences of present developments will be enormous and are even now being experienced. Yet the rapid changes occurring in technology and society are neither well nor widely appreciated. Means to release workers from long periods of toil in uncomfortable, noisy, even hazardous surroundings has long been an aim of society. Our technical ability to do this is rapidly increasing, and with it the potential for individuals to make more satisfying contributions to the communal well-being. But this demands new attitudes to the definition and meaning of work, and these are slow in developing. The potential to improve and develop our society and its culture is vast, yet we appear blind to this because of our traditional short term modes of thinking. There is, accordingly, a great need to monitor technological development and prepare for its effects on the community.

That sounds optimistic. What is the reality? Let us look at a few figures. A gloomy picture emerges. Between 1973-74 and 1976-77 Australian effort in terms of manpower engaged in research and development, declined by 40 per cent, which is a large decline. Indications are that the decline has continued since 1976-77. Between the same years, gross expenditure on research and development in Australia, as a percentage of the gross domestic product fell from 1.29 per cent to 0.97 per cent, a reduction of 25 per cent. No other member of the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development has shown so great a decline. Indeed, most of those countries have shown an increase, or a stable condition. In 1975, of the 17 OECD countries for which figures are available, the only countries which spent less than Australia per capita on research and development were Finland, Ireland, Spain and Portugal. The OECD examiners, in their report of 1 974 on science and technology in Australia, commented unfavourably on the predominance of the government sector both as a source of funds and as a performer of research. At that time the government sector provided 63 per cent of funds. Since then the situation has deteriorated, with the government sector providing 77 per cent of the total in 1976-77. The business enterprise sector’s contribution has dropped dramatically and disturbingly from 35 per cent of total expenditure in 1973-74 to only 19 per cent in 1976-77/ One would like to have more up-to-date figures but, regrettably, these are not available and even the 1976-77 figures are not yet officially published. This is further cause for concern. If we do not know where we are or where we have been, how can we make timely and meaningful plans for future direction?

It is vital that national policies for science and technology be developed as a matter of urgency to help to reverse this decline in research and development. There is currently in Australia a serious disproportion between effort and expenditure devoted to ‘applied research’, compared with ‘experimental development’. This is not to imply that expenditure on applied research should be reduced- quite the contrary- but rather that encouragement is needed in the area of experimental development to take full advantage of Australian research. It is generally accepted that development requires 5 to 10 times the cost of initial research. There is thus little economic sense in spending $ 1 m on research unless you have reasonable hope of obtaining a further $ 10m to carry a project through development to commercial fruition. It is at this point that out native Australian inventive genius fails.

In 1 976-77 we applied 44 per cent of our gross expenditure on research and development to applied research, compared with only 25 per cent for experimental development; that is, nearly 2:1. The balance, 31 per cent was for basic research. Most industrialised countries have a ratio of about 20 per cent to 60 per cent or 1:3. It is small wonder, then, that the Committee kept hearing of promising new ideas which had been shelved, or lost overseas, because resources to develop them commercially here were not available. Some examples of this are provided by the xerography process, the flame ionization detection unit, and the atomic absorption spectrometer of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. The lack of suitable measures to implement past scientific and technological advances contributes to the current difficult situation of manufacturing industry. If Australia is to develop as an industrial nation, a change is needed to place greater emphasis on supporting industrial research and development in its own right- not in subservience to, or consequent upon, other kinds of research, but in parallel with it. At the same time deliberate policies are required which will encourage and foster the flow of knowledge between science and technology.

The application of new developments in science and technology is almost certainly the most important single means we have of increasing the productivity and competitiveness of Australian industry. It has the potential at the same time to increase employment opportunities. This most promising avenue to the future appears largely unexplored, yet travel it we must if we are to remain among the creators and leaders of modern civilisation. But we have far to go. Australia is not so well endowed with knowledge and expertise that we can afford to underemploy these national assets. We must make concerted efforts to apply intellectual and material resources to better advantage in developing a competitive edge to primary and manufacturing industries. The expensive, often unique, facilities and knowledge to be found in government research establishments should make their full contribution to national development. This is not happening. Government research establishments, including those of the CSIRO, need to adopt a much more aggressive entrepreneurial attitude towards the eventual commercial contribution that their work can make to national economic well-being. The CSIRO, as well as other government research organisations could be more active in ensuring that its work is brought to a practical economic end through increased and closer participation with industry. Furthermore, the machinery whereby these organisations gauge and react to national needs and priorities, particularly in the manufacturing sector, requires strengthening.

The defence organisation also needs to take a fresh, hard look at its relationship with industry. Effective defence is as much a matter of industrial and economic strength as it is of military hardware and men under arms. But interaction of defence research and development with industry has been and is, with a few exceptions, poor. Similarly, tertiary education institutions with their research facilities and intellectual forces, represent a resource for innovation which few industries can match. Yet, although some examples exist of useful co-operation between tertiary education and industry, understanding of each other’s needs, capabilities and points of mutual interest is also poor. The whole area of collaboration between industry and tertiary education is a fertile field awaiting cultivation. The needs and aims of society, including industry, require ternary education institutions to become more involved in interdisciplinary problemoriented research, with university courses related to real as well as abstract problems.

Many other problems relating to industrial research and development are discussed in the report. For example, although shortage of professional manpower is not seen as a check on innovation, poor management attitudes may be. One most important area where management attitudes stifle creativity and hamper the exchange of information essential to innovation, is that relating to interchange of staff. An improvement in mobility and interchange of staff would go far towards meeting many of our needs and problems in industrial research and development. There are further problems relating to the availability and flow of technical information. It is important that Australian libraries develop strategies for acquiring and making readily available the kind of information needed by workers in industrial research and development.

Shortcomings also exist in the Australian patent system. It is commonly assumed that present patent legislation operates in the national interest. This assumption is open to serious question. Finally, industry could do much to help itself through the establishment of joint facilities for commercially oriented research and services for information and advice. The leaders of Australia’s industry could with advantage consider the merits of improving their research and development capability by consolidating and strengthening existing industrial research associations and perhaps creating some new ones.

In summary, our problems lie not so much in existing facilities, or in the number and quality of personnel involved, but rather in the relationships established between the various elements involved in research and development, together with policies aimed at achieving optimum balance between research, development, management, and the market place. Given this situation, it is of first importance that a sense of direction be given to our industrial, research, and teaching organisations. This is why the Committee’s first recommendation is addressed to the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), desiring him to give urgent attention to the expression of a clear national policy for science and technology, against which planning decisions in support of industrial research and development can be made. This policy should attempt to identify and support those scientific endeavours in which Australia could best pursue and achieve excellence, and which at the same time are likely to make significant contributions to national advancement.

The Committee’s second recommendation follows directly from the first. It desires the Prime Minister to direct the Australian Science and Technology Council to consider the feasibility of establishing a long term national plan for the development and application of science and technology to the furtherance of national well-being. Plans of this kind, which include mechanisms for involving the community in the planning process, have been developed successfully overseas.

Notable among them is that of the Royal Norwegian Council for Scientific Research. The Committee suggests that the Norwegian example may serve as a point of departure for ASTEC.

A further recommendation is that the Government considerably increase the level of funding for the Australian industrial research and development scheme. In all, the Committee makes 6 1 recommendations intended to meet in a practical way some of the problems and shortcomings I have just outlined. Among these recommendations are proposals: That incentive grants be free of tax; that Government departments maximise the contracting of research and procurement to Australian industry; that the influence of science and technology on social development be studied systematically; that staff mobility be encouraged; that relationships between government instrumentalities- particularly CSIRO and Defence- tertiary education institutions and industry be revised; and that patent laws and agreements be reviewed in depth.

I commend the report to the Senate. I pay a sincere tribute to members of the Committee’s staff who have been able to produce no less than three reports in the last month. This report is a major one. I think that Mr Dawe, Ms Luker, Mr Wiber and, I am told, the tireless person who works on the typewriter, Mrs Hansen, ought to be congratulated and commended on their devotion to the Committee.

Debate (on motion by Senator Mulvihill) adjourned.

page 2739

JUDICIAL LEGISLATION

Northern Territory Supreme Court (Repeal) Bill 1979

Motion (by Senator Chaney) agreed to:

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to repeal lae Northern Territory Supreme Court Act 1961, and to provide for related matters.

Judiciary Amendment Bill 1979

Motion (by Senator Chaney) agreed to:

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend lae Judiciary Act 1903.

Federal Court of Australia Amendment Bill 1979

Motion (by Senator Chaney) agreed to:

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976.

Judges’ Pensions Amendment Bill 1979

Motion (by Senator Chaney) agreed to:

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend lae Judges’ Pensions Act 1968.

Bills presented by Senator Chaney.

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Senator Chaney) agreed to:

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

First Readings

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

Standing Orders suspended.

Second Readings

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– I move:

Northern Territory Supreme Court (Repeal) Bill 1979

This Bill and those associated with it represent the last major step in the assumption of responsible self-government by the Northern Territory. Under the Northern Territory (SelfGovernment) Act 1978, the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory exercises legislative power in respect of the peace, order and good government of the Territory. Honourable senators will know that the Northern Territory Government now also exercises executive authority, pursuant to the Northern Territory (SelfGovernment) Act 1978, in respect of almost all State-type functions. Accordingly, with the traditional view of the division of governmental powers into legislative, executive and judicial arms in mind, it only remains for the Northern Territory Government to assume responsibility for the judicial arm of government.

Responsibility for the Territory’s lower courts was transferred to the Northern Territory Government on 1 January 1978 with most of the Attorney-General’s other State-type functions. But at that time it was felt inappropriate to transfer the Supreme Court- the highest judicial organ in the Territory courts structure. In view of the constitutional development of the Territory since then, including the creation of the Northern Territory Government as a separate legal entity from 1 July 1978, the Government has decided that the Supreme Court should be under local legislative and executive control. This decision, I should make it clear, followed representations from, and discussions with, the Northern Territory Government.

The Northern Territory Supreme Court Act 1961 now provides for the establishment and constitution of the Court. This Bill will repeal that Act which will be replaced by Northern Territory legislation providing for the establishment and constitution of a new Territory Supreme Court. That Court will not be the subject of Commonwealth legislation, except in respect of the conferral of Commonwealth jurisdiction upon the Court and necessary transitional matters. Clauses 5 and 6 of the Bill are transitional provisions ensuring the continuation of proceedings pending before the High Court or the Federal Court of Australia arising from proceedings in the present Northern Territory Supreme Court, and of the appointments to the Federal Court of the present judges of the Supreme Court.

Clause 7 will put beyond doubt that references in existing Commonwealth legislation to the Northern Territory Supreme Court are to be read as references to that Court to be established by the Northern Territory legislation, except where the context otherwise requires. Discussions between officers of the respective governments, concerning the necessary administrative and financial arrangements and for the transfer of staff and property, are now being conducted. This Bill and the replacement Northern Territory legislation will then be proclaimed to come into operation on the same day. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I am touched by the kindness of the Opposition. I seek leave to incorporate the remaining three second reading speeches in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speeches read as follows-

Judiciary Amendment Bill 1979

This Bill is consequential upon the Northern Territory Supreme Court (Repeal) Bill 1979 and will pick up the effect of certain provisions of the Northern Territory Supreme Court Act 1 96 1 that need to be continued. Its main purpose is to confer jurisdiction on the Northern Territory Supreme Court in respect of matters that may not be within the competence of Northern Territory legislation and are, in any event, more appropriately dealt with in Commonwealth legislation.

The Bill will amend the Judiciary Act 1903- the Principal Act- by inserting a new Part IXA. That Part will confer jurisdiction on the Northern Territory Supreme Court in respect of suits between the Commonwealth and the Territory, certain prerogative writs and injunctions sought against Commonwealth and Territory officers and matters arising under Commonwealth legislation in respect of which the Territory Supreme Court has traditionally had jurisdiction. It also puts beyond doubt that provision can be made in Territory laws for the prosecution of indictable offences against Territory laws.

New section 67E will extend to the property and moneys of the Territory the same protection from execution or attachment as applies to the Commonwealth and the States. Clauses 4, S and 6 of the Bill contain other necessary or desirable consequential amendments. Clause 4 will extend the provisions of section 7 1 A of the Principal Act, which concerns the prosecution by the AttorneyGeneral of indictable offences against Commonwealth laws without preliminary examination, to all Territories. The need to extend those provisions to the Northern Territory arises from the repeal of the Northern Territory Supreme Court Act, section 51 of which provides similarly at present. The provision is to be extended to all Territories as it is not appropriate to extend it only to the Northern Territory.

Clause 5 will cease to apply section 55D of the Principal Act, which makes provision regarding legal practice in the Territories, to the Northern Territory. Administration of the legal profession will be regulated solely by Northern Territory legislation. Clause 6 will extend the provisions of section 80A of the Principal Act, which concerns the law that is to apply to Territory courts exercising jurisdiction in respect of claims against the Commonwealth and the like, to suits under the new Part IXA. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Federal Court of Australia Amendment Bill 1979

This Bill is consequential upon the Northern Territory Supreme Court (Repeal) Bill 1979. The four resident judges of the Northern Territory Supreme Court now all hold appointments to the Federal Court of Australia. Also, a number of other Federal Court judges hold appointments as additional judges of the Northern Territory Supreme Court. The Government has decided that this situation should continue, particularly in view of the fact that appeals from the Northern Territory Supreme Court will continue to lie to the Federal Court for the time being. The Government also desires to be able to appoint to the Federal Court judges of the future Northern Territory Supreme Court.

This Bill will amend the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, to which I refer as the Principal Act to achieve those purposes. Clause 3 will amend section 6 of the Principal Act so that the qualification for appointment as a Federal Court judge under sub-section (2) includes appointment to the Northern Territory Supreme Court, which will no longer be a ‘court created by the Parliament’ within the meaning of the Act. Subsection 6(5) is to be similarly amended in relation to the holding of dual appointments by Federal Court judges. Clause 4 will amend section 15 of the Principal Act to refer to a ‘Chief Justice’ of the Territory Supreme Court in addition to ‘Chief Judge’ as the proposed Northern Territory legislation will create the position of Chief Justice of the Territory. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Judges’ Pensions Amendment Bill 1979

This Bill is consequential upon the Northern Territory Supreme Court (Repeal) Bill 1979. After transfer of the Northern Territory Supreme Court to local control, the Commonwealth should continue to be responsible for the pensions of Northern Territory Supreme Court judges only if they also hold appointments to the Federal Court of Australia. This Bill will amend the Judges’ Pensions Act 1968 to achieve this. It will amend the definition of ‘judge’ in section 4 of that Act to substitute ‘Australian Capital Territory’ for ‘an internal Territory’, thus excluding the Northern Territory. This means that the Act will not apply to Northern Territory Supreme Court judges as such. The Act will, of course, continue to apply to them if they hold Federal Court appointments.

The definition of ‘prior judicial service’ will also be amended so that service on the Northern Territory Supreme Court may be counted as prior judicial service under the Act. Clause 4 of the Bill will preserve benefits already payable under the Act in respect of previous service as a judge of the Northern Territory Supreme Court. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on moton by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 2741

JUDICIARY (DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATION) AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Bill returned from the House of Representatives without amendment.

page 2742

TAXATION ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Bills received from the House of Representatives.

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Senator Durack) agreed to:

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

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

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

Second Readings

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I move:

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

Leave granted.

The speeches read as follows-

Taxation Administration Amendment Bill 1979

This Bill and five further Bills I will introduce shortly propose amendments to various taxation laws to abolish the valuation boards, to transfer the functions of those boards to the taxation boards of review and to enable particular duties of the Chairman of the valuation boards to be performed by a member or secretary of a taxation board of review. The Principal Bill is the Taxation Administration Amendment Bill which proposes amendments to the Taxation Administration Act, under which the valuation boards are established, to abolish the boards. With the abolition of Commonwealth estate and gift duties on and from 1 July this year, the primary task of the valuation boards to determine disputes about property valuations made by the Commissioner of Taxation for the purposes of estate and gift duty assessments will gradually disappear.

It is proposed that the functions previously carried out by the valuation boards be transferred to the taxation boards of review. The boards of review are established under the Income Tax Assessment Act and review decisions of the Commission of Taxation under the income tax law and other Commonwealth taxing laws. These boards, which already have experience in determining valuation matters in income tax matters and under the stamp duty laws of the Australian Capital Territory, at present deal with matters other than questions of valuation that arise under the estate duty and gift duty laws. A person who is dissatisfied with the decision of a board of review has a right of appeal to a supreme court and that right will remain.

The Chairman of the valuation boards has an additional statutory function in relation to income tax, estate duty and pay-roll tax, and that is to enquire into and report on the financial position of persons who seek to be released from payment where exaction of the full amount of tax or duty would entail serious hardship. A relief board consisting of the Commissioner of Taxation, the Secretary of the Department of Finance and the Comptroller-General of Customs, or their substitutes, then determines, on the basis of the report, whether this release should be granted. The function of reporting on the financial position of persons applying for relief is to be transferred to the taxation boards of review to be dealt with, as the Chairman of the board of review concerned decides, by either himself, another member of the board or the secretary to the board. The relief board will continue to make the decision concerning release from tax or duty.

I should explain that, at the present time, the position of Chairman of the valuation boards is vacant, the last occupant having reached retiring age and retired several weeks ago. Members of a board are part time appointees, generally professional valuers or accountants, who receive a fee for each sitting of a board they attend. Details of the amendments are contained in an explanatory memorandum that is being circulated to honourable senators. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Estate Duty Assessment Bill 1979

This Bill proposes consequential amendments to the Estate Duty Assessment Act arising from the proposed abolition of the valuation boards by the Taxation Administration Amendment Bill just introduced. An explanation of the purpose of the Bill, which is part of a package of six Bills, was given in my second reading speech on the Taxation Administration Amendment Bill and is more fully dealt with in the explanatory memorandum that is being circulated to honourable senators. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Gift Duty Assessment Amendment Bill 1979

This Bill also proposes consequential amendments to the Gift Duty Assessment Act arising from the proposed abolition of the valuation boards. An explanation of the purpose of the Bill was given in my second reading speech on the Taxation Administration Amendment Bill and is more fully dealt with in the explanatory memorandum that is being circulated to honourable senators. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1979

This Bill will amend the Income Tax Assessment Act in consequence of the proposed abolition of the valuation boards by the Taxation Administration Amendment Bill. As I indicated in speaking on the first of this group of Bills, the present amendments are concerned with the establishment of the financial position of taxpayers who apply to the relief board for release from payment of income tax. They are explained more fully in the explanatory memorandum that is being circulated to honourable senators. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Pay-roll Tax Assessment Amendment Bill 1979

This Bill proposes amendments to the Pay-roll Tax Assessment Act, which remains in effect only for the purpose of collecting pay-roll tax that became due prior to the transfer of pay-roll tax to the States. It also is consequential on the Taxation Administration Amendment Bill introduced a little while ago. The Bill is more fully explained in the explanatory memorandum that is being circulated to honourable senators. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Pay-roll Tax (Territories) Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1979

This Bill which proposes amendments to the Pay-roll Tax (Territories) Assessment Act is the last of the measures that arise from the proposed abolition of the valuation boards by the Taxation Administration Amendment Bill. The Bill is more fully dealt with in the explanatory memorandum that is being circulated to honourable senators and I commend it to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 2743

ATOMIC ENERGY AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 10 May, on motion by Senator Chaney:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator TATE:
Tasmania

-Only last November the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) walked into the House of Representatives and admitted that the Atomic Energy Act was a totally unsatisfactory vehicle for the commercial exploitation of uranium in Australia. In this chamber, a mere 7 months later, we are confronted by yet another amendment designed to remedy the latest defect discovered in the Atomic Energy Commission’s ability to manage the development of this Australian energy source. The Opposition believes that the introduction of these further amendments to the Atomic Energy Act amounts to a further damning admission by this Government of how inappropriate this Act is as the legislative framework for the development and exploitation of uranium within Australia, particularly as it is claimed to be developed for- I believe this to be the casepeaceful purposes and commercial profit.

The Opposition says that no amendment can save the basic impropriety of using an Act which was formulated in the early 1 950s to deal with a completely different defence situation. Honourable senators will know that that defence situation revolved around the exploitation of the Rum Jungle deposits, in order to aid the nuclear weapons programs of our allies. We say that that Act was drawn on a completely different basis from that which is said to prevail at the moment, namely, that we are trying to develop these deposits to help an energy starved world and for commercial profit. It is well known that the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry chaired by Mr Justice Fox perceived the contrary- the utterly different context of the late 1970s as distinct from the early 1950s. It perceived a completely different historical situation. The rationale for Australia’s uranium development has utterly changed. Page 248 of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry second report states:

We strongly recommend against the use of that Act for the grant of an authority to Ranger to mine uranium.

Why did the Fox inquiry commissioners recommend against the use of the Atomic Energy Act as a legislative framework for the development of our uranium resources? Why did the Government decide- contrary to that recommendation- to continue to use it? I believe that on 25 November last year I answered both questions in a debate on further amendments to the Act by pointing to the provisions of the Act which have the effect of seriously eroding our ordinary civil and political liberties. I pointed to sections which deal with the presumption of guilt. There is a presumption of guilt in certain sections which is raised by virtue of being a certain character and not by virtue of engaging in any particular activity. Certain sections grant immunity in advance to Commonwealth Police officers concerning, for example, illegal detention or seizures of property. There are sections which vest inordinate discretions in the hands of the Attorney-General to determine liability to light or heavy sentences. Whilst these provisions have not yet been brought into operation they are potentially available to a government. This must be the explanation for the Government’s continuing with the Atomic Energy Act as a legislative framework for the development of the Ranger project despite the very clear recommendations made against it by the Ranger inquiry.

It is not good enough to say, as I have no doubt Senator Young will say, that the Labor Administration envisaged using the Atomic Energy Act as the legislative framework for the development of those resources. At that time we did not have the benefit of the recommendations of the Fox inquiry commissioners. In the light of their very strong recommendations I am sure that we would have made the necessary adjustment to the legislative basis for the development of this program. The Opposition states categorically that those sorts of provisions hanging in the air which are potentially available to a government to erode our civil and political liberties and which are understandable in the defence context of the early 1950s have no place in the development of this Ranger uranium resource. I would have thought that any decent government would have acknowledged as much by now. In any case it ought to be clear that the Labor Party will never support any amendments purporting to ameliorate or modify the operation of this Act. We say that the whole legislative framework ought to be scrapped and cannot be saved by piecemeal tinkering. My remarks made clear to honourable senators our general objection to the Atomic Energy Act even as it is proposed to be amended.

I now move to the amendment to the Act, which briefly is to enable the Australian Atomic Energy Commission to borrow moneys and issue securities, which are guaranteed by the Treasurer on behalf of the Commonwealth, to raise funds for the capital costs for the Ranger project in particular. The Atomic Energy Commission will contribute 72 V4 per cent, the Peko company will contribute 13% per cent and the EZ company will also contribute 13% per cent. The Bill also provides further arrangements as to operating costs. The Opposition’s fundamental point concerning this amendment is that the Atomic Energy Commission ought not continue to combine the functions of a research establishment, a regulatory and safeguards body and a commercial operator with respect to atomic energy materials or processes.

The Opposition is constructive in this area, as it is in all others. Its leader, the future Prime Minister, Bill Hayden, has very properly and constructively responded to an advertisement in the national Press calling for submissions to the National Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Council inquiry into research and development activities of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. The terms of reference of the inquiry are somewhat defective, as I will point out later. I believe the submission by Mr Hayden certainly was not defective. Amongst other things, it proposed that the current functions of the Atomic Energy Commission be divided. This is a constructive contribution to this debate. The Opposition proposes that the Atomic Energy Act be repealed and replaced by legislation to give effect to a number of proposals. The first of those is that an independent regulatory authority be established to be responsible for nuclear-related environmental protection, health, safety, security, safeguards and other non-proliferation activities.

Secondly, a new government corporation should be established to take over the present commercial activities of the Atomic Energy Commission, such as the production and marketing of radio-isotopes. A third body should be established. Other research functions currently being performed by the Atomic Energy Commission ought to be performed as appropriate by a nuclear science authority with projects funded by a national fuel and energy commission, consistent with research and development priorities determined for a national energy policy. There may be allocations of funds to commercial as opposed to regulatory sections within the Atomic Energy Commission. More importantly there may be an actual conflict between a desired mode of operation of a reactor and some safety or regulatory measures. Perhaps more frighteningly, the regulatory or safety arm of the

Atomic Energy Commission may lack independence and integrity of command and fail to enforce optimum safeguards. It is clearly appropriate in an area of such obvious conflicts of interest that the organisational arrangements should reflect a desire that the best possible research, the most competent commercial exploitation and the most vigorous health and environmental safeguards should be promoted by separate bodies not answerable to a single set of commissioners. Therefore, the Opposition will oppose the amendments provided in the Bill which continue to try to give to the Atomic Energy Commissioners conflicting roles.

In putting this proposal forward, the Opposition is being in no way radical. The proposal is not proffered in any destructive way. The need for the changes was alluded to by a very eminent and respected authority. The Coombs Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration suggested in very moderate language that there may well be a case for reconsidering the form, structure and the functions of the Atomic Energy Commission. It was conceived under the influence of scientific, technological and economic expectations which have changed dramatically since its establishment. This is no partisan proposal that the Opposition is putting. I believe that the Australian Democrats are inclined to support the Labor Party’s attitude in this debate and will signify that to this chamber. I believe many honourable senators from the Government parties share the Opposition’s view about the need to divide the present functions of the Commission amongst several independent bodies. Naturally, in support of the Government, they will not be signifying that in this chamber, but I hope that they will continue to do so in their party rooms.

The Opposition says that the commercial exploitation for peaceful purposes of uranium energy resources at Ranger or elsewhere, if it is to be undertaken by any statutory authority whether in partnership or alone, ought to be undertaken by a body with a charter for entrepreneurial activities only- certainly not by the presently constituted Commission within the framework of the Atomic Energy Act. Regulatory and safeguards measures should be undertaken by and be the responsibility of an absolutely independent authority, as is the case in the United States, the United Kingdom and in any nation to which Australia would look for models of the best organisational structure for this peculiarly hazardous industry. By all means let nuclear energy, isotope research and the like continue to be undertaken by a revamped

Atomic Energy Commission within a peace oriented legislative framework. I am certainly not one to query the Commission’s competence or to doubt its capacity, if relieved of other tasks, to provide sound research for the future.

I come back to a point I made earlier. I am very concerned that the terms of reference of the NERDDC inquiry may have predetermined that the Government will make the Australian Atomic Energy Commission the central authority for a wide range of research activities in Australia. One finds in the advertisement calling for submissions that the review committee has been asked to report on, amongst other things, the capacity of the research establishment at Lucas Heights to redirect its research and development role and to deploy both existing and new resources to meet the Government’s energy policies and broader energy research and development objectives. The committee was further asked to report on the identification of any factors which could inhibit any redeployment and use of research establishment resources in nonnuclear energy research and development activities.

The Opposition says that rather than the types of energy research undertaken by the Atomic Energy Commission being expanded, the Commission should do what it does best- that is, nuclear research- as a nuclear science authority. It ought to act within those parameters, funded by a national fuel and energy commission. This is the proposal put forward several months ago by Mr Keating, the Opposition spokesman on energy and national resources, in the Labor Party’s Green Paper. Honourable senators will recall that this Green Paper was extremely well received by industry and the media throughout Australia. It received a glowing editorial in the Canberra Times the day after it was released. Within this Green Paper the proposed national fuel and energy commission is described in framework only. The Opposition stated:

A future Labor Government would establish a national Fuel and Energy Commission to assist the Government in developing and implementing a co-ordinated fuel and energy policy by providing expert advice to the Government.

Of course, responsibility must remain with the Minister. The Green Paper continues:

It is important that a committee concerned with the coordination of energy activities have representation from all bodies involved with energy in Australia. For this reason the proposed Fuel and Energy Commission would be composed of representatives of Federal and State governments and of producers and consumers of energy.

It would be from that overall national commission, looking after the whole energy research and development requirements of Australia, that the proposed nuclear science authority would derive its sustenance and the parameters within which it would operate. This proposal is echoed in Mr Hayden ‘s submission to the NERDDC inquiry. I believe that I have established why the Australian Labor Party cannot support this amendment. The conflict of roles within the Australian Atomic Energy Act needs to be resolved. It is not good enough for the Government month after month, session after session, to ask honourable senators to pass amendments to deal with the obvious gaps within the legislation which was devised for a totally different, defence oriented exploitation of our uranium resources at Rum Jungle. Mr President, on behalf of the Opposition I move as an amendment to the motion for the second reading:

Leave out all words after ‘That’, and insert ‘the Senate declines to give the Bill a second reading as it is of the opinion that:

1 ) the Australian Atomic Energy Commission should not be empowered to raise funds on the commercial market for uranium mining until such time as the unresolved problems associated with the nuclear industry have been satisfactorily resolved; and

the Atomic Energy Act is an inappropriate legislative basis for nuclear energy research and development and for commercial activities and should be repealed and replaced by legislation to establish:

an independent regulatory authority responsible for nuclear-related environmental protection, health, safety, security, safeguards and other nonproliferation activities;

a government corporation to conduct the present commercial activities of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, such as the production and marketing of radioisotopes; and

a Nuclear Science Authority to perform, as appropriate, the other functions currently undertaken by the Commission’.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Is the amendment seconded?

Senator Melzer:

– I second the motion.

Senator TATE:

– By putting that amendment on behalf of the Opposition I have concluded my remarks.

Senator YOUNG:
South Australia

– This afternoon we are dealing with amendments to the Atomic Energy Act. As the Government pointed out in August 1978, there is a need for the Commonwealth to share a proportion of the cost in developing the Ranger uranium deposits to which Senator Tate has referred this afternoon and that these funds would be raised by the Australian Atomic Energy Commission through borrowings. In the second reading speech the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) said: . . the purpose of this Bill is to enable the Australian Atomic Energy Commission to borrow monies from the Commonwealth or elsewhere and to give security and issue securities in respect of borrowings other than from the Commonwealth, to enable the Treasurer to guarantee repayment by the Commission of monies- borrowed other than from the Commonwealth- and to provide that where securities are issued by the Commonwealth, repayment is guaranteed by the Commonwealth.

He went on to say:

On 25 August 1977, the Government announced its policy . . .

It is again repeating that policy- . . that development of the Ranger uranium deposit would proceed on the basis of the Memorandum of Understanding between the Whitlam Government and Peko Mines Ltd and the Electrolytic Zinc Co. of Australasia Ltd.

I think it is very important that we take note of the paragraph to which I have just referred in the Minister’s second reading speech. It is not a case of history repeating itself, it is a case of continuing with the foundation that was laid by the Whitlam Government in the Memorandum of Understanding between the companies concerned in the Ranger agreements and the Whitlam Government as the government of the day. Also, because of many of these things, amendments to the Atomic Energy Act are necessary. We are dealing with certain existing provisions in section 27 that will have to be amended. If we go through the Minister’s second reading speech we will see that there are other sections which need to be amended. The main thrust of the Opposition’s argument so far today has been that it is opposed to the Atomic Energy Commission’s having itself involved in any way in commercial dealings. In Hansard of 9 May of the House of Representatives at page 2023 Mr Paul Keating, the shadow Minister for Minerals and Energy in the Labor Party, had this to say:

We have now a silly situation in which, under the Ranger uranium consortium arrangement, the Government has the Atomic Energy Commission out seeking markets for its half of Ranger’s production. It is almost unbelievable that, the Ranger uranium consortium having been entered into with the Peko-Ez Companies, the Government rather than the consortium is to seek a market for its share of the produce and the companies will do the same for the rest.

As I understand the Labor Party policy, ‘for the rest’ means other minerals. Having quoted Mr Paul Keating I now wish to refer to the Memorandum of Understanding which incidentally, as I mentioned before, was between the Whitlam Government and the companies concerned in the Ranger consortium. The agreement was reached, as I understand, on 28 October 1975, which is an important date to remember. Under the heading of ‘SALES ‘ clause 7(a) states:

All future sales of uranium concentrate produced by the Ranger Project shall be effected by the Commission as agent for Australia.

Further on in that clause it states:

Prior to the decision to commence construction of the project, the Commission shall use its best endeavours to sell sufficient uranium concentrate output of the project to facilitate appropriate financing arrangements . . .

Today we have heard two criticisms: Firstly, that the Commission should not be involved in any commercial aspect; and secondly, that commercial aspects should be used to facilitate the establishment of the uranium mine at Ranger. Yet it is set out in the agreement between the Whitlam Government and the companies concerned that that should occur.

Senator Tate:

– We learned; that is the difference.

Senator YOUNG:

– It is all very well to say that they learned but what this Government is doing is continuing on the basis of an agreement that was reached between the two companies I mentioned earlier and the Commission- the partner on behalf of the Australian Government. It is interesting that in clause 7 (b) of the Memorandum of Understanding is this statement:

All mineral products, other than uranium concentrate produced at the treatment plant, shall be sold by Peko and EZ on behalf of the joint venturers.

In other words, it is spelt out very clearly and concisely that the Atomic Energy Commission will be sole agent for the selling of uranium but that the other two partners, the two companies, could sell other minerals. I think it is very important to remind people of that. Perhaps one could go further and refer to the Twenty-third Annual Report of 1 974-75 for the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. It deals with the Commission’s operations for the financial year ending 30 June 1975; it deals with half of 1974 and half of 1975. On page 39 of that report under the heading ‘Marketing of Uranium ‘ it states:

The Australian Government has appointed the Commission . . .

The Australian Government at that time was the Whitlam Government- its agent for future sales of uranium from all sources in Australia.

It was not appointed as agent just for Ranger, but for all sources in Australia. We have heard criticism today because the Commission is to be an agent for Ranger. The report goes on to say:

Commitments for deliveries under the existing contracts held by the Ranger participants (Peko-Electrolytic Zinc) and by Queensland Mines Ltd will be met by the companies firstly by negotiated deliveries from the stockpile of uranium presently held by the Commission, . . .

I emphasise the words ‘held by the Commission’-

  1. . and later by production from the Ranger plant.

I remind the Senate again that this is the report of the Atomic Energy Commission dealing with the year 1974-75 when the Whitlam Government was in power and the Commission was working under the policies of the Whitlam Government. The report goes on further to say under the same heading:

The Commission is developing a marketing strategy, including the definition of available markets and pricing and contract conditions, for the output of Australian plants and for the logical growth of such facilities.

What a change around in what we are hearing at the present time from the Labor Party from what we heard when it was in government. In all fairness to Senator Tate, we have previously heard the Labor Party argue on other aspects of mining, not just the Atomic Energy Act, but other aspects. The reason behind all this is that the Australian Labor Party’s policy- not of all its parliamentarians, let me make that clear- is to oppose all mining in Australia. It is using this Bill as a means of criticising the Government for what it is doing today. Another point of great interest when considering the Labor Party’s attitude towards uranium mining is another statement by Mr Keating. It appears in the same Hansard, that of Wednesday 9 May, at page 2025. Mr Keating said:

Australia is a country with abundant reserves of coal and other fossil fuels and we are not in the position in which, unfortunately, some countries are of having a lack of reserves and resources and of having to take a decision to go to nuclear power.

I repeat the words ‘having to take a decision to go to nuclear power.’ One wonders at times how many members of the Opposition are genuine in their attitude to the mining and export of uranium. Mr Keating has made it clear that he accepts that many countries require uranium because of the energy gap.

Senator Tate:

– What is your point? I do not understand it.

Senator YOUNG:

-He made it clear in that statement that they will have to turn to atomic energy. If they are going to turn to atomic energy, then countries with uranium must supply that uranium. That is the point that I am making. I would also remind the Senate of the conclusions reached at the World Energy Conference held at Istanbul in 1977. There is not time to quote all of these, but I would like to quote one or two to the Senate. The first of its major recommendations reads:

With the doubling of world population to 8 billion people, world energy demand is expected to grow by between 3 and 4 times despite the most rigorous measures to promote energy conservation and improved efficiency of use.

The document then goes on to deal with other areas in which there is an energy crisis and a big energy gap. It states: . . some more highly developed countries which are rich in other fuel resources, may be able to maintain their economies at an acceptable level. However, the great brunt of this lack will fall upon the high population, developing countries of the world, and the resultant effects on food production and industrial production will be chaotic.

I want to emphasise the final conclusion. It states:

No time can be lost in presenting this situation to the people of (he world and particularly to those groups who are delaying and preventing major programs of energy production at present, largely based upon wishful thinking that more acceptable programs might eventually emerge.

The conclusions reached at this conference give much food for thought. I regret that the limitations of time today, towards the end of the session, do not allow me to read the whole of these conclusions to the chamber today. Therefore I ask for leave to incorporate them in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

Summary of main conclusions at World Energy Conference, Istanbul, 1977.

With the doubling of world population to 8 billion people, world energy demand is expected to grow by between 3 and 4 times despite the most rigorous measures to promote energy conservation and improved efficiency of use.

The energy resources of the world are completely ample to support this growth in energy demand, at least over the next 50 years, and probably for another 100 years without having to depend upon non-conventional, renewable sources of energy. However, these resources are distributed very unevenly in the various countries, and thus there would need to be a tremendous increase in the international trade in fuels, particularly coal, which would have to increase by a factor of 1 0 over the period considered.

Because of the declining oil resources and production towards the end of the century there will need to be a tremendous effort of substitution, particularly by means of coal and nuclear fuels. Coal demand is expected to grow by up to 6 times over the period.

A most effective way of introducing substitute fuels into the energy economy is by their conversion to electricity, and electricity demand is expected to increase more than sixfold over the period. The rate of growth in electricity demand is expected to stay almost constant over the period despite a substantial fall-off in the overall growth in demand for energy on a worldwide basis. The projected increase in electricity demand cannot possibly be met without a major contribution from nuclear power including breeder reactor application. The share of electricity produced from nuclear fuels by the end of the century is expected to be almost 45 per cent and up to 60 per cent by the end of the period considered, 2020.

Despite maximum efforts to promote, by research and development and other means, the development of alternative renewable energy sources, no hope is seen for such energy sources providing more than a minor contribution by the end of the period. Thus solar energy use will increase substantially to the point that at the end of the period considered it will provide as much useful energy as that provided by electricity at the present time, but this will only correspond to between 3 and 5 per cent of total primary energy by the year 2020. It is not seen to be possible for solar energy to provide any significant contribution to electricity needs, the energy provided from the solar source being in the form of low termperature heat, mainly used for space heating and water heating.

The problems of developing nuclear power to the extent required by the projected needs are seen to be very substantial particularly in the area of gaining public confidence and political support for such programs. In the absence of such a large program of nuclear power development, some more highly developed countries which are rich in other fuel resources, may be able to maintain their economies at an acceptable level. However, the great brunt of this lack will fall upon the high population, developing countries of the world, and the resultant effects on food production and industrial production will be chaotic.

There is a major interaction between the ability to sustain stable economic growth and the ability to supply the energy needs of the world. This situation is most clearly and crucially met in the problems of generating the enormous quantities of capital which will be needed to provide the new energy systems of the world and the international trade in energy sources. If major moves to solve the problem of energy substitution are delayed too long, so that they coincide with the period of steeply increasing oil prices and gas prices, it may not be possible to generate the enormous quantities of capital for these programs. Energy conservation programs undertaken immediately are also seen to be a vital need in order to extend the time available before oil resources are depleted and to allow the generation of capital requirements for future substitute systems. On a world basis a reduction in energy demand of the order of 30 per cent below that which would otherwise have occurred by unrestrained growth by the end of the century is seen to be an absolute necessity in order to maintain this balance. A delay of even 10 years before substantial introduction of such conservation programs could lead to an impossible situation by the end of the century.

When the situation is examined on a regional or national basis, the same considerations apply with varying degrees of severity. No country of the world is seen to be in the position to escape the impact of the severe energy supply/demand situation which has been revealed. Just as there will be a need for a substantial movement of energy resources, fossil fuels and nuclear fuels, from energy-rich countries to energy-poor countries, there will be a need for substantial export of capital from economically strong countries to economically weak countries, if this problem is to be solved. There is seen to be no hope for the use of the socalled decentralised, soft energy technologies in poor or developing countries to supply their real needs. In the timescale considered it is felt that such sources of energy will not provide any suitable or significant input to industry and food production potential. They will be mainly applicable in areas of peripheral use for comfort and convenience.

For the rural areas of the developing and evolving nations the cost of estabishing energy distribution systems based on electricity grids or pipelines will probably exceed available capital resources; this will reduce the possibility of use of nuclear fuels by such nations. There may be a need for economically strong countries to install more nuclear plant simply to allow the release of oil and gas for application in simple, low investment systems in developing countries.

As a general comment (and this is supported by the more detailed presentations in the large number of individual technical papers presented at the Conference) it now may be said that the studies have been taken to a point where they provide adequate factual and statistical information for effective action by the world governments. The problem has been defined, the scope of its impact has been thoroughly explored and the available strategies and alternatives have been identified. The action now required is firm and resolute measures and policies by the major world governments. No time can be lost in presenting this situation to the people of the world and particularly to those groups who are delaying and preventing major programs of energy production at present, largely based upon wishful thinking that more acceptable programs might eventually emerge.

Senator YOUNG:

– I thank the Senate. Let me make it clear that I accept the problems and the scares of Harrisburg. Incidentally, according to my information at the moment the reading of iodine, which is one of the problems the Press has been talking about, is not very high at all. It is summed up in this simple way: From the estimation of the amount of radioactive iodine fallout, a person would need to drink something like 5,000 litres of milk each day for 12 months to exceed the annual intake of iodine- 131. I am quoting the best source I can get- we are awaiting the results of the full inquiry in the United States of America- and my information at this stage is that the radiation fall-out, and there was some around Harrisburg was said to be something like the equivalent of two chest x-rays. There was a lot of scare talk in the newspapers. It may come out that the radiation level was higher than that, it may come out that it was lower, but they are the estimates given by the closest authority that I can contact at this stage.

Because of these energy gaps, because of the need for Australia to play its part in supplying uranium, and because of the need for us to back up the safeguards laid down by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) soon after we came into power, it has been necessary for us again to amend the Atomic Energy Act so as to allow the Australian Atomic Energy Commission to play its part as a commercial partner with the other two partners in the Ranger consortium, Whilst we are hearing criticism from the Opposition today, this Government is merely applying those safeguards and making the Act efficient so that the Australian Atomic Energy Commission can become an efficient partner. We are merely continuing upon the foundations laid in this area by the Whitlam Government.

I certainly oppose the amendment, not just because it is proposed by the Opposition and not just because I do not think it is necessary, but because the Opposition, to be quite honest, is not really concerned about amendments to the Atomic Energy Act. It is diametrically opposed at this stage to the mining and exporting of uranium to feed an energy-hungry world. I support the motion.

Senator MELZER:
Victoria

– I rise to oppose this Bill which would enable the Australian Atomic Energy Commission to borrow money on the open money market to finance the development of the Ranger uranium deposit and the Ranger uranium mine in the Northern Territory. We are critical of the Government’s determination to develop Ranger, we are critical of the Government’s use of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission for this purpose, and we are certainly critical of the Government for persisting in its efforts to mine and export uranium. The Government has to admit that it has struck a problem in that it cannot find a market for the uranium which it wants to have sent out of Australia. It has hawked Australian uranium all around the world. It has tried in every conceivable part of the world to find customers and so far they are South Korea, the Philippines and Finland.

Let me deal first with South Korea. South Korea has signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and has assured our officials that we can export uranium to that country with a clear conscience. However, at the end of September last year South Korea was showing off its homemade missiles at army day celebrations. Its local newspaper editorialised thus:

There is no gainsaying that modern wars are decided by guided missiles. All we have to do to turn them into a new weapon is to put nuclear warheads on the missiles we have . . .

Our missile capacity has exceeded that of North Korea. However, we are still in a stage of initial development, when we compare them to the multihead missiles and other weapons produced by world powers.

Our remaining task is to continue to develop our weapons system in both quality and quantity.

Those words were published in a country that this Government assures us is a non-proliferating country when it comes to nuclear weapons, one to which this Government assures us we can export our uranium with a clear conscience. It has signed the non-proliferation treaty but it is hell-bent on using our uranium to provide it with nuclear missiles.

Senator Tate:

– Is that the Government which imprisons Christians, pastors and priests?

Senator MELZER:

– It most certainly isgenerally because they are objecting to the warlike stance it has taken. The Philippines is a country to which we have agreed to sell uranium.

Everybody in the world now knows that the area in which the Philippines intends to build its nuclear reactors is on a fault line. It is liable to be affected by earthquakes. After the incident at Three Mile Island in the United States, where it was substantiated that it was not purely human error but also the unexpected functioning of the equipment in the reactor that caused the problem, one wonders how on earth a country could go ahead and build a nuclear reactor in an area which can be affected by earthquakes. The reactor at Three Mile Island in the United States was badly damaged. Nobody is quite sure how badly it was damaged. Nobody is yet sure how the accident happened or why it happened. If such an accident can happen in a country which is as scientifically efficient as the United States, what can happen in a country such as the Philippines?

It has been very difficult to find customers in the world because of the cost of nuclear energy and because of community disquiet about nuclear reactors and the disposal of the wastes that result from those reactors. I quote to the Senate from an article in Fortune magazine on nuclear power in which it was stated:

Even where the anti-nuclear marchers do not turn up, as they have so conspicuously at the Seabrook plant in New Hampshire, utilities have soured on the nuclear option for other reasons. Shearon Harris, chairman of Carolina Power & Light, decided some time ago to build coal plants instead of reactors at a new generating site. Because of federal indecision on fuel reprocessing and waste disposal, Harris says, it is impossible to supply some of the cost data necessary to win permission to build nuclear plants in North Carolina. The only utility that did order reactors last year, Chicago’s Commonwealth Edison, is one of the nation’s strongest advocates of this form of energy. But the company placed those orders with Westinghouse on terms that let it withdraw on payment of a negligible cancellation fee. Warns Gordon Corey, the utility’s vice chairman: ‘If the government doesn’t get going on a program for waste disposal, we will cancel ‘.

The rocketing cost of building nuclear plants alone has discouraged many utilities. As recently as 1970, plants were coming on line at a cost of only $200 a kilowatt. Plants begun today can be expected to cost eight times as much. The main reason for those rising costs is the continuing imposition of stricter safety standards by the regulators … the reevaluation of the nation’s seventy-two nuclear power plants after the accident seems bound to lead to costly new safety requirements.

In some areas, notably in the Middle Atlantic states where construction costs are especially high, the prospective price of new reactors already staggers the imagination. The New York State Power Authority last month decided to cut its losses after the price tag on a proposed 1,200 megawatt nuclear plant on the Hudson River below Albany, scheduled for completion in the late I980’s, climbed from $1.8 billion to $3. 1 billion- a cost that works out at nearly $2,600 a kilowatt. The vote to scrap the project, taken just after the Three Mile Island accident, was financially painful: the authority had already spent $ 1 47 million on the project.

Later in the article utility executives are quoted as saying:

But the utilities cannot convincingly refute the point that insufficient provision for the cost of decommissioning an old reactor -

A cost that is not always taken into account when one talks about the cost of producing electricity from nuclear reactors- mainly because the nation has no experience yet in dismantling a big one. The highest estimate of dismantling costs that is heard these days comes from Peter N. Skinner, an environmental engineer in the New York State attorney general ‘s office. He figures it might cost a formidable $249 million, in 1977 dollars, to decommission a I, ISO-megawatt reactor- about a quarter of the cost of building it.

Then one has to ask: What is the cost and what do we get for the cost by this method of producing electricity? I might as well cite the United States position because that is where it all began. This article goes on to point out:

So electricity represents only about one-eighth of the energy actually used by consumers. Petroleum products and natural gas, burned by residential and industrial consumers at the point of use, remain the real energy workhorses. Since nuclear power provides only one-eighth of all electricity, it represents a mere sixty-fourth of all energy at the point of use- not a great deal more than firewood. Even ten years from now, assuming all the reactors built or on order are finished and put to use, only about one-thirtieth of the nation ‘s delivered energy will be nuclear.

It is little wonder that with the problems the world has with nuclear energy it is not terribly anxious to buy Australia’s uranium. Not only does it not provide a real and worthwhile percentage of the electricity produced in the United States, but also it has some hidden charges that are not always taken into account. The article further stated:

Critics have long complained that the federal government subsidizes nuclear power in several ways: by undercharging for uranium enrichment, by proposing too low a fee for radioactive-waste disposal, and through the Price-Anderson Act, which sets a $S60-million limit on utilities’ insurance liability for each reactor accident. In a severe accident, in which claims might run into the billions, the taxpayers would probably get stuck providing aid to the people in the vicinity. And the cost of nuclear power has been questioned because it does not cover the entire anticipated cost of dismantling reactors when their useful life is over.

That shows what the position is in the United States, but it is not just in the United States that the market is falling away, thus making it an unreliable area in which Australia should invest. An article in the Australian Financial Review states:

Reactor orders have plummeted from a high of 41 in 1973 to zero in 1978.

Some 24 reactor orders have been deferred indefinitely or dropped altogether since 1974.

In 1976 nuclear power was endorsed in seven out of seven State referendums. Last year the public voted ‘no’ in Montana and Hawaii. And in a recent General Electric survey, 46 per cent of the respondents believed nuclear plants would make their communities less safe, compared with 29 per cent who felt than way five years ago.

Estimates of when a repository for storing nuclear waste would be ready have slipped from 1985 to 1988 and even 1995.

That estimate was made by the Carter Administration ‘s waste disposal committee. It is indicative of the difficulty and the trouble the world is having in finding any real solution to the disposal of atomic waste. The article continues:

Already California, Iowa and Wisconsin have prohibited further reactor construction until the waste issue is resolved.

In an interview with Morris K. Udall, chairman of the US House of Representatives committee which has responsibility for overseeing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Business Week reports this ‘moderate on nuclear issues’ as saying: ‘ I think nuclear is on the razor’s edge right now. And I think probably by the end of this congress- in the next two years- you will get a pretty good reading on whether you’re going to have a renewed surge of orders for nuclear plants. “You will see whether the present de facto moratorium will be converted into a de factor permanent moratorium. “We are finding in our committee that if you factor in all the true costs of nuclear, coal is now competitive. We’re finding, “Well, my God, if it isn’t even cheaper, why run all these risks or proliferation and so on?” ‘

The sense, the heart, of those remarks can be repeated for every country of the globe. The article continues:

The second thoughts about nuclear are not confined to the US . . . It is already happening in some countries.

The Japanese Atomic Energy Commission planned to have 100,000 MW of nuclear power installed by 1990. That figure has now been cut back to 60,000 MW.

The same competitive edge of nuclear over alternative sources is confirmed by France . . .

In the United Kingdom not a solitary nuclear plant has been ordered since 1 973 despite plans to install an additional 35,000 MW capacity by 1 980.

In West Germany nuclear development is at a standstill because of local opposition to every proposed site and the availability of recourse to the courts to delay projects.

In Sweden the Social Democrat Government lost office when its conservative Opposition embraced an anti-nuclear policy . . .

In Austria a national referendum aimed at preventing a start-up of a $500m nuclear plant . . ., the nation’s first, was successful even though the blocking proposal was fought by Prime Minister . . . as an issue of confidence.

A national referendum is to be held in Switzerland on February 10.

The country, which is a conservative one, is deeply divided on the problem and the referendum was only just defeated. The article continued:

In Italy nuclear development is at a standstill.

And even before Iran was racked by its present bout of anti-Shah riots the ambitious nuclear program had been virtually aborted.

Nowhere in the world can this Government find a clear, strong area which wants to buy our uranium. As John Aherne, a senior aide to Energy Secretary Schlesinger, in the United States, said:

The great nuclear power boom that was forecast 10 years ago is never going to happen.

We certainly have time to solve a lot of the problems which are concerned with the nuclear power cycle before we need to be so anxious to dig uranium out of the ground and export it. Problems of proliferation and dealing with the wastes still exist. We have a government which said that it would not countenance the sale of uranium to any country which was not prepared to sign strong nuclear safeguard agreements with us. But so desperate is this Government to serve its masters, the mining companies, that despite all that has been said about safeguards, early in March offers were made to Japan and to Britain before bilateral nuclear safeguard agreements had been finalised. So evidently we are prepared to go to the point of agreeing to sell uranium before we even put to the countries concerned the safeguards we require.

The Bill enables the Government to push ahead with Ranger and to sell on a falling market and so waste our money. But what care has the Government taken of the workers who are to be employed on the site? While the Government is busy using investment resources on Ranger and so starving other areas of industry which offer a much greater job potential than uranium mining, what is the position of those few workers who are employed on the site? A newspaper article of 30 May stated:

A contingent of Nabarlek construction workers, who flew into Darwin yesterday for an arbitration hearing on conditions in the uranium province, were eager to air their complaints outside the hearing.

They claimed they had become virtual ‘prisoners ‘ of their employers because of the conditions ana restrictions they were being forced to endure.

Of course, that is partly because they work under the Atomic Energy Act. The article continued:

Many have threatened to pack up and fly back home if the outcome of the current arbitration hearing on their log of claims is not met with a favourable response.

For many, working in the uranium province was the only alternative to retrenchment, followed by almost certain unemployment and queuing for the dole check.

We know very well that this Government is not averse to forcing people into areas in which they do not want to work and which they find dangerous. Those people are forced into doing that by the long queue of unemployed people waiting at the gate. The article continued:

The men complain of a bad dust problem, of an unreliable power supply and inadequate facilities for the number of people at the construction camp.

The men are working 10 hours a day, 7 days a week and they say they have no social life . . .

The article continued:

Pay rates are lower than they are in the towns.

One electrician, who is earning $5.20 an hour at Nabarlek, could earn up to $7 in a town where conditions were far better.

The men are not permitted to leave the site compound, and must carry identification tickets with their photo attached.

One said publicity given to the effects of uranium had stirred up an uncertainty about what the future held. ‘This is not coal or sand or something like that, ‘ he said.

We don’t know what effect this is going to have on our health in another 20 years or so ‘.

How right he is. The article stated further:

Abour 30 per cent of the workers are men with families in other centres.

They said the unrealistic conditions of employment has been drawn up by Queensland Mines Limited in consultation with the Northern Land Council.

So the article went on. For those extraordinary conditions, for the extraordinarily long hours and days of work and for the sort of pay those men are getting, they are running the risk of low level radiation affecting their lives. They are running the risk of concentrations of radon and radon daughters affecting their lives. When dealing with the problems of radiation protection, there is a tendency for people in the field to forget that real people are involved and that real people die of cancer when the technical fixes which are proposed fail. There is a tendency to forget that protection measures have to be implemented by people, and people can fail.

To protect uranium miners adequately we will need more than theoretical estimates of such things as the radon concentration in the whole open pit mine area. We have to know what concentration of radon daughters a man who is crawling around on the floor of a mine pit will be subjected to. We have to know how he will react to changing a tyre on his truck when he is supposed to be wearing a respirator. We have to know what dose in the lung he receives in his airconditioned truck cab. We have to know how many times he will make the journey up and down the side of the open cut and how he will be affected. We have to know what pressures mine management will exert on the radiation protection officer which the code demands that the mines appoint. We have to know how management will react when the radiation protection officer suggests that the mine should be closed down for some days while the radon gas is dispersed and safety returns. We have to know how mine management will react when expensive alterations to procedures are suggested in the interests of radiation protection. We do not know any of those things at this point in time. What exposures in working level months will real people working under those theoretical conditions be subjected to?

Nabarlek is a mine which will be mined out in a very short period. Obviously it will be mined by people working long hours each day and long days each week over a short period so that the uranium can be removed from the mine very quickly and placed on the market very quickly. That means that the safety measures which were proposed will be very hard to supervise. Uranium miners all over the world have always been in greater danger than any other miners. Another newspaper article stated:

Dr Joseph Wagoner, special assistant for occupational carcinogenesis at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, has been studying uranium mining since that 1 960 beginning. . . .

We are told in the article that Dr Wagoner is angry at the way in which the United States of America has dealt with uranium mining and uranium miners. The article went on to state:

Dr Wagoner ‘s last formal count, in 1 974, showed 1 44 cancer deaths among the 3,500 miners. Statistically, 29.8 such deaths would be expected, leaving 114 instances of what doctors call excess deaths. Dr Wagoner’s estimate of the toll through 1978 is about 200 deaths, 160 in excess, ‘making 160 people that needlessly died due to lung cancer because we did not accept the published data that was already there for our use in the 1 950s ‘, he said.

I ask whether Australia is even yet accepting the published data that was available in 1950 for men who will be working in 1 980? The article continued:

Thirty years from now we ‘11 have the hidden legacy of the whole thing’, he went on. ‘What we refused to do 30 years ago, we are paying for today. What we refuse to do today, we will pay for in thirty years.

The data clearly indicates the inadequacy of current standards on radiation exposure in mines’, he said.

In scientific circles I don’t think any one doubts that diseases are being caused by exposure to radon daughter during mining . . .

The United States National Academy of Science in its BEIR Report, published in May 1979, denies that there is any real threshold of radiation levels to which men can be subject. Yet the men who are working in these mines in the Northern Territory will be subject to safeguards that are based on a low radiation level of five rems. The men are subject to low level radiation from uranium and from the tailings dumps. We feel that this Government should get its priorities right. It is extraordinary that whilst it pays lip service to our need for energy and to the need for energy in other parts of the world it does not follow that up when it comes to research. It is extraordinary that while in the last Budget $12m to $15m was given over to nuclear research only $8. 5m was given to coal research, $2m to petroleum research and $3m to solar energy research. If the Government feels that resources are available we believe that those resources should go into employment in other areas until such times as the problems that are associated with the nuclear area are resolved. In the meantime we feel that there is no logic or no reason why such a large proportion of our Budget should go into nuclear research when there is obviously such a great need for research to be done in other areas for which that the world is waiting. I support the amendment moved by Senator Tate.

Senator MacGIBBON:
Queensland

-I will speak very briefly- in fact only for about ten minutes- in support of the Atomic Energy Amendment Bill. At a later date, when I have a bit more time, I will go a bit more deeply into the background of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission and expand on its great significance to Australia. I will do that in an attempt to dispel some of the ignorance we have seen portrayed today. There has been some recent ill-informed criticism of the whole operation of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. I suppose that has always existed ever since Nagasaki and Hiroshima. This criticism basically comes from people who lack scientific training and who do not understand what is involved. We had a little diatribe a while ago from Mr Hayden on a scheme written by one of his supporters whom I will not name in public. Fortunately, that scheme sunk without a trace although I note that Senator Tate resurrected it this afternoon. I do not want to discuss the Hayden scheme in detail beyond saying that it contains some party dogma in that it seeks to create three authorities where one exists at the present time. Given the present circumstances in Australia, given the high capital cost of the nuclear industry and given the scarcity of trained scientific workers in this field, the type of operation we are running at the Australian Atomic Energy Commission at the present time from a management point of view is the best that we can do.

The original Act was passed in 1953. Australia has benefited enormously both within the country from our scientific research and in our international standing as a result of the effort we have put into this field. There is a need to produce uranium in the world. The purpose of this Bill is to enable the Commission to raise money so that it can expand its commercial operations.

There has been some talk this afternoon about the desirability of somehow or other pretending that the nuclear industry does not exist. The sheer illogicality of this staggers me. Nuclear power stations do exist. They are a fact of life. In fact 199 nuclear power stations operate today around the world, 209 are being built and another 106 are on order. Countries are not building nuclear power stations to annoy the environmentalists or the people who get frightened by radiation. They are building the nuclear power stations because they need them to maintain the welfare of their people and their industries. For example, the United States of America generates 13 per cent of all its power from nuclear sources. In addition, 50 per cent of that country’s oil is imported. There is no way that the United States can suddenly overnight withdraw 13 per cent of its power segment which comes from nuclear sources. That is a fact of life. Parts of Europe, Japan and the Republic of Korea have very high imports of hydrocarbons. These countries need nuclear energy in the short term to provide them with a source of power.

Senator Melzer quoted Mr Schlesinger of the United States Administration as saying that the great nuclear boom will never come. I do not believe we will have a great nuclear boom. What I am saying is that we do need nuclear power stations because they are established and they cannot be substituted overnight. Given that fact of life, while we have a resource and while people are prepared to buy it then I think we have an obligation to market it for the benefit of our own people. This Bill deals with the commercial activities of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission and it sets up a base on which the Commission can give loan guarantees and things of that nature. I think it is relevant to look at the commercial activities of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission up until the present time because they have been of enormous benefit to Australia. Furthermore, the Commission has provided services to Australia that were not obtainable from any other source. Most importantly the record of the Commission in this field has been one of utter responsibility to the community at large.

The Commission has undertaken activities in the fields of agriculture, industry, mining, medicine and research. Industrially the Commission has involved itself with the sterilisation of instruments, catgut, pharmaceutical requirements and so on in the medical field. It has made a major contribution in the field of diagnostic medicine with the provision of radioactive isotope services. In 1976-77 the Commission made 36,000 shipments of radioactive isotopes to hospitals around Australia. This is a very important community service. If that service had not come from an Australian source it is quite possible that Australian medicine would not have had access to this very important diagnostic tool. The radioactive isotopes used in diagnostic medicine necessarily have a very short half-life. They have to be taken from a reactor or source of production to a hospital in minimal time. As a result it would just not be possible to import them from overseas.

The Commission has made a major contribution in the field of therapeutic medicine with the use of cobalt 60 in radio-therapy for the treatment of malignancies. Furthermore, the Commission has developed a very big export market in this field to Japan, Thailand, New Guinea, India and the United Kingdom. It has also developed high energy radiation for the preservation of food without refrigeration. It was responsible for the detection of termites in the entomological field. This had an application in the sleepers of the iron ore railways in Western Australia. The Commission has developed techniques for radioactive gauging, metrology and radiology with neutron beams on concealed solid structures. It has also developed a very extensive field in mining applications such as on-stream analysis of minerals and in the bulk analysis of copper and nickel. In the coal industry the Commission has determined the level of combustible volatiles in coal dust and this information is used in the prevention of explosions. It has also looked at the ash content of coal.

The Commission has also operated in the water resources area in my own State of Queensland with aquifers in the Burdekin delta under the Alice Springs basin. The Commission has moved into the field of radiochemical analysis, with important forensic applications- the identification of micro samples of hair, clothing, tissue and the like- and its work has had parallel industrial assay applications.

One of the interesting things that have come out of its work has been in relation to coal-fired thermal stations for the generation of power. One of the implied arguments against the use of nuclear power generation is that other forms are utterly safe. I regret that I do not have with me the figures released by the United States Department of Public Health on the effect of coal-fired thermal stations on the health of the American population, but that effect is considerable. I refer to the number of deaths that arise from the pollution of the air, principally by the release of sulphur dioxide, and to the large number of respiratory, chronic asthma and bronchitis cases which result. It has been well recognised for a very long while that the burning of solid fuels by thermal stations does have a very real social price.

An interesting correlation may be drawn between the burning of solid fuels and the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere. Whenever we burn coal we increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the earth’s environment and its atmospheric envelope. The following figures might be of interest to the Senate. In the 75 years from 1900 to 1975, the production of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased from 2,000 million tons in 1900 to 18,000,000 tons in 1975. The effect is to delay the escape of radiation that is reflected back from the earth through the atmosphere into space, with the potentiality for increasing the ambient temperature of the earth’s air. Since carbon dioxide has a very long life in the atmosphere- no-one knows precisely how long it remains in a residual concentration, but it is of the order of hundreds or thousands of years- to increase the number of coal-fired thermal generating stations does exact a real price in terms of the ecology of the earth ‘s environment.

On the micro scale some very interesting figures have turned up recently in relation to what might be termed trace elements in coal. The figures that I shall quote are based on an extrapolation of data published by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. Using the 1976-77 year, it was estimated that 20 million tonnes of black coal were burnt annually in Australia. Further, that quite a large variety of trace elements were released into the atmosphere of this country as a result of what is generally assumed to be the harmless pastime of burning coal to generate electrical energy. In those 20 million tonnes of black coal there were present 40 tonnes of uranium, 60 tonnes of thorium, 120 tonnes of arsenic, 20 tonnes of thallium, 2 tonnes of mercury, 10 tonnes of cadmium, 2,000 tonnes of zinc, 16 tonnes of selenium, 500 tonnes of lead, 400 tonnes of nickel and 6 tonnes of antimony. Those trace elements represent a significant fraction of the whole. When one considers them on the basis of an individual tonne, the percentage concentrations are probably expressed in parts per million, but when we are burning 20 million tonnes a year the cumulative effect is significant.

A large proportion- it is a variable fractiongoes up the chimney as stack gas and is released as a volatile element, to be precipitated generally over the community.

In the case of arsenic, 90 per cent goes up the chimney, so that of the 120 tonnes present in the 20 million tonnes of coal, some 1 10 tonnes are released over Australia each year. Arsenic is well known as a carcinogen. It is even better known as a toxic agent which is famed in literature for use in getting rid of people. It cannot be said that to release 1 10 tonnes of arsenic into the air is of no consequence. Some 25 per cent of the thallium comes off as a volatile fraction. Thus 5 tonnes is released. Mercury is extremely toxic, in its vapour form particularly. Some 1.9 tonnes is ultimately released into the atmosphere. In the case of cadmium, some 50 per cent goes up the chimney as stack gas, so that five tonnes is released to the atmosphere. Zinc, whilst not as lethal as are the heavy metals, is certainly an extraordinary active allergen, and the release of 600 tonnes of zinc vapour to the atmosphere is an event of significance. I have mentioned these figures and seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the table that I have drawn up.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows-

Senator MacGIBBON:

– I thank the Senate. I mention those figures in passing to illustrate that when we analyse carefully situations that we have regarded as being relatively harmless, they can be seen to exact their own price. In contrast, there is a case for the comparative ecological cleanliness of the nuclear production of power.

Those few descriptions of the commercial applications of the work of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission demonstrate the great benefit of the Commission to Australia and the air of responsibility with which it has judged its efforts. At a later date when more time is available I would like to develop more fully in the Senate the case of the scientific basis under which the management of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission is operated. I conclude my remarks at this point.

Senator MASON:
New South Wales

– The Bill that the Senate is discussing is designed to allow the Australian Atomic Energy Commission to borrow money so that it may enter into a partnership with Peko Mines Ltd and Electrolytic Zinc Company of Australasia Ltd in the Ranger uranium project. We of the Australian Democrats have the gravest doubts about the viability of the nuclear power industry. Indeed, our policy is to oppose the mining and export of Australian uranium because we believe, after considering as many aspects of it as we can find, that nuclear power, as an industry, is pollutant, dangerous and uneconomic. If at some time it ceases to be those things, and that can be proved and demonstrated to us, we will reconsider the situation as, we would hope, would any reasonable person.

In the foreseeable future, the Australian Democrats see few glimmerings of improvement on the horizon; rather, with incidents such as occurred at Harrisburg, we see more problems ahead for the nuclear industry. However, generally we support the amendment proposed by the Australian Labor Party. We would like to see a sensible division of powers, because of the changing circumstances in which the Australian Atomic Energy Commission now operates.

The point that I want to make particularly is that if we are to have such an industry, and if, regardless of the warnings that the Government should be getting- if it has any sensitivity- from all over the world, it persists in its folly of persevering with this industry, we must ask: Will it be a sound business undertaking if the Government is indeed to be involved? Presumably the Bill is designed to see that it will be a sound business undertaking, so I think it is worth while asking whether the Commission is a sound organisation from a business point of view. I question this. In doing so, I do not question the ability of the officers and staff of the Commission at any level. There are, as we all know, some extremely able and intelligent people working at the Commission. The concern of the Australian Democrats is with the policy of the Government. There appears to be a deliberate Government policy designed to make the operations of the Commission in the commercial field uneconomic.

During a recent visit to the Commission’s establishment at Lucas Heights I asked a question about the cost of consultancy there. I was toldand I want honourable senators to note the figure particularly- that the cost was $ 1 8 an hour. This means that a wide range of services in the most sophisticated type of chemistry imaginable, including isotope analyses, plus the use of the most complex and expensive equipment, is freely available to industry- especially the mining industry- at a cost which is lower than most of us would have to pay to a plumber or motor mechanic. A good solicitor charges $60 an hour for his services; a barrister charges $120 an hour and upwards. I repeat that the Atomic Energy Commission’s charge of $18 an hour is an imposition on the taxpayers of this country.

One way or another, the community foots the bill for this policy. Pensioners foot the bill. While this extravagant subsidy continues to be applied in areas of society that could well afford to pay a fair market price for the services being provided, research scholars, students, the unemployed and the aged are forced down below the poverty level. I think it is worth making the point quite plainly that the equation is perfect. If we take money away from one part of a society and give it to another, that is exactly the same as taking the money directly out of the pocket of one person and giving it to somebody else. The fact that the money is, one might say, laundered through the Government does not make that statement any less true.

At the end of my visit to the Atomic Energy Commission, at the public briefing that is commonly held at these public relations sessions, I asked whether in fact this figure was an accurate one. I could not get a direct reply on the actual charges, although I have since confirmed that figure of $ 1 8. In doing so I also got an expert opinion that $18 an hour would probably not be enough to cover just the cost of amortising the equipment being used, much less paying anything towards the costs of maintaining those people and paying their salaries. However, it was stated at that briefing that the Commission charged these low figures for its services because it was considered that the benefits would flow back to society through assistance to industry. That is what the Australian Democrats mean in this case about Government policy. I simply cannot believe that the Atomic Energy Commission would have the temerity to introduce such a policy itself. I invite honourable senators to consider the situation that would result from an extension of this policy. We should consider what would happen if all industries in Australia were provided with sophisticated services of this kind at a quarter of a reasonable figure, or perhaps even less than a quarter in view of what is being charged by some other reputable research and chemical testing organisations in private industry. It is almost a Gilbert and Sullivan type of situation, or it would be if it were not so tragic. The nation would go bankrupt if that sort of situation continued throughout the whole strata of our business and society.

I turn to the 1977-78 annual report of the Atomic Energy Commission. I see that the overall allocation to the Commission was $22,800,000. Receipts for analytical chemistry and isotope operations amounted to $1,495,737 and receipts for further miscellaneous operations amounted to $335,738, giving a total of just under $2m. This revenue was, of course, derived substantially from the kind of operations that we have been discussing, the charges for which I am now bringing to the attention of the Senate. I would say that it is a fair assumption that on reasonable prices for the expert services and sophisticated equipment involved, the Commission ought to have earned at least another $1.5m to $2m and probably a great deal more. Industry pays other major analytical enterprises, such as Amdel in South Australia, reasonable prices which are justifiable in the market place. My query is as to why it does not pay those prices to the Atomic Energy Commission and why the Government allows that situation to continue, then comes to us and wants us to approve the Atomic Energy Commission’s entering into another big business enterprise.

Even another $lm in earnings by the Commission could have meant getting our postgraduate research scholars, on whom the future of science in this country depends so much, out of the position they are in now. A married scholar with two children is also below the poverty line in spite of the important and responsible work he does. The Government pays him the princely allowance of $120.76 a week. He has to provide transport, clothing and all the other things that an actual working career makes necessary. I invite the Senate to consider a comparison of the income of $120 a week with the income of $103 of a man with the same family responsibilities who is on the dole. It is probably worth while for a research scholar to toss in his hand, not do his work and go on the dole. He would be better off. This is a result, I might say, of the Government’s insistence on subsidising industry which is perfectly able to pay for things and taking away from people like those scholars and others in the society who should be doing a great deal better.

I ask the Government to look hard at its priorities and to try to straighten out this matter before it comes to the Senate and asks it to approve the Atomic Energy Commission ‘s entering into other business undertakings. I must, of course, consider the possibility that the Government provides these chemical and forensic services at very low cost to popularise the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, to make it seem a very busy organisation with its services very much in demand. That attitude, I suggest, would be equally subject to criticism. I personally do not believe that that is the case. I fail to see how the Government could be so cynical as to exploit other areas of society to that end.

Is this strange Alice-in- Wonderland type of financial thinking, which is so costly to the hardearned tax dollar, to be carried forward into the Ranger partnership? If this is to be another blatant Government subsidising of what is quite likely to turn out to be an uneconomic industry, where will this get the country? Is that industry going to be a safe one? Will it be able to be an economic industry if the true costs are brought to light? I suggest that this is another reason for the facts which I am now presenting to the Senate. If the Government is going to enter that enterprise and provide services at appallingly low costs which the taxpayer will bear, that industry will not be economic. I suggest to honourable senators that that is something at which we should continue to look in the future.

I turn my attention to another aspect of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission which seems uneconomic. That is the use of very good, trained minds for relatively small and, indeed, at times puny operations. I am not going to apologise for the apparently frivolous matter that I am bringing up because it very much relates to the point that I am trying to make. When I visited the Atomic Energy Commission I was told, for instance, that a complex and delicate chemical analysis of three pubic hairs was carried out to obtain evidence for a rape case. Apparently in this case the evidence was negative but the assailant confessed anyway. I imagine that in some cases this forensic work could justify the use of the sophisticated and expensive equipment and expert minds of the AEC but I believe that it should not ordinarily be a prime concern of the Commission or of a body of that kind. I ask: Just how much of this forensic work is being done, how consequential is it, for whom is it being done and what charges are being made for it, if any?

I wish also to raise the broader issue of the ineffective use of highly qualified minds at Lucas Heights. I refer to such people as statisticians, mathematicians and others who are, I understand from the senior officers there, not fully employed. Those people are great assets to this country. Their minds should be engaged in working on important problems all the time. I think any concept that they should be put out to pasture is a false one. Because of that, the Australian Democrats would like to see the Atomic Energy Commission transformed into an energy department so that the expert people it employs who are not specialist particles physicists can devote their efforts to other sources of energy that, although we have made some important startsand I must give the Government credit for that- we are still substantially neglecting in this country. The whole situation is unfair to the staff and officers of the Commission as it exists at present. I think that is a major criticism of any attempt to use the existing organisation to move even further into new enterprises.

I think it is also unfair that the Commission should appear to be so much a propagandist for nuclear power. I refer to its guided tours, its propaganda kits, its issues and its general public relations operation. I do not think that it will be news to the Government that a large number of officers at Lucas Heights resent very bitterly their being forced into this role. I believe that it is wrong, in a country which is so divided and in a world which is so divided on the subject of nuclear power, that the Commission and its staff, to which every taxpayer contributes, should be called on to carry out a partisan role. I noted in the annual report to which I referred, that $34,885 was spent on information services. But this did not include staff and establishment for which large additional costs would be incurred. The annual report states:

  1. . more than 140 overseas and Australian titles are now held in the Commission’s Film Lending Libraries at head office, Coogee, NSW.

Some 800 requests for film loans were received by the Commission in 1977-78. Some 16,800 visitors went to Lucas Heights on public tours in that year. To meet the continuing demand for factual information on nuclear subjects, Commission staff again responded to some 200 requests for talks to groups and organisations during the year. I am informed that the Commission sends letters to organisations such as Rotary and Apex asking them to invite speakers from the Commission to address them. The letter states in part that the idea is to disseminate knowledge without promoting its use or taking sides on issues surrounding it’, but having heard some of the speakers I dispute that that in effect is the result.

The Australian Democrats do not wish to go against government legislation unthinkingly or without any consideration, but we believe that the Government has got itself into a jam in this area. I hope that some of the points I raised will be looked at. I think it is a gross imposition on taxpayers that an industry like the mining industry, much of which is overseas owned, should be subsidised so blatantly and extensively by a government instrumentality to the disadvantage of the ordinary people of this country. The Australian Democrats for those reasons support the amendment.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– The opposition to this measure, which is apparent from the speeches of Labor senators and Senator Mason, who spoke on behalf of the Australian Democrats, seems to come about because of a misunderstanding of the nature of this Bill. In the case of Senator Melzer and, no doubt, other members of the Labor Party I think that the opposition is based on the mining of uranium. However, the Opposition ‘s amendment opposes the use of the Atomic Energy Commission as the instrument for the development of the Ranger deposits by the Peko-EZ consortium. This legislation does not deal with either of those questions. It gives the Atomic Energy Commission power to borrow moneys for the commercial arrangements which have already been entered into and to carry out decisions which have long since been made by the Government and about which there has been considerable progress in implementation.

As Senator Young pointed out, the decision to use the Atomic Energy Act and the Atomic Energy Commission for the purpose of developing the Ranger uranium resource was taken by the Labor Government. In fact the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Wriedt) was a Minister in that Government. Other honourable senators, including Senator Cavanagh and Senator Bishop, who are presumably opposing the Bill, were members of that Labor Government. It was their decision to use the Atomic Energy Commission for the development of Ranger. As Senator Young has pointed out, they had grandiose schemes for the Atomic Energy Commission in the commercial development of uranium.

Senator Mcintosh:

– Subject to a lot of arrangements. You know that.

Senator DURACK:

-That upsets Senator Mcintosh, but it happens to be the truth.

Honourable senators cannot gainsay that. Senator Tate says that his party has learnt since then. My goodness me, members of the Labor Party needed to learn a lot since then. Hopefully they have. The contractual arrangements were entered into with the companies by the Labor Government. I would have thought that Senator Tate, a lawyer, would have understood the inviolability of contractual arrangements. Contractual arrangements had been entered into. It was not the choice of this Government, nor would it be, to develop the Ranger deposits in this way.

This is one of the many problems that we inherited from the mismanagement of the Labor Government. We have had to continue this course because of the commercial arrangements entered into in good faith by those commercial enterprises with the Labor Government. Unfortunately, those enterprises had to live, as did everybody in Australia, under a Labor government for three years. They had to carry on their commercial interests. They did the best they could. Our Government has honoured the arrangements that were entered into by those companies with the Atomic Energy Commission. As a result of the Labor Government’s doctrinaire socialistic policies and mismanagement we are lumbered with this arrangement with the Atomic Energy Commission. When we came to implement the arrangement we discovered that the Atomic Energy Commission lacked the legal powers to carry it out. That was par for the course under a Labor Government. It did not consider the morrow at all and it did not consider whether the Atomic Energy Commission had the legal powers or not. We have had to bring down a series of amendments to the Atomic Energy Act to enable this commercial arrangement entered into by the Labor Government to be carried out.

This measure was well down the track to enable borrowings to be entered into for commercial purposes. The actual amendments to the Act which enabled the agreements to be entered into with the partners and which gave full effect to the agreements have been made. Other powers have been given under the Atomic Energy Act to give effect to the agreements that had been entered into. As I said, this Bill is well down the track, lt does not provide for agreements to be entered into. It does not provide permission to mine or develop uranium at all. It simply enables the Atomic Energy Commission to borrow funds that are necessary for that purpose.

The Opposition’s amendment sets out its theory of how the Atomic Energy Commission should be split into three. So, instead of one

Commission we would have three. It is par for the course for a Labor government to create more and more government instrumentalities and activities. Our Government has asked the National Energy Research Development and Demonstration Council to consider the research and development activities of the Atomic Energy Commission. The object is to achieve a better use of resources in nuclear and non-nuclear areas. It is expected that that Council will report to the Government in about the middle of this year. Any question of altering the powers or structure of the Atomic Energy Commission will be considered by the Government when it has received that report. It would be quite absurd to embark upon such a major revamping and restructuring of the Atomic Energy Commission before that important report is received. In the meantime however, the Government has to carry on with the arrangements that have been entered into. This Bill is simply a machinery measure to enable that to be done.

I do not propose to range over all the matters that have been raised in this debate. Senators Young and MacGibbon, on the Government side, have effectively answered most of the matters raised by the Opposition. However, a couple of matters raised by Senator Melzer should be cleared up. The honourable senator said that Australia cannot sell its uranium; that it has entered into agreements with only three countries- Finland, South Korea and the Philippines. She was completely confused about the actual sales contracts for uranium and the safeguards agreements which are entered into between Australia and other nations at a governmental level. The two things are quite different. It is the policy of the Commonwealth Government that Australia must enter into safeguards agreements with any country to which there will be deliveries of uranium under commercial sales contracts.

Senator Melzer was also confused when she indicated that the Government had weakened its stance on safeguards agreements and that it was now to allow sales to take place to countries with which there has not been an agreement. The position is that the Government has agreed to allow conditional contracts to be entered into ahead of the actual conclusion of safeguards agreements between Australia and the countries concerned. But it is still a prime aspect of Australian policy in relation to this matter that deliveries of” Australian uranium will be dependent upon safeguards agreements being signed. There has been no weakening of, and there is no intention to weaken, the Government’s very firm stance in this regard. For the reasons given by Senator Young, Senator MacGibbon and myself, the Government opposes the amendment moved by the Opposition. I hope that the Senate will reject the amendment and support the measure.

Question put-

That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Tate’s amendment) be left out.

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

AYES: 25

NOES: 32

Majority……. 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 2760

LIVE-STOCK SLAUGHTER (EXPORT INSPECTION CHARGE) BILL 1979

Second Readings

Debate resumed from 4 June, on motion by Senator Chaney:

That the Bills be now read a second time.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– These five measures- the Live-Stock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Bill 1979, the Live-Stock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Collection Bill 1979, the Grain (Export Inspection Charge) Bill 1979, the Grain (Export Inspection Charge) Collection Bill 1979 and the Wool Industry Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1979- are part of the package which comprised the Howard-Fraser horror Budget of 24 May 1 979. The increased charges and the reduction in assistance announced in the package will deprive the agricultural sector alone of between $90m and $ 120m. According to the Government’s estimates these Bills will raise $ 1 7,735,000.

The common denominator of the Bills before us is that they seek to recover an estimated 50 per cent of the costs incurred by the Commonwealth in providing export inspection services for agricultural products- principally for meat but also for wool certification and guarantees of cleanliness of grain for exports. The export inspection services are a quality control measure which enhance the value of agricultural exports on world markets. Indeed, there are many countries that would not accept exports without being provided with such a guarantee of quality and cleanliness from some government authority. So, the Bills are related in that way. As I said, the Bills will raise in round figures an estimated $ 17.7m this financial year.

The cost to the industry is somewhat greater than the direct charge imposed upon it. The major component of the revenue raised by these Bills is the export inspection charge for beef. Although it certainly seems to be beyond the intellectual comprehension of members of the National Country Party and, from their published remarks, a number of members of the Liberal Party, the domestic price of beef is, with minor variations, determined by export parity. Given the existence of a charge on exports, the domestic price of beef will fall, if not by a 1 : 1 ratio precisely, by something close to a 1 : 1 ratio. The cost to the beef industry in terms of lost revenue will be approximately double the direct cost of the export charge. That is based on the assumption that the distribution of beef consumption will remain roughly 50 per cent in the home market and 50 per cent in export marketsthe figure around which it has fluctuated for a number of years. The cost to the beef producers will probably be something in excess of $30m in forgone revenue instead of $ 1 7.7m.

That point has never been understood by the present Government parties. There are plenty of instances to which one could refer. A proposal was put forward in 1973 but it was never endorsed by the then Labor Government, although farmers all over Australia were continually told by irresponsible National Country Party and Liberal Party members that such a proposal was contemplated. It was argued by some in 1973- not by the Government of the day- that an export tax over and above the export inspection service ought to be imposed on beef in order to reduce beef prices on the domestic market. There is no doubt that such a tax, whether imposed then or now, would have the effect of reducing beef prices on the domestic market because of the close correlation between domestic beef prices and export beef prices. That fairly elementary principle of marketing was beyond the intellectual comprehension of the then Opposition parties. I suspect that now, when in government, it remains beyond their intellectual comprehension.

On 13 September 1973 Mr Anthony made a speech to the Hume Electorate Council. An irresponsible story was fabricated by Mr Anthony and his colleagues that an export tax of 12c per lb was to be imposed on beef in order to reduce domestic prices. Mr Anthony said in his speech:

But I believe the kinds of intervention proposed by the Government would be impractical anyway.

The vast number of types of meat and the lack of a grading system, together with the existence of large numbers of producers, wholesalers and retailers and exporters would make the application and administration of any scheme of the kinds proposed very difficult to administer and costly to operate.

At the time that that statement was made it was nonsense, and it remains nonsense. There are more examples of Mr Anthony’s ignorance from the same period. When addressing the Queensland Agricultural College at Lawes on 2 1 July 1973 he said:

There has been a revolution in the beef industry. The revolution has led to a period of unparalleled expansion in the industry, which has set the tune for the industry’s future development, provided it receives sympathetic Government consideration during the rest of the 70s.

That optimistic forecast was made 9 months before the great beef industry collapse, which had been predicted by people more astute than Mr Anthony. In the same speech in regard to export markets he said:

The demand for beef can be expected to continue.

That of course was also nonsense. In 1 973 the Labor Government imposed an export inspection charge for meat exports similar to that which the Government is imposing by means of this legislation. In my view it is arguable whether such taxes ought to be applied at all. But the case for the application of such a tax is certainly very much stronger at times when the beef export market is buoyant. That is so not only because the industry can better afford to pay for it at this time, but also because it does have some impact- albeit small with a tax of this magnitude- on the domestic price of beef. Therefore it is of some assistance in controlling the increase in the consumer price index in Australia. I do not want to overstate that point because one would need a pretty fine pointed pencil to calculate the extent of the effect on the consumer price index. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that it does have an affect.

The Opposition has decided not to oppose these 5 Bills, although it will be opposing other Bills which are to be introduced tomorrow or some time later this week and which impose other charges on cattle slaughtering for other purposes. On the ground of historical consistency the Opposition does not oppose these Bills. The imposition of a charge when prices are buoyant and the deletion of it when the industry is depressed builds in a countercyclical stabilisation measure, albeit to a limited degree. We do not oppose the Bills for those reasons. So, on this issue, the Labor Party is being consistent with its record when in government, which is more than can be said for our opponents in the Liberal and National Country parties.

Apart from the irresponsible fabrication to which I have referred- that is, that concocted by Mr Anthony and his colleagues in 1973 that an export tax of 12c per lb was to be imposed on meat- in fact, as I mentioned earlier, an export tax designed to cover the cost of providing meat inspection services was imposed in 1973. Mr Anthony said that it would in effect be a penalty on northern Australian beef producers. In the

Sydney Morning Herald of 13 September he said:

The northern areas of Australia, which produce almost solely for export, would be hit particularly hard.

Whether producers in northern Australia would be hit harder than producers elsewhere in Australia I think is questionable. But that is the sort of claim that Mr Anthony was making in 1973. His inflammatory and ill-founded rhetoric stirred up a scare campaign among farmers and farmer organisations. The measure which the Labor Government introduced in 1973- the same sort of measure which is being introduced now- was described as a savage attack on the rural sector another body blow on Australian agriculture and so on. The relative silence of these same farmer organisations now, particularly the Australian Woolgrowers and Graziers Council, tells us far more about their political prejudices than it tells us about the reality of the measures which were introduced both then and now. At the same time, Mr Anthony deplored the imposition of that fairly small export inspection charge levy on the grounds that just at a time when the industry was getting on its feet, here was the Government slapping it down again. In fact the beef industry had been on its feet for several years prior to the 1 973 levy being applied.

Beef prices in real terms were 15 per cent higher in 1973 than they are now, and the case for imposing the levy was significantly stronger in 1973 than it is now. Mr Anthony’s ill-founded comment in 1973 that this imposition was being applied just when the industry was emerging from a long recession would in fact be accurate if he applied it to the taxes which his Government is introducing now. But Mr Anthony’s misrepresentations in this matter fade into insignificance when we look back through the old Hansards, and see how the introduction of the same sort of measure in 1973 was described by the present Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) and by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) himself. I propose to quote a few extracts from those old Hansards. In relation to the Meat Export Charge Bill, on page 1 187 of the Hansard of 18 September 1973, Mr Sinclair said:

It is a Bill which the Opposition dislikes. It dislikes it because of the Bill’s philosophical foundation and practical shortcomings.

That was how Mr Sinclair described a Bill six years ago and yet now his Government is introducing a Bill almost identical. He continued:

  1. . because the industry is affluent at present it should be subjected to a supplementary tax- a tax on profitability.

That, he said, was the argument of the Government of the day. He said it was reprehensible then. It is nevertheless the argument used by his Government today. He continued:

In the debate on the Budget, the kicking of the rural community at the hands of the Labor Party and by the honourable member for Riverina … It was not so much a kicking- it was a bashing.

Further he states:

The bashing that this Government has given to the rural community is completely vindictive in its nature and the man who introduced this Bill should be ashamed of himself and of his failure to exercise his responsibility on behalf of his electorate.

That was Mr Sinclair speaking in 1973, describing a Bill which his Government has now introduced in 1979, and which we are debating.

Senator Gietzelt:

– But that is different.

Senator WALSH:

– That is very different, yes. Circumstances alter cases. That is an old Country Party proverb. He continued:

The anti-rural spectrum of the Leader of the Government is reflected in this Bill.

That was Mr Sinclair’s statement, again in 1973. I will not bore honourable senators with all of it. On page 1 190 he continued:

There is no doubt that this is but the first step.

There he was repeating the irresponsible fabrication originally floated by his leader that there was about to be a purely revenue-raising and price-depressing export tax imposed. On page 1191 he said:

It is just the same old levy. The exporters have been damned and condemned. The whole basis of the legislation is a twist of the screw for primary industries. The Government has failed to concern itself about the people who are involved in the export industries.

As I said previously, that was Mr Sinclair in 1973 describing a Bill which he introduced in this Parliament last week, and which we are now debating. On a variant of Mr Anthony’s, I think, mistaken belief that it is a particular impost on Northern Territory producers, Mr Sinclair continued:

The levy is geographically selective. It is aimed at the meat export industry.

Finally on page 1 193 he stated:

The Opposition sees this Bill as another example by this Government of its lack of concern for country industries; of its lack of concern for exporting industries; and for its lack of concern for the total Australian economy.

So said the Minister for Primary Industry six years ago when describing a Bill, which was similar to the Bill he introduced last week, and which we are debating now. Without any foundation whatsoever, Mr Sinclair alleged that the revenue collected by the 1973 Meat Export

Charge Bill would in fact produce some $ 15m in excess of the actual cost incurred in providing the service. There was no substantial ground for that assertion at the time it was made and it was subsequently proven to be wrong. At no stage did the levy completely cover the cost incurred by the Commonwealth in providing the service. In 1 973 the present Prime Minister who was then a front bencher in the Opposition stated:

In these circumstances, when farmers debts have increased to $2,000m or more, farmers need better prices to be able to pay off some of that debt.

That is what the present Prime Minister said when condemning legislation in 1 973. That legislation is virtually identical to the legislation which his Government introduced last week. Mr Fraser continued.

Higher prices and better returns are needed so that the farming community can get out of the debt which low prices and drought have forced it into, and so that farmers can also pay -

I ask honourable senators to listen to this - the iniquitous 9 to 10 per cent interest rates which are being imposed by the present Government.

Apart from the gross inconsistency of condemning in 1973 a measure which he himself introduces now, the iniquitous 9 to 10 per cent interest rates is certainly an interesting reference given the fact that they are above 10 per cent now when his Government has been in power for Vh years. He wound up his peroration with these words:

If the Government does not interfere with this great industry, we may see the present beef herd rising from 28 million or 29 million to 40 million by 1976 or 1977 and probably to SO million by 1 980. Markets are available overseas if there is the inducement in Australia to expand.

This was said by the man who ultimately became and is Prime Minister of Australia speaking in 1973 on a subject about which he would claim to have considerable expertise. He said the beef herd would probably increase to 50 million by 1980. He welcomed that prospect, and he said that markets were available overseas if there was inducement in Australia to expand. It is just as well he was not in government in 1973, providing such inducements for expansion to produce a herd of 50 million in 1973, given the fact that the herd peaked at just under 35 million in 1977, or given the fact that the herd was larger than the available markets and was a direct cause of the severe recession from which the industry has just emerged. So much for both the expertise and the intellectual and moral consistency of the senior members of this Government. I might add that that is what they were saying inside Parliament. We can only speculate about the inflammatory rhetoric, the nonsense, the ill-founded fabrications which they were concocting and spreading around the countryside when they spoke to small groups of farmers, knowing that nothing would be put down in an authentic record which could subsequently be used against them. We can only speculate about what they were saying outside Parliament.

The other matter which I want to raise briefly, since it has particular relevance to the beef industry, concerns the statements which were brought down in the House of Representatives on Tuesday 29 May by Mr Garland and Mr Fraser and which concern the multilateral trade negotiations and their alleged breakthrough into the agricultural markets of the European Economic Community. The outstanding feature of both those statements is that they are nebulous to the point of being completely meaningless. They contain absolutely no quantification of any of the concessions that the Ministers claim to have secured. Both statements should be seen not as a report on success in international trade negotiations by the Australian Government but as a pathetic apologia for futile globetrotting by both of them and by other Ministers. I will quote some examples of the nebulous nature of both statements. The Prime Minister said:

I believe that as a result of the informed debate which this occasioned there has been increasing acceptance in Europe of the basic correctness of the Australian position.

What does ‘increasing acceptance’ mean? He said further:

I said earlier that we did not seek to overthrow the basis of the Common Agricultural policy.

It is just as well that he did not because he certainly has not. He said:

But this is the first step forward that we have taken in this area for many, many years. I look forward to further such steps.

Where has that step forward taken us? The Prime Minister continued:

I therefore regard what has happened as a beginning and certainly not an end of a process of continuing change to the advantage of Australian producers and, indeed, all Australians.

Precisely what change does he claim will continue? He stated further: the dialogue between Australia and the Community will remain open . . .

It may remain open, but what will the dialogue produce and what has it produced? He went on:

These are all signs that Australia and the European Economic Community are on the threshold of a new and better trading relationship . . .

What signs are there that we are on the threshold of a new and better trading relationship, whatever that might mean? He continued: . . undeniable scope for significantly increased trade and economic and political co-operation between the Community and Australia.

What is ‘significantly increased trade and economic co-operation’? His Minister for Special Trade Representations, Mr Garland, was even worse, if anything. With respect to beef he said:

This quota is to be increased, and although it is allocated on a global basis, Australia should benefit from this increase in proportion to its current share of EEC imports under the quota.

By how much is the quota to be increased? He said that Australia should benefit from this nebulous and undefined increase in the quota. In addition he said that we will get ‘a new and much smaller quota for high quality beef . . .’ How much smaller? How big is this alleged quota going to be? In respect to cheese Mr Garland said:

  1. certain concessions on cheese imports into Australia the EEC has offered to guarantee access for worthwhile tonnage of cheese under favourable conditions.

There we have a double-barrelled nebulous statement. It refers to certain conditions which have been made available for European penetration of the Australian market. What are those conditions? It refers also to favourable conditions of entry for Australian cheese into the EEC market. What are those favourable conditions and for how much? Mr Garland continued:

Australian primary industries will also benefit from European Economic Community concessions on some other agricultural items, including offals, meat extracts, dried fruits and certain canned fruits.

What are the concessions and how substantial will the benefit be? He continued:

  1. . the interests of Australian industry have been carefully considered and the Government is convinced that the concessions which have been offered will have no detrimental effect.

The Government assures us that whatever these concessions might be- and there is absolutely no indication of what they are- they will have no detrimental effect on Australian industry. On that point we have been given a guarantee by the Government, which guaranteed, among other things, to abolish the tax surcharge, to support Medibank, to support wage indexation, to provide jobs for all and that we would not have a globetrotting Prime Minister. Given that record, how much is that guarantee worth even if we knew what it was, which we do not. Mr Garland said:

In total, this can add to the renewed confidence for planning and investment in Australia ‘s rural industries.

That sounds like Phil Lynch in 1976 saying: ‘Our economic policies are working’. Mr Garland continued:

There is recognition on both sides that some important difficulties remain.

I do not know whether that is true, but there is certainly a very clear recognition by the Opposition that these statements from the Prime Minister and the Minister for Special Trade Representations mean absolutely nothing. They contain absolutely no quantification, no hard facts. They are a lot of flowery rhetoric. As I said previously, they are a futile apologia for the globetrotting activities of these two Ministers and other Ministers.

Debate interrupted.

page 2764

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS

The PRESIDENT:

– I have much pleasure in drawing the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the gallery on my right of Their Worships, the Lord Mayors of Perth, Adelaide, Hobart, Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane. Lord Mayors, we tender to you a very warm welcome to our chamber. We trust that your stay in Canberra will be pleasurable to you. We wish you well.

page 2764

LIVE-STOCK SLAUGHTER (EXPORT INSPECTION CHARGE) BILL 1979

Second Readings

Debate resumed.

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

– in reply- We have heard the Opposition spokesman on primary industry, Senator Peter Walsh from Western Australia, speaking on these Bills. I thank him for his comments. I thank those honourable senators on my side of the chamber who have foregone speaking on this occasion so that these Bills may be put through.

Senator Primmer:

– You couldn’t get them in here, that is the trouble.

Senator WEBSTER:

– If the honourable senator would just wait a moment, I am anxious to say a few words and then attempt to get these Bills through with as little problem as possible. I was concerned that Senator Walsh spoke in the way that he did. But I was quite pleased that he did so, because it is as well to hear in this place the attitudes of the Australian Labor Party with regard to Bills that are important to primary industry. I think that it is as well to have recorded in the parliamentary record the quality of men who are put forward by the Opposition to fill these important positions. Senator Peter Walsh has been the spokesman for the Labor Party in this field for some years. I mentioned today that I believe that the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Wriedt, is at some risk from men of the quality of Senator Peter Walsh. We know that the Leader of the Opposition is to leave the Senate and his important position. (Quorum formed).

Mr President, I appreciate the fact that you have brought some more honourable senators into the chamber to hear the winding up of the second reading debate on these important Bills. Before the quorum was called, as nicely as I was able to do so I was paying some credit to Senator Peter Walsh for the way in which he spoke on the Bills. Indeed, Mr President, as you had advised the Senate that the leaders of municipal government in every State of the Commonwealth were in our Gallery, I thought it appropriate that they should have heard from Senator Peter Walsh and should have known the quality of the men whom the Opposition has put forward. I was not making my statement purely for that purpose and I am pleased, Mr President, that you have called in some other members of the Senate.

Earlier in the debate Senator Gietzelt attempted to interject to tell me to address my remarks to the Bills and not to diverge from that course. But I feel that it is important that I draw the attention of those honourable senators who have just come into the chamber to the fact that, during the debate, Senator Walsh reflected in an unfair way on many members of the Government. You will recall, Mr President, that he referred to certain Government honourable senators as being stupid and irresponsible. He referred to statements made by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) and the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Anthony, as concocted statements. He claimed that the statements they make are inflammatory and illfounded.

I think it is as well to have recorded in Hansard the fact that earlier this year- I am advised that it was reported on 30 March, and undoubtedly, Senator Primmer will be able to justify the comments- the Victorian Branch of the Australian Labor Party attacked the ALP’s Federal agricultural policy which had been announced the day before without the knowledge of the Victorian Branch. As Senator Primmer would know, Mr Fordham, who I think is the appropriate Opposition member in Victoria, said that the Victorian Branch of the ALP was unable to support the Federal policies of Labor. I draw attention to that only because I, for one, recognise that I do not know all that there is to know about primary industry. Senator Walsh has a great knowledge in that particular area.

Senator McLaren:

– I raise a point of order, Mr President. Are we discussing the Federal policies of the Labor Party and whether the criticism which Senator Webster says has come from the Victorian Branch of the ALP in fact has come from there, or are we discussing the five meat Bills which are before the Senate?

The PRESIDENT:

– This is the summing up of the debate on the Bills.

Senator WEBSTER:

-Mr President, in truth I was referring to all the statements which Senator Walsh made about our side of politics. I think that if Senator McLaren had listened he would have heard Senator Walsh’s great criticisms. He must agree that I should respond to them because it would be unfair if the Hansard record showed only criticism made of our side of politics, without there being any recognition of the fact that there are some problems within the Labor Party. I was going to go on and outline what happened after Senator Walsh made his comments about how Labor could not gain any votes in the country because of its policy, when Mr Day of New South Wales- a Labor mancriticised Senator Walsh. But to assist Senator McLaren I will not do that now. What I prefer to do is to say that the record of this Government on primary industry stands second to that of no previous government. I suggest that the Bills should now be read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bills read a second time, and reported from Committee without amendment, requests or debate; report adopted.

Third Readings

Motion (by Senator Webster) proposed:

That the Bills be now read a third time.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-I take the opportunity in the third reading debate on these Bills to remind the Minister for Science and the Environment (Senator Webster) that when he is responding to matters raised in the second reading debate he should confine his remarks to the matter of the debate and should not indulge in -

Senator Gietzelt:

– Personalities.

Senator GEORGES:

-Not only should he not indulge in personalities; he should also not indulge in antics not befitting this chamber.

Senator Bishop:

– Which are not relevant to the legislation.

Senator GEORGES:

-He should not indulge in antics which are not relevant to the legislation before the Senate. There has been an unusual calm about this place since 2.30 this morning. I thought that we had all learnt our lesson and that we would proceed quietly without violent interruptions. But what happened in the debate on these Bills? The Minister rose to reply in the second reading debate and, instead of accepting his responsibility to get the legislation through this place, he began to hurl insults which were not at all relevant to the legislation. The moral of the lesson I am preaching at present is that I trust that the Minister has no further Bills to take through this place today. If he has, perhaps he will keep within the Standing Orders.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I also take the opportunity to speak on the motion for the third reading of these Bills. I think it would be a mistake if we passed these Bills without replying to the remarks made by the Minister for Science and the Environment, Senator Webster. In his summing up in the second reading debate he wrongfully accused Senator Walsh, the Opposition spokesman on primary industry, of making statements against the Minister’s party which the Minister implied were not correct. What Senator Walsh in fact did was to quote from the House of Representatives Hansard record statements made by the present Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and by Mr Sinclair the present Minister for Primary Industry, when they were in Opposition and were opposing a similar piece of legislation which was introduced by the Whitlam Government. Senator Walsh did not make up out of his head offensive remarks against those two people; in fact, he quoted from the House of Representatives Hansard. He gave the relevant dates and page numbers.

If Senator Webster did not listen to Senator Walsh I advise him to look at that Hansard record, see just what remarks were made and refresh his memory. We see in this the double standard of the people who sit opposite. While in opposition they adopt one tack; when in government they adopt another. Then they try to lay the blame on the shoulders of the Federal Labor Party, which Senator Webster said was not concerned with the interests of people in primary industry. I think that our record stands second to none and shows that we are concerned with the problems of primary industry. When we get into government again at the end of next year the people out in the country areas will throw up their hats and say: ‘Three cheers for the Labor Party’.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I want to take only a few minutes in this third reading debate. In view of the way that the debate is going, I hope that we do not have another turmoil similar to that which we have had in the past on such occasions. I think it is very unfortunate that the Minister for Science and the Environment (Senator Webster) has adopted the attitude he has. One of the first things to learn on joining the Ministry is that, whilst it might be nice to answer statements made by the Opposition, one’s duty as a Minister is to get Bills through the Parliament. Although Senator Webster might gain some satisfaction from adopting the attitude he has adopted, in doing that he is not carrying out his duty as a Minister of getting his Bills through the Parliament. Those Bills would have been passed by now had he not made his aggressive attack. That could lead to the irritation of senators, the calling of quorums, and senators being thrown out of the chamber. All that could happen simply because we have a Minister who is not carrying out what I believe is the duty of a Minister, namely to get legislation through this place.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bills read a third time.

page 2766

QUESTION

CROATIAN EMBASSY

Ministerial Statement

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) by leave- Because of the interest shown in the Senate in the activities of the so called ‘Croatian Embassy’ in Forrest, I inform the Senate that the Government has decided to take action in relation to it under the Diplomatic and Consular Missions Act.

Senator DURACK:
LP

-Would the honourable senator like to hear the rest of the statement? This afternoon I sent a letter to Mr Mario Despoja, the self styled ‘Charge D ‘Affairs’ of the Embassy’, informing him of the provisions of the Diplomatic and Consular Missions Act and indicating to him that he is engaging in conduct considered by me to be contrary to the Act. I have told him that unless that conduct, which includes the display of the sign ‘Croatian Embassy’, a flag and a shield, is discontinued within 14 days after today and undertakings are given that it will not re-occur, an application will be made to the Federal Court of Australia for injunctions preventing that conduct from continuing. There have been indications that Mr Despoja does not wish to engage in activities which are contrary to the Act and is seeking to make representations on them. If this is so, I shall be willing to examine these representations within the next 1 4 days. Needless to say, if Mr Despoja ceases to engage in activities contrary to the Act and undertakes not to engage in them further, no injunction proceedings will be necessary.

The Government’s decision to pursue this matter should not in any way be interpreted as an act of discrimination against the Croatian community. The Government has no wish to stop or hinder members of the Croatian community forming their own clubs, groups or associations. The Croatian community has, and continues to demonstrate it by its contribution to the development of Australian society and culture, a strong loyalty and commitment to its new homeland and the Government welcomes this contribution. I hope Mr Despoja and those associated with him take advantage of the next 14 days to make the institution of such proceedings unnecessary.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– by leave- On behalf of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Wriedt) I simply say that the Opposition regards this situation that besets the Government as one in which a very fine decision has to be made between liberty and licence. The Attorney-General (Senator Durack) and I had some experience of this situation in a committee context. Although we may perhaps differ on emphasis I am sure that we both appreciate the deep-seated antagonisms that exists in the Yugoslav community. The point at issue is how far certain elements can go in a community. Any government has to have a foreign policy that at least observes certain conventions.

It could be said that the cultural aspirations of an ethnic community are under siege, but I do not know of any part of Australia in which Croatian clubs have not proliferated. They have been approved by councils and State governments of different political colour. But, that is not the issue. I think the much wider issue is the fact that Australia has ties with many countries. The plain fact is that Yugoslavia is in a unique situation. It is a country which is more or less in between the Warsaw and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation power blocs. I will not elaborate on that point. I commend to honourable senators the statement made some years ago by a former senator, Senator Wright, when he was the Foreign Affairs spokesman in the Senate for the Liberal Government in which he spelt out in detail the situation if there were a fragmentation of Yugoslavia. Unfortunately some people have sought such an event.

It is not my purpose, or the Opposition’s purpose, to score any political points on this matter. I think we are encouraged by the fact that people who are to the Right have to observe the law in the same way as people who are deemed to be to the far Left. On behalf of the Opposition I say that a democrat does not have any satisfaction in having to curb self-expression. However, there is a dividing line. I do not want to stifle debate so I will conclude my remarks with that point.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

-by leave- I move:

I wish to endorse the remarks made by Senator Mulvihill. We all recognise that he has played a significant part in resolving the problems associated with some of the groups that have occupied a more than unusual role in recent years in endeavouring to divide the Yugoslav communities in our country. I think I can say that the Opposition would support the Government’s intentions in this matter. Legislation on this matter was passed some time ago and we have been awaiting the second stage of the legislative process- that is, for the Government to make a decision to apply the Act, and to call upon those who designate themselves as the ‘Croatian Embassy’ to cease activities which relate to our relationship with other countries.

I think it is a matter of great regret that some of these people have been able to create the impression in the Australian community that they represent a strong view in the Yugoslav community. In fact they represent a small minority view that is associated with an expression of nationalism which in itself contradicts the very strong trends of federalism that exist in the state of Yugoslavia. Of course, their view ignores the very important role that Yugoslavia is playing in developing the bridges between the major powers of the world. I refer particularly to the non-aligned movement which now embraces some 81 countries. Yugoslavia is playing a very important role in that movement for a new international economic order and for raising the living standards of all of the people in what can be generally described as Third World nations.

I think it is a matter of regret that small groups in our community should seek to establish a position independent from that of the State of Yugoslavia which, after all, suffered greatly during World War II. In the intervening years it has endeavoured, quite successfully I believe, to raise the living standards of its people. Yugoslavia also occupies a very important role in the divided Europe that arose at the end of World War II.

We have been aware of the development of terrorist movements that claim to speak on behalf of the Croatian community. We are aware, of course, that these groups do not speak on behalf of that community; that in fact the overwhelming majority of Croatians and Yugoslav migrants who have come to Australia have settled and have proved themselves to be good citizens willing to accept the democratic and open way in which Australian community life develops. They do not want to be caught up in the web of international intrigue which unfortunately has been part of the movement around the Croatian Embassy’.

We do not, of course, want to go over the difficult days of 1973 when the Prime Minister of Yugoslavia came to this country as a guest of the Government following an invitation extended by the previous Government during 1971-72. We know of the endeavours of a small minority of malcontents who tried to create social tension within the Yugoslav communities and within the Australian community generally, and all that flowed from that. I think we have waited long enough for steps to be taken by the Federal Government to put an end to self-styled embassies that seek to abrogate the right of the official embassies of governments with which we enjoy close and friendly relations.

I think there has been a very good relationship between the Government of Yugoslavia and the Australian Government regardless of the changes in composition of the Australian Government, and that is the way it should be. I think the Opposition would commend the Government for the steps it has taken in accordance with the legislation. The Attorney-General (Senator Durack) indicated in his statement that some negotiations will take place with those people who style themselves as the ‘Croatian Embassy’. As a result of those negotiations the Croatian Embassy’, so styled in Canberra, should cease to exist as an institution and as an embarrassment to the Australian Government. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2768

EXCISE AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 4 June, on motion by Senator Chaney:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– This Bill is also a product of the FraserHoward horror mini-Budget of 24 May. The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that any further increases by the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries in oil prices will be passed on in the prices paid by Australian refiners for domestically-produced crude oil, but that the additional revenue flowing from OPEC price increases after 1 January 1979 will accrue entirely to the Government instead of, as under the previous arrangements, being shared between the Government and the Australian crude oil producers. The Government estimates that, as a result of the OPEC 1 April increase of 9.5 per cent, this measure will raise $ 166m in a full year. It is widely expected, indeed almost certain, that on 1 July there will be a further OPEC price increase of 10 per cent or thereabouts, so it is probable that over the entire year this measure will yield government revenue of some $320m or $330m.

The history of this measure has demonstrated-if further demonstration were needed- how the Government has lost control both of the process of government and of parliamentary business. The blunder which the Government made was summed up succinctly in the current issue of the Laurie Oakes Report as follows:

  1. . The National Development Minister, Mr Newman, insisted on the amendments -

The reference is to amendments which were made after the Bill had been originally introduced in the House of Representatives- after studying the legislation on his return from an overseas trip. In an extraordinary blunder, the original legislation provided for all oil fields to be treated in the same way, even though the Treasurer, Mr Howard, had said in his expenditure and taxation statement to Parliament: ‘The implications of these new levy arrangements on small producers and marginal fields will be kept under reveiw. ‘

To some extent the Government, in introducing this legislation, has recognised its past errors. It has implicitly recognised the foolish decisionalthough it fails to acknowledge it, of coursethat it made in the 1978 Budget when it decided that an increasing proportion of the windfall gains accruing to the production of oil from lowcost Australian fields, principally those of Bass Strait, would go to the Australian oil producers, principally Esso-BHP. The Government has decided to take a larger share of the revenue itself.

To that extent the Opposition approves of what the Government has done, although, for reasons that I will outline, it would prefer a resource tax to apply. The Opposition also has reservations in that clearly this measure, like so many of the measures in the 1978 Budget and the 1979 autumn horror mini-Budget, will significantly increase the consumer price index and ensure that the rate of inflation will continue to rise.

It is perhaps nice for Mr Newman that he should have managed to score a small victory in this matter, given not only his troubles of the last couple of weeks but also the way in which he has stumbled along in the shadow of the Australian Labor Party’s shadow Minister in this area, Paul Keating. Mr Newman has been trying desperately to be noticed, while stumbling along in Mr Keating ‘s shadow. Mr Newman has been able to point out, apparently, to the Government the error in the original legislation. He has certainly been noticed now, not so much for pointing out this error but for not being able to hear, or so he tells us, in the House of Representatives. We have a Ministry in which the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) cannot remember and Mr Newman cannot hear.

This measure represents a movement away from the Government’s import parity pricing policy, but it is an inferior type of tax to the resource tax which the Australian Labor Party has long advocated. A resource tax seeks to tax away the pure economic rent component of mineral and oil deposits. By economic rent I mean any return over and above that necessary to call forth the factors of production which would produce the desired or existing level of output.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Senator WALSH:

– Prior to the suspension of the sitting I was saying that in one sense the Opposition welcomes this measure insofar as it ensures that the additional windfall gains which accrue to crude oil producers from low cost Australian fields do so entirely for the public revenue rather than being divided, as was the case under the previous arrangements, between the Australian producers and the public revenue; on the other hand we have a reservation. That, of course, is that this measure, like so many other measures which were announced a fortnight ago and in the 1978 Budget, will continue to feed inflation. We also welcome the Government’s tacit recognition of its error in the 1 978 Budget in allowing so much of these windfall gains to accrue, quite unjustifiably, to the Australian producers.

This measure goes some of the way towards achieving the objectives of a resources tax, to which the Government was committed in 1977, to which the Labour Party has been committed all along but which the Government formally abandoned in the 1978 Budget. It is, however, an inferior, or, at best, a second best option to a resource tax. A resource tax seeks to tax away the pure economic rent component of profits. By definition, that is any level of productivity above that which is required to call forth sufficient investment and sufficient resources to maintain the desired or existing level of production. In place of a resource tax, which would tax away that pure economic rent component, is a quantum royalty. Quantum royalties of any type, by definition, lead at the margin to a misallocation of resources.

Probably the easiest way of explaining that would be to use the illustration of a mine. Every mine has a cut-off grade for ore. That is the point at which a profit-maximising operator will leave ore in the ground. If any quantum royalty has to be paid, it alters the point at which a company oriented towards maximising profits sets its cut-off grade. The quantum royalty is the cost that has to be borne over and above production costs. The effect of meeting that cost is that ore which is in fact economic, which can profitably be mined and which ought to be mined, is left in the ground. Prior to any production cost being incurred the quantum royalty must be paid. The greater the quantum royalty the greater the consequential misallocation of resources. For that reason, although we regard this Bill as an improvement on the existing situation, we say that it is far from ideal. It is, at best, a second best and inferior option to the imposition of a resource tax to which the Labor Party remains committed.

I wish briefly to make a point about petrol prices. In the last couple of days I have received some figures from the Parliamentary Library’s Statistical Service. It is difficult to be precise about retail petrol prices because even within a city there is quite a wide variation in prices. But, having taken account of this difficulty, the figure given by the Library is that the retail price of super grade petrol in Melbourne in 1975 was 13.8c a litre. The price of petrol in Melbourne today is around 24c a litre. That means that the price has increased by 10c a litre since the Fraser Government came to power. As a result of this measure, which will incorporate from 1 July onwards the 1 April OPEC increase of 9.5 per cent and, almost certainly, a further 1 July increase of around 10 per cent, the price of petrol in Melbourne will rise to around 27c a litre. In other words, in Vh years under the Fraser Government the price of petrol will have virtually doubled. Certainly, it will have increased by 90 per cent. That is perhaps the most telling indictment of all of the oil pricing policies pursued by this Government.

For reasons that I have stated, the Opposition will not be opposing the Bill but we express our grave concern at its effects on the consumer price index and at the fact that it will continue to push inflation to higher levels and contribute to the doubling of petrol prices in just V/i years. Above all, it still remains an inferior substitute for the resource tax which the Labor Party has advocated, and will continue to advocate and which we sincerely hope the Government will have the good sense to adopt before very much longer.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I thank the Senate for its support of this measure.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 2769

QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED (LOAN GUARANTEE) BILL 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 5 June, on motion by Senator Carrick:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– As was stated in the House of Representatives by the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) and as was repeated in this place in the very brief second reading speech- it was an almost insultingly brief speech of some four paragraphsdelivered by the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick), the purpose of the Qantas Airways Limited (Loan Guarantee) Bill is to authorise the Treasurer (Mr Howard) on behalf of the Commonwealth to guarantee borrowings raised by Qantas Airways Limited to finance the purchase of its eighteenth and nineteenth Boeing 747 aircraft. This guarantee, as is the custom, is limited to 80 per cent of the total purchase price of the two aircraft; in this case, $US94m or the equivalent. The Opposition does not disagree with the aim or the effects of the Bill. For once the Government has managed to reconcile these two aspects, which is truly a notable achievement.

I wish to draw the attention of the Senate to certain general matters relating to the activities and performance of our national carrier. Before I do that, I indicate on behalf of the Opposition how disappointed we are at the small number of opportunities afforded to the Parliament to oversee and to examine the activities of our national carrier, as well as those of our national enterprises, statutory bodies and authorities. These public authorities are important not only because they perform a function on behalf of the Australian people but also because they employ large numbers of people and expend tremendous sums of taxpayers’ money. In fact, they form an important segment of our national economic effort. Little opportunity is afforded to the Parliament to examine their activities. As we have seen from the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations, of which Senator Rae is Chairman, there is a lot to be desired as far as the general public accountability is concerned.

I draw attention to the pathetic lack of information provided by the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) when asking Parliament to approve the borrowing capacities that are expressed in this Bill. We are told nothing of the financial strength or otherwise of Qantas or what financial contribution or burden the purchase of these aircraft will effect. Thus we are placed in a position where the Senate is required to make a decision on this matter without any knowledge of the liquidity position or the projected results, strategy or objectives of Qantas. It is our view that only the Minister can provide this information. He has not deigned to do so. I think that is a matter of regret. We hope it will be taken into account by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) who is in charge of the Bill in this place. In future when annual pieces of legislation are brought before the Parliament we hope that we might be given an opportunity to examine the activities of these public corporations.

Honourable members will note that one aircraft will engage in a combi-type activity. It will be able to carry extra cargo with fewer passengers. We are told that it will improve the air cargo services between Australia and Frankfurt. The second aircraft will be a standard one and will cope with peak traffic periods. I do not think it is unfair to say that what has happened in international traffic movements over the last year or so has certainly caught the Government napping. It is probably true to say that the tourist industry and the airline industry has been caught unprepared for the great upsurge in public response to travel as a result of the decision to make international airlines more accessible to the average person. Once travel was restricted, perhaps, to a smaller number of people, a more affluent group in our society. Today travel comes within the reach of an increasing number of people.

To some extent we did not plan for this eventuality The Government was caught unprepared for the increased demand. This has enabled overseas airlines to capitalise on the desires of an increasing number of Australians to travel abroad. The Minister, in the four brief paragraphs of his second reading speech, mentioned that Qantas was planning to increase the capacity of each aircraft to 455 seats. He gave no information on what impact this would have on the economics of each aircraft. We hope that with the increased capacities, public facilities on the aircraft will be taken into consideration. Those who have used international aircraft will support, I am sure, my general comment and criticism about the lack of ordinary, mundane facilities which ought to be available for such long trips.

The lack of information provided by the Government is bad enough. But for the lack to exist at a time of heated public debate- let us face it, there has been very extensive public debate- is nothing short of criminal. It means that the Australian public is being fed information from a variety of sources. I do not want to be one of those associated with a general criticism of Qantas, although criticism is being echoed fairly widely in our country, both in the Parliament and in the media generally. Many people in the public relations area have been on the anti-Qantas bandwagon. I do not want to be associated with that other than to say that if the Government does not provide the Parliament with information then so much of the mud that is thrown at organisations like Qantas is likely to stick. Unfortunately this seems to be the natural environment of this Government. It appears actively to encourage lack of information. This is not surprising in view of its own record of giving misinformation.

We are told that for 1977-78 Qantas paid a dividend to the Commonwealth of $6.44m. The reason for the Minister for Finance (Mr Eric Robinson) bypassing Parliament to buy Malcolm Fraser’s flying hotels was that Qantas needed the $ 10.2m payment urgently. Yet

Qantas plans to spend $7. 8m in advertising this year. If the Government had taken the proper course and put through a special appropriation Bill in respect of those purchases all this and maybe more would have come out. We are encouraged to believe that the Government would not have allowed that to happen. On top of this, we discover, not from reports to Parliament but from the Australian Financial Review, that Qantas is pushing for fare increases. We are not told why. We can only come to conclusions based on Press comments. Maybe Qantas will spend more money in advertising. Maybe that is justified, having regard to the conflict that we find ourselves faced with in relation to some of the European airlines. This applies particularly to loaded aircraft travelling to Europe. I think it is justifiable that Qantas wants to get as many passengers in return on a tourist basis to Australia in order to make the essential economies. The spending of nearly $8m for advertising ought to be a subject of public debate not only in the newspapers- although probably this is one of our few sources of information- but also information ought to be available in reports of the Ministers to Parliament.

Another topic on which the Parliament is kept in complete ignorance is the possibility of a merger between Trans-Australia Airlines and Qantas. How can a reasoned assessment of this proposal be made without access to the full facts? Unfortunately it is only when Bills like this come before Parliament that we are given any opportunity to raise these matters for consideration. Crucial information such as the Administrative Review Council report and the review of transport business undertakings conducted by Sir James McNeill is still not available to the House. The shadow of secrecy also applies to the negotiations on cheap fares from Australia to Italy. We have only part of that story. The continuous delay in the negotiation of this fare is outright discrimination against a sector of the Australian population. Whilst we can probably appreciate the difficulty that the Minister is facing in negotiating with some of the countries of Europe, the fact is that he knows the circumstances; the Parliament does not.

There is also the problem of fares. When will we find out the true story of the purchase of the aeroplanes for the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser)? When will we know whether the objections that were raised administratively were overruled, whether we were given the full story and whether the second international airline that we now have is required for the Prime Minister’s personal use. The Prime Minister was asked questions on this matter by children at a breakfast party yesterday. Of course he replied to the obvious criticism from the young children and said that he would be prepared to allow his flying hotels to be used to bring refugees to this country. I have some doubts about that. Nevertheless, that is the way the Prime Minister replied to the questions.

When will we see the international fare cuts mirrored on internal flights? As honourable senators know, there have been views widely expressed in the Parliament and in the Australian community about the costs involved in internal flights and what a factor Australia’s inability to have the sort of economies that have been applied to international flights applied to domestic flights is in the tourist industry. Therefore, this position affects the tourist traffic into our country. I do not think it would be unfair to say that so far this Government has done little more than carry out a public relations exercise for TAA and Ansett. It is patently obvious to the Opposition that the only aim of the recent internal fare reforms was to prop up TAA and Ansett by smoothing out the demand for seats with the least possible inconvenience to the airlines and the greatest possible inconvenience to the public. Those who travel extensively on Australia’s domestic airlines must surely agree with me about the deterioration in service which seems to be a part of domestic airline operations in recent times.

I do not want it to be misunderstood that the Opposition will oppose the Qantas Airways Ltd (Loan Guarantee) Bill. However, the Opposition feels that when its sources of information to discover details of Qantas policy and financial strength have to be provided from journals such as the Australian Financial Review and other newspapers- no matter how reputable they may be- it is a deplorable state of affairs. One does not know whether there is merit in a statement such as that which appeared in the Daily Telegraph on 4 March this year in which Qantas is reported to be facing a loss of nearly $70m over the fall in the value of the Australian dollar. The Parliament is not informed of this. If that is the case, it has a very substantial effect upon the profitability and the liquidity of what would otherwise be regarded as a very important and viable public instrumentality.

The article states that Sir Lennox Hewitt has made statements that Qantas was caught out so far as the value of the Australian dollar was concerned and that this has very materially affected the profit ratio of Qantas. Similarly, in the Australian of 3 1 March we were informed by a journalist that Qantas was planning a fare rise. This Bill was introduced into the Parliament on 10 May last. An article in the Australian Financial Review of 72 May confirms the general criticism that the Opposition is making in relation to Qantas considering operating a Lakertype charter flight next year to cope with the overwhelming demand for low air fare seats to the United Kingdom. They are important matters of policy. Whilst it is true that it lies within the province of the corporation to make those business decisions, when honourable senators are confronted with a statement made by the Chairman of Qantas that it stands to lose a very considerable sum of money as a result of the depreciation of the Australian dollar, it is a matter that is not to be treated lightly.

The Opposition is equally concerned- as I am sure all honourable senators are- with the threat that has been made within the last few days in Berlin. This involves a serious dispute between the West German tourist industry and Qantas over Qantas seeking to get part of the backload from Germany to Australia as it takes Australian citizens into that part of Europe. The German Travel Agents’ Association has put pressure on the German Government to stop Qantas from advertising for potential customers in West Germany. From looking at Press statements over the last few months, I would say that Qantas has more than its fair share of critics in Parliament. It certainly has more than its fair share of critics in the media. I can understand the concern that has been expressed by some honourable senators, but honourable senators have to accept that Qantas is a national airline. Generally speaking, it is one that operates successfully. I have found from my trips abroad that Qantas is a very responsible and well organised public authority. But there are these concerns that are constantly being expressed. Perhaps they ought to be discussed in Parliament with a view to making some recommendations to the organisation.

Whilst I accept the fact that, as a public instrumentality, the business side should be left entirely to the management of the organisation, nevertheless, when we are talking about profitability and talking about the Government acting as a guarantor for large sums of money every year, it is within our area of responsibility to say that there ought to be much more public accountability. To that degree, the Opposition feels that the Minister for Transport has been remiss in not providing that sort of information to the Parliament. Of course, the threats that are made from time to time against Qantas in its overseas dealings are an indication of how European countries and the companies that operate in those countries- as well as those in the area of the Association of South East Asian Nationsresent the operation of public authorities such as Qantas. Some of these countries resort to protectionism when it suits their own interests, whilst they give lip-service in the international forums to the need for such freer trade and movement of public facilities and services throughout the world.

I wish to conclude by saying that the debates in the Senate today have been more muted and more passive. I think that indicates a certain atmosphere that is the aftermath of last evening. I hope that the Government will draw some conclusions from that. If the Parliament is to operate, it has to operate in a spirit of co-operation and conciliation. Whilst Government objectives are important, so is the role of Parliament. It is important for the Parliament to exercise its rights, whether it suits the government of the day or not. The Parliament has its rights. Sometimes we are put in a position in which the Government considers itself to be the Parliament. When it does that and is not prepared to act in a conciliatory way and discuss with the Opposition what are its program and objectives in that program, then we get the sort of backlash that was so evident last evening.

As one who has some responsibilities in looking after legislation for my party, not only in the Senate but in the other place, I believe that the Government’s legislative program can be described only as being disorganised. It is in somewhat of a shambles. Debate on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Bill 1979 was gagged in this place -

Senator Rae:

– After three weeks debate.

Senator GIETZELT:

– That matters not. It was an important piece of legislation. Debate was finally gagged in this place because the Bill had to go to the other place. Now it will not even be considered there. We have other important pieces of legislation which require the serious consideration of the Parliament and we are expected to deal with them in a matter of hours. In fact we need days properly to consider that legislation. After all, we are in this mess because of the mini-Budget that was brought down less than a week ago. We are in this mess because of the way in which the education guidelines were brought into the Parliament. We still do not know, for example, whether the legislation to establish the Federal Police is to be dealt with in the other place or not. Yet we have from my side of the fence something in excess of 40 amendments to place in regard to that piece of legislation. How can that be dealt with sensibly in the House of Representatives and then go into the Committee stage?

Senator Knight:

– What piece of legislation?

Senator GIETZELT:

– It is the Federal Police Bill. We need time to have it properly dealt with in this place in the sort of time scale which the Government has set itself. That is one of the reasons why we reacted in the way we did last evening. If the Government wants to bring in a mini-Budget and the 10 associated taxation Bills that flow from that decision, if it wants to deal with matters associated with education, if it wants to continue its program in the latter part of this session and wants the co-operation of the Opposition- I believe that is the only way in which the Parliament can work- then the Opposition is entitled to present its viewpoints about the role of the Parliament as distinct from the role of the Government. There is a conflict here. If the Government is to persist in that sort of action it is not going to be a very workable arrangement. AH I can say is that we are obviously a very tired Senate today. It has been a much quieter time and we would hope that we are not going to subject senators to a repetition this evening of the pattern of behaviour that developed on Tuesday night.

These are matters that we want to discuss and debate. There are points of view which I am sure Senator Collard wants to present. We do that every year. Behind me, my colleague Senator Sibraa also wants to make a contribution. We do not want to be put in a position whereby, in the Government’s interest that we speedily get up the Parliament, we are denied what we consider to be our responsibility to the Parliament; that is properly to debate the issues before the Parliament. I ask the Government to take into consideration that the Opposition does not have a negative attitude but rather a positive attitude of wanting to fulfil its role as a responsible Opposition.

Senator COLLARD:
Queensland

– I hope that I can carry on and not stir things up too much tonight. I also would like an early night. However, the night is still young and Senator Gietzelt sitting on the other side does not look so beautiful. Insofar as the Australian Security and Intelligence Organization Bill is concerned, I do not think that I can let Senator Gietzelt ‘s remarks go without comment. It did have a pretty fair debate in this chamber. It was quite noticeabe to a lot of us that once it reached the

Committee stage it really got down to legal technicalities with the legal men on either side of the House making most of the running while we mere mortals just sat- we did not altogether listen- and put up with it. I think that in fairness the ASIO Bill got a pretty good hearing and was debated quite well in the Senate, which befits the Senate in its review responsibility.

Senator Gietzelt has said that he and I seem to get up regularly on Bills such as this, the Qantas Airways Ltd (Loan Guarantee) Bill 1979. On 3 May last year I think I followed Senator Gietzelt on a similar Bill. I recall that I spoke of the commonality which a lot of our airlines seem to be hung up on. Indeed, I went into the fact that Qantas Airways Ltd is hung up on the Boeing 747 with the Pratt and Whitney engine. I believe that I recommended it should be looking a bit further afield and that the RB2 11 -Rolls Royce engine should be one power plant looked at. I am not vain enough to think that each board member of Qantas received a copy of my speech and sat down and studied it.

Senator Gietzelt:

– Maybe they should have.

Senator COLLARD:

– I am vain enough to think that they should have, but at long last they have gone away from their commonality hangups and with the two aircraft which are the subject of this Bill it is noticeable that they are buying them with the RB2 1 1 engines, and for a lot of the benefits that I indicated in the speech last year. I believe that Aircraft No. 18 or No. 19 will be a combi, which will be used for a lot of freight work to the Continent, particularly Frankfurt, and will also be used on the American run quite often. That bodes well for our international trade and for our ability to export and import goods that we need pretty quickly. The RB2 1 1 engine, as I said last year, is a more fuel-efficient engine than the Pratt and Whitney JT9D. In this day and age when we are thinking very much of fuel efficiency, that means a lot. It also means that Qantas, as British Airways has been doing with similar type aircraft, can actually make one-stop runs to England or the Continent from Western Australia or two-stop runs to Sydney. I think there is an extra range of somewhere in the vicinity of 1,200 kilometres and also a slight increase in speed.

This does have a trade-off because quite often engine damage is done on take-off with the ingestion of birds or any other objects that are hanging around just above the ground. Gravel or stones might be on the runway. An engine is also, as you realise, operating under full power for take-off. There is more wear and tear on the undercarriage. The longer you can keep the plane in the air and the fewer stops you make you will get more efficiency in the long run and the passengers will arrive at their destination sooner. Because of the savings that are attributed to the fewer stops and greater fuel efficiency, it obviously has a benefit to the passengers. While we are achieving more benefits and efficiency we can keep the fares down.

It is also noticeable when referring to the second reading speech of the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) that Qantas also plans to increase the number of saleable seats by 455 across its present fleet of Boeing 747 aircraft by the modification of the in-flight galleys to enable more seats to be fitted to each aircraft and by modifying the existing engines to give more thrust to cope with the extra payload. I believe that Qantas is already modifying the JT9D aircraft in its fleet to achieve that extra thrust. This literally means putting an extra aircraft into the fleet without having to buy it. Of course in the long term, or even in the short term, there will be benefits for the passengers. With fuel costs rising and other costs of running an airline rising, the only way airlines are able to achieve economies is by increasing their load factors. I think that Qantas should be commended for that. I am not quite sure how comfortable the passengers will be, but you cannot have it all. You either have the cheap air fares and you have that type of seating or if you want to have a little more room you have to be prepared to pay a little more.

Quite often the domestic airlines have been given a serve so far as their fare structure is concerned by comparing it with that of the international airlines. Unfortunately it is not quite that easy. It is almost like comparing chalk and cheese. As I understand it, the average passenger leg that Qantas has is about 5,000 kilometres, whereas the average for domestic airlines in Australia is about 800 kilometres. Bearing in mind all that I said about fewer stops it soon becomes obvious that one cannot work a domestic airline nearly as economically as one can work an international airline. The more stops, the more landings, the more take-offs, the more fuel one uses and so on it goes. It is far cheaper to have a large aircraft up at 30,000 or 40,000 feet at cruise thrust than for it to be continually landing and taking off. It is hardly a fair comparison.

I think that the domestic airlines in Australia do a pretty fair job. Any comparisons that I have made of our standard economy fares against those of the United States of America or Europe indicate that the travelling public in Australia are served pretty well. I am not saying that more economies could not be achieved and better service given. We will probably never reach that stage. Australia is burdened with the problem of far too small a population and too vast distances to be traversed. That problem will be with us for a long time to come yet. When one considers the fare structure, we have been pretty well served. We do not have the population to run a shuttle service so that as soon as a plane is full the door is shut and away it goes. That is one method by which the Americans have achieved a lot of their cheap fares, although I understand that with all the talk of deregulation in America they are starting to back off a bit.

America had a very complex fare structure, with all its cheap fares, ‘Apex’ fares, ‘Budget’ fares and so on. If one rang up, it took a considerable time to get an answer as to what would be the best fare to choose. I believe that they had to put on a large number of booking clerks or reservation clerks to handle the inquiries.

Senator Sibraa:

– They feed them into a computer.

Senator COLLARD:

– But computers still have to be manned. They had to put on a lot more staff and the economies were lost. I understand that at this stage Australia has a better fare structure system than the United States of America. Unfortunately, as would be expected with deregulation, the small centres that were served by the major airlines are no longer being served. The airlines are racing to get the heavy density routes and so get the money that is offered there. There are a number of problems with complete deregulation. I would hate to see it brought into Australia just willy-nilly. A lot of areas would not get the service they are getting now, or would not get a service at all.

A lot of people do not realise that safety does not come cheap either. The ability of Australian airlines to deliver a person safely to his destination is without equal. But as I said it does not come cheap. We are world leaders in the maintenance of our aircraft, our engineering, our air traffic control, and so on. I think that is one thing that people should be considering.

Qantas, as Senator Gietzelt has intimated, gets a fair bashing by the public at large but it must be said that it does a lot for Australia. It is our flag carrier. As well as the money it makes from the passengers and freight it carries, in the last financial year it brought in $43m from the services it provides to other airlines by way of engineering, catering and handling. Qantas employs in excess of 13,000 people, so it makes a contribution to our overall economy. The fact that it is an Australian airline means that we do have something which enables us to negotiate with other countries. If we did not own our own airline we would have no ability to negotiate. We would be at the mercy of other airlines and would be told what fares we would pay.

I do not mind going in to bat for Qantas every time these Bills come up. Certainly there is always room for improvement. The purists would like to see Qantas owned by free enterprise. It does not worry me whether the Government owns it or free enterprise owns it but the fact that the Government owns it means that it does not get any undue benefits. It gives me great pleasure on this occasion to support Qantas and to commend the Bill. (Quorum formed).

Senator SIBRAA:
New South Wales

– We are debating a Bill for an Act relating to the provision of certain equipment for Qantas Airways Ltd. Before I refer to the Bill, I must point out that the last two speakers have touched on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Bill, albeit briefly. To be fair to Senator Gietzelt, I think he was making the point, despite the opposition, that that Bill was debated in this place for approximately 3 weeks and no amendments were accepted. It went to the House of Representatives and today it was debated. Regardless of the comments, I think that was the point that Senator Gietzelt was trying to make.

I think it is a very opportune time to be debating this Bill. Air safety is a very topical issue, especially in light of the DC 10 crash in Chicago and the subsequent grounding of DC 10 aircraft throughout the United States of America. I would hope that the Australian Government would be in a position very shortly to make a statement about what is happening to DC 10 aircraft which are flying into Australia. I would like the Government to make a statement as to whether the inspections that have now been recommended in the United States are being carried out in this country, or whether they are being carried out in the country of origin of the carrier that flies into Australia.

Qantas now is rated as the world ‘s safest airline. In 1974 a set of statistics was issued which established that Transportes Aereos Portugueses, the Portuguese national carrier, was the safest in the world. I believe a new set of statistics shows that Qantas is now the safest airline in the world. It has had no fatal accident in a period extending over 30 years. It is one of a very select group which has had no fatal accidents in the last decade, let alone the last 30 years. I think there is a very good reason for this. It is that Qantas has placed safety above all other factors. If one looks at the matter historically, one further factor is that Qantas has purchased correctly. It did not purchase the Comet aircraft, although at the time there was tremendous pressure from the British Government and British aviation interests for it to do so. More recently, it did not purchase the DC 10s.

Qantas has maintained a highly competitive economic position. In 10 years, the productivity of Qantas employees rose by 150 per cent. As Senator Collard said, Qantas employs 13,000 people throughout the world, 1 1,000 of them in Australia. Many ill-informed attacks have been made on the wage rates and conditions that the employees of Qantas enjoy in this country. A number of Government spokesmen have compared the wage rates and the conditions that Qantas employees enjoy with the conditions of some of the Asian, Middle East and European carriers. They have said that Qantas should make more money but the problem is that its salaries, wages and conditions are too high. I would not complain if the wages and conditions that Qantas employees enjoy were the very best in the world. As far as I am concerned, whilst our safety standards remain the best in the world, our wages and conditions of employment should remain at least amongst the very best in the world.

I want to deal briefly with the question of safety. In doing so I go back to an article which appeared in the magazine Flight International in October 1974. It was written by a spokesman for the airline industry. The article reads:

Australia has been described as a ‘police state’ as a result of the severity of its air-safety regulations and enforcement. Nevertheless it is one of the safest air-transport nations and the national flag carrier Qantas has not had a fatal accident in the last 28 years. Captain Ron Gillman recently visited Australia to discuss air safety with Qantas.

Captain Gillman wrote the article, which went on to say:

An airline which has operated for 28 years without a fatal accident has beaten the law of averages by such a wide margin that it cannot be a matter of chance; there must be sound reason or reasons.

Qantas has committed itself to a policy of safety above every other factor, including cost. Some other international carriers do not observe that principle and pay dearly for it. One airline which operates into Australia tried at one time to cut costs by reducing maintenance expenses. It has taken years for that airline to recover from the terrible circumstances which resulted from that decision. The article in the magazine Flight International went on to say:

In airlines where the primary question is ‘can it be effective?’ flight-operations managers and those concerned with safety find it hard to justify expenditure on training and equipment. This is particularly true when there is a lack of sympathy or understanding at director level. I once heard an executive say that his airline could afford to have one fatal accident every seven years. Although this may have been statistically accurate, the idea is morally abhorrent and an attitude such as this must militate against any improvement in safety standards.

In the light of that comment, I think it is pertinent to quote an extract from another article in that magazine. The article which was entitled Safety is no accident’, states: the fine record that Qantas enjoys is attributable to a management which is not prepared to narrow safety margins in the cause of economic expedience, an engineering division that follows this example, an operations branch with the right policies, and a training organisation with the expertise and integrity . .

If anything, these words are more relevant in 1979 than they were when they were written and printed in 1974. As Senator Gietzelt said, it is a pity that the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) has failed to explain fully the financial implications of the purchase of these aircraft. What effect will the conversion to 455 seats for the Boeing 747 aircraft have on Qantas ‘s profits? Also, what effect will it have on the facilities for the people who travel on the aircraft? What effect will the combi-configuration Boeing 747 aircraft have on freight and passenger profits and charges?

I have said some nice things about Qantas. I would like now to make some comments about what I consider to be the lack of foresight that the company has shown. It is quite obvious that it did not anticipate the increased traffic loads that have been caused by the lower fares. It did not realise that it was catering not for an elite but for a new class of traveller. In this era of air transport there were hundreds of thousands of Australians who traditionally took their holidays in the countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations. They went to Singapore, Jakarta or Malaysia for their holidays. With the introduction of the new cheap air fares these people found that they were able to go to Europe or to the United States.

What the management of Qantas apparently did not realise is that there was a whole range of people who had never taken a holiday outside this country, who had never taken advantage of international air transport. Hundreds of thousands of people were prepared then to go to those countries to which cheaper air fares were offered for the first time. Of course, we have learnt a very important lesson in our negotiations with ASEAN. The ASEAN countries are prepared now to join together to negotiate against Australia in respect of air fares and I think that in the future they will be negotiating as a group on a whole range of other issues. Although these air fares to the ASEAN countries have not been determined, I am sure that while they remain united on this issue they will be able to wring concessions from this Government and to get cheaper fares. An example of what I have been talking about is the fact that Qantas is now talking about charter operations to cope with the extra traffic to Europe.

Another example of the lack of foresight has been the South African route. I have here figures which show that in 1 976 both South African Airways and Qantas were carrying a combined total of 26,000 people on this route. By 1978, when Qantas had withdrawn from the route to South Africa, South African Airways alone was carrying in excess of 28,000 passengers per year on the route. Recently when inquiries were made of South African Airways it was found not only that it was carrying this increased capacity but also that its flights were booked out for at least the next six months and it was impossible to get on a flight to South Africa until after Christmas. A table that I have shows the passenger traffic between Australia and South Africa from 1 964 to 1978. It shows the figures when Qantas suspended its services in September 1977. I seek permission to have this table incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

Senator SIBRAA:

– When one discusses this situation with Qantas it is said that one of the main reasons that we pulled out of the South African run was that there was an industrial dispute. As a member of the Sub-committee on Southern Africa of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence I have been very interested in this matter. I have talked to the Airline Pilots Association, which has assured me that this is not the situation. This leads me to say that if the decision was political- I am not arguing that it might have been a political decision to cease those services to South Africa- it is about time that the Government said so. Certainly the decision cannot be justified when one looks at the traffic being carried there at the moment. Another service which Qantas ceased was its flight to Mexico City. It is quite obvious that Mexico will become very important politically for Australia. More importantly, if the cheaper air fares were operating to Mexico, I am sure that Qantas would be able to recommence its service. There would not be any argument with that. The big problem is that at the moment it does not have the aircraft to fly this extra route to Mexico City.

Quite obviously a vacuum has been created in the South Pacific. That vacuum is being filled by Continental Airlines at the moment. The vacuum exists because Qantas does not have all the suitable aircraft that are required. The island states are very critical of Australia. In a debate here only recently I mentioned their attitude to us as expressed at the South Pacific conference which was held last year in Noumea. They were critical of the operations of the Australian airlines. It seemed that the Government did not realise that we were insulting these small countries of the South Pacific because we had not thought out a long term travel arrangement into those countries. We did not realise also that the smaller island states of the South Pacific were encouraging Continental to fly into the area because they had been the victims of the fact that Qantas and specifically Pan Am had tended to over-fly the area completely; and those places in that region which historically used to be stops have now ceased to be stops.

There have been many rumours about a merger of Trans- Australia Airlines and Qantas. I spoke about it here recently when I supported it. In England the British Overseas Airways Corporation and British European Airways have merged into British Airways. Only recently in New Zealand, Air New Zealand merged with the National Airlines Corporation. I believe that if TAA and Qantas merged it could lead, amongst other things, to cheap tourist packages into Australia, combined with cheap internal fares for those people coming here on package tours organised internationally. People would be able to go to Perth, to the Great Barrier Reef, to Tasmania, to Alice Springs and to many other places in Australia where it is now too expensive for them to fly. We have the ludicrous situation that somebody could pay as little as $480 to fly from the West Coast of the United States to Sydney on a package tour. But if he wanted to go to Perth he would have to pay $440 for an economy ticket. He would have to pay almost exactly the same price for an internal trip in Australia. We have to do something about that. If there were a merger TAA’s equipment could be fully utilised and, more importantly, we would be able to generate traffic into the South Pacific and improve Australia ‘s image there.

Senator Gietzelt spoke about the discrimination which has become apparent in the negotiations on cheap air fares. I certainly support him, especially when one considers the situation which exists with Italy. To the present time that country has provided us with over 700,000 migrants. Apart from Great Britain, it is perhaps the country which has provided the most migrants who have come here and become naturalised Australians. Yet at the moment we are still negotiating; we still do not have cheap air fares to and from that country and the people of Italian origin are still being discriminated against.

There is another important area for which something has to be done with cheap air fares, namely, the Middle East. I know that for a long time pressure has been placed on Qantas for flights to go into Tel Aviv. But of course that situation does not involve only Tel Aviv now because the whole of the Middle East area is providing an increasing number of migrants who are coming to Australia and making their homes here. A number of migrants want to go back home to Lebanon, Damascus and other places in the Middle East. I hope that on this particular issue the Government will act as quickly as possible.

Qantas is a successful enterprise. It has the highest safety standards in the world. It requires bold and imaginative management to cope with the challenges created by the new air fares. That management must realise that hundreds of thousands of Australians wish to take advantage of those fares in travelling to an ever-increasing number of overseas destinations. I believe that the Bill before us should authorise the purchase of not only the two additional 747 aircraft but also many more aircraft to fulfil the requirements about which I have been speaking tonight.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– To continue the debate on the Qantas Airways Limited (Loan Guarantee) Bill 1979, which is designed to enable Qantas to purchase further aircraft, I join with those honourable senators who have complimented Qantas Airways Ltd, and I state proudly that I think that we can say that Qantas does operate a fine airline. Qantas has an almost incredible safety record, of which it and Australia can be proud. Having said that, I would like to distinguish between Qantas ‘s operations as an airline and its operations as a property developer, which are nothing short of a national scandal. I agree with what Senator Gietzelt said earlier. I think that when Bills such as this, in which the Parliament is asked to provide very substantial assistance to a statutory authority or a wholly owned company of the Commonwealth, come before the Parliament quite a bit more information could be provided to the Parliament.

One of the things I regret is that the annual reports of Qantas really are not mines of information. In fact, if one tries to get the full details of what has been happening in regard to the building which Qantas has been having erected in Sydney, one finds it very difficult to get any real material out of the annual reports. In fact, one could almost be led to the view that there is a deliberate obfuscation in relation to what is happening with that building. Let me very briefly describe the building. It is a building in the heart of Sydney- in the most expensive area of Sydney. I understand that it is a building which, if and when completed, will be something more than twice the size needed by Qantas for its purposes. Therefore, if Qantas is to recoup what is now estimated to be the likely cost of the building, it will need to let a large area of office space at a rate which is something like three or more times the going rate for office space in Sydney.

I do not know what the ultimate cost of the building will be. We do not find any estimate of that anywhere. We do not find any information which would enable us to know that. But guesstimates appear to vary between $100m and $ 1 50m and I have even heard an amount as high as $ 1 70m being bandied about. I do not know; Qantas is not forthcoming in relation to that. But this matter has assumed the proportions of a national scandal. One might describe it, as some people have, as Sydney’s second Opera House, or whatever other words might be used to describe something which has got out of hand, where the cost escalation has been incredible and where, quite obviously, the problems with respect to it are far more severe than people anticipated that they would be. I do not want in any way to buy into the endeavours to lay blame between the constructing company, the unions and the Qantas management, except to say that the ultimate responsibility to this Parliament and to the people of Australia lies with Qantas. Qantas makes the decisions; it decides what is to be done about the project. Unless it is prepared to work out some form of rationalisation in relation to the project, one imagines that it will carry a very heavy responsibility when we eventually do hear the final outcome of that ever-escalating problem.

I believe that it would be hard to think of a good reason for one of the world ‘s greatest airlines departing from operating an airline, which it does so well, and starting to try to play the game of property developers. I think it would be much better for Qantas to stick to what it knows and does well and for property development to be left to others, who perhaps might burn their fingers. But if that were to happen at least publicly-owned funds would not be lost as a result of miscalculations in relation to property development. A fact that can be gained from the annual reports of Qantas is that already it is writing off millions of dollars a year in anticipated losses in relation to the building. This is before Qantas has come anywhere near completing or occupying the building. That is money which otherwise would be available for the further development of the airline or which would be available as a dividend from the earnings of the company but which is returned to Consolidated Revenue.

Obviously, the decision to go ahead with the building was a most unfortunate one in the first place. But it may be that even more unfortunate decisions are being taken as a result of Qantas ‘s apparent refusal to do anything to rationalise the project, even at this late stage. I believe that there is a need for a response from the Government which indicates that it, as the shareholder, on behalf of the people of Australia, will insist on the shareholders’ rights in relation to a company in getting some sort of answer from Qantas as to what is happening. The Government should require some sort of rationalisation of the project and for that to be made public so that the people of Australia will know just what is happening with their airline. I therefore invite the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney), either tonight or in due course after he has consulted with his colleague, the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon), to make some sort of public statement as to what the Government proposes to do in relation to what appears to be developing into a national scandal.

Finally, in relation to the matter of air fares, I put forward the proposition that whilst advance purchase excursion fares have been and are of considerable assistance to some people, as the people of some nations prefer to travel in groups rather than to make single arrangements, it would be far better if we were to develop group inclusive tariffs for the Japanese, the Germans and others who prefer group travel. I believe that that is one of the most important developments which should take place next as we utilise the opportunities which have arisen out of the recently negotiated international airlines agreements. I hope that we will see the Government encouraging Qantas, and Qantas responding to that encouragement, to introduce group inclusive tariff at a very early date. Again, I compliment Qantas. As an Australian I am proud to fly with that airline. I am proud to see it represented at international airports. I am proud of Qantas as I believe it is an excellent ambassador for Australia. But I do regard it as one of the most unfortunate things that could have happened that it should have decided to extend its operations from merely operating an airline to entering into a massively disastrous property development project. ( Quorum formed).

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

-This Bill, which seeks to guarantee borrowings by Qantas Airways Ltd to purchase two Boeing 747 aircraft, has met with the approval of those honourable senators who have preceded me in this debate. Like other honourable senators I feel proud that Australia has an airline as competent and of such a high standard as Qantas. This airline is our flag carrier; it is an international symbol of Australia. I was perhaps disappointed to hear the criticism that was directed by Senator Rae to the activities of the real estate section of Qantas. I would say that Qantas has shown great foresight and initiative in this very competitive business world to have one of the fine buildings in the choicest part of Sydney as a symbol and an indication of its solidity and its capacity to anticipate the future. I believe that Qantas has shown all the desirable business acumen that is necessary to run a very successful international airline. Qantas should be praised for its venture into real estate. To me its success in this field is on a par with the great standard it has achieved in the airline part of its operation.

I will be very brief in what I want to say. I believe that Qantas deserves the commendation of the Parliament and of the people of Australia for having chosen the Boeing 747 aircraft as the main type of aircraft in its fleet. Qantas has always shown a little bit of extra something not shown by others in terms of foresight, in anticipating the needs of the future and in the rapid growth and changing patterns of aviation. Qantas has a very proud record that almost all Australians share. On the very few ocasions that I have travelled overseas it has always been a great joy to see our flagship and the symbol that it carries. Everything about Qantas has style.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Other than passengers.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– Some of the passengers have. But this quality is invaluable in these days of international relations with so many competing airlines. Qantas has always been to the fore in this respect. When one goes to a foreign airfield it is the exception rather than the rule if one does not see the symbol of Qantas. I want to pay a tribute to members of the Amalgamated Metal Workers and Shipwrights Union who carry out the maintenance on Qantas aircraft and help this company maintain the highest safety standard of any airline in the world. The care, competence and dedication of these men who work around the clock to keep these aircraft flying is perhaps often passed unnoticed. But I want to put on the record that many of us are conscious of the standards that are achieved by these metalworkers. It does not matter how good the administration is or how good the aircraft originally was, if those standards of workmanship are not maintained the quality of the airline will deteriorate.

I would like to make a minor criticism which follows a matter that was raised by Senator Gareth Evans in the Senate last Monday. The honourable senator directed a question to the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) who represents the Minister for Industrial Relations which is recorded on page 2519 of Hansard. He referred to the summary dismissal on the previous Thursday of two airline traffic clerks in Melbourne- Mr Michael Atkinson of TransAustralia Airlines and Mrs Carol Stamp of Ansett Airlines of Australia- both of whom had been involved in organising a new union, the Airline Employees Association. Senator Evans pointed out that the dismissals had already resulted in a degree of industrial disputation around Australia. I might interpose and point out that this matter within the foreseeable future will involve Qantas. I would like to sound a word of warning that Qantas may well heed. This new

Association will become the main body with which Qantas will need to negotiate on the industrial level in the future whether it likes it or not. Discriminating against these people will be to the great disadvantage of Qantas. I also point out that Qantas has been pressured by Ansett which seems to have some sort of bias against this Association in favour of the Federated Clerks Union of Australia which over a period of time has incorporated airline employees. The trend today is towards industrial associations. Section 5 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act lays it down that it is an offence to disadvantage anyone seeking registration. Pressure is being placed on the Airline Employees Association in respect of registration. Dismissals are taking place today and possibly more will take place in the future. 1 hope that the good record of Qantas will not be marred by the pressure that is being applied to it by another airline to dismiss employees who become members of the Association.

Senator Cavanagh:

- Senator, do you support breakaway unions?

Senator O’BYRNE:

– 1 understand that the Association is an industy union. Also, I understand that the Federal Clerks Union, which has covered these employees in the past, has not been able to service its airline section as thoroughly as the airline employees would wish it to do. This new Association feels that it can do a better on-the-site job than the other union has been able to do.

Senator Evans went on to say that the dismissals appeared to be a blatant and quite intolerable instance of employer intimidation of legitimate trade union activity. Then he asked the Minister whether he would set in train- . . an investigation to determine whether the dismissals contravene the industrial intimidation provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act introduced in 1977, or does the Government regard its only obligation in industrial relations as being to protect employers?

The Minister said that he would refer the question to the Minister for Industrial Relations.

Yesterday, Senator Chipp raised the matter and said, inter alia, that he understood that an airways employees association had been formed in the airline industry, that at the moment it was small, consisting of 1 ,500 members, and had not applied for or been granted registration. Perhaps I could note that it has applied for registration. Senator Chipp said he had received information that in the previous two days up to 12 members, who were airline clerical staff, had been sacked by Trans-Australia Airlines and Ansett Airlines of Australia without their being given any reason. Senator Chipp added that the only common denominator in the sackings appeared to be that the persons sacked belonged to a new trade union. I draw attention to these matters because I am advised that this disputation will spread very quickly to Qantas, to which I understand pressure is being applied. The good industrial relations record of Qantas, the high standards that it has maintained and the great financial and operational success that it has achieved deserve the highest commendation of the Senate, of the Parliament and of the people of Australia.

I am certain that this legislation will be approved unanimously by the Parliament. I wish Qantas continuing success. From the very top level of its administration to the most humble employee, Qantas has shown what can be done with unity of purpose where profit is not the only objective, where doing a good job for the community and proving that Australia can achieve standards the equal of any country in the world are also important. I wish the Bill a speedy passage.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– in reply- I am grateful for the unanimous support that has been given this Bill by Government and Opposition senators. Also, I have listened with great interest to the speeches of honourable senators which, as is customary with such Bills, have been wider ranging and not really directed to the provision of a guarantee for the raising of funds. They have been directed to matters of more general interest relating to the operation of Qantas and, indeed, our domestic airlines as well. I do not propose to delay the Senate in responding.

First, I would refer Senator Gietzelt to the availability of the annual report of Qantas which, notwithstanding some criticism from Senator Rae, does contain much of the information that I think the honourable senator was seeking. The last report of the company was tabled in the Senate during the 1978 Budget session. The financial year of Qantas ends in March so I expect that a further annual report, duly audited by the Auditor-General, will be tabled during this year’s Budget session. That will bring Senator Gietzelt up to date in regard to some of the figures with which he was concerned.

Senator Cavanagh:

– The figures to last March?

Senator CHANEY:

-To March 1978. Also, Senator Gietzelt was concerned that a statutory corporation should be spending taxpayers’ money. The situation was more accurately described later by Senator Rae as one of a statutory corporation using property which was essentially owned by the taxpayer. In fact, this Bill does not- unless Qantas were to have so much financial difficulty that the Government would be called upon to meet the guarantee- incur any liability at all. It merely authorises the Government to guarantee borrowings by Qantas for the purchase of the two aircraft in question.

Senator Collard and Senator Sibraa raised matters that no doubt will be of great interest to Qantas. They complimented the airline on its operation and also made suggestions that will no doubt be of interest to its management. I understood Senator Sibraa to say that he understood that a traveller from the United States to Sydney could enjoy a cheap international fare but then, if he wanted to go on to Perth, would have to pay the domestic economy fare. Senator Sibraa was overlooking the recently announced See Australia fares, which extend a 30 per cent discount to foreign travellers who wish to move around Australia. The discount is designed to encourage the flow of tourists throughout the continent.

As to the matters that were raised by Senator Rae, by the end of the debate I was a little confused, because his concern about the property investments of Qantas was precisely the reverse of Senator O ‘Byrne’s considerable satisfaction with respect to that aspect of Qantas ‘s activity. However, I will ensure that the remarks of both honourable senators are brought to the attention of both Qantas and the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon). Senator Rae sought a response from the Government, but made it clear that he understood I would need to seek a reply from the Minister himself, and that is what I propose to do.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 2781

HANSARD

The PRESIDENT:

– This morning, Senator Lajovic drew my attention to the fact that part of a speech made by Senator Chipp in the Senate yesterday has appeared in the daily Hansard for the House of Representatives.

The Principal Parliamentary Reporter has inquired into this matter and has found that the inclusion of the speech in the House of Representatives Hansard was due to a systems error at the Government Printing Office, where Hansard is produced on highly sophisticated computer equipment. The Government Printer has expressed his regret for the error.

The complete speech by Senator Chipp appears in its correct position in yesterday’s edition of the Senate Hansard. The part of the speech that appeared in the House of Representatives Hansard will not appear in the weekly edition for that House.

Senator Chaney:

- Mr President, I would just like to express disappointment at your statement. I thought, hopefully, that it might be cheaper to send Senator Chipp back to the House of Representatives than to correct the Hansard record.

page 2781

BOUNTY (INJECTION-MOULDING EQUIPMENT) BILL 1979

Bills received from the House of Representatives.

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Senator Chaney) agreed to:

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

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

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

Second Readings

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– I move:

I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. (Quorum formed).

Leave granted.

The speeches read as follows-

Bounty (Injection-Moulding Equipment) Bill 1979

The purpose of the Bill now before the Senate is to give effect to the Government’s decision to provide assistance by way of a bounty to Australian manufacturers of injection moulding machines, used in the production of artificial plastic goods, and to Australian manufacturers of parts- excluding dies- for these machines if the parts are designed solely or principally for use in the manufacture or repair of the machines. This decision has been made following receipt of advice and recommendations by the Industries Assistance Commission- contained in Report No. 191 of 12 December 1978 on ‘Miscellaneous

Industrial Machinery’- that the existing tariff assistance to this industry of 55 per cent ad valorem be reduced to 15 per cent ad valorem and transitional assistance to eligible Australian manufaturers be accorded by way of a scheme providing for the payment of a bounty scaling down over five years from the date upon which the change to the tariff assistance became effective.

On 22 May 1979 I introduced into this House the necessary tariff proposals to give effect, from 23 May 1979, to the reduction in the tariff assistance to the industry. Bounty will be payable from that date at the rate of 45 per cent of the value added by the Australian manufacturers and this rate will reduce by ten percentage points per annum during the five year period to which the Act applies. In deciding to reduce the tariff assitance to this industry the Government took into account the comments made by the Industries Assistance Commission that it could not identify benefits to the community commensurate with such high levels of assistance as provided by a tariff of 55 per cent ad valorem. It is considered by the Government that the reduction in the tariff assistance will lower the cost structure of the plastic products industries- the principal users of the machines- and therefore increase their competitiveness in world markets. In addition this action should eventually give rise to increased employment opportunities in this Australian industry.

On the other hand the decision to accord the transitional bounty assistance is designed to satisfy two requirements: First, that each process in the production of injection-moulding machines receives the same rate of assistance in order to achieve balanced resource allocation within the industry; and second, that the period of the phasing down of the bounty is sufficient to allow the industry to restructure so as to become competitive at a more moderate level of assistance. This is particularly important because of rapidly changing technology in injection moulding machinery and the time required to restructure production methods in this industry. During the period of the phasing of the bounty there will be regular and thorough monitoring so that the Government is kept informed of the industry’s ability to adjust to the new assistance arrangements. Officers of the department of industry and commerce will establish a regular reporting system with industry representatives.

The proposed bounty scheme differs from the Commission’s recommendations in one respect. Bounty will not be paid on equipment sold for export. The Government has decided not to adopt this recommendation because any exports upon which bounty is paid could be subject to taxes, in the form of countervailing duties, in certain important export markets. The imposition of these taxes would of course negate the competitive advantage derived from any bounty that is paid. However, during the period of adjustment of this industry over the next five years, it is expected that local manufacturers will become more competitive and thus be in a more advantageous position to develop their export markets. The cost of this scheme in the first year of its operation is estimated to be $ 1.5m and information presently available to the Government indicates that the total cost for the five year duration of the scheme will be approximately $4.2 m.

Finally, I would add that the Industries Assistance Commission report, which I referred to earlier, has not yet been released. It will be made available when an announcement has been made by the Government on the other products covered by that report. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Bounty (Books) Amendment Bill 1979

The purpose of the Bill now before the Senate is to give effect to the Government’s decision to continue assistance to the manufacture of books in Australia for a further period of seven years from 1 January 1980. The present level of assistance- one-third of the cost of productionwas previously extended to 31 December 1979 following an interim reommendation of the Industries Assistance Commission. The Bill changes the rate of bounty after 1 January 1983, introduces certain changes in the eligibility criteria and contains certain other amendments designed to obviate administrative difficulties and correct certain anomalies currently inherent in the principal Act. This is consistent with the Government’s desire to provide community access to information at the lowest possible cost. Following advice and recommendation from the Industries Assistance Commission in its Report No. 1 78 of 3 1 July 1978 entitled ‘Products of the Printing Industry’, in respect of printed books, the Government accepted, in principle, the Commission ‘s recommendation that the existing bounty should be continued. However the Government decided that the reductions in bounty recommended by the IAC should be phased in more gradually.

In its report the IAC recommended that the bounty should be reduced to 25 per cent of the cost of production as from 1 January 1982. The Commission stated that having examined the background to the introduction of the bounty, and its history and effects, it had concluded that the purpose of the bounty was, and should remain to assist local book manufacturers to obtain work, which, in the absence of the assistance, could be lost to overseas competitors. The Government accepts the Commission’s conclusions. However it considered that the rationalisation in the industry, which is expected to occur as a result of the reduction in the bounty, would be less disruptive under the proposals adopted, which allow for a longer period of phasing to reach the IAC recommended rate.

Under the Government’s announced proposals the rate of one third of the cost of production will continue for books produced from 1 January 1980 to 31 December 1982, and will then be reduced to 30 per cent for books produced in the period 1 January 1983 to 31 December 1983. For books produced in the period 1 January 1984 to 31 December 1986, the rate of bounty will be 25 per cent of the cost of production. For the same reasons the Government has decided that the IAC’s recommendations in relation to paper and binding materials provided free of charge for the production of a book will be phased down over a similar period. Bounty is to be payable at the rate of 25 per cent of the price paid or payable by the publisher for those materials in relation to books produced between 1 January 1980 and 31 December 1982. This rate will be reduced to 23 per cent for books produced between 1 January 1983 and 31 December 1983, and further reduced to 20 per cent for books produced between 1 January 1984 and 3 1 December 1986.

Because the purpose of the book bounty is to assist local printers against import competition, bounty is generally available for books which, in the absence of bounty, would otherwise have been printed overseas. On this basis, the Bill makes certain changes to the criteria for bounty eligibility. For example, books such as workshop and service manuals, statistical publications and books containing advertisements if of the type which, on importation, would be admitted duty free, will become eligible for bounty. On the other hand, publications produced by photocopying commercial or industrial specifications, tender documents, et cetera, will no longer be eligible. The new criteria will also require books to be produced in a minimum run of 1,000 copies and, unless case bound, be for use in the form in which they were published. The provisions designed to obviate administrative difficulties which I mentioned earlier include, for example, in clause 1 1 an amendment which provides that bounty will be no longer payable unless a person keeps accounts, books, documents and records showing in particular details of production to the satisfaction of the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs.

It is considered by the Government that the revised rates of bounty will maintain the level of activity and employment in this industry in the short term and, at the same time, provide an opportunity for the industry to restructure so as to become competitive at a more moderate level of assistance. The introduction of the revised eligibility criteria as set out in section 4 of the Bill is designed to assist those manufacturers who have become increasingly susceptible to import competition so that they may compete more effectively in the Australian market. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Button) adjourned.

page 2783

CUSTOMS TARIFF VALIDATION BILL 1979

Bills received from the House of Representatives.

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Senator Chaney) agreed to:

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

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

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

Second Readings

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– I move:

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

Leave granted.

The speeches read as follows-

Customs Validation Bill (1979)

This Bill provides for the validation until 3 1 December 1979 of duties collected in pursuance of Customs Tariff Proposals Nos. 16 to 19 introduced into the Parliament at various times since 3 May 1979 and not covered by Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (1979) introduced into the Parliament on 22 May 1 979. Under section 226 of the Customs Act the collections of duties in pursuance of Customs Tariffproposals is protected against legal challenge for six months or until the close of the session of Parliament, whichever occurs first.

The introduction and passage of a validation Bill is therefore a necessary machinery measure which takes over from section 226 pending the introduction of a Customs Tariff Amendment Bill, anticipated for the Budget sittings, to enact the changes contained in the Proposals. The tariff changes validated by this Bill relate to decisions of the Government on the following reports by the Industries Assistance Commission:

Nuts, Bolts and Screws- Proposals No. 1 6;

Australian Citrus Industry- Proposals No.

17;

Miscellaneous Industrial Machinery (relative to Injection Moulding Machines)Proposals No. 1 8;

Acetyl Products; OXO Alcohols, Butyl Acetates, et cetera; Vices- Proposals No. 1 9.

I commend the Bill.

Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1979

The purpose of this Bill is to enact the excise tariff alteration introduced into Parliament on 2 May 1979 by Excise Tariff Proposals No. 4. These proposals increase the excise duty on naturally occurring liquefied petroleum gas- LPGfrom $ 13 per kilolitre to $ 14 per kilolitre following a domestic price rise of $27 per tonne by local producers effective 30 April 1979.

When announcing the Government’s policy to offset additional profits accruing to producers of naturally occurring LPG in November 1978, the Minister for National Development (Mr Newman) indicated that the domestic price would be kept under review and that the excise duty would be increased where necessary. The excise duty increase of $1 per kilolitre being enacted in this Bill equates to the windfall profit that would otherwise be gained by producers from the $27 per tonne price increase. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Button) adjourned.

page 2784

COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYEES (REDEPLOYMENT AND RETIREMENT) BILL 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 23 May, on motion by Senator Carrick:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-Mr President, the Opposition takes the view that this Bill should be withdrawn and redrafted to incorporate two specific matters: Firstly, the specific reasoning for termination of employment; and secondly, provision for a comprehensive appeal system relating to termination of employment and redeployment. This Bill relates to the Australian Public Service. Conditions of employment in the Australian Public Service in the past have been predominantly governed by provisions of the Public Service Act and the Public Service Arbitration Act. The two crucial issues to which the Bill relates are redeployment and retirement. This legislation represents a substantial change in relation to those two matters.

I should like to put on record early in the course of my remarks the Government’s previously stated attitude in relation to these questions. That attitude was reflected in correspondence dated 25 November 1977 from the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) to the Secretary of the Council of Australian Government Employee Organisations. I refer to the provisions of that letter. On 25 November 1977, which it will be recalled, was just prior to the 1977 election, the Prime Minister replied to a letter dated 10 November 1977 from Mr Gradwell, as the Prime Minister put it, ‘concerning the attitude of political parties to their role as potential employer of Australian Government Employees.’ In the course of that letter the Prime Minister gave a certain undertaking relating to the principle of wage indexation, an undertaking he made in general terms in election promises prior to the 1975 and 1977 elections. In his letter to Mr Gradwell he referred to the superannuation scheme and to the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act as it was then called, which was the predecessor of this particular legislation and the legislation which dealt with the industrial stoppages, et cetera in the Public Service. On the second page of the letter he went on to deal with the question of employment levels and job security in the Australian Public Service. This was in November 1977 shortly prior to the election when, for example, the taxation cuts which all honourable senators- or perhaps I should say ‘ all senators ‘ in this context- will recall. In relation to employment levels and job security in the Australian Public Service the Prime Minister wrote: lt has been our express policy to avoid retrenchments and this will continue.

Secondly, he wrote:

Overall staffing levels will be determined in the light of need. Although there may be both increases and decreases in particular areas or administration as work loads vary, the initial process of streamlining has now been substantially completed and in general there will be stability in the service.

The letter went on to deal with a number of other matters but, more particularly and importantly, with what it called ‘Consultative Arrangements’. It should be recalled that this letter was written by the Prime Minister to the Secretary of the peak council of the Public Service organisations. It stated:

I would be happyfor Ministers in my government to have consultations with representatives of CAGEO although these consultations should not be used to circumvent the recognised processes for consultation between the Union Movement and the Commonwealth Service which have been established over the years.

He goes on to stress the importance of communication between the Government and the union movement so that both are able to carry out their functions effectively. I seek leave to have the letter dated 25 November 1977 from the Prime Minister to Mr Gradwell incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The letter read as follows-

PRIME MINISTER CANBERRA

Dear Mr Gradwell,

I am writing in reply to your letter of 10 November concerning the attitude of political parties to their role as potential employer of Australian Government Employees. I shall cover each of the questions which you have posed in the order they appear in your letter.

Wage Indexation-

The Liberal National Country Party government will continue to support the principle of wage indexation, but we reserve the right to make submissions to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission which are in the best interests of the nation as a whole. We will of course accept the decisions of the Commission.

As you are aware, the Commission is at present undertaking a review which is addressing itself to the indexation guidelines including the frequency of adjustments.

Superannuation Scheme-

The government’s intention to maintain CPI annual indexation has already been announced and there is no intention of reviewing that decision.

b) and (c) We will be prepared to discuss, and consider carefully, any reasonable proposal for changes in public service superannuation.

Occupational Health Service-

We have been carefully considering the report or the working party which met in 1975. We will convene an early meeting of the Peak Councils and relevant Commonwealth Departments to consider further action which should be taken.

Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions ) Act-

I cannot agree that this legislation discriminates against Commonwealth employees and for an explanation of the government’s position I draw your attention to the Second

Reading Speech of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Street, published in Hansard of 1 8 August 1977.

Uniform Hours of work-

The Liberal National Country Party government will continue to encourage consultation between management and unions on all matters affecting Commonwealth employees. These consultations can encompass hours of duty as well as other conditions of employment.

Occupational Safety and Health-

The Liberal National Country Party government supports the implementation of principles and practices to promote occupational safety. It is our wish to continue on a joint consultative basis with the union movement. After the election we propose to take up this question as a matter of priority.

Flextime-

I believe that ‘flextime’ has been a successful innovation and we are agreeable to its extension to new areas ofgovernment employment where that is practicable and appropriate.

Annual Leave Loading-

Commonwealth public servants already enjoy, in respect ofleave loadings, more generous provisions than the bulk of the community. Further benefits, especially in the current economic climate, would therefore be difficult to justify.

Employment Levels and Job Security-

It has been our express policy to avoid retrenchments and this will continue.

and (c). Overall staffing levels will be determined in the light of need. Although there may be both increases and decreases in particular areas of administration as work loads vary, the initial process of streamlining has now been substantially completed and in general there will be stability in the service.

Long Service Leave-

Existing provisions for long service leave have been decided in the light of existing conditions but my government would be prepared to consider any new submission.

Maternity and Paternity Leave-

If examination of the operations of the Maternity Leave (Australian Government Employees) Act show that amendments are desirable, they will be made whether these result in increases or reductions in the level of benefits.

Consideration will be given to extending coverage where this can be seen to be desirable and we would welcome any submissions on the matter.

Consultative Arrangements-

I would be happy for Ministers in my government to have consultations with representatives of CAGEO although these consultations should not be used to circumvent the recognised processes for consultation between the Union Movement and the Commonwealth Service which have been established over the years.

I am pleased to have been given the opportunity to comment on the matters you have raised in your letter. I think it is most important that there be communication between the government and the Union Movement so that both are able to carry out their functions effectively. I look forward to a further period of cooperation for the good of the Service and the people of Australia.

Yours sincerely, (Malcolm Fraser)

Mr B. Gradwell, Federal Secretary, Council of Australian Government Employee Organisations, 4th Floor, 254 La Trobe Street, Melbourne 3000.

Senator BUTTON:

– In a subsequent letter to Mr Smith, also of CAGEO, which appears to be undated, Mr Viner, the then Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters, also indulged in some discussion of the proposals to introduce redeployment and retirement legislation. Again, without referring to the letter in detail, I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard as being indicative of the Government’s attitude to this legislation early in 1 979.

Leave granted.

The letter read as follows-

MINISTER ASSISTING THE PRIME MINISTER IN PUBLIC SERVICE MATTERS CANBERRA ACT 2600

MINISTER FOR EMPLOYMENT AND YOUTH AFFAIRS

Dear Mr Smith

Thank you for your letter of 26 January 1 979 concerning re-introduction of the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Bill.

I appreciate your concern that staff organisations should have the fullest possible opportunity to convey their views on this legislation. However, against this should be balanced the pressing need for the rationalisation and co-ordination of provisions relating to the retirement and redeployment of staff throughout various areas of Commonwealth employment which this legislation provides. Additionally, I have received a considerable number of representations from individual public servants asking for the speedy introduction of voluntary early retirement.

As you are aware, the Government and the Public Service Board have conducted quite extensive consultations with staff organisations since the original decision to introduce redeployment and retirement legislation in 1976. The Board informs me that your Council, together with other peak councils, was handed documents detailing proposed changes to the 1976 Bill in late November 1978. Your Council would seem to have had adequate time to consider the revised legislation and to seek the views of its affiliates. If, as I assume, the current matters concerning various grievance processes to which you refer in the last paragraph of your letter include the Joint Council Sub-Committee on Grievances, I understand that the Sub-Committee is not due to report to Joint Council until at least June this year, and in my view to await this report would unduly delay introduction of the Bill. This does not mean, of course, that appeal arrangements introduced in the Redeployment and Retirement Bill could not be reviewed in the light of decisions ultimately taken in relation to grievance processes generally.

It is therefore my intention to proceed with the Bill on the basis of introduction, and passage if possible, during the Autumn session of Parliament.

I should add that it is intended that the Bill will include provision for a representative of staff to be nominated, by a process to be prescribed in regulations, to sit on the appeals Tribunal. This should still allow any staff organisation views on the appeals machinery to be taken into account.

Yours sincerely

I. VINER

Mr W.J. Smith Executive Officer Council of Australian Government Employee Organisations 4th Floor 254 La Trobe Street Melbourne, Victoria 3000.

Senator BUTTON:

-I refer the Senate also to a statement dated 9 August 1 977 by Mr Viner, the then Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters. It is headed ‘Public Service Staff Ceilings ‘and reads: . . the Hon. Ian Viner, MP, said today that Press reports of possible Public Service sackings arising from the recent reductions in staff ceilings were based on a misrepresentation of a letter from the Prime Minister to Ministers. The Government’s policy remains that, wherever possible, wastage will be used to achieve ceilings.

The Prime Minister was simply conforming with past practice. He had merely asked to be informed at the earliest possible time of cases where retrenchment action was being considered as a way of achieving ceilings, to avoid such action being taken without full consideration by the Government.

Both these letters and the statement are indicative of the previously expressed attitude of the Government relating to the subject matters which are dealt with by the Bill now before the Senate.

I said that the Opposition had two major and quite specific objections to this legislation. The Public Service in Australia has traditionally been a career service with a large degree of security of tenure. It is implicit in the statement and the letters that I referred to that at least at the stage prior to the last election it was the Prime Minister’s view that that situation would continue. In our view this legislation is inadequate in two respects. Firstly, it is vague about the specifications under which employment can be terminated in the future. If this legislation is passed employment can be terminated in the Public Service. Secondly, it does not provide a comprehensive system of appeals in the event of redeployment or of employment being terminated.

A certain level of double standards is present in this legislation. This Bill intertwines some worthwhile initiatives negotiated between the Government and the Public Service unions- I refer to conditions which the unions have been seeking for a long time, such as early retirement provisions- and other measures which are totally unacceptable to Government employees insofar as they allow the Government to sack employees for any reason it might wish to prescribe. It also denies the right of appeal. Secondly, in our view the Government is at fault in that it prevents any degree of public scrutiny of the conditions or terms under which employees may be dismissed or redeployed. The provisions of clause 7 of the Bill seek to exclude this Parliament from taking part in any further decisions that are made as to the grounds on which public servants might be retired. In that context it raises a very nice question which has been a continual subject of rather peripheral debate in this place and elsewhere as to the roles of the Executive and of the Parliament, and whether it is appropriate for the Executive to have virtually unfettered discretion in relation to the dismissal of public servants. I say unfettered because the discretion is not described in any sense by legislation.

The Bill also displays nothing by way of innovation in relation to the problems that dismissal of public servants might cause. There is no reasoning as to the employment pressures of computerisation which is being introduced at a rapid rate in the Public Service. That problem involves not only the Public Service but also service industries generally. The legislation also totally ignores the constructive recommendations of the Coombs Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration for achieving a greater degree of efficiency within the Public Service. To that extent the legislation is of great concern to all Australians because it typifies in another way the Government’s inability to comprehend the nature of problems it has to confront and contend with and its consequent inability to provide rational solutions. I will put that in another context.

This Bill is essentially concerned with basic problems of industrial relations, an area in which the Government has the most disastrous and abysmal record of failure probably of any government in the history of this country. While it deals with a great variety of provisions relating to employment in the Public Service, its provisions, for example, do not touch in any way the suggestions made in the Department of Productivity’s publication entitled Employee Participation: A Broad View. These things are not considered in the context of the legislation.

I want to refer more specifically to the provisions of clause 7 of the Bill. That clause provides the grounds for redeployment and possible sacking of staff. The Opposition accepts that on the grounds of efficiency, as stated in clause 7(l)(a)(i), or invalidity, as stated in clauses 7(I)(a)(ii), it may be necessary to redeploy some members of the Public Service. However the provisions of clause 7 ( 1 ) (a) (iii) are quite repugnant to us in that they provide that an employee may be redeployed and ultimately sacked for any prescribed reason. I say that those provisions are repugnant because they are quite contrary to the whole development of industrial relations.

While the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission is moving in one direction on this question of termination of employment- and properly so because the consequences of disemployment are now so great in any industries which might in any sense be described as career industries; we must consider the consequences in terms of all sorts of benefits which flow to employees and which may be lost by disemployment- in a sense the Government is moving the other way with this legislation. In a sense this Bill represents an article of faith with the Government. The Opposition is not in any sense decrying what may be a significant factor in the motivations of the Government in terms of Public Service efficiency. It is not in any way decrying that as an objective. But it is decrying the fact that that seems to be an article of faith in this legislation- perhaps of blinkered faith- to the exclusion of what should be very important considerations for any employer dealing with any employee.

By the provisions of clause 7 ( 1 ) (a) (iii), if the Bill is passed the Parliament is in fact saying: ‘You can really leave all those questions of what are prescribed reasons for disemployment of people in what has formerly been a career service to the Executive of this country’. That is what the legislation is saying. It would be interesting to hear the voice of Senator Wright, formerly a member of the Senate, dealing with the provisions of clause 7 ( 1 ) (a) (iii). In many senses Senator Wright was a distinguished contributor to debates on this question and the question of leaving powers which should properly be prescribed by legislation to prescription by regulation. The Opposition objects very strongly to the provisions of that sub-clause of clause 7 because it leaves any government with a capacity to prescribe reasons in a most unsatisfactory way. For example, under the provision of clause 7 ( 1 ) (a) (iii), if a government wished it would be able to contract out to private enterprise whole sections of responsibility and work. If it so wished, it could allow that work to be done by private enterprise and reduce the number of public servants without review by this Parliament.

That may be putting a hypothetical case to the Senate, but it is quite clear that that could be done under the provisions of the legislation. That is an extraordinary concept, an extraordinary matter, which could be contemplated by a government without any reference to this Parliament if that were wished by that government. The Opposition suggests that that would be an extraordinary and undesirable thing for a government to do. If one relies on the good faith of this Government in this regard, one takes an awful punt, as the Opposition has been at pains to point out in the course of other debates in this chamber in the last few days. Everybody would have to take it on trust if that particular provision were passed. Even ‘Blind Freddie’ would have some doubt about doing that in the context of the previous acts of faith upon which he has embarked.

The difficulty about this provision is that it gives the Government a power essentially to emasculate the Public Service by executive decision. The Opposition is concerned about the ramifications that this Bill could have in its present form for the independence of the Australian Public Service. For example, if one talks to public servants about this legislation, I think most of them will say that most departments in the Public Service have a policy line which they run on particular issues. Persons who do not accord with the line of their department are, in a sense, at risk in relation to a number of matters, such as promotion, within the context of the department.

The difficulty about all that is that one probably runs the risk that the Public Service will not be as fearlessly independent as, in theory at least, it is supposed to be in the advice which it gives to Government and in the impartiality of that advice. This may be just one step on the way to the political appointment of public servants. All honourable senators know that the Public Service in Australia has been absolutely fearless, highly imaginative and independent in the advice it has given to governments, but there is a threat to that situation in the provisions of this Bill. What department will be able to remain fearlessly independent if it gives advice to a government knowing that the Prime Minister of the day or the Minister of the day could direct his powers against that department under the provisions of clause 7 ( 1 ) (a) (iii)? Insofar as one adheres to the notion of a career Public Service because it produces the capacity for strong and independent advice, this Bill varies from this concept by the provisions of this clause.

Clauses 9 and 1 5 purport to provide a system of appeals for those whose jobs are placed on the line by the redeployment and sacking powers contained in the Bill. The approach of the Government has been to window dress those problems that are too hard while pursuing a simplistic line on economic policies. One can look back at the dismembered functioning of the Prices Justification Tribunal and the Trade Practices Commission, at Public Service work backlogs with reducing staffs to handle them, and at various reports commissioned by the Government- the

Jackson, Williams, Crawford and Myers reportswhich, at least in part, were ignored or delayed by the Government and one will find that the approach of this Government has been to set up these inquiries and bodies as a sop and a front to public opinion and then to proceed to ignore them- as in the case of some of the commissionsand ultimately to render them inoperative.

The appeal provisions in this legislation reflect something of the same mentality. There is no provision for an effective appeal system to query the decisions that heads of departments may make. To this end, one finds in clause 15 provision for appeals against redeployment decisions. The Catch 22 situation is contained in clause 14, which provides that if a public servant is the subject of a redeployment declaration, he cannot be redeployed unless he waives his right of appeal, if instituted. That is the situation which prevents any valid right of appeal in the legislation and emasculates the provisions of clause 15. As I have indicated, this Government had some sort of record of negotiation with the Public Service unions about some of these issues, but those negotiations have not in any sense been reflected ultimately in the key provisions of this Bill. One could refer- the Opposition will be referring to this in the Committee stage of the Bill- to the provisions of clause 15, which contains another pernicious provision in relation to fellow employees of a public servant subject to an appeal.

The Bill in its present form gives no effective appeal system against the decision to get rid of an individual employee or class of employee in the Public Service. It provides yet another disappointment for the Australian public and particularly for the Australian public servants. It really suggests a half-hearted attempt to understand essential employment and industrial relations concepts and to apply them in the Public Service. There would have been ample opportunity in the context of this Bill to go some way towards promoting the efficient operation of the Public Service in line with the recommendations in the report of the Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration- the Coombs report- or in line with a number of other suggestions which have been made by other commentators on the Australian Public Service. That opportunity has been passed by. The Opposition wants to make it quite clear that, in passing it by, the Government has really taken only some of the initiatives which were brought about largely by the Public Service organisations. In the course of putting those initiatives into legislation it has just added these two quite pernicious provisions to which I have referred.

We make it quite clear that from our point of view there is need for legislation which would improve job efficiency and job satisfaction within the Public Service. There is need for legislation which would improve the capacity for participation and consultation within the Public Service along the lines suggested by that other arm of government endeavour, namely the Department of Productivity. This Bill does nothing to achieve any of those things. We are concerned that a statutory framework should be established concerning the rights of public servants so that a clear definition can be given on the processes for determining services for which staff are engaged, tenure or conditions of employment and the appeal processes. We would also like to see some legislative attempt to explore the ways in which staff representation could be achieved in collegiate management in departments and statutory corporations. None of these challenges are accepted by the legislation. As I said, it is another example of the Government’s discredited industrial relations attitudes being applied in a slap dash way to the Australian Public Service.

This Bill would have also provided the Government with a constructive opportunity to give a lead in solving many of the problems which confront service industry in Australia generally. The problems with computerisation and the micro-processor revolution mean that many forms of labour are becoming increasingly unattractive vis a vis computers in service industries. Government departments are no exception. This Government has imposed staff ceilings on people but it has imposed no ceiling on the introduction of computers and micro-processors in the Australian Public Service. This is another missed opportunity to bring forward what could have been an important, constructive and creative piece of Public Service legislation. We regret the absence from this Bill of the sort of things that I have mentioned; the things that might have been done in order to achieve the objective of obtaining a more efficient, constructive and contented Public Service, involved very much in the tasks which government directs it to perform. Instead of that these things are missing. We have two provisions which threaten by their vagueness and imprecision the security and careers of public servants.

I know that it will be said that this Government has no intention of attacking the security of employment of members of the Australian Public Service. It has been said before that that is not the Government’s intention. Of course, it may be that that is absolutely correct. But we are dealing with a very difficult and important subject of employment security. The record of this Government in relation to promises about what its intentions are has not really been a good one. There is no reason for speculating that in regard to the Australian Public Service the Government’s intentions and its statements of intentions are any more honourable than its statements of intentions in regard to any other area. For these reasons the Opposition finds this Bill unacceptable in its present form. Accordingly I move as an amendment to the motion that the Bill be now read a second time:

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

specific reasoning for termination of employment: and

a comprehensive appeal system relating to termination of employment and redeployment.

Senator WALTERS:
Tasmania

-The aim of the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Bill 1979 is to introduce greater efficiency into the Public Service. The Bill was originally introduced late in 1 976. It lay on the table until the Parliament was dissolved in 1977, and it then lapsed. During that time that the Bill lay on the table there were very detailed discussions with the peak councils. As a result of those discussions significant amendments were introduced to this legislation. It is not in its original form; significant amendments have been made as a direct result of those consultations of which Senator Button was so critical when referring to that letter which Mr Fraser wrote to Mr Gradwell in 1977. According to Senator Button, Mr Fraser said that the Government had an express desire to avoid retrenchment- a desire which I believe is still written into this Bill. Senator Button also commented on Mr Fraser’s stressing the importance of consultations with the peak councils. Those consultations have taken place and will continue to take place, as is laid down in the legislation. The Bill makes provisions for redeployment and management initiated retirement in certain circumstances.

The Bill requires Permanent Heads of departments, not the Ministers of departments, to identify three different areas. The first area is over-staffing. The second area involves the situation where through invalidity a man can no longer efficiently carry out his duties. The other area is ‘for other reasons’. This is the area where the Opposition seems to have its greatest concern. Of the three areas, the Opposition seems to have read all sorts of weird and wonderful connotations into that latter one. But let us start with the first of them. Where areas of over-staffing are identified, the Public Service Board is expected to attempt to redeploy people. As a matter of fact, it has also been written into the Bill that retraining should be undertaken in this area. In the course of carrying out the responsibility of retraining or redeployment the Board may have to apply certain principles. An example of that is that in the interests of overall efficiency certain types of jobs should be filled by the best person available or that certain jobs should be reported as not being suitable for redeployment because it is known that there is a potential redundancy in that area. I think that they are very reasonable responsibilities that the Board should be seen to carry out.

I now refer to the area of invalidity. If invalidity renders an employee incapable of carrying out his job, he should then be redeployed or perhaps retrained for another job in another area. Surely there is no complaint from the Opposition in regard to those two areas. So, we come to the ‘for other reasons’ area. These other reasons about which Senator Button was so concerned could vary considerably. However, they must be specifically prescribed in the regulations. These reasons are to be prescribed only following consultation with the employee unions. Before the regulations are made the four peak councils are to be consulted. Following those consultations the regulations will prescribe the exact reasons. It is expected that the reasons will include such things as loss of qualifications, such as loss of licence, or inefficiency. (Quorum formed). I was referring to the type of circumstance that this ‘for any other reason’ might cover. For instance, it could be loss of qualifications such as licences. That sort of thing would be expected. Also, it could be just plain inefficiency because a person could no longer cope with the job he was doing. These are the types of things which are expected to be put into the regulations. But as I say, that will only be done after full consultation with the four peak employee councils. It is only if the Public Service Board cannot redeploy or find alternative jobs for these employees that the permanent head can then initiate retirement, along with compensation in certain cases.

There is a right of appeal and it has been played down considerably by Senator Button. There is a right of appeal to a tribunal in three areas, which are: Being identified as excess staff; the type of job to which the person is redeployed; and proposed retirement action. All of those three areas can be appealed against. I think it is very important that we should know who the tribunal comprises. The tribunal will comprise an independent chairman appointed by the Governor-General, nominees of the decision making authorities and nominees to represent the employees on the basis of discussions with the representatives of the peak councils. It is envisaged that the tribunal members will be nominated jointly by all the peak councils. As Senator Button said, also included in this Bill are provisions for a decrease in the minimum age for voluntary retirement. This has been decreased from 60 to 55 years. I understand that the Opposition is in full agreement with this particular clause. Clause 22 of the Bill enables employees to be employed for the maximum period of time over the retiring age of 65 years where it is in the best interests of the Commonwealth and where the employee himself or herself so desires.

The only further area on which I will touch is compensation. The Bill provides compensation for those people compulsorily retired, that is between the ages of 55 and 60, and those retired for any other reason. The Bill provides for two months salary for each year forgone between 55 and 60 years, with a maximum payment of 10 months. The Bill enables lump sums to be converted to a form of pension under the Superannuation Act, and entitlements from superannuation are added to this. I believe it is a very generous deal, and far exceeds most other terms of employment outside the Commonwealth Government service. It is with confidence that I support the Bill before the Senate.

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

-Mr Deputy President, this is not a Bill, as it claims to be, about the efficient and economical use of Public Service resources. If it were the Opposition would support it wholeheartedly. It would be consistent with our attitudes when the Labor Party was in government of setting up the Coombs Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration, and our acceptance of that inquiry’s recommendations. It would be consistent with the explicit terms of the Australian Labor Party platform, which emphasises not only that the Public Service should be politically responsive in the sense of being capable of satisfying the requirements of the elected government of the day, and not only that the Public Service be responsive and accountable to the community as a whole, but also that the Public Service should operate with the maximum efficiency in delivering analysis, advice and program implementation.

Furthermore, it would be consistent with the whole philosophy of the Australian Labor Party, which gives a quite central place to the public sector and the Public Service, not just because we believe that that is a fairer and more equitable way of organising enterprise and distributing national resources, but because we believe it is a genuinely more efficient way of organising the nation’s affairs. It is a corollary of that philosophy. It is entirely consistent with that philosophy that we should be keener even than our Tory opponents to create and to maintain a Public Service which operates in a genuinely efficient and economic manner.

But the Bill is not about these things. Despite the denials by Senator Walters and all the rest of the Government spokesmen and spokeswomen on this subject the Bill is about retrenchment. It will enable the Government to maintain its arbitrarily and irrationally imposed staff ceilings. It will enable the Government to reduce the public sector wage bill and help get itself out of the dilemma- get itself off the hook- into which, with its wild promises about reducing the deficit, it has got itself. It will permit retrenchment in the pursuit of that passionate ideological antagonism to the public sector which is shared in common by Ayn Rand, Malcolm Fraser and a handful of his even more evangelically inclined Ministers and back benchers, but which is not shared by anyone else very much in the Government, and certainly not in the community as a whole. Moreover, as Senator Button pointed out, it is retrenchment in blatant breach of the election promise of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in November 1977 when he said, in that letter of 25 November 1977, which was tabled by Senator Button:

It has been our express policy to avoid retrenchments, and this will continue.

Furthermore, he said . . in general there will be stability in the service-

In the kind of retrenchment provisions which this Bill contains and is all about, we have another broken promise to add to that long, sordid, squalid list which has been lengthening with every day this Government remains in office. There is no doubt that this Bill is about retrenchment. But of course the word retrenchment appears nowhere in the text. Instead, we have that quite extraordinary euphemism’ management initiated early retirement’. That is not just an ordinary common garden euphemism. That, I would suggest to the Senate, is the most grotesque euphemism to have been invented since the Nazis described genocidal murder of their concentration camp victims as ‘special treatment’. It is claimed by the Government that the powers of redeployment and dismissal are already set out in the Public Service Act and that this Bill is doing nothing more than that which is already in the statute book. It is claimed also that this Bill contains nothing which is uniquely new or uniquely nasty, that all this Bill does is to streamline the procedures and to confer particularly in the new appeal mechanism, new protections upon employees associated with the redeployment and compulsory retirement process. But the claim that this Bill somehow operates to the advantage of employees in the Public sector rings quite hollow when it is weighted against the unanimous opposition of employees and Public Service unions to this particular measure.

The reason the Government has created the new mechanism, the new procedures in this Bill, is that it now wants to use the powers which have grown rusty with disuse over the years. It wants to lubricate the mechanism and put it to work. The existing Public Service powers are clumsy and blunt instruments. The new powers contained in this legislation are much more refined and sophisticated. But the difference is just that between the club and the garrotte- the victim in either event will be just as dead. The only real difference is that with this much more sophisticated legislation, it is much more likely that the victim will be condemned in the first place.

There should be no doubt at all about this question of the Government’s bona fides with this legislation. If anyone had any lingering doubt about the Government’s intentions with respect to the Public Service, it is only those who are unfortunate enough to be both deaf- like Mr Newman- and blind who could be in any doubt about this Government’s intention. It is apparent if one looks at the record. We have seen already in the last three years a reduction of over 13,500 officers in the Public Service. We have seen already 300 Medibank employees declared redundant, with goodness knows how many more joining that category as a result of the latest and greatest exercise in the Government’s avoidance of its health care obligations. We have seen already the irrational and arbitrary imposition of staff ceilings, the implications of which are becoming clearer with each passing day. The implications are: Huge additional strains on officers at all levels, particularly senior levels, in the Public Service; a consequent decline in the speed and efficiency with which the Public Service performs its functions; and the collapse of innumerable staff training and development programs. The result of that will have long term implications and will cause problems in the quality of Public Service performance.

We have a government which has demonstrated all too clearly in respect to everything to do with the Public Service and the public sector that it is on an ideological rampage. Large scale forced retrenchments are the logical next step in the Government’s timetable. This is the Bill that will make possible that next step. I say further that the real lunacy of the Government’s approach, as I described it, is that quite apart from everything else it is the very opposite of” the kind of strategy which is required by the present economic situation in which we have just on half a million people registered as unemployed- 7 per cent of the work force. God alone knows how many others are in the category of the hidden unemployed. We have a situation in which for every 20 minutes of every 24 hours that this Fraser Government has been in office another Australian has joined the dole queue.

We are facing an economy in which prospects for the private sector, not only in the short term and the medium term but also, it has to be admitted, in the long term, are still exceedingly gloomy. The only real prospect of growth in employment in the long term is in the public sector, in the delivery of more and better public services to the community as a whole, and in the development of public enterprise. I refer to all those areas in which private capital has demonstrated traditionally either its unwillingness or its inability to take the necessary research and development risks and for which private capital just is not available, at least within Australia, to set major projects in train. So far from being willing to think creatively and constructively in these terms and to develop a public service and a public sector which are dynamic and innovative and of a size to cope with the new demands that are being placed upon them, the Government has set its face in a dog-in-the-manger fashion against the public sector and all its works. It has not engaged in building a public service and a public sector to meet the very real challenges of the 1980s. What it is doing is tearing down and destroying the public sector that we have now. Once again, it is this Bill that is going to be the mechanism which makes that destruction finally possible.

Senator Walters, like so many other Government spokespersons, has claimed that this Bill is the product of consultation. But what a very strange kind of consultation it has been. It reminds me of nothing so much as the kind of consultation in which a judge engages with an accused when he asks: ‘Is there anything you want to say before I condemn you to death?’ Everything about this Bill- the criteria which it prescribes for action to be taken, the appeal procedures which it provides and various so-called sweeteners that it contains- demonstrates that it is the product of a government which really has consulted only with itself and has incorporated within the text of the Bill nothing more than the content of its own prejudices.

Let us look at the major features of this Bill in order to justify those assertions which I have just made. Let us look first at the criteria on which action will be taken, as this Bill now stands. The Bill specifies three criteria which are going to be applied to set in train redeployment and retirement action. The first of those criteria, all of which are set out in clause 7 of the Bill, is the criteria of numerical excess which relates to a situation where numbers in a particular department or area of the Public Service are greater than necessary for the efficient and economical working of that particular department, authority or area. Who is to determine whether there is such an excess? In the first place, such a determination or decision is in the hands of the Government itself. By cutting off a particular program or by reducing the scope or scale of a particular program the Government, by its own action will create immediately the pre-conditions for the operation of any conceivable set of procedures that might be created under the framework of this legislation. It is in this sense that the claims of the Public Service unions and of many critical commentators on this Bill, that the Bill is really creating conditions for political manipulation of the public service, are fully justified.

The second decision maker that is identified, this time more specifically in the text of the Bill itself, is the Public Service Board. Not only is it given by this legislation the very important power to prescribe the procedures which will apply in determining whether an excess situation exists- which procedures can be as wide an loose or as narrow and circumscribed as the Public Service Board chooses- but also it is vested with a quite specific power under clause 8 (3) (c) to identify not only general criteria but also particular employees who are to be the subject of redeployment compulsory action.

Thirdly- and only thirdly- in the list, the Bill provides for the permanent head of a department to make decisions about excess numbers. But in most instances, of course, the freedom of action of the permanent head will be circumscribed and constrained very narrowly by the procedures which the Public Service Board lays down. Given those procedures, the decision of the permanent head, for the most part, will be inevitable. The permanent head will be acting essentially as a rubber stamp. In this respect it is to be noted that it is just not so- as the Minister claimed in various statements that have been made, in particular his Press release of 20 Maythat this Bill embodies the substance and spirit of recommendation 178 of the Coombs inquiry to the effect that the diagnosis of excess staff should be a decision-making power which is vested in departmental management rather than in the Public Service Board. Even a most cursory reading of the text of this Bill will demonstrate that that is just not so. The real decision-making is done at the Public Service Board level. In the Minister’s claim we have yet another example of the kind of distortion which regrettably is becoming a way of life for this Government. That is the criterion of excess numbers.

The second criterion, with which the Opposition has less complaint in view of the way it is drawn in the Bill, is that criterion of physical or mental incapacity or invalidity. It is agreed that there can be no argument about retirement or redeployment being contingent upon a properly made finding to that effect. The third criterion has attracted quite properly a great deal of critical attention and indeed has been the centrepiece of most of the debate on this Bill. This is the criterion which says that someone can be brought within the provisions of this Bill for ‘any other prescribed reasons’. What are the grounds that the Government has in mind in using this particular formula? Is it loss of efficiency on the part of an individual officer such that he no longer is capable of performing the job that he is paid to do? If so, there could be little dispute by the Opposition with the application of this kind of criterion, although, of course, one would need perhaps some rather precise drafting to ensure that it did not work unfairly or improperly in the case of a particular employee.

Is the criterion to be prescribed under that open-ended head or, on the other hand, as the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) has also suggested, on a situation in which the officer in question loses his licence or some educational qualification and as a result becomes unable to perform the job in question? If so, again the Opposition could have little dispute with a properly drawn provision of that kind appearing in the legislation. But if that is all that the Minister has in mind- if those are the only kinds of situations which are genuinely intended to be dealt with under clause 7- why are those additional criteria not set out in the text of the Bill? That is what the Opposition will be suggesting by way of an amendment to the motion that the Bill be now read a second time and, if we get to it, in the Committee stage.

It is true, of course, that any particular reason which subsequently might be decided upon by the Government has to be the subject of a regulation and that regulation in turn can be disallowed by this Parliament. But that is a most uncertain remedy for a legislative situation which is in need of redress. We all know perfectly well that when the Government determines a particular policy and embodies that policy in its legislation there is very little chance of this Parliament doing anything to overturn that legislation. Furthermore, we know that there is no chance at all of the Parliament doing anything to overturn a regulation during those five or six months each year when the Parliament is in recess. During that period, if the Government promulgates a regulation, it would have open slather to perpetrate any kind of retrenchment situation it wanted to bring about. For that reason, we have said throughout this debate and we will go on saying that the particular criteria which the Government has in mind that it can justify ought to be set out and specifically embodied in the text of this legislation. Failure to do so can only lead one to the conclusion that the Government has something to hide; that it has the intention of prescribing regulations and of prescribing reasons in those regulations which range much more broadly, much more widely, much more indefensibly than those reasons which have been articulated by the Government spokesman so far.

Then there is the question of the appeal procedures which are provided by this legislation. There are several very important inadequacies to note about those. The first is that the scope of the appeal rights set out in the legislation is very limited indeed. For a start, no right of appeal against a Public Service Board direction is available under clause 8 of the Bill, which can have effect not only in general procedural terms but also in relation to particular employees. A right of appeal ought to be so prescribed there. Even more importantly, no right of appeal is provided against any initial judgment which is made by a permanent head in accordance with the Public Service Board criteria that a particular area or category of employment in fact is overmanned. Thus, as the editorial in the Canberra Times of 28 May stated: . . there is no guarantee that such judgments will not be made as sloppily arbitrarily and as damagingly as comparable decisions about staff ceilings have been during the past three years.

The Opposition endorses and echoes those sentiments. It is not only the scope of the appeal but also the procedures of the appeal which, again quite accurately and legitimately, justify hostile attention being paid to this Bill. The Bill in fact creates a quite substantial disincentive to anyone who is declared eligible for retirement or redeployment appealing against that declaration. For a start, by appealing, which is necessarily a time-consuming process, an employee will lose his place in the redeployment queue for the reasons articulated by Senator Button. A clause in the Bill states that a person cannot actually be redeployed while he still has an appeal on foot. If a person wants to get a place in the queue and to have a chance of finding another job in the Public Service, either he has to waive his appeal or wait for it to be determined. Furthermore, there is the famous ‘dobbing in your mates’ clause, as it has been quite accurately described. That provision in the legislation makes it clear that the price of a successful appeal by an employee is that one’s fellow employees- one or more of them- will be declared in his place. What employee will embark upon an appeal procedure with that prospect, with all the odour that will attach to it, hanging over his head?

Senator Hamer:

– They do it all the time.

Senator EVANS:

-They do it all the time in the context of a promotion appeal, but it is a very different matter fighting someone over a promotion slot and fighting for one’s actual employment survival in the Public Service in a situation in which there is such a manifest paucity of other jobs to go to. That is the distinction which I would have thought even someone such as Senator Hamer would have been sensitive enough to appreciate. The Government claims that any variation in the appeals procedure would create interminable delays while successive appeals were resolved in a long chain. Let me say just two things in answer to that. First of all, even if that is the result of conferring appeal rights in the way in which the Opposition suggests that they ought to be conferred- it is by no means clear that in practice it will work that way- the Opposition still would persist with that point because we say that a procedure of that kind may just be the price which has to be paid for both the appearance and the reality of a just, fair and equitable appellate system.

Morever, perhaps the further point needs to be made, if the Government has not appreciated it already after the events of the last few weeks, that the delays which might be associated with a rewritten appeals clause might well prove to be as nothing compared with the kind of industrial disruption which the Government might have to come to expect if this situation is not remedied. The Public Service unions and employees already have shown that they are not prepared to lie down and be run over by this legislation. It can be assumed that the implementation of those unfair procedures will provoke the inevitable industrial response.

Finally, looking at the basic substance of the Bill, let me refer to what have been described as the ‘golden handshake’, or the ‘sweetener’ provisions of the Bill. The Government has made much of the special benefit lump sum pay-out provisions which the Bill contains. It has expressed some surprise that the Public Service unions are not responding with dog-like devotion, with tail-wagging appreciation, to the Government’s largesse. What is the situation with respect to those lump sum payments? First of all, as far as the payments for voluntary retirements are concerned and the provisions for voluntary retirement, it is true that the voluntary retirement at the age of 55 years, for which the Bill provides, is something for which the Public Service unions have long fought. It is something for which the Bill does provide and, on the face of it, the unions as a result ought to be grateful. Morever, the Public Service as a whole and the community as a whole should be grateful for the incorporation of those provisions.

The Public Service should be grateful because it will make possible a rational solution to quite a long-standing problem in Public Service staffing, which has become particularly apparent in recent years, that is, the problem of the ‘middleaged hump’, as it has been described- the situation where departments have a high percentage of senior people near retirement age. Early retirement provisions will enable the Government to blood younger talent and to encourage a greater degree of career mobility. Furthermore, it is in the interests, one would have thought, of the community as a whole for a pace-setting job in early retirement to be done at the governmental level simply because, with the acute and chronic unemployment situation that we now seem to be creating, it is apparent that the community as a whole will have to adjust to the kind of work-sharing mechanisms of which early retirement is just one.

There are all sorts of good reasons for the unions and employees, for the Public Service and for the community at large, to applaud the enactment of the voluntary retirement provisions of this Bill. But they are not provisions which are to be supported as the Government seems to think they ought to be supported, at all costs and with no account being paid to the price of those particular desirable innovations. The unions have demonstrated their good faith throughout this whole controversy. They have made it clear, and rightly so, that if those voluntary retirement provisions are to be the price of the rest of the Bill - the trade-off for the sack, as it were- they will not have a bar of them.

The compulsory retirement provisions of the Bill are the other aspects of the Bill which have attracted the Government’s claim that its largesse is spectacular and ought not to be challenged in any way. But the benefits there are no better than a bad joke. They are very limited in scope. They are very limited in amount. We have been told by the Minister that there will be lump sum payouts provided for certain classes of people who are declared eligible for redeployment and who are subsequently retired. Clause 23 of the Bill provides a framework for such benefits to be made.

But the Minister’s second reading speech and other public statements he has made make it very clear that the conditions on which those benefits will be paid out are so circumscribed as to be almost ludicrous. In the first place they are available only for those people who are going to be retired for the category of ‘other prescribed reasons’, which has been the subject of so much attention. This is the clause 7 (3) (b) provision. They are not going to be available for people who are retired for reasons of being excess to requirements, the centrepiece, the real practical area of concern so far as this Bill is concerned.

Senator Knight:

– I believe they have determination 509.

Senator EVANS:

– Yes, but that determination 509, as Senator Knight will be well aware, provides only a very limited transitional scale of benefits and is not on the same scale, as I understand it, as the benefits which are payable to those lucky few who benefit under the provisions of the intended regulations under clause 23. Secondly, it is apparent that the benefits that are to be prescribed under clause 23 are very far from being on a lavish scale. The most that could be expected, the maximum payout for the mainstream fourth division clerical assistants, is of the order of $6,000- perhaps $6,300, which is not exactly the kind of golden handshake which is calculated to lead to a long, happy and prosperous retirement.

But most of all- and this demonstrates another inadequacy- this payout is not available for anyone under the age of 55, for whatever reason such a person might be retrenched. The Minister had clearly said that this benefit, this sweetener that Senator Knight is so keen about, which he told the Press he argued for so vigorously in the party room in order to preserve his fading constituency in Canberra, will be confined to those over the age of 55 because it is in recognition of the difficulties that people over that age will have in obtaining another job. But has the Minister any idea of how hard it is in the present economic climate not just for people over the age of 55 to obtain another job but for people over the age of 50, people over the age of 45 and people even younger than that? Is he not aware, is the Government not aware, that this age limit is an arbitrary stipulation which bears no resemblance to contemporary reality and that it will have the effect of consigning permanently to the employment scrap heap very many people who are in the prime of their working life? On the evidence of this Bill, the Government will watch these people go onto the economic scrap heap with no more humane emotion than one of cynical detachment, an attitude which has characterised not only its production of this piece of legislation but so much else of what it has been responsible for.

Senator HAMER:
Victoria

– I believe this is not a time of night or point in the session for long speeches despite the example of Senator Evans who has just concluded his speech and who seems to believe that the endless repetition of the tendentious is a substitute for rational debate. I have three worries about this legislation that I would like to state briefly.

The first is this: I am concerned about the thrust of the early retirement proposals. The Public Service in this country has become a pacesetter in industrial conditions. We have a present and a growing problem of a limited work force supporting a growing number of retired people. At the moment the proportion of retired people to those in work or of working age is about one in seven. In ten years it will be one in six. I think we must be very wary of the way in which we encourage people to opt out of the work force early. I think this is a right, once given, which is going to be almost impossible to take away. Insofar as the Public Service is a pace-setter for the rest of our industrial and commercial life, it is a step which I think we will regret. The United States of America has gone in the opposite direction. The retiring age in some States of the United States has been lifted to allow people to continue working after the age of 65. That, I think, is going to become a trend of increasing importance. I regret a step taken in the opposite direction by this Government.

The second point that concerns me is the attitude of the Australian Labor Party, or at least some of its members, that this is something new. When we are looking at this Bill we should compare it with the present provisions with regard to redeployment and compulsory retirement, or what I would like to call, quite bluntly, sackings. Section 20 of the Public Service Act says this:

If at any time the Board finds that a greater number of officers of a particular classification is employed in any Department or Branch of a Department than is necessary for the efficient working of that Department or Branch, any officer whom the Board finds is in excess may be transferred to such other office of equal classification and salary in the Service as the officer is competent to fill, and if no such office is available the officer may be transferred to an office of lower classification and salary but if no office is available for the officer the Board may retire him from the Service.

That section was last amended in 1973 by the Whitlam Labor Government. That is the provision which Senator Evans correctly describes as being an Act of the Labor Government which is a blunt and clumsy instrument. Our task is to make it less blunt and less clumsy.

On the second issue, compulsory retirement or sackings, section 67 ( 1 ) of the Public Service Act says this:

If an officer appears to the Board or the Chief Officer to be inefficient or incompetent or unfit to discharge or incapable of discharging the duties of his office efficiently, the Board may, after report from the Chief Officer, and after investigation into the circumstances, retire the officer from the Service from a date to be specified by the Board, or may transfer him to some other office, with salary appropriate to such other office.

That section too was introduced by the Whitlam Government and it too was correctly described by Senator Evans as being a clumsy and blunt instrument. There is nothing new in these provisions. They have been in the Public Service Act for years. What we are now doing is ensuring that when they are appropriately used the people concerned will have the right of” appeal and will receive proper financial compensation.

What this Bill does is give public servants in these categories more rights than they had before. Incidentally, when one talks about sackings or compulsory retirements one should compare the situation in the Public Service with that in private industry. The general conditions of the Public Service are now probably better than those in private industry. A person working in private industry generally can be sacked with no notice at all. This is not the case in the Public Service. Not only do people over 55 receive the appropriately graded supenannuation but also they receive a lump sum payment, which in the case of a man of 55 who has been compulsorily retired amounts to 10 months of his salary. This is a very substantial benefit.

Senator Georges:

– So he goes down to the market place and competes with someone else then.

Senator HAMER:

– He probably does not have to. He has a substantial pension plus 10 months salary.

Senator Georges:

– Why do members of the Defence Force get a golden handshake and then go out to the market place and compete? That is what is happening.

Senator HAMER:

– Members of the Defence Force do not get a golden handshake. They get a retirement benefit along the same lines as the Commonwealth superannuation which the Commonwealth public servants will get.

Senator Georges:

– Exactly, and then they go back into the work force.

Senate HAMER- They can go back into the work force if they choose. By the way, we are dealing with quite different things. The Defence Force Retirement Benefits Scheme is designed to allow for the very early retirement of Service officers and to compensate them for the positions they might have reached outside the Defence Force if they had not joined it in the first place. It is a supplement to the incomes they might reasonably expect to get in private industry. Here we are talking about people who probably will retire totally from the work force if they are 55. They do not do too badly.

By the way, from my discussion with the Public Service it is quite clear that the Public Service representatives accept the necessity in appropriate cases for sackings or compulsory retirement. They had no coherent arguments against such a provision which we all know has been in the Public Service Act for many years. I think the provisions in the present Bill are sound in essence. I have worries about the adequacy of the appeals proceedings in some areas. After about six months experience I would welcome a studyprobably it would be best carried out by the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations- into the working of the appeals proceedings in this area to see whether they are really meeting fairly the proper needs of justice and the Public Service.

Senator Evans:

– In the meantime, how many people are going to suffer?

Senator HAMER:

– I doubt if anyone will suffer. This Bill is merely a verification that no one is suffering. One does one’s best which I think this Bill does. But I would like verification, after the Bill has been in operation for about 6 months, that it is performing as we think it will perform.

The third of my worries relates to the much discussed clause 7 ( 1 ) (b) (iii), which permits retirement for what is nicely described as ‘any other prescribed reason. ‘ An amendment to this clause was proposed in the House of Representatives. I do not know whether a similar amendment will be moved in the Senate tonight. It was incomplete because it did not deal with the aspect of retirement for inefficiency. Perhaps any such amendment that is moved in the Senate tonight will deal with it. Any clause which does not deal with it is incomplete.

I would like to see the reasons for these retirements set out in the principal Act. I do not understand- I have not yet been satisfied by anyone- why it is necessary or desirable that they be prescribed by regulation. I think that they should be in the principal Act. I would have supported an amendment to that effect- in addition to the one raised in the House of Representatives concerning retirement for inefficiency- but for the fact that last Tuesday Public Service employees called a strike. It is intolerable that the Government or this Parliament should yield to that sort of pressure from its servants. Nevertheless, I do not think that on a critical issue such as this the scrutiny that would be given by the Regulations and Ordinances Committee would be adequate. As I think all honourable senators are aware, that Committee, by its charter, looks not at the desirability of particular regulations but merely at whether they are within power. Regulations on this subject should automatically come before this Parliament for debate. Therefore, when any regulations made under clause 7 ( 1 ) (b) (iii) come, as they will before the Regulations and Ordinances Committee, I shall move for their disallowance, whether I agree with their content or not, so that they may be debated by the Senate before they are enforced.

Senator Evans:

– It does not work like that. What do you do in a recess, for example?

Senator HAMER:

– It is true that there will be a period during which the previous regulations will be applicable, but if they are then disallowed by this Parliament it will at least import to them justice or fairness. As I said at the outset, I would prefer the reasons to be inserted in the Act in the first place. The only reason that I am not prepared to follow that course is the industrial action that was taken by the employees of the Government and the Parliament. However, I will ensure that any regulations on the subject that are introduced by the Government will ultimately come before this Parliament for debate.

Senator HARRADINE:
Tasmania

-We are debating the motion for the second reading of the Commonwealth Employees ( Redeployment and Retirement) Bill 1979, to which Senator Button has moved an amendment which reads:

Leave out all words after ‘That’ and insert: the Bill be withdrawn and redrafted to incorporate- (a) specific reasoning for termination of employment; and ( b ) a comprehensive appeal system relating to termination of employment and redeployment. ‘

I propose to support that amendment. I do not propose, because of the time element, to go over the arguments that have been advanced in support of it. However, I wish to say that at an appropriate stage I will propose as an amendment that the Bill be referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs.

From a number of conversations that I had had I believed that this Bill might have a rough passage through the Senate. I do not now think that that will be the case. However, I hope that the amendment that I propose to move at an appropriate stage may even yet attract some support from the Government side. I know that a number of Government supporters, as witness Senator Hamer, are now committed to the Bill in view of the fiasco surrounding the stoppage last week. I do not criticise unions for taking action, but when they do so let them take good and proper action and not be party to a fiasco such as that of last week with an on-again off-again situation or merely absenting themselves from work. I have never seen such a strike in my life.

Mr Blunden of the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association said: ‘If you don’t want to go out on strike you can flex off’. Have honourable senators ever heard of such a trade union principle in their life? He said: ‘If you don’t want to go out on strike or lose your pay flex off or take it off your recreation leave’. That sort of rubbish was put forward by Mr Blunden and his officers of the ACOA. It has brought a great deal of discredit on the union. I am sorry that Mr Blunden and those who proposed this particular type of industrial action’ failed to apply one of the key tests that one should apply when one is considering adopting that course, that is, to ask oneself whether one’s members fully support the proposed action. In the result, the union’s members did not fully support it. A variety of estimates have been made as to the number who did not appear at work. The responsible Minister suggested that it was some 10 to 14 per cent. The union suggested that it was up to SO per cent, and claimed it as a victory. If I called a strike and got only 50 per cent of my members out, I would not be elected next time. I know that a number of Government supporters who observed the fiasco have noted that the call was not responded to. Therefore, they intend to proceed to vote for this legislation. I appeal to them to reflect again and, in considering the Bill, try to divorce it from the fiasco of last week.

I do not propose to go over the arguments that have been so well advanced by Senator Button in support of the Opposition’s amendment. However, for the benefit of Government senators in particular, I wish to direct attention particularly to clause 28 which, in my view, should not be a part of this legislation. The principle should not be incorporated in any legislation. In plain language, clause 28 allows the Executive to modify the application of this proposed Act of Parliament by regulation insofar as it affects employees of certain prescribed Commonwealth authorities and parliamentary departments. Clause 28 provides:

  1. 1 ) Where the Governor-General is satisfied that it is desirable to modify the application of this Act in relation to employees in a Parliamentary Department the GovernorGeneral may make regulations declaring that this Act shall apply to and in relation to employees in the Department subject to specified modifications and adaptations.
  2. Where the Governor-General is satisfied that it is desirable to modify the application of this Act in relation to employees of a particular prescribed Commonwealth authority, the Governor-General may make regulations declaring that this Act shall apply in relation to employees in that prescribed Commonwealth authority subject to specified modifications and adaptations.

Debate interrupted.

page 2798

ADJOURNMENT

The PRESIDENT:

– 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 Senate do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the negative.

page 2798

COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYEES (REDEPLOYMENT AND RETIREMENT) BILL 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Senator HARRADINE:

– Clause 28 also provides:

  1. In this section- modification’ includes the addition or omission of a provision or the substitution of a provision for another provision;

What that means is that the executive Government can substitute a provision of its own for a provision contained in this Bill. I do not think that that is a proper principle. Parliamentary departments- I think this is something that affects all of us- include the Department of the Senate, the Department of the House of Representatives, the Department of the Parliamentary Library, the Department of the Parliamentary Reporting Staff and the Joint House Department. If we pass this Bill, we will give the executive Government the power to do what it likes in relation to the redeployment and retirement of employees in all of those departments. I do not think that any of us should agree to that principle, which in effect gives carte blanche to the executive Government. Clause 28 is a classic Henry VIII clause. Such clauses have been referred to in this way in the United Kingdom because of the absolutist tendencies of that monarch. In Australia, Henry VIII clauses, with rare exceptions, have been confined to minor matters of detail, lt is objectionable in principle that such clauses should be extended to important matters. All persons who have entered this debate thus far have agreed that this Bill and the matters contained in it are important.

The question of Henry VIII clauses has been examined by the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances. As recently as late last year the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances presented to this House its sixty-fifth report. In that report the Committee drew attention to a provison in the Superannuation Act 1976 which allows regulations to be made modifying the application of that Act to certain employees. The Committee considered that this provision was not unreasonable in view of the complexities of the superannuation legislation, but it recommended that the Senate should closely scrutinise all Henry VIII clauses to ensure that such clauses are passed only where there are good reasons for doing so. The Government, in its second reading speech on this legislation, has not provided a good reason for the inclusion of clause 28, which is a classic Henry VIII clause. I wish to quote directly from the sixty-fifth report of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances. On page 2 of that report it is stated:

They -

Meaning the provisions- are not objectionable in themselves, but the Committee expresses the opinion that the Senate should closely scrutinize such provisions in Bills to ensure that they are granted to governments only where there are good reasons for doing so. In its report on the scrutiny of Bills the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs has drawn attention to the need for the Parliament to ensure that its authority is not unduly delegated.

I think that honourable senators will appreciate that if we pass this legislation it will provide the Government with an opportunity to modify this Act of Parliament by regulation in any way that is chooses. I suppose Senator Chaney will say: ‘It is up to either House of Parliament to disallow the regulations’.

Senator Chaney:

– I may not.

Senator HARRADINE:

- Senator Chaney says that he may not say that. Just in case he does say that, I point out to him that experience has shown- the votes will prove this- that it is very difficult for members of any government to turn their backs on that Government and to reject any regulation made by it. There is an additional reason why I feel that this matter ought to be referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs for examination and report. Clause 28, if agreed to, would give to the Executive Government control over parliamentary staff. Mr President, you and those honourable senators who are on the Parliamentary Library Committee and on other committees associated with the operation of this Parliament know as well as I do how jealously we regard our rights; that is, the rights of this Parliament- a body of representative persons directly elected by the people of Australia- against the intrusions of the Executive Government. I believe that clause 28 would give that Executive Government control over the parliamentary staff in respect of the redeployment and retirement matters associated with this Bill. It is a longestablished principle entrenched in the Public Service Act that the Presiding Officers of the Parliament are the controlling officers of the parliamentary staff. I propose to support the amendment but if the amendment is negatived and the motion is agreed to, pursuant to Standing Order 196a, I shall move at the beginning of Committee stage:

  1. That the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Bill 1979 be referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs: and
  2. The Committee report to the Senate on or before 3 1 August 1979.
Senator McAULIFFE:
Queensland

– The Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Bill 1 979 is unacceptable to the Opposition. As outlined by my colleagues, Senator Button and Senator Evans, the Opposition rejects the Bill. We will be opposing the motion for the second reading of the Bill, and we will be opposing it at the Committee stage.

The Opposition will also move several amendments at that stage. There is no doubt that the Bill is drafted to give the appearance of a reasonable and rational approach to unemployment problems caused by improved work methods, technological changes and the Government’s desire to reduce staff levels. But on examination what do we find? There are a number of unsatisfactory features in the Bill. There is a looseness in the drafting and a vagueness about the substantial changes that are proposed. The Administrative and Clerical Officers Association and the other major Public Service unions are opposed to the legislation in its present form. They are demanding that it be withdrawn and redrafted. This is the case with the Opposition also. The Bill originated from a good idea. There is no doubt that it was a good idea, but to me what seems tragic in the circumstances is that the Government has fouled up that good idea.

In 1976 the Government introduced a similar Bill and withdrew it because it allowed for redeployment and redundancies without appeal and it gave enormous scope for discrimination against individuals. That was the reason the Government withdrew the 1 976 legislation. Anybody who has taken time off to read the Bill knows that it is a scant improvement on its predecessor. I have always placed great value on a strong, independent and efficient Public Service. Of all our institutions, there is not one of which I have felt prouder than the Australian Public Service. Honourable senators opposite might ask why has that been the case. The reason is that it was decided some 78 years ago at Federation that if the country was to be well served officials should be chosen by an independent body and selected and promoted by merit.

I remind the Senate that one of the most extensive investigations of the functioning of the Australian Public Service was carried out by the Royal Commission on Australian Government

Administration chaired by Dr Coombs. That inquiry recommended a wide range of valuable, practical and beneficial measures. It recommended equal opportunity or equality within the Service. If I remember correctly, it proposed equal opportunity liaison officers in departments and statutory authorities. It proposed measures to improve efficiency and job satisfaction within the Australian Public Service. But what do we find? We find that the Government has taken no action. It has ignored the report.

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– You are still quoting.

Senator McAULIFFE:

-If Senator Martin has read the Commission’s report she would know that. The Government failed to respond to any of the recommendations. Instead it chose to embark upon on a program of confrontation, conflict and provocation. It seemed to me to be hell-bent on destroying respect within and undermining the morale of the Public Service. It sought to undermine the rights of members of the Public Service.

Let us examine the record. The Government adopts the attitude of legislation by reprisal. The Senate will remember the introduction during 1977 of the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Bill and the great sense of urgency that surrounded it. Yet what do we find today? The Bill has not even been proclaimed. The Senate will recall what happened last year when the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Mr Hawke, was endeavouring to resolve an air traffic controllers dispute. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) endeavoured to inflame and aggravate the situation. Honourable senators will recall the threats of the Prime Minister to bring in overseas strike breakers.

Senator Kilgariff:

- Mr President, I raise a point of order. I suggest that the honourable senator is reading his speech.

Senator MCAULIFFE:

– I am referring to copious notes.

The PRESIDENT:

– I have noticed that. The point of order is not sustained.

Senator MCAULIFFE:

– The Prime Minister threatened to bring in the Royal Australian Air Force to water down that dispute. Ultimately the dispute was resolved through the actions of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and its President, Bob Hawke. Let us look at what happened in the last Budget. I know that honourable senators do not want to be reminded of it. On account of recent manoeuvrings in this place, one has to be careful of what one says. I say to the Johnny-come-lately senator who raised a point of order that I have been a member of this place for a long while. I am sure that my record of making speeches without referring to notes will be greater than his when his career comes to an abrupt end in the Senate shortly. One adopts a custom in this place of being very careful of what one says in case one is misquoted or misinterpreted. There is only one way to make an effective, telling point when dealing with honourable senators opposite who want to misinterpret things and that is to read the matter into Hansard correctly. That is what I am doing this evening. If Senator Kilgariff wants to listen 1 will give him a few facts, and he will wish that he had not had the temerity to interrupt. When he picks up Hansard in the morning and reads what I have said he will wish I had not spoken at all. As I said, in the case of the air traffic controllers strike the Prime Minister threatened to employ the Royal Australian Air Force to bring that strike to an end. I thank the honourable senator for the opportunity of allowing me to repeat what I said previously. Ultimately the dispute was resolved.

Senator Bonner:

– Back to the written word.

Senator McAULIFFE:

-Well it does not tell lies. In the case of the Government the spoken word lied last evening. Honourable senators opposite were found out in the written word in Hansard this morning. The pen is mightier than the sword. I am not referring to the Wilkinson sword which has had a lot of use in the last couple of days. Ultimately the air traffic controllers dispute was resolved. Who resolved it? It was none other than the Australian Council of Trade Unions and its President, Mr Bob Hawke.

Let us look at what happened in the last Budget. This is pretty important. Do honourable senators remember the Prime Minister threatening sackings within the Australian Public Service if the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission awarded pay increases to the members of the Public Service? I think that is a fair observation. It reminds me of shades of former Tory leaders who said that if the arbitration court did not function in accordance with the wishes of the government, the government would ringbark the arbitration court.

However, what will be Labor’s attitude, as the next government, to these matters? The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Hayden, in the other place on 23 May singled out the Government for especially severe treatment when he scathingly attacked it for its lack of industrial relations. In an eloquent address, Mr Hayden promised that a Labor Government would repeal section 49D of the Trade Practices Act. He said that Labor would annul the Commonwealth Employees, (Employment Provisions) Act. Mr Hayden promised that a Labor government would dismantle the Industrial Relations Bureau, the panzer division of this Government. A Labor government would achieve industrial harmony through negotiation and co-operation- a completely different process from that preferred by the Prime Minister. Even in this Bill which the Senate is debating this evening there is evidence of confrontation, provocation and conflict. The unions and employees are excluded from consideration. Why is there confrontation and conflict? Simply because the employees and the unions are excluded from discussions on redeployment and redundancy affecting them. There is no proper notice period concerning redeployment. Furthermore, the so-called appeal system cannot be used without jeopardising the employee’s right to possible redeployment and without risking redeployment of another person in the same area.

Clauses 7, 8, 9, and 15 of the Bill are the clauses about which most concern is expressed. It is felt that the implications of these clauses, whether by bad design or bureaucratic deviousness, can undermine the retention of a strong, independent and efficient public service. The Bill denies the fundamentals of natural justice. Take clause 7, which honourable senators have heard quoted generously this evening.

Senator Kilgariff:

– What page is that?

Senator MCAULIFFE:

- Senator Kilgariff asks what page. I know that Senator Kilgariff thinks he is still in school and will accept direction from his teacher. If he sees me privately afterwards and is prepared to have a conversation with me, I will bring him up to date with what this Bill does and how it affects the Public Service- if he is too lazy to read the Bill himself.

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– You told that story last week.

Senator MCAULIFFE:

- Senator Kilgariff does not know. He is in no man’s land. He is not with the Liberals, he is not with the National Country Party and-

Senator Ryan:

– He is not with us.

Senator MCAULIFFE:

– I suppose we have to draw the Une somewhere. I do not think this is an occasion for mirth. The Senate is discussing a very serious Bill. I am very surprised that Senator Kilgariff’s only interest is to interject to try to be funny. This is a very serious measure that affects the livelihoods of many people who work in the

Australian Public Service. I am supporting the very strong stand that the Public Service unions are taking on behalf of their members. It ill becomes a person such as Senator Kilgariff to treat it as a bit of a joke as though he is trying to turn the Senate into a circus. For my part, it is a very serious measure. I will be happy to tell the people of the Northern Territory of” the honourable senator’s approach to this Bill when I visit that area.

Take clause 7. It proposes authority for the determination of a class of employee as being excess to the needs of the Public Service for the particular function that that class is performing. That is a serious matter. It provides that a class of people employed may be declared to be excess to requirements in the area in which they are performing. Clause 7 sets the guidelines for redeployment. It states that each department or Commonwealth authority must make efficient and economical use of the persons whom they employ. That is a far reaching obligation. Would any honourable senator suggest that that, in itself, is not a vague proposition? Honourable senators might well ask who will make the determination and what are the guidelines. We are told that clause 9 supplies the answer. It states that the permanent head of a Department is responsible for the efficient and economical use of a person in his or her department.

Let us reflect on that. It must then follow that the departmental head, who would be the top bureaucrat in that department, has control over staff levels and the use of new technology and computerisation. Top public service unions are incensed that there is no provision for a review or appeal from these assessments. They are quite correct. Clause 7 ( 1 ) (b) (iii) goes much further. It provides that a determination can be made on the basis of any prescribed reason, without defining what that prescribed reason can be. The Public Service Board gives certain assurances to constrain the sort of prescription for determining that employees are effectively redundant to the requirements of the Public Service. It is one thing to be assured and another to have that provision carried out or administered. I was told that a similar authority was abused by the Nixon administration to undermine the independence and political neutrality of the public service in the United States of America.

I suppose it could be said that clause 7 ( 1) (b) (iii) is the clause that has attracted the most attention from speakers in the other place and in the Senate during the debate so far. Putting it simply, the question is whether or not the Government gathers to itself the powers to dismiss people for reasons which are not stated in the Bill, without allowing its actions to be subject to the scrutiny of Parliament. I think that is the most pertinent observation in regard to the Bill. For people who are genuinely interested, it is an agonising and worrying concern as to where they go from there. The Bill allows for an appeal system. I suppose the Opposition should say that it commends the Government for having it there. It is a measure that is welcomed by the Opposition; to anyone who has taken time off to read the Bill it makes this measure almost unusable.

Under clause 15 and appeal against a redeployment declaration can result in firstly- I will say this slowly because it is tremendously important to the lives and the welfare of people- a redeployment declaration being confirmed or revoked at the expense of another person’s job.

The mechanism in clause 14, supposedly established to protect an employee against unfair redeployment, works against the appellant to the extent that it could lead to the appellant’s being sacked. The clause provides that the Public Service Board will issue certificates for redeployment only if the employee waives the right of appeal or if the appeal is heard and the declaration upheld or if the appeal is withdrawn. This means that while an appeal is underway vacancies elsewhere could be filled. The individual faces retrenchment if the appeal is unsuccessful because the Public Service Board has the right to retire someone if there are no vacancies elsewhere. The Australian Clerical Officers Association and the Council of Australian Government Employee Organisations correctly point out that under such conditions who would risk an appeal and relinquish his place on the redeployment list. That is a good observation.

The unions further point out that there is a positive disincentive to appeal for the reasons I have already outlined. They also ask who would want to appeal when it may be at the cost of a colleague’s job, which is something that is totally unacceptable to the philosophy of members of the Australian Labor Party. The unions are correct when they claim that clause 1 5 is difficult to understand. It is difficult to understand because clause 15 provides that if an employee is identified as being in an over-supplied area, his or her colleagues could become party to the appeal. That is a thought worth pondering on. As a consequence of this the colleagues could become declared employees with no right of appeal. One has never heard the likes of this before in any walk of life where such a situation can be established.

The Minister in the other place has stated that this is desirable. What do you think his reason was? He said that this was desirable to prevent an interminable number of appeals. There is no provision to appeal against the original decision that there is an excess of staff. Surely this must be an abuse of natural justice. In any man’s language this legislation is bad. When commenting on this section of the Bill the Canberra Times asked:

When is a right of an appeal not a right of appeal?

It further commented:

Perhaps when its success leads automatically to a workmate’s conviction wilh no right of appeal.

The Canberra Times further commented on the Bill: lt would be difficult to envisage a measure better designed to undermine the foundations of the Public Service.

That is an independent observation, not one that is coloured by political bias. So that is the position in which this Bill places employees of the Australian Public Service. Is it any wonder that the unions and the Opposition call for the Bill to be withdrawn and redrafted? By way of final word before I sit down, allow me to turn my attention to that section of the Bill which provides for optional retirement at 55 years of age and above. I was absolutely astounded to hear the observations of Senator Hamer. You would think it was the golden handshake being given to people forced into redundancy or retirement. As I said, allow me to turn my attention to the section of the Bill which provides for optional retirement at 55 years of age and above.

That in itself is a very desirable proposal. But what is the position of an employee under 55 years of age who is retrenched and ineligible to receive a reduced payment from the superannuation fund? On this matter I am indebted to the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr Stuart West) who before entering this Parliament was a trade union official with the Waterside Workers Federation. He assisted in forming the redundancy arrangements for that union. I am also indebted to the conversations I have had with my colleague Senator Elstob, also a former Waterside Workers Federation official. He played a very important part in winning the redundancy conditions for the union he represented. I want to touch on that only briefly in that those redundancy conditions won for the members of the Waterside Workers Federation make the ones that the Government is offering the Public Service look cheap. The arrangement was made between the employer and the employee and approved by the Government. That is a very important point when you are considering this legislation.

As I said, I am indebted to the honourable member for Cunningham for the figures that I am now going to cite. The honourable member has pointed out that a person eligible and 45 years of age with 25 years of service would receive a pension of 1 8 per cent of his salary. A person aged 40 years with 20 years service would receive a pension equal to 9 per cent of his salary. A person 36 years of age with 20 years service would receive a pension of 1 .8 per cent of his salary. The Government would have us believe that this proposed scheme is an acceptable proposition. This situation can arise. It is not a ridiculous proposition that I have put before you this evening because I recall that quite recently 300 employees of Medibank were retrenched in New South Wales and they faced this predicament. Let me say in conclusion that the Bill is unacceptable to the Opposition. It is unacceptable to the Public Service unions. It should be withdrawn and redrafted.

Senator MASON:
New South Wales

– In the view of the Australian Democrats the Commonwealth Government Employees (Retirement and Redeployment) Amendment Bill 1979 could have been a good Bill. It might even get to be a good Bill yet if the Government takes the attitude of listening to the proper and reasoned criticisms that we have heard here tonight. I believe that it is a cause of concern that the Government does tend to regard this sort of controversial social legislation as something that they can bulldoze through, as if it is a matter for political advantage taking and numbers rather than the sort of consultation and reasonable consensus that this Parliament ought properly to provide since everyone of us here after all has been elected by Australians to this place. I am referring, of course, to its attitude to the the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Bill, which hopefully will change in the other place, although I doubt it.

The Bill we are discussing now is the first hesitant step into areas which are necessary to our society. I would have thought that the Government would have realised that because this is so it should move a little gently rather than barging through with all the tact and lack of discrimination of a Sherman tank. In other words, this Bill can be applauded because it is a beginning to certain things that the Australian Democrats, at lest, have been saying for 18 months. We have got to have work sharing in our society, we have got to have earlier retirement, we have got to have a situation where people who just want to keep the seat warm can be allowed to get out on reasonable terms. I think there are extensions beyond what is in this Bill now, such as shorter working weeks, perhaps shared jobs, which is implied in this Bill. I would have hoped that these things would have persuaded this Government to adopt a more reasonable point of view. Perhaps it will, even now. So the Australian Democrats agree basically with some of the principles in this Bill, certainly voluntary early retirement, which we think could well be extended to the rest of the community.

A point that needs to be made is that early retirement is experimental. If it works well in the Public Service it might be better considered by the community, which does not like change. The community will, of course, have to accept social change for the next decade or so. That is the reason why I think that every care should be taken in the drafting of this Bill to see that the human aspects are taken fully into account. There are substantial numbers of people who would like to retire early and there are substantial numbers of people who would like to work less, perhaps even for less money. I think they have to be encouraged in that point of view.

We do not like this management initiated retirements. We realise that there will have to be procedures which will allow the Commonwealth to remove redundant areas of the Public Service. I think it has to be recognised that those areas are not necessarily redundant because of the people who are working in them, but because those people are implementing some course of action or some area of activity which is no longer relevant to society. I think the Government, in its publicity for the Bill, has ignored almost completely that reasonable point of view which it could well have put forward. When it is felt necessary to retrain or redeploy people in the Public Service, this is not any fault of their own. They should not necessarily be treated as mendicants, but as people who should have these privileges of redeployment and retraining by right. I think this is the sort of attitude which is lacking in this Bill now. One would hope to see it come in as time goes on.

At the moment we would agree that management initiated retirement tends to look ven much unpleasantly like retrenchment, and once that word retrenchment gets around people will get gut feelings and will resist it. So here we have the Government bringing in this important social legislation, a harbinger for the future, we would hope, with all the subtlety of a Sherman tank and with no apparent appreciation of the sensibilities of the people in this country. It seems to have forgotten that the people in this country are a series of individuals- I take this chance to remind it of that- and not necessarily just a group of voters either.

This Bill unfortunately does one thing which, I think, has not yet been mentioned. It brings about the passing, permanently in Australia, of traditional apects of the Public Service. I suppose the Government has taken this into account. The old idea was that the Public Service was a place where people could work, a career that they would pursue for the rest of their lives, a steady job that they would do not necessarily only for reward, and that was an honourable concept of the past. I hope the Government has appreciated the fact that with this Bill they have destroyed that in Australia forever. I think this loss of permanence also will mean that we will not get as good people in the Public Service as we might otherwise have done. One of the attractions of certain areas of the Public Service for individuals has been this idea that it is a permanent career that they can pursue. That is now going. Many times in the past the independence of the Public Service has been an important bulwark against the hasty or politically motivated actions of an Executive. That again is something which this Bill proposes to sacrifice.

The Australian Democrats feel a particular concern, as others do, about clause 7 (1) (b) (iii). That has already been covered. Our views are those which have been expressed by Senator Evans and others. I will not be tedious by repeating them. We are also concerned about the comment made by the Australian Government Lawyers Association that ‘as clause 8 stands, it would give the Public Service Board wide power to single out employees by name or by description’. This situation could be made worse by the operation of clause 6, which would allow particular employees to be exempted. This could open the way for an otherwise general set of redeployment criteria to be aimed at particular persons or groups. I am aware that this is not a particularly original thought, but I am repeating it because I think it is something that the Government ought to take into account when it gets around to redrafting this Bill, as I hope it does. We see some validity here in comparisons which have been drawn with the United States Administration in the Nixon era. There was success in weeding out public servants whose advice was independent and unpalatable, with disastrous results for the Administration as well as for the nation.

We have noted Senator Harradine ‘s points in relation to parliamentary staff in his Press release of 2 1 May. He made his points well and they are in Hansard. We agree with them and I will not repeat them. I agree with those speakers who have said that the appeal provisions are inadequate and contain quite unfair anomalies which those who drafted the Bill do not seem to have thought about. This question of appeal is, I think, a classic example of how the Government, or whoever drafted the Bill, has not realised that they are dealing with human beings. They might have been dealing with pigs or wall clocks or something like that for all the sensitivity that is displayed here. There again, I think Senator Evans and others have described eloquently the unpleasant circumstances which are involved in this appeal procedure.

One would have hoped that the Government, by introducing this legislation, was attempting to have an efficient Public Seivice. This surely is what the rules of the game are for. I can assure the Government that with this appeals provision it is going a long, long way along the road to having a thoroughly discontented, unhappy Public Service, where one man is against another, and one woman is against another, and where the main concentration will be on how to get the other guy rather than do your work efficiently. If that point has not struck the Government yet it has less intelligence than I give it credit for.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Career assassination.

Senator MASON:

– It is straight career assassination. Any of us who have been in the Public Service know that there is enough of that in it now. The Government is exacerbating that with this Bill and this illustrates a deplorable lack of any kind of sensitivity.

Senator Tate:

– But you are not surprised, are you?

Senator MASON:

– No, I am not surprised, not after the amazing scenes we had in the Committee stage of the debate on the ASIO Bill. I noted with interest that the Young Liberals in Victoria, perhaps the younger members of the Liberal Party who will inherit that party and may bring it back from conservative to liberal again, have also commented on the ASIO Bill. I was delighted to see that but it is not relevant to this Bill. This legislation will probably also create, if it goes ahead, a complete United States style politicised Public Service. I do not think I have to spell out that point. If the Government has not seen that either it is time it did a little reading on American history. Then it will see what it might do about that matter.

We have no very original thoughts to bring to bear on what action the Government should take. We think the Bill should be redrafted. I tend to agree with Senator Harradine ‘s view. We would support his amendment, if it ever gets off the ground, that the Government should withdraw the Bill, anticipate the future- it is what the future will bring- and refer it as every other important piece of legislation should be referred, to a standing committee of the Senate, to wit, the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, for examination so at least it can get it right.

Senator ROBERTSON:
Northern Territory

– I rise to support the amendment moved by my colleague Senator Button. Let us remind ourselves of what this Bill sets out to do. Let me read from the Canberra Times the comments the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner) made about what he sees the Bill sets out to do. In the report in the Canberra Times he said:

The Bill introduces two important new concepts. It places an onus on management to seek to redeploy staff wherever possible as a primary obligation, and it provides more satisfactory and extensive safeguards and appeal rights for all.

In addition the Bill introduces an important new condition of employment, the right to voluntarily retire on an appropriately reduced pension from the age of 55 onwards.

Of course, others say different things. Others say that this Bill is Mark II of the disastrous legislation which was introduced by the Government in 1977. Whilst it has some desirable features, it has some undesirable features. In fact, in the other place the suggestion was made that it deserves the description of ‘bad legislation’. It is unfortunate that the Commonwealth Government could not follow the lead of the Northern Territory Government, which introduced legislation that avoids the undesirable features of this legislation and introduces the desirable features of it. It seems to me that the Bill is symptomatic of the present Government’s attitude to the Public Service. I think that Senator Evans expressed this aspect well when he spoke of the attitude of the present Government to the Public Service, and I do not intend to delay the Senate by going through it again.

The Commonwealth Public Service surely is in the great tradition. I go so far as to suggest that the Public Service is as much a part of the Westminster system as we who occupy our places in this chamber and those who occupy places in the other chamber. It is the result of the need for a service which implements the decisions of the

Parliament. Honourable senators should note that I said ‘implements the decisions of the Parliament’, not ‘of the Government’. After all, as it was so aptly put this afternoon, the decisions made in this place ought to be the decisions of the Parliament, not of the Government. Unfortunately the situation at present is even worse because the decisions made in this place are the decisions of the Executive- not even of the Government and certainly not of the Parliament. I feel that we have to think in terms of the Public Sevice being the instrument of the Parliament.

What are the cornerstones of the Public Service as it fulfils this most important role? The first is loyalty to the Parliament. I will not delay the Senate by carrying on a discussion about that. I think that the words convey the impression. Those who have been in the Public Service or who know of the work done by the Public Service will know what the word ‘loyalty’ implies. The senior public servant has a responsibility to advise his Minister and to make recommendations for action and policy. Of course, the final decision rests with the Minister, but then the Public Service goes on to implement the decision that has been made by the Parliament.

I have often told a story which illustrates the point I am trying to make here. It concerns a senior public servant in whose office I was sitting one day. The public servant was having a discussion with his Minister. This Minister was a very talented person, a man who later became the Governor-General of Australia- Sir Paul Hasluck. This senior public servant was arguing with the Minister about a proposition which the Minister was putting forward, but it was quite clear from the conversation, of which I could hear half, that the Minister’s view was prevailing. Eventually the Minister made a decision which obviously he conveyed to the public servant. A few days later I was at a public meeting where the senior public servant put the Minister’s case with enthusiasm and vigour. It seems to me that this sums up the work of the senior public servant. It is a cornerstone of the Public Service that the senior public servant will advise and discuss and then, after a decision has been made, will implement the policy on which the Parliament has decided.

Knocking the Public Service has become a sport and bureaucracy unfortunately has become a dirty word. To me the so-called bureaucratic system is sound in theory and could be sound in practice. I am not suggesting for a moment that it is not without its faults, but it is well based. One of the faults within the Public Service that we might look at is the broad general area of supervision. If we had time I would give my views on that because I feel that by looking at this aspect of the Public Service we could remove many of the problems associated with it and bring back to it the sort of name, shall we say, or the sort of reputation which it ought to have. It is not without faults, but these can be corrected.

Honourable senators will recall that the Labor Government set up the Coombs Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration to make recommendations on how this could be done. To its discredit the present Government has ignored the recommendations of the Coombs royal commission. I suggest that this Bill will do little to improve the Public Service. I repeat that ideally the public servant is loyal to his Parliament. Of course, the present Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) believes this when it suits him and encourages disloyalty when it suits him. Honourable senators will recall that when Labor was in government there seemed to be an active encouragement by the then Opposition for people to leak documents and to be disloyal to the government of the day. In fact, a cynic would say that there was an active encouragement of disloyalty. However, I maintain that the majority of public servants want to be loyal. In return for this loyalty they ask for two things: Security and job satisfaction.

When I was a young man, many people entered the Public Service for one reason, namely, security. Then as they grew older, they looked for job satisfaction. In the days when I was looking for a job my parents and the parents of my peer group had the memories of the Depression days. Youngsters like myself gave away the possibility of earning more money by going into business enterprise. In return for that we asked for security. The people who made that decision are still in the Public Service. They are the people about whom we are speaking. They are the people who fit into the category towards the end of their service, the 45 to 65 age group. What has the present Government done for the Public Service in the past Vh years? I do not doubt that it has basically emasculated the Public Service and left it open to criticism because it does not provide the services that it wants to provide and ought to provide. The Government has destroyed the morale of the Public Service for that same reason because it is not providing the service it wants to provide and ought to provide.

How has the Government done this? It has done it by the simple expedient of staff cuts and cuts in government expenditure. Obviously, if a public servant cannot do his job properly he will not get satisfaction from it. We come to the situation that we will talk about later where he will not get his job security, either. Let us look at one aspect of this matter, the staff cuts. The Prime Minister said in one of his promises that have not been kept that there would be no retrenchments. This document has been produced in the chamber tonight. ‘Staff cuts would be obtained by natural wastage’ was the statement.

We now have the ridiculous situation in which senior officers- obviously they are the ones most likely to go first- would leave. There would be promotions to fill their positions. Obviously the senior positions must be filled, but we would have no juniors to fill the lower ranks. We have here a complete waste of resources. I have even seen the ridiculous situation of senior officer doing their own typing- a job for which they are completely unsuited and untrained. They were doing this work because no staff was available to do it for them. Obviously we must see a drop in efficiency in the Service. If there is a drop in efficiency obviously there will be a drop in morale about which I have spoken.

This position has been exacerbated, as I have said in this chamber a number of times, by the unfortunate situation of senior officers in the Public Service pretending there is no problemagain, this loyalty of which I spoke earlier, the situation where a senior public servant would try to protect his Minister and try to protect the Parliament which he saw as his master, by saying that there were no problems. Many departments are inefficient at present. The work that is not seen by the public is the work which is not being done; so we are building up a backlog which eventually will hit us with a bang. I am prepared to say, after watching some of the departments, that they are lurching from one crisis to the next with no efficiency, no satisfaction and low morale.

Let us look at the second way the Government attacked the Public Service. This was through cuts in expenditure and across the board savings, again leading to inefficiency and a waste of resources. For example, advisers who were supposed to be advising were not able to get out into the field. They were sitting around the office wasting their time. Other people were not able to move because there was no money for travel. The service was not provided. The time of the officers was wasted. There was low morale amongst those people because they were not doing the job for which they were recruited. There was low morale in the field where people were waiting for these advisers to give their services.

Let me move to the attitude of the unions to the Bill. I refer to the Press release of the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association, which states:

ACOA wanted to appeal to ali members of Parliament to consider the ‘ grave faults ‘ in the Bill including-

1 ) Efficient, capable officers could be sacked merely because of the change in priorities of the government of the day.

“Management-Initiated-Early-Retirement”, which Mr Blunden described as “a trendy word for retrenchment” could be applied to officers of any age.

The only appeal provision forced an employee to “name” his or her work-mate as an alternative person to be sacked.

The Government could “avoid all conflict” by legislating for voluntary early retirement and leaving the other provisions on one side for “further negotiations with the Public Service unions.”

At the Council of Australian Government Employee Organisations conference the following resolution was passed:

Conference notes policy determined at 1977 conference that CAGEO vigorously and totally oppose legislation in any form which incorporates management initiated retirement provisions.

Calls upon the Federal Executive to actively implement such policy in opposing the Commonwealth Employment ( Redeployment and Retirement) Bill.

Declares that the Commonwealth Employment (Redeployment and Retirement) Bill is offensive to merit based career service employment and to CAGEO in numerous other respects.

Requires that the full support of CAGEO and its affiliates including if necessary collective industrial action be given to protect the interests of affiliated members who conscientiously refuse to co-operate in the administration of any Act which results from the Commonwealth Employment (Redeployment and Retirement) Bill in its current substance.

Obviously, honourable senators on the other side of the chamber will say that the rank and file member do not give their support. Already tonight I have heard that comment made by one of the speakers on the other side of the chamber. Let us look at the facts of the situation. The Public Service unions traditionally do not strike. Their members feel an obligation to work because of the loyalty which I mentioned earlier. That has been reinforced by the warnings of departments of punitive action. I think it is quite obvious that many of the public servants went to work because of loyalty. Many went because they did not trust the present Government. I believe that they were justified in feeling that punitive action would follow if they did strike. The Administrative and Clerical Officers Association put an advertisement in the Canberra Times, which stated, in part that the ACOA:

CONDEMNS the misleading statements by Minister Viner and PSB press releases repeating the political view that there was “very minimal “ support for the ACOA action. (Official statements that 15.000 clerical administrative staff could have taken part in the stop work action, relating only to ACOA financial members, were demonstrably false. About 1 1,000 ACOA members were normally due to attend work on 29 May- and at least 4,000 absented themselves in the first ACOA membership-wide stoppage in 65 years).

I make one final comment before I make positive suggestions, which the Government always calls for in these sorts of debates. Mr McLeod, the Secretary of the Public Service Board, was reported in the Canberra Times of 29 May as follows:

It’s fundamental to that process that one person has the right of knocking ofl” one of his workmates, the only difference being that in that case the matter at issue is who should be successful in gaining a promotion or a position: in the other case it’s who the person is who’s got the least claims for continued employment where the total demand is less than the available staff.

While there was a difference in degree, ‘ the concept of dobbing in a mate … is equally valid in the case of promotions’.

I suggest that that is a complete misrepresentation of the situation. In promotion appeals, completely unsatisfactory as they are in the Public Service- I will have something to say about that later- a person works very hard to attain the qualifications and experience to equip him for a senior position. He is quite entitled to appeal if management tries a little of the patronage which sometimes management does try. In the case of this Bill, the man is asked to nominate a person who should be sacked instead of him. On the one side, we have two people, both with basically the same qualifications and basically the same experience, who would go in front of the court to try to decide who should be the one to get the job. But the other person would remain in his present position; he would not get a promotion. In the second case, it is quite clear that the person would not remain within the Service. If the Secretary sees no difference between those two situations, it is not surprising that we have the sort of legislation which is being suggested and that the Public Service appeals system has such low credibility. I would like to suggest an alternative, but because of the time I will not proceed with that.

What should be done? These are suggestions of positive action for which the Government asks. Firstly, the Government should change its attitude towards the Public Service and appreciate the loyalty given to it by the public servants. Today the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate again knocked the Public Service. Let us have this sort of thing stopped. Let us have the public servants seen as the loyal people they are, trying to do a job to implement the policies of the Parliament. Make them efficient. The way to do that is by taking the advice of the Coombs report and other reports. But make sure that they have sufficient staff to do the job and sufficient finance so that they have the supportive services.

I suggest also that the Government should try to understand the attitude of the loyal 50-year- old public servant who is looking for job satisfaction. It does not take much reading to find out that after a person passes the age of 45 or 50 the matter of remuneration is not so important as job satisfaction. I repeat what Senator Mason said earlier on in this debate. Let the Government see public servants as people, involved people and not simply as ciphers. If redeployment is necessary let us have realistic redeployment. Let us make some changes on valid grounds, not simply economic grounds. Let us have grounds of efficiency of organisation, not grounds of saving money.

The third suggestion one could make- this has been suggested in our amendment- is to redraft the Bill to remove the obnoxious clauses. In redrafting the Bill the Government should have real discussions with the peak unions, not simply token discussions, and should be guided by the advice which they will give and by the advice which the Coombs report and other reports have given. For goodness sake, recruit where necessary. Think of the future. We need support staff and we need senior people in the future. It seems ridiculous to me that at present we are saying that we are not going to recruit young people. It is as ridiculous as not recruiting apprentices into the trades. If we do not have apprentices in the trades we will not have masters in a few years time. If we do not have young people, coming into the Public Service we will not have senior staff in a few years time.

The next suggestion I make is that we introduce an acceptable appeals system which will meet the criteria of openness, fairness and letting justice be done and being seen to be done. Support for opposition to the Bill has come from an unexpected quarter. I would have liked to read the comments from the Returned Services League Congress but time is getting away.

Senator Georges:

– Incorporate them.

Senator ROBERTSON:

-I have not shown them to the Government. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a statement from the Canberra Times which simply reports on the Public Service support from the RSL Congress.

Leave granted.

PS UNIONS GET SUPPORT OVER BILL

Public Service unions opposed to the Commonwealth Employees Redeployment and Retirement Bill at present before Parliament received support yesterday from an unexpected quarter- the Returned Services League.

The unions have threatened industrial action against the legislation though a strike called on Tuesday by the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association attracted little support.

Yesterday the 53rd congress of the ACT branch of the RSL called upon the Government to amend the Bill so as to preserve the rights of ex servicemen in redeployment or retirement on invalidity grounds.

The motion passed by the congress laid particular stress on the preservation of the pension and superannuation rights of war veteran public servants.

Speakers to the motion pointed out that large numbers of World War II veterans are now at the stage at which the Bill can enforce compulsory management-initiated retirement.

The branch president, Mr A. T. S. Clarke, said the Bill was dangerous not in what it said but in what it left unsaid. “As a new Act it will supersede previous Acts under which the Commonwealth employs its staff”, Mr Clarke told the congress. “This could have grave effects on ex-service employees in the order of retirement priorities and invalidity. “Under the Bill’s invalidity provisions an ex-service employee could receive a lower rate of superannuation pension. There is also the possibility that any war compensation received may be deducted from this lower pension. “This Bill is aimed at the age group of the World War II veteran and the Government should be asked to spell out in more detail what it proposes”, Mr Clarke added.

Senator ROBERTSON:

– I thank the Senate. These people are obviously looking after their own members but they are also supporting the logic of the opposition to the Bill. Support has come from many other areas. Honourable senators will have received letters both personal and circular similar to the ones that I received. I will sum up by reading a statement which comes from the Canberra Times. It is a good conclusion to the argument. The full impact of the criticism of this Bill has been summed up fairly successfully. An editorial in the Canberra Times of 6 April states among other things:

It would be difficult to envisage a measure better designed to undermine the foundations of the Public Service … it will no longer be possible for a recruit to join the service, or any of the unnamed statutory authorities to be ‘prescribed ‘ for its purpose, with any assurance of serving until retirement.

But the essentially random nature of the proposal- anyone may be ‘declared’ just because an area of work has been reduced for any reason- is likely to be punishing to morale. The incentive to specialise can only be sapped 6y the constant possibility that an adequate, but not necessarily superior, , A..,n r.-‘ can be slotted into any position at the board’s sole whim.

It concludes:

The Australian Bureaucracy is not beyond improvement, but this is no way to upgrade it or its management. 1 commend the amendment to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Chaney) adjourned.

Thursday, 7 June 1979

page 2809

AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE BILL 1979

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– I move:

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows-

The purpose of the Australian Federal Police Bill is to give effect to the Government’s decision, announced on 13 December 1978, to create the Australian Federal Police which will incorporate the existing Australian Capital Territory and Commonwealth Police forces. The creation of the Australian Federal Police was the central recommendation contained in the ‘Report to the Minister for Administrative Services on the Organisation of Police Resources in the Commonwealth Area and Other Related Matters’, by Sir Robert Mark. This report was presented to the Parliament by the Prime Minister on 13 April 1978. The Government, in implementing this recommendation by proposing to the Parliament the creation of the new single Federal Police, was concerned to:

  1. overcome the problems that are associated with distinctions boundaries jurisdictional boundaries for the functions of police organisations not only throughout Australia, but also in the Australian Capital Territory;
  2. provide a firm basis for more effective cooperation between the Commonwealth and the States in the law enforcement area; and
  3. more effectively and economically coordinate police resources in the Commonwealth area.

The importance of overcoming these problems is that terrorist and criminal activities can profit from them. The action of creating the Australian Federal Police is aimed at overcoming such problems in the Australian Capital Territory and providing a firm basis for co-operation with State police forces thus enabling the police to cope more effectively with the increasing complexity of terrorist acts of violence as well as international and national white collar crimes and other crimes against the Commonwealth. The Bill, in providing that the provisions relating to the Commissioner and deputy commissioners and the regulations are to come into operation upon the royal assent, identifies a creation date for the commencement of the Australian Federal Police. As announced on Tuesday, 8 May, the Government has decided that Sir Colin Woods, K.C.V.O., C.B.E., at present Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary for England and Wales should be designated the first Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police. The Bill provides for the remainder of the Act to come into operation on a date to be proclaimed. This will necessarily follow the making of the regulations as well as the Commissioner’s general orders and instructions. The date for proclamation will identify an incorporation date for the appointment of all members of both present forces into the new Australian Federal Police. Between those dates the provisions of the Bill will enable the Commissioner to make arrangements for the appointment to the Australian Federal Police of all present members of both present forces. At the incorporation date the legislation for the present forces will be repealed.

The legislation meets the assurances that have been given by Ministers that jobs, career prospects and terms and conditions of employment of members of both present forces will not be at risk. Provisions of the Bill expressly provide for the application of existing terms and conditions to individual member of the two present forces being incorporated into the Australian Federal Police, until a new agreement or determination is made after the incorporation date. As with any organisation, new terms and conditions will evolve with the process of negotiation and arbitration before a Federal Police Arbitral Tribunal, following the incorporation date. The Bill constitutes the new single Federal Police as being of one membership, the members of which are to serve in either of two components- one on general police functions and the other on police protective service functions. The broad policies incorporated in the Bill include the principles necessary for a first class police organisation. The functions, organisation and responsibilities of the police are made clear in the Bill and it will be operationally independent yet administratively accountable as recommended by Sir Robert Mark. The Bill does not seek new or extended powers for the police.

In developing the major proposal for the provision of two components, the Government was cognisant of the special requirements of the Commonwealth in the fields of protective security and the need to retain a relationship of this form of law enforcement with the other general policing functions within the Commonwealth area. In introducing this concept, however, the Government has been concerned to ensure the opportunity, and for the present members of the existing forces, a preferential opportunity, for transfer and general mobility, subject to the usual principles of competence and qualifications, between the two components. Training opportunities are to be provided to enable members to achieve the competence and qualifications that will be needed for promotion and transfer between components. The allocation of the detailed functions and personnel to the components is provided for the Commissioner to determine.

The broad functions of the Federal Police are prescribed in the Bill. In the main they provide for the functions associated with the policing of the Australian Capital Territory, the investigation of offences against the Commonwealth and the protection and safeguarding of the Commonwealth ‘s interests. These are consistent with the proposals of Sir Robert Mark. The prescribed functions also, for the first time in the Commonwealth’s history, make provision for the recognition of the traditional State police role, and places on the Commissioner of the Federal Police the responsibility to make arrangements with the State Police Commissioners for the investigation of offences against State-made laws in relation to Commonwealth places. This action will therefore for the first time require arrangements for overcoming the problems associated with the jurisdictional boundaries between the Federal Police and State police forces. This is designed to ensure the traditional role of the State police forces is not interfered with and will enhance the opportunity for co-operative arrangements.

An important policy incorporated in the Bill is the arrangements for the Government’s control and management of the Australian Federal

Police. This is consistent with the philosophy that the Force should be operationally independent yet administratively accountable. Provision is made for the Commissioner to be responsible for the general administration and control of the operations of the Australian Federal Police. The responsibilities of the Minister and the Secretary, who, in some limited matters, also advises the Minister, are clearly spelt out. They refer to the giving of written directions by the Minister, after seeking both the advice of the Commissioner and the Secretary, on the general policy to be pursued in relation to the performance of the functions of the Federal Police, and in making of arrangements for the development and use of national common services. The Commissioner is to report to the Minister whenever requested to do so by the Minister.

The Bill also recognises the uniqueness of the police in our society and its members dual accountability to the courts and the public, as well as administratively to the Government and in the case of the Australian Capital Territory provides that a Police Liaison Advisory Council is to be established to advise the Minister upon community policing matters in the Australian Capital Territory. The Bill provides for the creation of a separate Police Arbitral Tribunal. The Tribunal will, it is proposed, be constituted by a Deputy President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and provides for, with the leave of the Tribunal, appeal to the Full Bench of the Commission.

The Government believes that the establishment of a single Federal Police as proposed by this Bill will provide a basis for many of the current problems experienced between law enforcement authorities within Australia to be overcome or reduced, and thus achieve more effective cooperation and co-ordination of resources in the Commonwealth area. The increasing complexity and occurrence of crimes of violence, terrorism and white collar crimes, requires the closest cooperation between all Australian police forces. The Commonwealth’s responsibility in this area finds a firm basis within this Bill and will be pursued in co-operation with the States, through the Commonwealth-State Ministerial Police Advisory Council which, as recommended by Sir Robert Mark, is proposed to be established by arrangement between the Commonwealth and the States, after the creation of the Australian Federal Police.

Two other matters relating to the police that have been under consideration by the Government following reports thereon by the Law Reform Commission deal with legislation relating to complaints against the police and with legislation to regulate police procedures in criminal investigation. The Government anticipates being able to introduce legislation upon complaints procedure later in the year. The Government is currently reviewing the draft legislation tabled in the Parliament in 1977 relating to criminal investigation procedures. This will necessarily take some time to complete including giving the Commissioner of the new Australian Federal Police the opportunity to comment on proposals upon it. I have arranged for an explanatory memorandum and notes on clauses to be distributed to all honourable Senators. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Button) adjourned.

page 2811

ADJOURNMENT

Watson High School- Priority of Crown Debts

Motion (by Senator Chaney) proposed:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator KNIGHT:
Australian Capital Territory

– I have been given a petition for presentation to the Senate. However, it is not in a form appropriate for presentation at the time for the presentation of petitions. I would like to table the petition in the Senate so that the more than 7,000 signatories to it have their petition put to the Senate. I would simply like to explain very briefly what the petition is about. It protests about the possible closure of Watson High School in Canberra. It is signed by 7, 170 people. It was collected in the area around Watson, Hackett and Downer and it was signed by people who are concerned about this matter. I bring the petition to the notice of the Senate because the signatures were collected in the belief that the petition could be presented to this Senate. There is also a submission on the general question of the possible closure of schools and, of course, Watson High School in particular. The submission was prepared by the Watson High School Board and Parents and Citizens Association. In the circumstances, I seek leave to table the petition and to have the submission incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The submission read as follows-

WATSON HIGH SCHOOL BOARD AND PARENTS AND CITIZENS ASSOCIATION SUBMISSION ON THE PROPOSED CLOSURE OF SCHOOLS

In its Discussion Paper ‘Secondary Schools in Canberra 1979-1985’ the Schools Office purports to discuss three courses of possible action in the area of Canberra secondary education. These are:

. Continue to operate all existing schools and open new schools as required.

Phase out some old schools as new schools are required.

Changed approaches.

It is obvious, however, that the Discussion Paper argues strongly for the second option. It is the purpose of this submission to challenge the arguments, assumptions and evidence of the Discussion Paper and to urge a consideration of arguments for the first and third options.

Naturally the strong claim of Watson High School to continue to operate is paramount in the minds of its community and as representatives of that community we wish to register our strong disapproval of the lack of opportunity for School Board and community participation in preliminary decision making on the future of ACT secondary education. This is surely a contradiction of the very principles outlined in the ACT Schools Authority Ordinance for the operation of School Boards and the practice which has developed since 1974. We deplore the public naming of the threatened schools and the community’s lack of both access to expert knowledge and time for detailed consideration.

We are aware, however, of the dual constraints under which the Authority operates: the Government determination of staff ceilings for teachers and the Government directive of no real increase in operating costs per student. Indeed, it is in this context that the following arguments are presented-

Demographic

The case for closure of schools rests on projections of school enrolments from 1981 to 1985. These projections are, we believe, open to doubt and challenge. Each of the threatened schools has produced figures (from its feeder primary or secondary schools and making due wastage allowances) which differ significantly from those in the Discussion Paper.

Furthermore, part of the problem facing the Schools Authority is the new college and high schools which arc completed but not opened. These were built on the basis of enrolment projections which have proved to be wrong. This illustrates the close interdependence of government policy and enrolment projections. It is surely prudent, therefore, for those making educational decisions not to commit themselves to potentially irreversible courses of action such as school closures on the basis of potentially reversible government policy.

We are aware that the inner city areas of North and South Canberra are already in a situation of decline in school age population, (although the extent of this is challenged). The option to close schools in these areas is based on the argument that this will be a permanent decline. We contend that this is not so. It is confirmed within our community by greater kindergarten enrolment this year than last year.

It has been asserted that the third post-war population bulge will begin to affect secondary schools in 1986. Figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, released in April 1 979, reveal a 1 5 per cent increase in secondary school enrolments by 1988.

Furthermore, the argument supposes that there will be no regeneration of the inner city areas. This has been argued in Schools Office documents. We request access to the data on which this assertion is based, since it is the impression of our community that its regeneration has already begun. Naturally enough, the process of regeneration will be significantly retarded if the community secondary school is closed.

In addition, the argument for closure presupposes that the named schools cannot attract enrolments from other areas of the ACT. This is also incorrect. A later section of this submission describes those programs which are unique to Watson High School and which attract students from outside our feeder area. The submissions from the Boards and P & C ‘s of Narrabundah College and Deakin High School also emphasise their ability to attract outside enrolments. A further factor will operate for Northside schools. The enrolment projections show a rapid increase to 1,080 students in 1 985 for Kaleen High School. This is greater than the operating capacity for this school without capital works, such as extra Science laboratories. Where will the ‘overflow’ be directed? We believe, along existing bus routes to Watson and Lyneham High Schools. Watson High already has enrolments from the Kaleen area of students who may wish to attend a traditional high school. We consider firstly, that this alternative will continue to be taken up in the Kaleen area throughout the 1980’s, and secondly, that Lyneham High School alone would be unable to cope with both Watson High redistributed students and Kaleen High ‘overflow’ without very serious disruption to its unique programs.

It is obvious, however, that no school will be able to attract enrolments, either from its own area or outside, with the threat of closure hanging over it.

Economic

The Schools Office is faced with a major problem. The economic constraint of no increase in the real cost per student has combined with the financial difficulties of opening new schools which are already built. This has happened within a context of very little ACT enrolment growth to 1985. The argued solution of the Schools Office is to close a number of established schools and re-distribute their pupils. We reject this solution as simplistic in the short term and wasteful in the long term.

In the short term we believe that significant savings in the fixed operational costs (estimated at around $300,000) could be achieved by

  1. system wide streamlining of procedures such as maintenance spending;
  2. b ) schools with small enrolments reducing their operating costs by closing off part of their buildings or sharing their buildings with other institutions.

We recognise that these are very much ‘ad hoc’ suggestions and therefore request access to financial data and costing procedures to thoroughly work through these suggestions. These and other short term measures may be sufficient to allow existing schools to continue and new schools to open until either enrolment growth occurs in 1 986 or government policy is modified. To solve a problem of short-term survival until this occurs, by closing schools, is financially wasteful in the long term.

Firstly, students would have to be transported from their community to the school or college to which they have been re-allocated. The cost of subsidising these bussing costs will be substantial and will rise as regeneration and population growth occurs in the inner city areas.

Secondly, the investment in furniture, equipment, textbooks, Library resources et cetera in existing schools which has been made by the Government and the community will be substantially lost. They will be either duplicated by the schools to which the community’s students are re-allocated or be irrelevant to the programs of those schools.

Thirdly, there are substantial costs in maintaining empty buildings when schools close. It appears that these costs will not be borne by the Schools Authority. Nonetheless, these unnecessary wasteful costs are most relevant to the total Government budgetary costing.

Finally as community representatives, we wish to question the assumption that the community is neither willing nor able to bear an increase in contributions to maintain existing schools. Had the School Boards of the threatened schools been consulted in the preliminary decision-making process, detailed evidence of the extent of the community contribution would have been available. At it is, the extent of the community’s concern and commitment to the retention of their schools have been made clear.

Educational

The Discussion Paper argues that, in addition to demographic and financial considerations, there are significant educational penalties for colleges and schools with reduced enrolments.

The first of these ‘penalties’ is described in the area of choice of subjects. We believe that a small school can offer a viable curriculum with no significant reduction in the number of subjects offered. The only reduction would be in the number of combinations of subjects offered. Furthermore, retention of existing schools would allow retention of initiatives within subject areas which have been developed uniquely by those schools. An example of this is the Modern Greek program developed within the Modern Language subject grouping at Watson High School. These and similar programs are most unlikely to survive relocation. We affirm, therefore, that the proposal to close schools is in fact a contraction of the subject choice available to the students of the ACT.

The second ‘penalty’ described is that small schools cannot provide enrichment, remedial or special programs on the same scale as larger schools. This is obviously true. We contend, however, that a small school can offer valuable enrichment, and special programs on a smaller scale which are appropriate to the needs of its community. We believe that these programs do not necessarily have to be ‘bigger’ to be better’. Furthermore Specialist remedial teachers are provided, not according to a school’s size, but according to the numbers of students with recognised learning difficulties.

A third ‘penalty’ is the impact on security and morale of teachers in schools with falling enrol ments. The example of a school losing 14 teachers over the next 5 years is described. This same school has already losi 1 4 teachers over the past 4 years without any loss of morale and security and it is surely ridiculous that the planned solution to this is the compulsory transfer of over 1 50 teachers from the schools proposed to be shut down. This will be a massive blow to the security and morale of all teachers in the ACT. In addition we believe, that far from there being significant educational penalties, there are positive educational advantages in smaller schools.

English research has confirmed the paramount importance of the teacher-student relationship in achieving the school ‘s educational goals. It is clear that within a smaller school these relationships can be established more quickly and maintained more easily. This has been confirmed within the ACT experience. Narrabundah College has proved that a significant reason for its attraction to students outside its area is the warm and personal atmosphere of a smaller population.

Furthermore, we believe that the greatest educational penalties will be incurred, not in maintaining, but in closing existing schools. The progress of students already enrolled in the named schools is threatened with disruption and discontinuity. Students will be relocated into schools with potentially imcompatible curriculum, subject choice combinations and organisation. The trauma of this will affect ali students, but particularly those with learning difficulties for whom almost all change is distressing. In addition, the carefully built up teacher-student relationships will bc destroyed.

American experience of bussing a community’s students to schools which the community does not support is most telling. Greater even than the blow to community cohesion, is the impact on the receiving school of a negative and possibly antagonistic student group. The initiatives of the receiving school and its interaction with its own community will be seriously threatened.

Staffing Factors

It is clear that the basic problem is not that the staff ceilings do not allow the Authority to provide special supplementary staff for small secondary schools, but that the staff ceilings may not allow the new schools to open. The small growth in ACT total secondary enrolment in 1 98 1 may not raise the staff ceilings sufficiently to staff minimum establishments at the already constructed Charnwood High School and Erindale Community College without the closure of existing schools and the release of their staffs. If this is the case, substantial costs will be incurred by the Government in maintaining empty new school buildings or empty old school buildings. We consider a more productive approach would be negotiations with the ACT Teachers Federation on what an acceptable minimum establishment could be in schools and colleges of low enrolments in order to avoid either indefinitely postponed openings or almost immediate closures.

Community Impact

The ACT has, since the beginning of its own separate system, striven to implement the recommendations of the Karmel and all subsequent Schools Commission Reports on devolution of authority to the school with community participation. Increasingly the value of this type of school is being recognised by the States. Clusters of this type of school within a community have made a significant contribution to the development of that community’s cohesion.

If the closures proceed the impact on all Canberra communities will be significant. Obviously it will be greatest in the communities affected. Real estate values will fall. A drop of $3000 for properties in the Watson/Downer/ Dickson area has been predicted. The opportunity of the population of inner-city areas to live within a mixture of age groupings is cut off once the community school disappears. The loss of some community recreational and sporting facilities is a real possibility. Local businesses may close. Furthermore, it should be considered that within a planned city there is a contractual agreement’ between the Government and purchasers of leases that communities are provided with schools and other facilities necessary for living in that planned community.

The effects of closure will not be confined to the immediate community. There will be significant effects on all communities. Involvement in School Board and P & C Associations will diminish if the principle that the community decisions on their school can be overridden by a central authority. Community activities to improve community schools will vanish with the knowledge that resources, equipment et cetera purchased by parental fees and community efforts can be redirected to other schools without the community’s consent.

We submit that the model of a participatory system of community schools should not be dismantled and community spirit dissipated to cope with a short term centralised financial situation.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– I thank Senator Knight for giving me the few moments I need to speak so that Senator Tate will have time to come into the chamber and make a short speech in this debate.

Senator Chaney:

– I am prepared to respond.

Senator Button:

– He could make those comments tomorrow.

Senator GEORGES:

-He could make his comments in the debate on the first reading of a Bill, but if he did that he might take three times as long. If the honourable senator is not in the chamber within a couple of minutes, it will be clear that he really does not intend to speak tonight. Let me say that our program today has been achieved in harmony and perhaps a lesson has been learned.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– in reply- I understand that Senator Tate was concerned to find out the present position with respect to the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs on the priority of Crown debts. I am able to confirm that the position is as it was when he raised the matter last, namely, that it is before the Government and is under active consideration. As yet the Government has not made its final decision on the recommendations in the report.

Senator TATE:
Tasmania

-by leave- I thank the Senate for its indulgence. I gather that the drift of what the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) had to say did not really meet my concern, namely, that the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs was put down on 2 June 1 978. lt is now 7 June 1 979. In other words, 12 months have elapsed. We had an undertaking given by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) that the Government would respond within six months to such reports put down in the Parliament. That has not occurred. That is my first concern. The second is that in the adjournment debate some time ago 1 specifically asked the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) whether he might not ensure that a response to the report was made during these autumn sittings rather than a response being delayed until the Budget sittings, when the question of $6m or $8m of forgone revenue might overcome considerations of equity and fairness to small traders and employees who are affected. For example, Telecom Australia or the Commissioner of Taxation might take what are by definition meagre assets of a trader who has entered into a situation of extending credit to a person or a firm which becomes bankrupt or to an employee who has accumulated long service leave or other entitlements. It seems to me that if the Government is delaying consideration of this matter and if it will not give an answer in Parliament until perhaps September, we are in a situation where the consideration of revenue forgone may assume a dominance in the consideration of Budget which will overwhelm the considerations of fairness to the two groups of people about whomI spoke. They are the matters about which I still express my concern.

Senator CHANEY (Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs)- by leave- I am sorry that I jumped the gun on Senator Tate, but I was trying to be co-operative in the circumstances that the Senate faced. I well understand the point of view that Senator Tate put forward. I would point out to him that I was a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs that brought forward the report. I am in the usual position of also being able to participate in the subsequent deliberations upon it. The report has been under active consideration in the fullest meaning of that term. Senator Tate would be aware that the area of law involved in the report is quite complex. Apart from the revenue considerations which he mentioned, there are quite difficult areas to encompass. As I recall the position, the Committee spent a lot of time and effort in producing that report. Senator Tate would appreciate that Ministers who are picking up the recommendations in that report, without the advantage of the weeks of work put into it by the Committee, are not necessarily able to come to a quick, crisp, clean decision on it.

I take particular note of Senator Tate’s comment about revenue costs. The Committee reported that revenue in the vicinity of $ 10m was involved in the changes it recommended. I can assure Senator Tate that whether the report is considered by the Government in the autumn, spring, summer or winter, it is part of every matter that is considered by the Government that the revenue considerations are put before the Cabinet. I do not think I breach any rule of Cabinet confidentiality by saying that. So its consideration at this time of the year as against some time in the next couple of months is not particularly relevant. There is no real significance, in my view, in the point which Senator Tate raised. When one bears in mind the decisions taken by the Government over the last couple of weeks, I think even Senator Tate would concede that that is very likely to be the case.

The Government broke new ground by undertaking to respond to parliamentary committee reports. It was a change which I and I think all senators welcomed. In fact it has not been possible for the Government to meet the deadline that it set for itself in all cases. In my own portfolio, I am out of time in relation to a number of reports. The process of consideration of parliamentary committee reports has been built into the system of government, and that is quite a novel development. If there have been some delays beyond the six-month period I think honourable senators who have been here longer than has Senator Tate will assure him that, in achieving automatic consideration of reports by the Government and a subsequent statement to the Parliament, we have come a long way indeed.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 12.20 a.m. (Thursday)

page 2815

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Home Savings Grants Scheme (Question No. 968)

Senator Colston:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 25 October 1978:

Are further cut-backs in the home-savings grants scheme envisaged, as was claimed in an article in the Sunday Sun, 22 October 1978.

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

I refer the honourable senator to the Government’s decision, announced on 24 May 1979, to introduce a value limit on homes, including land, which qualify for a Home Savings Grant. The decision applies to persons who contract after 24 May 1979 to buy or build a home and will ensure that available funds are directed to home buyers in most need of government assistance.

Financing of Wheat Board First Advance (Question No. 1375)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 28 February 1979:

  1. 1 ) Did the Minister earlier this year, either alone or in conjunction with other Ministers and after conferring with the Secretary of the Treasury and/or other senior Treasury officials and/or the Governor and/or other senior officials of the Reserve Bank, agree to prevent the Reserve Bank’s Rural Credits Department advancing sufficient funds to the Australian Wheat Board to enable the Board to meet its obligation to pay the first advance on all 1978-79 season wheat received from wheatgrowers.
  2. ) Was it intended that the Wheat Board borrow the rest of the money required to meet its obligation to wheatgrowers from the trading banks.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

I refer the honourable senator to the answer given by the Minister representing the Treasurer to Question No. 1376.

Financing of Wheat Board First Advance (Question No. 1379)

Senator Walsh:

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

  1. 1 ) Were first advance payments to Australian wheatgrowers delayed earlier this year because the Reserve Bank ‘s Rural Credits Department refused to advance to the Australian Wheat Board sufficient funds to meet its obligation to pay the first advance on all 1978-79 season wheat received from growers.
  2. On whose authority or instructions did the Reserve Bank refuse further advances to the Wheat Board.
  3. ) Did the Reserve Bank later make available to the Australian Wheat Board sufficient funds to honour its obligation to pay the first advance on all wheat received from wheatgrowers.
  4. On whose authority or instructions did the Reserve Bank reverse its earlier policy.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

– The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: 1 refer the honourable senator to the answer given by the Minister representing the Treasurer to Question No. 1 380.

Trade with United States (Question No. 1505)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 29 March 1979:

Did an article by Mr Mike Steketee in the Sydney Morning Herald, 22 March 1979, state that, in return for greater access to United States markets, Australia agreed to lower protection levels on some industrial goods- mainly heavy manufacturing products- and tobacco; if so, has Australia agreed to lower protection levels on tobacco in return for greater access to United States markets.

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

Such a statement was made in the newspaper article mentioned.

A Ministerial Statement covering, inter alia, bilateral negotiations with the United States of America in the context of the Multilateral Trade Negotiations was made in the Parliament on 8 May 1979 by the Acting Prime Minister. Rt Hon. J. D. Anthony.

This referred to the achievement of concessions on a range of products important in our trade with USA including beef, wool and dairy products. It stated that as negotiations with other trading partners were still proceeding and as overall settlements reached in the MTN were still to be ratified by USA it was not appropriate to disclose the details of concessions offered by Australia although this would be done as soon as practicable.

It is well known that tobacco is among the list of items on which concessions have been offered by Australia. I have informed industry representatives of this and have given assurances, repeated in media releases, that the Australian tobacco industry would not be traded off for benefits to another industry. The interests of Australian growers have been safeguarded in the negotations. Apart from anything else growers have the benefit of a Stabilisation Plan negotiated by industry leaders and administered by the Australian Tobacco Board.

Health: Peer Review Schemes (Question No. 1562)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 5 April 1979:

  1. How many Australian hospitals: (a) currently have peer review schemes operational in all clinical areas; and ( b ) have yet to introduce comprehensive peer review systems.
  2. What steps has the Minister’s Department or the Australian Medical Association taken to introduce a suitable peer review scheme to general practice and specialist practice outside hospitals.
  3. What peer review schemes will operate in private wards of public hospitals and in privately-owned clinics as a result of the Department’s discussions with the Australian Medical Association.
  4. How will these schemes operate and how will doctors be encouraged to participate in them.
  5. Which of the Australian Medical Association’s initiatives referred to in part (5) of the answer to Senate Question No. 562 (see Hansard, 12 September 1978, page 502) have been approved and proceeded with.
  6. How much had the Minister’s Department spent at 5 April, 1979 in funding the Australian Medical Association initiatives to introduce peer review, and what funds have been assigned to individual projects.
  7. What funds has the Department spent on the introduction of peer review in areas other than those involving the Australian Medical Association.
Senator Guilfoyle:
Minister for Social Security · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. 1 ) ( a ) and ( b ) So far as I am aware, there are no hospitals in Australia with fully operational peer review systems, encompassing the essential features of quality assurance, utilisation review and criteria auditing, in all clinical departments. This is hardly surprising, in view of the complexities involved in developing appropriate peer review systems for introduction into each of the 1,130 hospitals in Australia. It should also be recognised that, even in overseas countries where peer review activities have been pursued for more than a decade, totally comprehensive systems of peer review have not yet been developed.

However, considerable progress has been made. The Australian Medical Association, which has accepted the leadership role for peer review within the medical profession, announced in May 1978 that it endorsed the concept of introducing systems of peer review. The Commonwealth Government has supported some 24 separate research projects, at a cost of over $700,000 under Health Services Research and Development Grants, that are directly concerned with activities associated with peer review. All major teaching hospitals in Australia are pursuing, in some form, issues related to peer review. There are also initiatives by professional organisations that are at various stages of development.

  1. My Department has been actively encouraging the introduction of peer review outside the hospital setting. However, it is recognised that this will be considerably more difficult to achieve than within hospitals. The major problem in this regard is in obtaining adequate data on a routine basis for general practices that often have only limited resources to devote to the task.
  2. and (4) The development of systems of peer review is not sufficiently advanced to enable precise answers to be given.
  3. The AMA subsequently revised its approach of 28 August 1978, and sought support for the establishment of a Peer Review Resources Centre. I announced on 9 February 1979 a grant of $50,000 to the Centre mentioning in the announcement the functions of the Centre.
  4. The projects, and level of support, are as follows:
  1. A further $650,000 has also been allocated, as Health Program Grants for other research studies, not under the immediate auspices of the AMA, and directly associated with peer review activities. Further expenditure has been incurred on time devoted by departmental officers to encouraging and advising on peer review initiatives; the actual cost of this effort does not, of course, lend itself to precise costing.

The Government remains determined to assist the medical profession in the establishment of peer reviews systems to the inside and outside the hospital system.

Torres Strait Island Airstrips (Question No. 1584)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 2 May 1979:

  1. . Which inhabited islands in Torres Strait have airstrips.
  2. Who owns each of these airstrips.
  3. Are the owners responsible for the maintenance of these strips.
  4. What landing fees are payable for each of these strips and to whom are the landing fees payable.
  5. Which of the inhabited islands in Torres Strait do not have airstrips.
  6. Does each inhabited island in Torres Strait which does not have an airstrip have a constructed helicopter pad.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. Horn Island is provided with a Government aerodrome which primarily serves Thursday Island. Authorised Landing Areas (ALA) to commuter standard are located on the inhabited islands of Sue, Yam, Saibi, Badu, Yorke and Murray ( under construction ). All of these ALAs have a helipad.
  2. Horn Island is owned by the Commonwealth Government and ownership of the ALAs is under the control of the Trustee of the aboriginal reserve, namely the Queensland Director of Aboriginal and Islander Advancement.
  3. Yes. Horn Island aerodrome is maintained by Commonwealth staff and maintenance on the ALAs is undertaken by the Island Councils under sponsorship of the Trustee.
  4. No landing charges are levied al Horn Island aerodrome but the costs of that aerodrome are attributed in the determination of Air Navigation Charges. It is understood that no landing charges are levied at the other locations.
  5. All those not listed in ( 1 ).
  6. Yes, if permanently inhabited. Also some of the seasonally inhabited islands have helipads.

Bureau of Agricultural Economics (Question No. 1619)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 22 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) Is it correct, as reported in the agricultural press in early May 1979, that the Government plans to place the Bureau of Agricultural Economics under stricter departmental and ministerial control, because the Bureau’s objective assessment of agricultural issues is an embarrassment to the Government.
  2. Will the Minister guarantee that the Bureau of Agricultural Economics will not be muzzled or transformed into yet another Government propaganda outlet.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) The Government has no intention of changing the long standing and well established role and status of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics as an independent economic research organisation. The BAE will remain solely responsible for its research findings which, as in the past, are not subject to Ministerial or industry direction.

Savings Bank of Tasmania

Senator Carrick:
LP

-On 29 March 1979 (Hansard, page 1 105), Senator Rae asked me, as Minister representing the Treasurer, a question, without notice, concerning the rates of interest paid on solicitors’ trust funds accounts with the Savings Bank of Tasmania. On the basis of advice from the Reserve Bank of Australia, the Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

In the implementation of monetary policy pursuant to its powers under the Banking Act, the Reserve Bank has, with the approval of the Treasurer, made provision for the control of certain rates of interest payable by all trading and savings banks, including the Savings Bank of Tasmania, which are subject to that Act, in the course of banking business carried on by them.

The payment by the Savings Bank of Tasmania of the rate of interest on deposit facilities referred to was not in accordance with the current policy in relation to interest rates as administered by the Reserve Bank. The Reserve Bank accordingly requested the Savings Bank of Tasmania to comply with the existing interest rate policy and that bank did so. There is no question of discrimination again the Savings Bank of Tasmania in the Reserve Bank’s action.

The question of competition between financial institutions is recognised as an important one. The Campbell Committee in its Inquiry into the Australian Financial System can be expected to examine this issue in some depth.

War Crimes

Senator Carrick:
LP

– On 8 May 1978 Senator Wheeldon asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the following question, without notice:

Is the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs aware that a statute of limitations will come into effect shortly in the Federal Republic of Germany whereby persons who could be guilty of war crimes will not be liable for prosecution? Does the Minister not agree that if any persons who were guilty of these monstrous crimes were to escape justice on the grounds of such a technical reason as the statute of limitations, this would be an affront to the conscience of civilised people? Does the Government have any views on this matter? If so, has it made these views known to the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany?

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

The current thirty year period imposed in the Federal Republic of Germany by the present Statute of Limitations on prosecutions for murder (which covers war crimes) is due to expire on 31 December 1979. The period in which accused persons remain liable for prosecution has been extended twice in the past- in 1965 and 1969. At present a bill which would abolish the Statute of Limitations on Prosecution for Murder is being debated in the Bundestag. The effect of abolition of the Statute would be to make indefinite the period in which accused persons remain liable for prosecution.

Although many governments, including the Australian Government, have a deep and abiding interest in the application of the Statute of Limitations to war criminals, this question is essentially one lying within the domestic jurisdiction of the Federal Republic of Germany.

Nevertheless, on 2 January 1 979, the Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany, was officially informed that Australia hoped some means could be found to ensure that former war criminals would not be permitted to escape justice simply because of a lapse of time.

Northern Laos: Political Prisoners

Senator Carrick:
LP

-On 10 May 1979 Senator Missen asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the following question, without notice:

My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I draw his attention to the disturbing reports received from political prisoners recently released from camps in northern Laos. These reports relate to the alleged deterioration in Laos’s economy and to the effect that this is having on the treatment of prisoners detained in these camps. Will the Minister advise of any knowledge concerning claims that many of the 12,000 prisoners detained in these camps are suffering severely due to lack of adequate medical attention and proper rations? Will the Minster investigate these claims, and in doing so assure the Senate that whatever support possible will be rendered to the prisoners? In the hope of encouraging some economic independence from the Soviet Union and Vietnam, will the Minister also urge the Government to provide whatever aid is possible to Laos for the development of its untapped resources and to request other Western nations, particularly the United States, to do likewise?

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

It is difficult to obtain reliable information about political prisoners in Laos. It is impossible to establish the number of persons remaining in re-education camps. Various press and other published sources have given estimates well above the 12.000 figure referred to by the honourable senator. I am aware of reports circulating some weeks ago that a few political prisoners in bad health had been released. The Government has no recent substantiated information about conditions in the re-education camps, but it is generally accepted that they remain harsh, although whether by design, or as a result of administrative short-comings, or a measure of both, is arguable. It is known that political prisoners are expected to grow most, if not all, their own food in frequently unfavourable circumstances. However, the problems of food availability and distribution would dictate this even under conditions more favourable than those of political prisoners. Medical facilities throughout Laos are understood to be inadequate: there are very few doctors or other trained medical personnel in the country.

Australia is giving Laos 1,000 tonnes of rice in 1979 to help overcome the food problems caused by serious flooding. Australia ‘s project aid, spread over two years ( 1 978-80 ), consists of a $1.9 million program to supply irrigation pumps. The aid programs of the USA and other Western countries are a matter which only they can decide.

The Government is aware of the concern that exists in Australia about lengthy detentions of political prisoners in some countries. From the available information, it would seem that a situation exists in Laos that might warrant such concern. The Government takes advantage of suitable opportunities to make known its concern in appropriate international organisations, such as the Commission on Human Rights, of which Australia is currently a member.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 6 June 1979, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1979/19790606_senate_31_s81/>.