Senate
16 October 1979

31st Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 31st Parliament
  3. 1979

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

page 1313

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY FUELS CONTROL ORDINANCE

Notice

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

-Pursuant to the sessional order relating to the withdrawal of notices of motion for disallowance, I give notice that it is my intention, on the next day of sitting, at the placing of business, to withdraw Business of the Senate Notice of Motion No. 1 , standing in my name for seven sitting days hence, relating to the Australian Capital Territory Fuels Control Ordinance.

page 1313

IMMIGRATION: RESIDENT STATUS

Notice of Motion

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

That the Senate, recognising that a successful immigration policy rests on an even-handed influx of all ethnic components, requests the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to grant resident status to Bolivian national, Roger Guttierrez and Ghanaian national, George Owusu Brenva

page 1313

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1313

QUESTION

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION LEGISLATION

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Attorney-General and refers to the amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, which I understand will be before the Senate tomorrow. I ask: What consultation did the Minister have with members of the judiciary on legislation affecting the role or status of the judiciary prior to the drafting of that legislation or its presentation to the Parliament? Does he agree that it is a sound principle to consult members of the judiciary before the form of any such legislation is finally settled?

Senator DURACK:
Attorney-General · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– The question asked what consultation I had with the judiciary. I have not been responsible for the development of this Bill. It is the responsibility of the Minister for Industrial Relations. As to the consultation he may have had in relation to the development of the Bill, I will refer that question to him for comment.

Senator BISHOP:

– I wish to ask a supplementary question of the Attorney-General. In respect of an area over which he may have direct control, does he think that the principle that there should be consultation before important changes are made to legislation is a correct principle?

The PRESIDENT:

– The honourable senator is asking for an opinion. Does the AttorneyGeneral wish to answer the question?

Senator DURACK:

– The question is one that cannot be answered in general terms. It depends upon the nature of the amendments being proposed and so on. It would be quite impossible to consult every member of the judiciary about any proposed amendments to a Bill.

page 1313

QUESTION

INSURANCE

Senator PETER BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Does the Insurance Act provide penalties for each day an organisation undertakes insurance business which is not authorised under the Act? Have these penalities been levied on any organisation in respect of unauthorised insurance business provided since 1 September 1979? Has the health maintenance organisation operated by the Geoffrey Edelsten Foundation since 1 September 1979 become an authorised insurer under the Act?

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

-Senator Baume has asked a question in three parts. The answer to the first part of the question is yes. Section 2 1 of the Insurance Act provides a penalty of $1,000 for each day during which insurance business is conducted without being authorised under the Act. As to the second part of the question, no organisation has been convicted since 1 September 1979. However, since that time there has been one conviction of a person for carrying on insurance business contrary to section 21. On the information available to the Treasurer, that conviction was not related in any way to the activities of the Geoffrey Edelsten Foundation. The answer to the third part of the question is no. I am advised that the Insurance Commissioner has initiated inquiries for the purpose of establishing whether the activities of the health maintenance organisation operated by the Geoffrey Edelsten Foundation are insurance business within the meaning of the Insurance Act.

page 1313

JUDICIARY: CONSULTATION ABOUT

page 1313

QUESTION

PROFESSIONAL CONCERNS

Senator ELSTOB:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I ask the AttorneyGeneral: Is there a convention that denies judges the right to confer privately amongst themselves or with a Minister about their professional concerns relating to proposed changes of law within their jurisdiction? If so, on what principles does this convention operate? Is the Attorney-General aware of any departures from that convention since he took office? Does a breach of such a convention carry any consequences for the judge in question?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– The honourable senator asked whether there was a convention which denied judges the right to confer amongst themselves and to make their views known- I think this is what the honourable senator said- to the Minister in charge of a Bill. As far as I know there is no convention which prevents judges from discussing matters amongst themselves and making their views known to the Minister. I do not think anybody has suggested that there is such a convention or that such a convention has been breached. The honourable senator may be referring to the matter involving Mr Justice Staples. The criticisms have been of the rather intemperate and surprising expressions contained in his statement. I think that is the only matter that has been mentioned.

page 1314

QUESTION

TWELVE-MILE TERRITORIAL LIMIT

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. In view of the policy statement published in the Australian Foreign Affairs Record for March 1979, can the Minister advise when the declaration of the 12-mile territorial limit for Australian coastal waters will be made?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– My advice is that the matter of the declaration of a 12-nautical-mile territorial sea is one of the important matters currently before the third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. It has given rise to a number of complex inter-related issues which the conference must resolve if a generally accepted and widely supported convention is to be adopted. Any extension of the territorial sea by coastal states will carry with it the obligation under international law to allow innocent passage to vessels of other states.

In order to seek to obviate problems which have occurred in the past, the conference has under consideration a definition of ‘innocent passage’. Extensions of 12-nautical-mile territorial seas around the world will have the effect of bringing under coastal state sovereignty significant maritime areas that were formerly high seas. The areas which will be most affected, of course, are international straits, many of which are so narrow that the extension of territorial seas to 12 miles would have the effect of converting these waters to territorial seas and thus restricting passage rights through them. In order to deal with these restrictions through what were previously unrestricted areas, the conference has developed a transit regime. In summary, the future Convention on the Law of the Sea is expected to contain provisions not only relating to increasing the breadth of the territorial sea but also dealing with such related matters as innocent passage through the territorial sea and transit passage through international straits and archipelagos.

page 1314

QUESTION

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION LEGISLATION

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question follows on two previous questions from this side of the chamber and is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations. To facilitate proper discussion and knowledgeable debate on the industrial law which we will proceed to debate tomorrow, could the Minister inform us of the judiciary’s opinion of the amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act by releasing details of the telexes from the 25 commissioners and the letter from Mr Justice Staples so that we will know the opinion of those who control the Act? Does the Minister think it improper to release to this Senate such details of the opinions of the judiciary to assist it in this informative debate?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-I will refer that request to the Minister for Industrial Relations.

page 1314

QUESTION

UNION JACK

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services: Why has the history and description of the Union Jack been omitted from the booklet which describes other aspects of our flag and which is handed out with the Australian flag? The history of the Union Jack is a colourful story which would stimulate interest in our heritage.

Opposition senators interjecting-

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

– It is good to hear what an active interest the Opposition has in the Australian flag, but until the question was asked I was not aware that that particular bit of information had been omitted from the booklet. I agree with the honourable senator that the Union Jack does have a colourful history and, indeed, is included on the flags of a number of other states and nations. For example, I think that the state of Hawaii includes the Union Jack on its flag as part of the history of that country which was also contacted in the early days by Captain Cook. I will forward Senator Walters’ question to the Minister for Administrative Services. In light of the additional interest being shown in the flag at the moment, which was also referred to in the Senate chamber recently, I think her suggestion might well be taken up by the Government.

page 1315

QUESTION

CONCILATION AND ARBITRATION LEGISLATION

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

– My question, which is directed to the Attorney-General, follows other questions asked on the same subject. It relates to a matter that is within his responsibility and should be within his knowledge. I ask: What discussions has the Minister had with the Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr Street, concerning a letter written to Mr Street by Mr Justice Staples on the Government’s proposed amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act? Has the Minister for Industrial Relations passed that letter on to the Attorney-General and, if so, for what reason? What action is the AttorneyGeneral currently taking, or does he propose to take, over this matter?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-Mr Street did send round to me on Thursday, or towards the end of last week, a letter to him from Mr Justice Staples. I had some discussion with Mr Street in relation to the matter on Friday, in the course of which he asked whether I would give consideration to the comments that were being made by Mr Justice Staples in relation to the amendments which are before the House. I have already given Mr Street a preliminary reply in relation to the matter. I do not propose to reveal what discussions have actually taken place between Mr Street and me concerning it, but I want to emphasise that what he asked me to do was to look at the questions raised to see whether any comments made by Mr Justice Staples would raise any matter in relation to the amendments that are proposed to the Bill. That was all that I was looking at in relation to those matters which were, as I understood them, mainly matters of law or constitutional matters.

Senator GEORGES:

– I wish to ask a supplementary question. The question surely must now be asked: Why did the Attorney-General not reject that approach out of hand? Why did he not accept the fact that such an approach by Mr Street was in effect an intimidation of a justice -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honourable senator is asking a further question.

Senator GEORGES:

– No, it is supplementary to the first.

The PRESIDENT:

– To be supplementary it should be within the actual wording of the first question and seek amplication of information given in the reply.

Senator GEORGES:

– If I might say so, it is very much so. I am just asking: Why did the Minister not reject that letter out of hand?

Senator Missen:

– I rise to a point of order. This clearly is not a supplementary question. It is a question which arises, the honourable senator believes, from the first question. He can ask it tomorrow but surely he cannot ask it as a supplementary question today.

The PRESIDENT:

– I interpret the question that you are now asking, Senator, as a question additional to your first; that it is not a matter of seeking to elicit information in amplification of the reply given to the initial question. I call Senator Maunsell.

Senator Georges:

- Mr President–

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I have ruled on that matter.

Senator Georges:

– I trust that the ruling will be strictly adhered to as far as supplementary questions are concerned in the future.

page 1315

QUESTION

PLAGUE LOCUSTS

Senator MAUNSELL:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry: What is the present position in relation to plague locust hatchings in New South Wales and southern Queensland? Does the Australian Plague Locust Commission have the Army detachment under its direction? What future activities are planned for the Australian Plague Locust Commission?

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

-As far as I know, the Army personnel and equipment, including helicopters, that are being used have been supplied by arrangement between the Prime Minister and the Premiers of South Australia and New South Wales and are in no way under the direction of the Australian Plague Locust Commission. Undoubtedly there has been close liaison between the States of New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and South Australia, which are members of the Commission, and the Army components that are assisting them. There is no arrangement, as suggested by the honourable senator, under which the Army detachments are under the control of the Commission. It is fairly evident that large scale control of locusts will be needed in the next eight weeks. Aerial spraying of insecticides, both against hoppers and adult locusts, is to be undertaken in the central west of New South Wales and the Riverina. The Riverina control operation will diminish the known threat of the locusts invading Victoria. The central question which the honourable senator asked was about the use of Army contingents. Basically, they are not under the control of the Commission.

page 1316

QUESTION

FILM CENSORSHIP

Senator MASON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Attorney-General who is in charge of film censorship and classification. In view of changing community sexual attitudes, will the Minister consider introducing a new film classification to modify the present R rating for restricted viewing? Could that R classification remain for films which have a restricted viewing because of their sexual content and a new classification be introduced- possibly V for violence- for violent films?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I have not been giving any consideration to changing the present film classification system. From time to time, I have time to time, I have discussed with some members of the Film Censorship Board the general approach to the classification of films. I have also viewed some parts of films and discussed them with the members of the Board. However, I must say that although fairly clear cut rules can be applied in relation to sexual problems that arise in films, I think it is much more difficult to make judgments about the violence aspects. I have a continuing concern in relation to that matter. I will be having a general discussion about censorship problems and these problems which the honourable senator has raised in particular with the new Chief Censor, Mrs Strickland, as soon as she has settled into the job. I will certainly bear in mind the comments that the honourable senator has made.

page 1316

QUESTION

TAXATION: GIFTS TO CHARITIES

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Does he recall my question asked in November 1978 relating to taxation and gifts to charities, particularly with reference to overseas aid? The Treasurer later indicated that he was attracted to the idea of a review of the coverage of gift provisions. As the matter has been raised again in recent days, has the Minister any information regarding the suggested review? Is he aware of the vast sums of money already given in overseas aid by churches and other nongovernment organisations without the advantage of tax concessions? Will the Government look at the matter again and work out a plan that encourages the concern for needy causes whether at home or overseas?

Senator McAuliffe:

- Senator Sibraa asked that question only a couple of weeks ago.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I suggest that members of the Opposition hold their breaths for an hour or two. I think they will find that the Treasurer and the Minister for Foreign Affairs may make a statement which will confound Senator McAuliffe. In other words, I hope that we may have, like the Bible, good news. I am aware, as the honourable senator asked in the second part of the question, that vast sums of money have been contributed. Indeed, the unhappily unique position in Kampuchea has touched the consciences and the hearts of virtually all Australians.

Senator Georges:

– It took some time.

Senator CARRICK:

- Senator Georges has interjected, as always, helpfully. He says: ‘It took some time’. The Australian Government was the first of the governments in the world to respond with massive food aid and to deliver that food aid in bulk quantities. If it took us some time, we were first among the laggards and we will hurry again.

page 1316

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to the criticism by the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts of the Public Service Board’s attitude to technology, its failure to consider employment consequences and its misuse of public funds. I refer also to the unilateral decision of the same Public Service Board to spend public funds on newspaper advertisements during periods of industrial disputation and to other independent decisions by the same Board. I ask: What steps does the Government propose should be taken to bring the Public Service Board under the jurisdiction of the Parliament so that its authoritarian and undemocratic procedures are supervised by the elected representatives of the people?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The question almost requires no answer. The essence of a statutory body is that it ought to be free of pressures; that it ought to be free of day to day political tugging to and fro. That has been the principle underlying the Public Service Board. I am not aware of the actual criticisms that have been made on either of the two issues raised by Senator Gietzelt. I am not aware of any procedures that are contemplated by the Government by way of any reforms in that regard. I will bring the question to the attention of the responsible Minister and seek an answer.

page 1317

QUESTION

TAXATION

Senator LAJOVIC:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Is it a fact that the most recent Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development survey of taxation levels shows that Australia is one of the lowest taxed countries in the OECD? Can the Minister inform the Senate how Australia compares with other Western industrial nations in terms of levels of taxation?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– Again I am able to bear good news. It is a fact that the most recent Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development survey of taxation showed that as a percentage of gross domestic product, total taxation in Australia was 29.98 per cent against an OECD average of 35.8 per cent. That is good news. Comparable figures for West Germany, the United Kingdom and France were respectively 36.7 per cent, 36.7 per cent and 39.45 per cent. The comparable figure for the United States was 29.29 per cent. Need I say that Australia’s excellent taxation record under this Government can, of course, be contrasted with the past.

Senator Walsh:

– You are a fraud.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Walsh, I heard you use the words ‘you are a fraud’. That is unparliamentary language. I ask you to withdraw.

Senator Walsh:

– I withdraw, Mr President.

page 1317

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL LINE

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the Minister representing the Minister for Transport inform the Senate whether the Australian National Line is responsible for the administrative operations of what is known as the Seafarers Retirement Fund? If so, what are the rights of contributors to ascertain their financial position? What is the current balance of the fund? Is it subject to any audit? Are all the answers to these questions subject at any time to perusal by any appropriate Senate Estimates committee?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I have some information on the subject raised by the honourable senator, but I am unable to answer the final part of his question relating to the matter of audit. I will have to seek further information for him on that point. I am advised that the Australian National Line does not operate a seafarers retirement fund. Perhaps that is why I have no information in relation to audit. Ratings engaged on ANL ships are entitled to membership of the Seafarers Retirement Fund established by a trust deed dated 9 February 1973 and operated on behalf of the maritime industry by Australian Maritime Industries Ltd of 500 Collins Street, Melbourne. The trustees of the fund are representatives of shipowners and unions and include Mr Patrick Geraghty of the Seamen’s Union of Australia, Mr Les Mullens of the Federated Marine Stewards and Pastry men’s Association of Australasia and Mr Bill Heath of the Marine Cooks, Bakers and Butchers Association of Australasia. The trust deed does not contain any provisions concerning members’ rights of access to information. However, each year a statement is forwarded by the fund to each contributor setting out details of the amount contributed by him up to 30 June of that year and the benefits arising as a result of those contributions. The statement is accompanied by a report from the trustees setting out the balance of the fund as at 30 June and the manner in which the fund is invested. I understand that statements for the year ended 30 June 1979 are today being sent out to contributors. As to the audit of those statements and of the fund, I will seek information for the honourable senator and give it to him as soon as possible.

page 1317

QUESTION

FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF APEX COMMEMORATIVE STAMP

Senator LEWIS:
VICTORIA

– I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications to the refusal by Australia Post to issue a stamp commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of Apex in 1981 and ask: Has the threat made in the Senate a fortnight ago to revoke the Act establishing Australia Post if it did not come to heel on this matter brought any response?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I think it was sweet reason rather than threats that changed the mind of the Australian Postal Commission. I am pleased to say that a matter in which Senator Lewis and I have some personal interestnamely, the commemoration of Apex- is to be acknowledged on the fiftieth anniversary of that organisation, Australia Post having reviewed its earlier decision. I think it is true to say that there has been a wide range of representations on this subject, both by way of questions in this place and personally to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications and the Postal Commission. I acknowledge the consideration given by the Postal Commission to those representations. I understand that the Postal Commission is reviewing its stamp issue policy. It may be that honourable senators will have an interest in making a submission to the Postal Commission as to the basis on which commemorative stamps should be issued.

page 1318

QUESTION

TAXATION

Senator GRIMES:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. It follows the question asked by Senator Lajovic. I ask: Is it not a fact that Australia’s position in world taxation scales and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s taxation scales has in fact varied little in the last eight years, in that it has varied only one or two points? What do the facts presented by Senator Carrick mean when one considers the campaign at present being conducted in certain sections of the Press of this country claiming that we are among the very highly taxed countries of the world?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I am not aware of the percentage of variation in Australian taxation over the last eight years. I will get that information and let Senator Grimes have it. The fact is that there has always been pressure in Australia for lower taxes. That pressure was at its height some four or five years ago when, both in terms of Federal tax and, as the former Premier of South Australia remarked, the record State taxation, there was a heavy pressure upwards in taxation. As honourable senators know, the federal leader of the Australian Labor Party has foreshadowed the imposition of a super tax which would result in something like 75c in the dollar being the upper ceiling of taxation in Australia. That, of course, would put us amongst the really high tax people of the world.

page 1318

QUESTION

PHARMACIES: TELECOM LANDLINES

Senator MESSNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Is the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications aware of the high level of concern amongst pharmacists at the increasing frequency of hold-ups, burglaries and break-ins of their premises by persons in search of drugs? Is it in the interests of all that pharmacy premises be as secure as possible? Is he aware of certain commercially available centralised alarm systems which involve the use of Telecom landlines costing an average of $800 per annum in rental? In view of this considerable cost to what are predominantly small businesses, will the Minister consider the allowance of a substantial price concession for the rental of such landlines for that purpose?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– Although I have read reports of breakings into pharmacies, usually by people searching for drugs, I was not aware that this was a matter of widespread concern. I am indebted to the honourable senator for bringing it to my attention. I would certainly agree that it is in the best interests of everybody that pharmacies should be secure. I will refer the suggestions that the honourable senator has made about the alarm system and the possible concessions to Mr Staley for consideration.

page 1318

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH PAYMENTS TO WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Has the Minister seen the statement by the Premier of Western Australia, Sir Charles Court, in which Sir Charles has referred to the ‘massive cuts imposed by the Commonwealth in areas such as specific purposes payments, Loan Council approvals to the State governments for their vital works programs, and grants for capital works ‘? He went on to say:

Western Australia has been stretched to the limit of its resources.

Is the Minister aware that under the four Budgets of the Fraser Government, total capital payments to Western Australia have declined by $190m in real terms? Does the Minister agree with the remarks of Sir Charles Court or are Sir Charles’s statements without foundation?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– There does seem to have been one statement of Sir Charles Court, the Western Australian Premier, relevant to this matter missing, one that I thought I read in the last few days. In it he urged the Commonwealth Government to reduce taxation so that there could be a stimulus to industry. The fact is that if taxation is reduced both Federal and State governments will bear the result. I have not seen the two statements mentioned by Senator Wriedt. I will look at them to see their nature. My understanding is that the Western Australian Government, along with all other State governments, has managed, despite what was said at Premiers’ Conferences, to bring down Budgets which show that they had a capacity within their finances to do a very great deal. One by one, the governments have disclosed the fact that they had reserves of resources that were not otherwise apparent. I do not know of the origins of the statements that Senator Wriedt refers to. I will look at them to see if any response is necessary.

Senator WRIEDT:

-I wish to ask a supplementary question. I advise the Minister that the statement to which I was referring was reported in the Australian on Friday, 12 October. I ask the Minister again: Is it not a fact that under the four Budgets of the Fraser Government total capital payments to Western Australia have declined by $ 1 90m in real terms?

Senator CARRICK:

– I do not have those figures readily at hand. Under the tax sharing arrangements, year by year the volume of recurrent funds to the States has run at such a level above inflation that within the recurrent funds the State governments have had adequate funds to supplement their capital funds, should they so desire.

Senator Wriedt:

– Court blows that argument sky high. Ask Charles Court about that one.

Senator CARRICK:

– This tendency for members of the Austalian Labor Party to try to outshout reasoned answers is one that the public will judge. Indeed, polls in the electorate of Denison already reveal a judgment so far as Senator Wriedt is concerned. The fact of the matter is that this year the recurrent grants, the tax reimbursements to the States, have run at something like a 1 3.8 per cent increase, well above the rate of inflation, and, therefore, are well capable of supplementing whatever capital funds the States may wish to employ. It is a matter for the States, as it is for the Commonwealth, to decide how much goes to recurrent and how much goes to capital. One by one the States, as their Budgets have come forward, have demonstrated a very considerable capacity, not only for tax reduction but also for expansion.

page 1319

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT

Senator MacGIBBON:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs. Has the Minister seen the report in yesterday’s Australian that 300 people were registered as unemployed in the Bowen area and that tomatoes worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in the Bowen area were rotting because local labour was unobtainable? Is this report true? If it is true, what action can be taken to induce the unemployed to accept employment?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I did not see the report and I am unaware of the matter which Senator MacGibbon has raised. I will refer it to the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs for an answer to be given as soon as possible.

page 1319

YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT

Senate TATE- I direct my question to the Leader of the Government, following an answer he gave last week to a question by Senator Bishop concerning youth unemployment. The Minister may be aware of continuing anxiety in the community about a scheme to throw unemployed youth on the resources, however meagre, of their families. Is it a fact that in Tasmania the ratio of unemployed juniors to unfilled junior vacancies, by employment districts is: Burnie, 121:1, Devonport 55:1, Launceston 47:1, Mowbray 1 67: 1 , and Hobart 65:1? Can the Minister give a categorical denial that the Government intends to pursue this socially regressive policy in respect of unemployed under 19-year- olds? If not, can he indicate how long, for example, Tasmanian families would be required to support their young unemployed, given the structural unemployment I have indicated?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I am glad to have the opportunity once again to say that there is no truth in the suggestion that has been put forward. It has become clearer that a very significant number of those people under 2 1 years of age leave school inadequately equipped in basic skills and otherwise to compete in the marketplace. The fact is that the Australian Council for Educational Research has shown a defect in basic skills. The Williams committee of inquiry, sponsored by this Government, showed that some 25 per cent of 14-year-olds were incapable of independent reading and 1 5 per cent were incapable of independent figuring. This is simply not good enough. This Commonwealth Government, through me as Minister, has initiated discussions with the State governments to see whether we can locate and identify these young people who are at risk while they are at school and give them special pastoral care, special counselling -

Senator Georges:

– Reduce the size of classes.

Senator CARRICK:

-We would also have special curricula, which is something that the interjector ‘s party did not get around to at all, having created this situation of juvenile unemployed. They would be helped by being given that extra care and a sense that education at school is meaningful and therefore helpful to them. The aim is that whether by special attention at school, by programs of transition from school to work or by new developments of training and retraining in the technical and further education area, we will get to a stage where there will be an understanding in the community that the emphasis should be on training and upgrading of skills rather than have the inertia of the situation of unemployment and unemployment benefits. The concentration by this Government is to seek out training schemes- and there are many of them now- are which will upgrade not only the skills but also the dignity and personality of the individuals. I am happy to say that, unlike the Federal Opposition, all of the six States are eager and willing to co-operate.

Senator TATE:
TASMANIA

– I wish to ask a supplementary question. In his answer the Minister concentrated on transitional training schemes where it is understood an equivalent to the unemployment benefit would be paid, although not so-called. I repeat my question: For those young people who fall outside such transitional training schemes, can the Minister give a categorical denial that they will be forced back on their families for support once they leave school?

Senator CARRICK:

– There is no change in policy contemplated that would force young people back onto their families. The understanding in the community, which is a bipartisan one of all political parties, is that families will support their student children. That is normal, and was strongly supported and advocated by the Whitlam Government. It is a view that I think the community fully accepts. What is being mistaken is that this Government, unlike the past Government, is seeking to provide meaningful training schemes for those who would otherwise simply be inert and on unemployment benefit. The Government believes that that is an intelligent approach.

page 1320

QUESTION

BOEING 747 AIRCRAFT

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

-My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and I ask: Is it true that Qantas Airways Ltd is considering buying one or more special purpose 747 aircraft which are designed for long range flights, such as the one from Sydney to Los Angeles direct, and which, incidentally, have a high rate of fuel consumption? Is it true that Qantas wants these 747SP aircraft to use on short haul regional routes to places such as Wellington and Jakarta? Will the Minister ask the Minister for Transport to instruct the Bureau of Transport Economics to study whether the expenditure by Qantas of perhaps $ 100m on the 747SP aircraft will benefit the travelling public of Australia as much as it would be benefited if the Australian domestic airlines were allowed to serve the short regional routes and therefore have better utilisation of their domestic equipment, which would help keep down local air fares?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I will refer the question to the Minister for Transport for reply.

page 1320

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE GUIDELINES

Senator RYAN:
ACT

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services and refers to a report in the Age of Tuesday, 9 October, describing new guidelines for the Public Service which include, amongst other things, a provision whereby a head of a department can appeal to the Prime Minister in the case of a dispute between the head and his Minister. I ask: Are these guidelines official, who introduced them, and are they designed to destroy confidence between the Minister and his or her departmental head and further centralise power in the hands of the Prime Minister?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I am indebted to the honourable senator for drawing that to my attention. I will seek an answer to the question and also find out what my own departmental head is up to.

page 1320

QUESTION

TAIWANESE FISHING POACHERS

Senator MISSEN:

– I draw to the attention of the Minister for Science and the Environment a report in the Bulletin of 2 October relating to Taiwanese fishing poachers alleged to be operating on the Great Barrier Reef. Is the Minister aware of this report, which claims that the Taiwanese poachers are reaping a fortune from the flesh of the giant clam and leaving a trail of destruction in their wake? Is the Minister also aware of the claim that this plunder, which could result in the destruction of the reef, continues unabated with the Federal Government offering only token resistance? Will the Minister comment on this report and, in doing so, inform the Senate what penalties the Government has at its disposal to deal with poachers and whether they are presently being enforced? Does the Minister agree that in the interests of both Australian and world heritage any activity which may damage in any way the Great Barrier Reef should not be allowed? If so, will he assure the Senate that a full investigation will be made into the alleged activities of the Taiwanese poachers and that the Government will take whatever action is necessary to prevent them from continuing their operations?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– 1 have not seen the article to which the honourable senator referred, but a number of articles have been written about this matter, and I recall one in the Sydney Morning Herald in September. This matter is of some concern to those who are keen to see the reef retained in its original situation. The information I have available is that the Great Barrier Reef is one of the few remaining areas where large populations of giant clams can be found. However, clams of that nature are found elsewhere in the Indo-Pacific region. The ecological importance of the giant clam to the overall ecology of the Great Barrier Reef is unknown and, therefore, the effect of taking it from the reef would be unknown. Based on the analysis of the catch from apprehended Taiwanese boats set out in the Herald article to which I referred, apparently the triton shellfish is not often taken. Also its relative importance as a predator of the Crown of Thorns starfish is basically unknown. I am unaware of the exact penalties. I think it is in the interests of Australia to ensure that the poaching of giant clams is minimised. I will read the honourable senator’s question fully to see whether I have picked up all the points and attempt to come back with an answer for him.

page 1321

QUESTION

COMPANIES: FORGERY AND MALPRACTICE

Senator WALSH:

– My question is directed to the Attorney-General. It probably impinges on his responsibility as Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. I ask the Attorney-General whether he has seen an article by a person called David McNicoll in the Bulletin of 1 6 October in which McNicoll states:

There was a lot of discussion -

That was in Sydney last week- on the question of private and family companies, and the signatures which are necessary on various documents. One prominent commercial man told me that he’d been signing his wife’s name on cheques and documents for the past 20 years to save her the trouble. Another told me that many of the practices which seemed to make Finnane wide-eyed with wonder were run-of-the-mill in private companies. Wrong and illegal, of course, but widespread.

Does the Attorney-General conclude from this that many of David McNicoll’s associates are habitual forgers, that forgery and malpractice are, to use Mr McNicoll ‘s words, widespread or run of the mill among private companies in Sydney, and that effective national companies legislation is needed to curtail white collar crime? Is it a criminal offence in New South Wales for a person to have knowledge of a felony, forgery being a felony, and not report that knowledge to law enforcement authorities?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Aspects of the question do not come within the responsibility of the Minister, but the Minister may wish to reply to those aspects which do come within his responsibility.

Senator DURACK:
LP

– Very little of the question asked by Senator Walsh comes within my responsibilities in any shape or form as AttorneyGeneral of the Commonwealth. He has asked me about something contained in a Bulletin article which I have not read. His reference to the contents of the article concerning practices that have been followed by some people in the administration of their private companies seems to come under the administration of the New South

Wales Companies Act. Other references which he made also seem to be purely matters of New South Wales law and the administration of that law by the appropriate Ministers or the Attorney-General of New South Wales. The only aspect of the question that seems to concern the national Parliament relates to the national companies and securities legislation, which is the responsibility of my colleague the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. He, of course, has already introduced into the Parliament a Bill to establish a national commission. Part of the scheme is that there should be a national companies and securities Act. This is in the process of being developed. I hope it will be introduced into the Parliament in the near future.

Senator WALSH:

– I wish to ask a supplementary question. Does the Attorney-General accept Mr McNicoll’s assertion that forgery and malpractice are widespread among the Sydney business community? If not, does he regard Mr McNicoll as an entirely unreliable witness?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! It is not within the responsibility of a Minister to regard anybody as an unreliable witness. Does the AttorneyGeneral wish to reply to the other part of the question?

Senator DURACK:

-I have nothing to add to what I have already said. I have indicated that I have not seen the article. I do not propose to comment on something that I have not seen.

page 1321

QUESTION

ROXBY DOWNS

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. Is it a fact that the ore body of the Western Mining Corporation’s copper and uranium field at Olympic Dam on Roxby Downs sheep station in South Australia extends for more than 30 kilometres inside the security zone defined by the United States and Australian defence authorities? Can the Minister say whether the company has approached the Department of Defence with the object of moving the northern boundary to enable free access of drilling crews and to facilitate the development of this huge project?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– My understanding is that the Roxby Downs uranium deposit does not come within any security zone in which the United States Government has an interest. The joint defence space communications station is outside the Woomera prohibited area. I am advised that it is 19 kilometres south-south-west of Woomera village and occupies its own prohibited area. The Olympic Dam area of Roxby Downs is 80 kilometres north-east of

Woomera. I am advised that it has been a longstanding practice for prospectors and mineral exploration companies who have exploration licences from the State to be given permission to enter the Woomera prohibited area subject to prescribed conditions. In fact a large number of companies and individuals have been admitted.

Early in 1977 it came to the notice of the Department of Defence that significant deposits of copper, uranium and gold had been discovered by the Western Mining Corporation at Olympic Dam close to the eastern boundary of the prohibited area some 80 kilometres from Woomera village. Consideration is being given to a request by the South Australian Government to vary the boundaries of the Woomera prohibited area and to excise from it approximately 400 square kilometres around the Olympic Dam site to enable an expansive exploration program to be conducted by the Western Mining Corporation.

page 1322

QUESTION

JUDICIAL CORRESPONDENCE

Senator WRIEDT:

-I ask the AttorneyGeneral: Are there any circumstances under which he would release to the media a letter that he had received from a judge?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– That is an extremely general question and one which I certainly would not dream of answering without giving consideration to it.

page 1322

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY EGG INDUSTRY

Senator KNIGHT:
ACT

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for the Capital Territory. In view of the fact that the Australian Capital Territory egg industry is now threatened by the dumping of Victorian eggs and by the failure of the New South Wales–

Senator McLaren:

– What about the dumping of eggs in other States? Tell us about that. Stop calling the kettle black.

Senator KNIGHT:

– I am well aware of Senator McLaren’s ignorance of this matter, without his saying any more. To the people of the Capital Territory this is no yolk! I ask the Minister: In view of the failure of the New South Wales and Victorian authorities to resolve their differences, can the Minister say whether he will immediately introduce legislation to protect this industry and some 60 or 70 jobs in the Territory?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I am advised by the Minister for the Capital Territory, whom I represent, that instability has occurred in the Australian Capital Territory egg industry following a decision by the Victorian Egg and Egg Pulp Marketing Board to market eggs in Canberra at prices substantially lower than those which apply in Melbourne, for instance. Whilst Australian Capital Territory consumers have derived some short term gain from this, in the longer run this action could undermine the viability of the efficient local industry and the security of employment within that industry in the Australian Capital Territory. The issues are quite complex. The action of the Board could add to rather than reduce instability in the industry. I understand that the Minister has taken the view- this is supported by the Australian Agricultural Councilthat the Board’s action is basically contrary to the principle of orderly marketing. Negotiations with the industry to resolve the issues have been unsuccessful to date. As a result of this, as Senator Knight has mentioned, legislation is being considered to re-establish in the Australian Capital Territory an environment in which orderly and efficient marketing can occur. The legislation, I understand, will be designed to ensure that egg marketing can proceed on a fair and reasonable basis and that the local industry and the people working in it are given reasonable protection.

page 1322

QUESTION

MENTALLY RETARDED CHILDREN’S SOCIETY OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA INC

Senator McLAREN:

– Is the Minister for Education aware that the Mentally Retarded Children’s Society of South Australia Inc. is of the opinion that officers of the Commonwealth Department of Education who administer the isolated children’s benefit have made an error in claiming that an over-payment was made to the Society for 1978 and for 1979 and that if this claim is persisted with many parents of handicapped children in South Australia will suffer further hardships? Will the Minister take immediate steps to rectify this injustice?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– This is the first time that such a suggestion has come to my attention. If Senator McLaren would provide me today with all of the relevant facts I will be happy to have the matter investigated speedily.

page 1322

QUESTION

DISALLOWED QUESTION

Senator MacGibbon having addressed a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services-

The PRESIDENT:

– That is so, as I have indicated time and time again. It must be realised by all honourable senators.

page 1323

QUESTION

MR TOMMY WHITE JAGAMARA: COMPENSATION

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– I preface my question to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs by reminding him that on 23 May 1979 I placed on notice a question regarding the late Mr Tommy White Jagamara of Ti Tree who was killed in a road accident in which members of his family were injured, and that subsequently parts of that question were answered. I ask: Was a coroner’s inquiry commenced at Alice Springs on 25 June 1979, partly heard and postponed to 8 August 1 979, or to any subsequent date? What were the findings of the coroner? Were charges laid against any person or persons as a result of the accident? Has any compensation been paid to the relatives of the late Mr Tommy White Jagamara?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

-I do not have the information that has been requested by the honourable senator but will seek it for him and give him an early reply.

page 1323

QUESTION

TUNA FISHERIES

Senator ARCHER:

-I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry: With the conclusion of arrangements with Japan for fishing in Australian waters upon the declaration of the 200-mile limit, could the Minister ascertain how the Australian tuna fishing interests are to be protected, in view particularly of the policy statement recorded at page 275 of the Australian Foreign Affairs Record of May 1 979, relative to the highly migratory species?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I will certainly put that question to the Minister for Primary Industry. I am uncertain as to the wording of the policy statement in the Australian Foreign Affairs Record to which the honourable senator refers but will immediately direct the Minister’s attention to the page reference that the honourable senator has given.

page 1323

AVGAS: MARANOA OIL REFINERY

The PRESIDENT:

– I call Senator McAuliffe.

Senator McAULIFFE:

- Mr President, I am pleased that you have seen me. I have been waiting patiently while Government senators have been getting the call twice.

Senator Peter Baume:

– I rise to a point of order. That statement is quite inaccurate. No Government senator has been called twice.

Senator MCAULIFFE:

- Senator MacGibbon has been called twice. The honourable senator cannot add up. I make no reflection on you, Sir. It is merely a statement of fact; but, as usual, Senator Baume cannot add up. He needs a lesson in arithmetic. I ask the Minister representing the Minister for National Development: Is he aware that recently the Queensland Government decided to investigate the possibility of producing avgas at the Maranoa oil refinery at Roma? Can the Minister inform the Senate whether his Department was invited to buy the refinery recently when it was up for sale? Secondly, is the Minister aware of the fact that the major reason that the refinery has not been producing avgas is that samples had to be flown to Melbourne for testing at either government establishments or those owned by other oil companies, and that neither group of establishments has the reputation of being particularly obliging to the refinery? In view of the current critical avgas shortage, will the Minister consider providing financial assistance to the refinery’s owners in order to enable them to purchase the necessary equipment continually to test and rate avgas in Roma, and not have to send it to Melbourne?

Senator DURACK:
LP

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

page 1323

COMMONWEALTH PAYMENTS TO WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I wish to add to an answer I gave to Senator Wriedt today regarding funding in the Western Australian State Budget. My advice with regard to the overall funding capacity of the Western Australian Government is that it was able for the fifth time- that is, in the fifth successive year- to bring down a balanced Budget which included cuts in death duties- they are to be abolished from 1 January next yearand the raising of payroll tax exemption levels by $2.2m in a full year. The State Government has imposed no new taxes. The Western Australian Government’s total expenditure will be $l,619m, up $165m or 12.1 per cent, which is well above the inflation rate. Indeed, the Commonwealth’s tax sharing payment to the State is up $83. 7m or 14.4 per cent. This confirms the information that I gave to the Senate in my response earlier.

page 1323

QUESTION

BLACK MARLIN

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-On Thursday, 1 1 October, Senator McAuliffe raised a number of questions concerning the Great Barrier Reef and black marlin. He raised four questions, I think, in his -

Senator McAuliffe:

– You gave me answers.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I am adding to them for the honourable senator. In answer to the first question as to whether I was aware that the second section of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park lies between Lizard Island and Innisfail, I answered no because the Authority has not yet proposed any area as the second section of the Marine Park. However, the Authority has sought public comment on the reef area adjacent to Cairns between Innisfail and Cooktown which the Authority is examining for possible declaration as part of the Marine Park. Honourable senators who had read the Authority’s advertisement in the Australian of 3 October 1979 will be aware that the Authority has in particular sought public comment on possible Park boundaries and coverage area. In due course I expect to receive a recommendation from the Authority in relation to the area it decides to propose as the next section of the Marine Park.

I also advised that I was not aware that the only known breeding areas for black marlin are in this region. In feet, information available shows that while scientists surmise that the north west Coral Sea is a black marlin breeding ground, it is not the only one. Another breeding area in the western Pacific exists in the south China Sea. As fish produce large numbers of eggs, it is generally not necessary to protect spawning females from fishing in order to ensure continuation of stocks at favourable levels unless fishing is very intense.

With regard to the third part of the question, I can confirm that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority was not consulted by the Department of Primary Industry. There was never any suggestion that the Japanese longline vessels would be allowed to fish on the Great Barrier Reef. In accordance with the agreement, the Japanese Government undertakes to ensure close co-operation in matters pertaining to conservation of living resources of the sea and to cooperate in the conduct of scientific research for the purpose of the effective conservation of the resources. Moreover, the agreement prohibits the Japanese tuna longline vessels from fishing in waters west of the outer edge of the Reef.

In respect of the last part of the question, I said I would take the matter up with the Minister for Primary Industry. He has advised that the Government accepts that foreign fishermen should not be allowed access to fisheries fully developed by Australian fishermen. This was one of the conclusions of the report of the working group established by the Australian Fisheries

Council and which presented its report in November 1 977. Fish of the Great Barrier Reef were included by the working group in the category of fisheries already developed by Australia. As mentioned, the Japanese tuna longline vessels will not be allowed to fish on the Great Barrier Reef. Moreover, to avoid interaction with Australian fishermen, the Japanese vessels will be excluded from an area west of a line at least 12 miles off the outer edge of the reef from 14 degrees 20 seconds to 1 8 degrees.

page 1324

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Senator KNIGHT (Australian Capital Territory) I wish to make a personal explanation.

The PRESIDENT:

– Does the honourable senator claim to have been misrepresented?

Senator KNIGHT:

– Yes. On page 1250 of the Senate Hansard of 1 1 October, during consideration of the Passports Amendment Bill 1979, Senator Evans was referring to end of season football trips. He referred to the capacity for disruption, loutishness and general barbarism of behaviour which sometimes attends these sorts of occasions. Hansard then records me as saying: A lot of them are rugby union sides’. In fact, I said: ‘Not if they are rugby union sides’. I am sure the Senate will appreciate that as a former player, as a representative of Parliament against the Australian Broadcasting Commission side, and as patron of the Australian Capital Territory Rugby Union, I would of course not make such a reflection on rugby union sides, although I cannot speak for other codes.

page 1324

PRIMARY INDUSTRY LEGISLATION

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– Last Thursday Senator McLaren asked me whether Bills dealing with primary industry would be introduced at the end of the sittings or earlier. I undertook to seek information for the honourable senator. I have made some inquiries and I am informed that any primary industry legislation intended for passage in these sittings which has not been introduced already can be expected in the very near future. Of course, arrangements for debating time will depend on the progress of necessary legislation, including the Budget Bills.

page 1324

DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRY

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

– For the information of honourable senators I present the annual report of the Department of Primary Industry 1978-79.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

-by leave- I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1325

DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the annual report of the Department of Industry and Commerce 1978-79.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-by leave -I move:

I would just make a brief comment that it would be of assistance to the Senate if these reports were to come down prior to consideration of the Department’s Estimates committees. Both of these reports have come down subsequently. I think it would materially assist members of the committees if they had the annual report of the Department before them when they investigated the estimates. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1325

SENATE ESTIMATES COMMITTEES

Estimates Committee A

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

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

Leave granted.

Estimates Committee B

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

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

Leave granted.

Estimates Committee C

Senator WALTERS:
Tasmania

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

Leave granted.

Senator WALTERS:

– I have just been reading the additional information supplied by the Department of Health. On page 29 I have found what I believe to be inaccuracies. I will require an additional explanation from the Department in this regard.

Estimates Committee E

Senator TOWNLEY:
Tasmania

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

Leave granted.

Estimates Committee F

Senator COLLARD:
Queensland

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

Leave granted.

page 1325

PROGRAMS OF THE EDUCATION COMMISSIONS FOR 1980

Ministerial Statement

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– by leave- In August I tabled in the Senate the reports prepared by the Tertiary Education Commission and the Schools Commission in response to the Government’s funding guidelines for the calendar year 1980, which I announced on 5 June. I noted that both commissions for the first time had also reported, as requested, on the arrangements for and the allocation of Commonwealth specific purpose funds for education in the Northern Territory. I also indicated that the Schools Commission’s recommendations concerning longer term funding arrangements, which went beyond the guidelines for the next program year of 1980, would be considered by the Government in the context of developing policy and financial guidelines for the Commission’s programs after 1980. The Commission’s other recommendations concerning school/work transition and youth policy will be looked at in the context of the Government’s on-going consideration of possible initiatives in these areas. The guidelines provided by the Government enabled the commissions to develop programs for 1980 totalling $ 1,960.5m at estimated December 1978 price levels. Existing cost supplementation arrangements will continue to apply. The following table shows the total guideline allocations for each sector for 1980 in comparison with 1979, exclusive of the allocations for the Northern Territory:

When I announced the guidelines for the commissions’ programs, I indicated that the overall allocation of funds reflected a most careful assessment of these programs, in the context of the Government’s commitment to containing the Budget deficit. Nevertheless, education has maintained a high place in budget priorities. I turn now to the programs in each sector.

Tertiary Education

The Government’s guidelines to the Tertiary Education Commission for 1980 provided in total $89.6m for the capital and equipment programs of universities and colleges of advanced education, $54.6m for technical and further education recurrent funds and $80. 3m for TAFE capital funding as well as $0.4m for tertiary evaluative studies. These grants are at estimated December 1978 price levels and are subject to the normal cost supplementation arrangements. In 1979 this Government reintroduced fixed triennial funding for recurrent expenditure other than equipment. Consequently the recurrent expenditure programs for universities and CAEs for 1980 and 1981 have already been determined and have been appropriated in legislation. The grants that I am announcing today therefore exclude these funds. In the case of TAFE, recurrent funding levels have been determined separately for 1980 and future funding levels will be subject to the outcome of the Government’s consideration of the Williams report. The Commission’s recommended allocations of funds for 1980 between programs and between States and institutions are consistent with the discretion allowed in the guidelines and the Government has accepted them. Accordingly the following base allocations of funds have now been approved for 1980:

In addition, the Government has approved the Commission’s recommended base allocation of $6. 128m in respect of tertiary education in the Northern Territory for 1 980, details of which are shown in the table that follows. In order that the Northern Territory enjoys the same triennial funding arrangements applying in the States and the Australian Capital Territory, the Government has also approved a base allocation of $2. 7m for advanced education recurrent programs in the Territory for 1981, which is the same real level as approved for 1 980.

In its recommendations on the allocation of available funds for universities and CAEs between capital and equiment, the Commission was also requested, under the Government’s guidelines, to include appropriate provision for the Australian Maritime College so that teaching on its Newnham site could begin in 1981. The $28.2m in capital funds approved for CAEs compares with $39.6m in 1979. However, the funds approved for 1980 will meet the costs of all ongoing commitments as well as $5. 1 m for the Australian Maritime College, $1.4m for the commencement of severomal new capital projects in the States and $5. 5m for minor works. The total capital allocation approved for universities will be some $2. 7m less than in 1979 but this level of funds will be sufficient to meet all ongoing commitments in 1980 and minor works amounting to $5m.

The equipment funds of $30m approved for universities represents the same level as the 1 979 grants. Equipment funds approved for colleges of advanced education amount to $14.4m as compared with $ 16.7m in 1979. The Commission agreed with its Advanced Education Council that, in recommending the allocation of available capital and equipment funds for advanced education, greater priority should be given to capital works.

As indicated in the guidelines, the grants to be provided for technical and further education in the States will increase by 10.7 per cent in real terms. The approved allocations for TAFE in the Northern Territory for 1980, which I referred to earlier, include $0.428m recurrent funds and $3m capital. The Government has agreed with the recommendation of the Commission to provide for TAFE particular purpose recurrent grants under four broad categories instead of the existing 14. The newly approved categories will be: Firstly, curriculum research and development; secondly, provision of services to assist learning and learners in TAFE; thirdly, analysis of educational needs, processes and outcomes of TAFE services; and fourthly, improvement of management services. The Commission has also proposed that the Government reintroduce fixed triennial funding for equipment grants in tertiary education as from the commencement of the next triennium 1982-84. The Government will give careful consideration to this proposal at an appropriate later stage.

Schools

The Government’s financial guidelines to the Schools Commission for 1980 provided in total for $631. 8m in estimated December 1978 price levels. These grants are subject to the normal cost supplementation arrangements. Government schools will receive $338m, and nongovernment schools $270.6m, while $23.2m is to be shared jointly between the government and non-government sectors. In accordance with the guidelines, the Schools Commission has made recommendations on the apportionment of funds between certain programs and between States. The Government has accepted all of the allocations recommended by the Commission but has incorporated one modification in respect of New South Wales, to which I will refer later. Details of funding approved for individual programs in each State are shown in the table that follows. The Government’s decisions provide for the continuation of all existing programs for government and non-government schools and all existing joint programs.

In making its recommendations on the distribution of funds for government schools in 1 980 between States, the Commission proposed the same general basis as in 1 979 but excluded needs adjustments from its recommended distribution of general recurrent grants. This change was made after consultation between the Commission and the States and recognises that all government school systems will almost certainly have achieved the Karmel resource targets in 1979. Having noted with satisfaction the standards of resource use achieved in government schools, the Government has accepted the Commission’s proposal to discontinue the needs adjustment. Since the Commission’s report was made public, the New South Wales Government has requested that an amount of $6.068m be transferred from its general capital to general recurrent allocations. The Government has accepted this modification.

For non-government schools, the Commission’s recommendations accord with the Government’s guidelines which provide for increases in grants to schools in level 6, the lowest resource category, so as to bring subsidies in 1980 in respect of primary and secondary pupils from 33.5 per cent to 34 per cent and from 31.4 per cent to 32 per cent, respectively, of standard per pupil running costs in government schools. This represents increases of $5 per primary pupil and $9 per secondary pupil, in addition to the increases approved for schools in all levels arising from the automatic linkage of subsidies with movements in government school costs. The per capita rates to apply in 1980 in the States and Territories together with existing 1979 grants, in estimated March 1979 prices, are as follows, and are subject to the normal cost supplementation arrangements:

The Government has accepted the Commission’s recommendations for the allocation of the increased levels of funds for migrant and multicultural education programs in government and non-government schools. The recommendations incorporate further adjustment to an imbalance in funding among the States and Territories, carried forward from earlier programs. The recommendations of the Commission on detailed allocations for schools in the Northern Territory for 1980 have been accepted by the Government with one exception. As the Government has already made allowance for higher costs in the Territory within its general purpose grants, the additional loadings recommended by the Commission have been excluded from the approved specific purpose grants. Details of the funding approved for individual programs in the Northern Territory are shown in a table that follows.

The Commission has also made proposals on arrangement for the administration of its programs in the Northern Territory and has recommended that the programs be administered on the advice of two committees, that is, the already existing Northern Territory Planning and Finance Committee in relation to the nongovernment schools general recurrent and capital grants programs, and a Programs Committee in relation to the other programs. These proposals are acceptable to both the Northern Territory and the Commonwealth in the special circumstances of the Territory as reported by the Commission. I understand that the Northern Territory Government will now take steps to establish the Programs Committee. I look forward to the education authorities in the Northern Territory developing close and effective relationships with both the education commissions and wish them every success in the future. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard tables summarising the financial details of the programs now approved for tertiary education and for schools.

Leave granted.

The tables read as follows-

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-Legislation will be introduced into the Parliament without delay, to give effect to these decisions.

Supplementary Schools Statistics

When I tabled the report of the Schools Commission for 1980 in the Senate on 30 August I indicated that I would be providing for the information of honourable senators supplementary statistical data on schools to assist in the understanding of some issues in the report. The data is relevant to the decisions of the Government which I have just outlined. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard statistics on schools in Australia as set out in tables numbered 1 to 4, which have been derived from Schools Commission sources and from Commonwealth and State Budget papers.

Leave granted.

The tables read as follows-

Table 1

page 1330

RECURRENT RESOURCE USE PER STUDENT IN

GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS, BY STATES, COMPARED WITH RECURRENT RESOURCE USE TARGETS 1974, 1975, 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1977-78 (percent)

In this table both primary and secondary targets are represented by 1 00 per cent. A value of 82 per cent indicates that a State is 1 8 per cent below the target, a value of 1 20 per cent indicates that a State is 20 per cent ahead of target.

Deflation of recurrent resource use involves a number of adjustments to the running cost figures shown in Table 2. These adjustments have been detailed in the Commission Reports, in particular Chapter 3 of Schools Commission Report for the Triennium 1979-81. In general, they involve measures to achieve consistency of treatment among the

States for salary levels, Commission Specific Purpose Grants (excluded), superannuation and enrolments.

Table 2

page 1330

OPERATING EXPENDITURE PER STUDENT IN GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS BY INDIVIDUAL STATES COMPARED WITH AVERAGE EXPENDITURE IN THE SIX STATES 1973-74, 1974-75, 1975-76, 1976-77

page 1330

AND 1977-78

Constant Prices (Est. Dec. 1978 levels)

These expenditure figures are derived by dividing total expenditure by State governments on government school running costs by average enrolments over the financial year. They include expenditure from all Schools Commission and other Commonwealth grants for schools. They exclude expenditure on transport, scholarships, payroll tax, pre-service teacher education and debt servicing. Table 3 PUBLIC CAPITAL EXPENDITURE ON GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS 1969-70 TO 1978-79 (December 1978 price levels) ($m) Under Commonwealth legislation, funds for capital programs are provided for projects commencing at any time in the year to which a particular Act applies. Actual expenditure of funds follows the progress of construction which frequently extends beyond the end of the year in which funds are committed. The actual expenditure shown for particular financial years in this table will not, therefore, be comparable with amounts specified in Commonwealth legislation in respect of the corresponding years. Sources: (a) Commonwealth Budget Papers, Payments to or for the States. Prices adjusted. Includes government schools' share of Joint Programs, Aboriginal Advancement and Child Migrant Education. September 1979 Table 4 PUBLIC CAPITAL EXPENDITURE ON NON-GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS 1969-70 TO 1978-79 (December 1978 price levels) Under Commonwealth legislation, funds for capital programs are provided for approved projects commencing at any time in the year to which a particular Act applies. Actual expenditure of funds follows the progress of construction which frequently extends beyond the end of the year in which funds are committed. The actual expenditure shown for particular financial years in this table will not, therefore, be comparable with amounts specified in Commonwealth legislation in respect of the corresponding years. Sources: Commonwealth Budget Papers, Payments to or for the States. Prices adjusted. Includes non-government schools' share of Joint Programs, Aboriginal Advancement and Child Migrant Education. Note: The Commonwealth is the sole source of public capital funds for non-government schools. Most State governments provide recurrent interest subsidies at varying rates on money borrowed to finance building projects. September 1979 {: #debate-45-s0 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator CARRICK:
LP -- These tables show the total public expenditure on schools because, in the final analysis, it is the total resources available to schools which are relevant rather than the sources of funds. In particular, it is the total recurrent resource use of schools on which comparisons with the Karmel targets are made. Table 1 shows the progress of government schools in terms of their per pupil recurrent resources, when measured against the Karmel resource targets which were set by the Schools Commission to be achieved by 1980 for primary schools and 1982 for secondary schools. Through joint State and Commonwealth effort, government school systems, on their combined resource use at primary and secondary levels, were 7 per cent ahead of the targets by 1977-78. All but two States, at the secondary level, had reached the targets in that year; some States were in fact 10 per cent or more above the targets. Table 2 shows the expenditure on government schools in individual States against the average of the six States. This table also enables comparisons to be made of the recurrent resource levels of government schools in individual States with those of catholic and other non-government schools as set out in table B1 of the Commission's report. The Commission's table B1 demonstrates that average per pupil expenditure, including contributed services, in all nongovernment schools has increased in real terms and, in the case of non-catholic schools, shows that in 1977, on average, they were 2.2 per cent and 4.8 per cent above the six-States averages for government primary and secondary schools respectively. Table 2 shows that in 1 977-78 four of the State government systems were above the six-States averages by 4 per cent to 10 per cent and 7 per cent to 9 per cent respectively, at primary and secondary levels. In the case of catholic schools, average per pupil expenditure, including contributed services, has increased in real terms between 1974 and 1977 by 18.9 percent primary and 1 3.4 per cent secondary, compared with 32.4 per cent and 2 1 per cent for government primary and secondary schools respectively. Tables 3 and 4 show total public capital expenditure on government and nongovernment schools respectively over the past decade. In estimated December 1978 prices over $4.5 billion- $4,500m- has been invested in government schools in this period, which represents a growth over the decade of 27 per cent in real terms, compared with an enrolment growth of 10 per cent. Over this same period, some $0.3 billion, or $284.7m, has been invested by the public sector in non-government schools capital facilities. This investment represents about 6 per cent of the total capital expenditure on all schools. In summary, these statistics demonstrate considerable progress in both government and non-government schools. I move: {: #debate-45-s1 .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania -- The statement put down by the Minister for Education **(Senator Carrick)** shows firstly that in 1980 there will be a reduction- not an increase but a reduction- in Commonwealth funding for education. For universities and colleges actual expenditure in real terms will decline by $ 16m and expenditure on schools will decline by $38m. There will be an overall reduction of $4 1 m. The information we have received falls into three categories. The first is the reference to various issues which in many cases are pressing but which are still under examination, with no indication of when we may expect some decision. Secondly, there is the rather bland statement of the levels of funding under various headings for this year compared with last year. In almost all categories these levels are down, as I have indicated, but there is no justification in educational terms as to why they are down, nor is there any explanation as to how universities, colleges and schools are to cope in many of these areas. Thirdly, the statement ends with what appears to be an indication of great satisfaction with the progress that has been made in the schools area, and I will come back to that later. It is true that there has been some progress- it would be idle to suggest otherwisebut what we are not told is that this has been due to the machinery and the precedents set up in 1973-74 by the previous Government. Since then, advances have occurred despite rather than because of the policies of the present Government. The history of that Government has been one of whittling away the reforms just as fast as it has been electorally safe up to now to get away with it. Dealing with the first category, that is, the matters deferred, I note that the statement comments that future funding levels for 1 98 1 and beyond for technical and further education will be determined after the Government considers the report of the Williams Committee of Inquiry into Education and Training. It is worth recalling that the establishment of the Williams Committee was announced on 9 September 1976, three years ago, yet even now the Government falls back on the argument that it is still considering the Williams Committee report. There has been criticism of the alleged haste of the previous Labor Government in relation to education, it being very often said that too much was done too quickly, but I query whether that was not better than the snail's pace at which progress is being made now. The report of the Williams Committee was presented early this year, I think in February. It is comprehensive and contains many recommendations. It also debunks a few myths that have been nurtured carefully by this Government, such as the myth that schools are responsible for youth unemployment. I suspect that it is the problem of coming face to face with reality and translating into action the rhetoric to which we have listened for so long that is causing the delay. For a long time this Government has dined out on its self-proclaimed superiority in matters of the economy, and it is delays such as this that expose the speciousness of that line. Triennial funding is another issue on which there is no resolution. We are told that the Commission has proposed the reintroduction of fixed triennial funding for equipment grants for the 1982-84 triennium and that the Government will give further consideration to this proposal at an appropriate later stage. It seems to me that this is a matter of urgency. In a time of slow or no growth in numbers in universities and colleges, more confidence in planning is necessary. While the matter is being considered, some thought should also be given to the need for greater flexibility in funding, including the movement of funds across categories within universities. The requirements of proper accounting in a financial sense and public accountability in an educational sense are not inconsistent with a greater discretion being allowed to tertiary institutions themselves. The statement goes on to detail the grants to schools. It states that all government school systems will almost certainly have achieved the Karmel resource targets by 1979. This matter is often put this way by the Government. The truth is that all systems on average have reached the targets set by Professor Karmel. The statement says nothing about those still below the target or about the capital deficiencies. It ignores the fact that there are grave deficiencies in some areas, especially those which are growing rapidly. In the supplementary school statistics at the end of the statement there is a comprehensive table of the progress made over recent years. I hope that the Senate will not be so naive as to accept the implied suggestion that this is due to the policies of the present Government. This is basically due to the long and great work of the previous Labor Government and the amount of finance it put into the education system. The statement of progress and the reaching of the Karmel targets mean that we must reassess where we go from here. There are problems to be solved urgently, such as the role and responsibilities of the different funding bodies- the Commonwealth, the States and the private effort. There is the problem of the lack of a youth policy. This is not a time for the self-congratulatory remarks contained in this statement. We need an indication of where we are going in this area of education. I come now to the final statement on page 1 1 of the circulated copy of the statement, which refers to over $4.5 billion being invested in government schools in the period mentioned and states that this represents a growth over a decade of 27 per cent in real terms. That statement is referring, of course, to the tables on pages 3 and 4. 1 have not had the time to give any detailed study to these tables but I have looked at them in a cursory sense. Table 3, which relates to public capital expenditure on government schools, of which the Minister seemed to be so proud when he was making his address, shows that in the Budgets of 1973, 1974 and 1975 the amount provided was $532m. But in the next three years the amounts provided under the present Government did not reach that figure. They totalled $440m. Almost $ 100m less was provided in the first three years of the Fraser Government than in the three years of office of the Labor Government. That is why I said earlier that-- {: .speaker-RG4} ##### Senator Gietzelt: -- That is now allowing for inflation. {: .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator WRIEDT: -- The tables are said to be in adjusted prices- December 1978 price levels. Even so, this still means that $ 100m less has been provided under this Government in three years. The Government claims all the credit for the fact that it has reached the Karmel level of funding, but the figures produced in this statement by the Minister debunk that argument and establish beyond doubt that the real impetus took place in the previous three years. Table 4 deals with public capital expenditure on non-government schools. If we do a quick bit of arithmetic we find that over three years the Labor Government provided approximately $ 1 10m and that this Government has provided about $100m. I do not think the figure is even $100m. I think it is about $97m. The figures which we have been given today by the Government show beyond any doubt whatsoever that in fact the great stimulus that has been given to education in this country over the past decade commenced in the financial year 1973-74 when capital funding to non-government schools was doubled. It rose from $14.7m to $29.9m. This Government did not double any expenditure in its first year of office; it almost halved the amount of capital expenditure going to the nongovernment sector. It immediately dropped the allocations from the $39.3m of the 1975 Budget of the Labor Government to $24. 1 m. Let us take a comparative look at the capital expenditure table on government schools. We have exactly the same story. In the first year of the previous Labor Government, Commonwealth capital funding for government schools was doubled in the first year- from $60m to $121m. In the first Budget of this Government spending on government schools was reduced from $ 152.9m down to $ 147.6m. It is also interesting to note that even under the 1978-79 estimate the figure of $ 141m is still less than that allocated in the last year of the previous Labor Government. This Government claims that it is the one that has brought things up to the Karmel level. Its own figures give the lie to the argument and the rhetoric which we have listened to for so long about what this Government has done about education. It has cut into education programs in every sphere in Australia since it came to office. **Senator Carrick** guaranteed that his Government would maintain standards of education and funding. He said that this would apply not only in education but also right across the whole gamut of Commonwealth responsibility. This evidence shows that those commitments have not been met. In real terms the funding has declined. The Government takes the credit for something that it did not do. The Government has run away from every commitment. {: .speaker-PJ4} ##### Senator Teague: -- We have exceeded the targets. {: .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator WRIEDT: -- You are part of it, **Senator Teague.** Why do you not keep out of it? You have never stood in this place and made an intelligent speech in defence of your Government's policy. {: #debate-45-s2 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order! {: .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator WRIEDT: **-Mr President,** if the honourable senator interjects he must expect to get slapped down. I restate, in the strongest terms possible, that the evidence is there that this Government has fooled around with this issue ever since it came to office. One thing is sure: The educationists of this country have finally woken up to the charade and the rhetoric that we have listened to for the last three or four years about funding for schools and the tertiary sector. There is no intention on this Government's part even to maintain present levels of funding. It still intends to force the States, if it can, into the cost-sharing arrangements whereby tertiary education will be partly funded again by State governments instead of being fully funded by the Commonwealth. There is nothing surer than that if the ultimate disaster overcomes us at the next election and the Fraser Government is returned to office the State governments will be sharing partprobably 40 per cent- of tertiary education funding in the first year or two after 1 980. 1 seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. {: .page-start } page 1334 {:#debate-46} ### STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL WELFARE {: .page-start } page 1334 {:#debate-47} ### JOINT COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS {: #debate-47-s0 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- I inform the Senate that I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate **(Senator Wriedt)** requesting that **Senator Grimes** be discharged from further attendance on the Standing Committee on Social Welfare, and nominating **Senator Georges** to be a member of the Committee. I have also received a letter from **Senator Keeffe** requesting that he be discharged from further attendance on the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. Motion (by **Senator Wriedt)-** by leaveagreed to: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) That **Senator Grimes** be discharged from further attendance on the Standing Committee on Social Welfare, and that **Senator Georges,** having been duly nominated in accordance with Standing Order 36AA, be appointed a member of the Committee. 1. That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Accounts Committee Act 1931, **Senator Keeffe** be discharged from further attendance on the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and that **Senator Georges** be appointed a member of the Committee. {: .page-start } page 1334 {:#debate-48} ### LOCAL GOVERNMENT (PERSONAL INCOME TAX SHARING) AMENDMENT 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 Carrick)** read a first time. {:#subdebate-48-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-48-0-s0 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP -- I move: >That the Bill be now read a second lime. I seek leave for the text of the second reading speech to be incorporated in *Hansard.* Leave granted. *The speech read as follows-* The main purpose of this Bill is to increase the annual percentage of net personal income tax collections allocated to local government under the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976 from 1.52 percent to 1.75 per cent). In his election policy speech in November 1977, the Prime Minister **(Mr Malcolm Fraser)** announced that the share of net personal income tax collections allocated to local government would be increased to 2 per cent by 1980-8 1 . The increase proposed in the Bill is a major step towards fulfilling that promise. One of the aims of the Government's federalism policy is that State governments and local authorities should have maximum independence and flexibility in determining their priorities and carrying out their functions. Accordingly, the Government has placed emphasis on the provision of 'untied' funds to them through giving them access to a share of personal income tax revenue. As a result of the tax sharing arrangements which were introduced in 1976-77, general revenue or 'untied' funds made available to local authorities have increased very substanially- by 125 per cent in the three years to 1978-79. The proposed increase in local government's percentage share of income tax revenue in 1979-80 means that local government's entitlement in 1979-80 will be $22 l.74m. That represents an increase of no less than 23.6 per cent on last year's amount. In the light of the budgetary difficulties facing the Government that is a generous increase indeed. I note that it will not be possible to provide the funds for local government at this new higher level until the legislation is amended as proposed in this Bill. In addition to increasing the percentage share of net personal income tax collections allocated to local government, this Bill is intended to permit reviews from time to time of the relative State shares of the funds provided for local government under the tax sharing arrangements. The State percentages are set out in sub-section 5 (2) of the Act and were revised in 1 977, following a review by the Commonwealth Grants Commission. At present, sub-section 12 (2) of the Act states that the Minister- in this case, the Prime Minister- shall, before 30 June 1981, arrange for the question of whether any change is desirable in the percentage distribution set out in sub-section 5 (2) to be referred to the Commonwealth Grants Commission for inquiry and report by the Commission. This sub-section may be read as providing for one review only, and as one such review has taken place, an amendment is proposed to make it clear that the matter may be referred to the Commonwealth Grants Commission on future occasions. Honourable senators may recall that in introducing the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Amendment Bill 1977 I told the Senate that following a suggestion by the honourable member for Sturt **(Mr Wilson)** in the House of Representatives, consideration was being given, in consultation with the States, to the question of making specific provision in the legislation that the Commonwealth Grants Commission should follow equalisation principles in future reviews of States' shares of the local government tax sharing entitlement. The matter of principles and procedures to be followed in relation to future reviews of State relativities and whether any of the principles and procedures should be included in the legislation was subsequently referred to the Commission for inquiry and report. The outcome was the Commission's special report 1979 on financial assistance for local government tabled on 23 August. Copies of the special report have been sent to the States and their views on the recommendations sought. We shall be examining the matter when the States have made their views known. Further legislation may be required then. In the meantime, and irrespective of the outcome of these processes, the Government has considered it desirable to take the opportunity to widen the provisions of sub-section 12 (2) to permit reviews of the States' percentage shares from time to time. It is in the interest of local government throughout Australia that this Bill receive passage promptly and I commend it to the Senate. Debate (on motion by **Senator Georges)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 1335 {:#debate-49} ### NITROGENOUS FERTILIZERS SUBSIDY AMENDMENT 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 Guilfoyle)** read a first time. {:#subdebate-49-0} #### Second Reading **Senator GUILFOYLE** (Victoria-Minister for Social Security) (4.23)- I move: I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in *Hansard.* Leave granted. *The speech read as follows-* The purpose of the Bill now before the Senate is to extend the operation of the Nitrogenous fertilisers subsidy scheme for a further year until 3 1 December 1 980 at a rate of subsidy of $20 per tonne of nitrogen content. The current subsidy of $40 per tonne of nitrogen content will continue to be paid until 31 December 1979. The extension of the operation of this scheme was foreshadowed by my colleague the Treasurer **(Mr Howard)** in a statement on 24 May 1979 concerning decisions on expenditure and taxation. The cost to the Government of this scheme during 1980 is estimated to be $5m. The reduction in the rate of subsidy during 1980 is in accordance with an earlier Government decision, announced in the 1 976-77 Budget Speech, that the subsidy on nitrogenous fertilisers would be phased out. This decision followed the Government's consideration of a report by the Industries Assistance Commission on 5 September 1975. In that report the Commission recommended that the subsidy should be progressively reduced and cease on 31 December 1978. However, the Government decided to review the scheme on an annual basis and set an appropriate rate of subsidy taking into account the outlook for the user industries and the need to maintain budgetary restraint over public expenditure. The Bill proposes that from 1 January 1980 until 31 December 1980 subsidy will be payable in respect of locally produced nitrogenous fertilisers which are sold for use in Australia as fertiliser and also in respect of imported nitrogenous fertilisers which are either used in Australia as a fertiliser by the importer or are sold by the importer for such use in Australia. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. Debate (on motion by **Senator Georges)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 1336 {:#debate-50} ### MIGRATION AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 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 Guilfoyle)** read a first time. {:#subdebate-50-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-50-0-s0 .speaker-C7D} ##### Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP -- I move: >That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in *Hansard.* Leave granted. *The speech read as follows-* As announced by the Treasurer **(Mr Howard)** on 2 1 August in the Budget Speech the Government has decided to introduce charges to recover certain administrative costs currently incurred by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. The proposed charges are: The introduction of these charges is consistent with the Government's policy of achieving cost recovery for services provided by departments. Charges for these services are generally in line with the practice of other comparable countries. In Europe and North America it is usual to charge for a wide array of immigration and consular services. For example, the United Kingdom and United States of America charge for cables is identical with that now proposed. The United States of America charges $20 for immigrant visas and also charges for documentary evidence of status. All Australian visas will continue to be issued free of charge. Several Australian professional bodies already charge for assessment of the qualifications of persons educated overseas and this principle is now to be extended to the Government's service. In other countries educational institutions have to carry the responsibility of assessing the language skills of applicants for admission from other overseas countries. The charges will be mainly incurred by people who are not Australian citizens and will place those persons resident in Australia in a position similar to Australian citizens who must pay for passports in order to travel overseas. With the exception of charges for English language tests at overseas posts, it is proposed that all charges will be levied from 1 November 1979. The English language test fee will be charged from 1 January 1980. In order to implement charges for the first four of these services, an amendment to section 67 of the Migration Act 1958 is required. The remaining three charges will be raised administratively as the services are not recognised under the Act but are provided as a service only on request. The amendment to the Act to give effect to the implementation of the first four charges is proposed by clause 5 of the Bill. The clause will permit the making of regulations imposing fees in respect of these services. The necessary regulations to prescribe the level of charges are currently being prepared. It should be noted by honourable senators that under the existing provisions of section 67, fees can be prescribed in respect of any documents issued under the Act. Advice has been received that the present form of entry permits and evidence of grant of change of status in Australia are not documents as such but stamps placed upon a person 's passport. In order to avoid the need to give these authorities separately in documentary form, an amendment to the section is needed to enable the charges to be raised. In the interests of flexibility, it is desirable that the empowering provisions of section 67 be cast as broadly as possible to facilitate the introduction by regulation of any future charges without the need for further amendment to the Act. The amendment will thus permit the prescribing of fees to cover a broader category of services than that presently proposed. Clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill make two minor machinery amendments to the Act. Clause 3 will amend the definition of an authorised officer to empower the Minister to appoint any person to perform any or all of the duties conferred upon an authorised officer by the Act. At present the Minister is empowered to appoint only officers of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Customs officers and members of the Commonwealth, State and Territory Police Forces as authorised officers. The amendment will enable the Minister to appoint officers of the Departments of Foreign Affairs and Trade and Resources and, in some instances, persons employed by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the United Kingdom Government, to grant visas and return endorsements to persons wishing to travel to Australia. These appointments will be made only in those situations where Australia is not represented in the particular overseas country or where officers of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs are not employed at overseas posts. Clause 4 of the Bill amends section 3 1 of the Act to make it an offence for a person to produce false documents, papers, et cetera, not only to an officer but also to an authorised officer. The amendment is necessary as a result of the introduction of the statutory visa and return endorsement system by the Migration Amendment Bill 1979 which is currently before the Senate. As only authorised officers may, under that Bill, grant visas and return endorsements, it is necessary to ensure that those persons who apply for a visa or return endorsement for travel to Australia are liable to a penalty for producing to an authorised officer false information in an attempt to gain a visa or return endorsement. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. Debate (on motion by **Senator Mulvihill)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 1337 {:#debate-51} ### STATES GRANTS (ROADS) AMENDMENT BILL 1979 {:#subdebate-51-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from 1 1 October, on motion by **Senator Carrick:** >That the Bill be now read a second time. {: #subdebate-51-0-s0 .speaker-RG4} ##### Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales -- The Opposition will not oppose this Bill, but the Bill throws light on the present Government's convoluted priorities. As each day, each month and each year go by it is becoming increasingly clear that the Government's Budget policies, economic policies, social welfare policies and federalism policies are not producing the sort of response sought from the Australian community. Certainly they are not inspiring the regeneration of the economy which was supposed to have been the strategy of this Government when it was elected to office in 1 975. When looking at this piece of legislation we should contrast, on the one hand, the massive sum of money being taken from the ordinary motorist in the form of regressive petrol tax and, on the other hand, the declining amount of revenue being channelled into road works. If I read the amendment moved by the Australian Labor Party in the House of Representatives to the motion that the Bill be read a second time in that place, it will give a clear indication of our objection to this Government's policies as they relate to State and local government and to road programs. I quote the amendment that was moved as follows: >Whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House is of the opinion that the level of funds provided in the Bill for road purposes in 1 979-80- > >demonstrates that the Commonwealth's share of expenditure on road construction and maintenance, expressed in real terms, has seriously declined since the Fraser Government came to power and will further decline, whereas Federal revenue from fuel taxes and levies has more than doubled in the same period and will further increase; > >ignores the urgent necessity to accelerate road construction and maintenance programs designed to improve the quality of the Australian road system as a vital component of the national economy; > >fails to pursue policies designed to increase employment opportunities, and > >does not develop a responsible transport energy conservation program '. By this Bill the Government intends to reduce in real terms the funding going to the States for roadworks. Of course, this only continues the trend of the last few years. The Bureau of Transport Economics has reported that over the five-year period from 1974-75 to 1978-79 the Australian Government's expenditure on road construction and maintenance has fallen by about 6 per cent in real terms. This shortfall in Federal funding has forced the State and local governments to make up the difference by diverting badly needed funds from elsewhere. This makes a mockery of the Government's claims to have a co-operative federalism scheme and it makes a mockery of the Government's proposals to fund local government so that local government can adequately carry out its areas of responsibility. As a result of changes in the formulas, brought about by the reduction of Federal funds, the States have had to place more financial and maintenance responsibility in the area of local government. If the States are to maintain the level of road construction and maintenance which was hitherto possible, they have to divert State funds from other areas of public responsibilities. In 1977, in referring to the principal Act, the Minister for Transport **(Mr Nixon)** told the House of Representatives that the Government had promised the States that it would maintain, in real terms, the value of grants to them in the coming financial years 1978-79 and 1979-80. My colleague **Senator Wriedt** has just referred to the cuts in real terms, as well as in actual funding, that have occurred so far as education is concerned. The Government, since it came to office, has made serious cut-backs in education funding and now makes them in respect to road construction. However, it has indulged in subterfuge by basing its increases on movements in a new indicator, the implicit price deflator, in respect of private investment in other buildings and construction. But this deflator is not accurate. It is but another example of how the Government's economists use jargon and new indicators to give effect to the fundamental philosophy of the Government that public sector spending should be cut back. The Government, in good faith, should have adjusted funding in line with the actual price increases in road construction and maintenance. For example, in the years 1970 to 1975 on average the road price index rose by some 13.6 per cent. In the same period the consumer price index rose by an average of 4.9 per cent and the implicit gross fixed capital expenditure deflator rose by 10.6 per cent. But what is the real position? Road construction costs, whether in respect of maintenance or construction, have risen at a much faster rate for a variety of reasons, including price rises in bituminous products following increases in oil prices and, indeed, labour and other costs. *Road News,* the journal of the Australian Road Federation, has realised the duplicity of this Government and has taken up the cry that we are hearing from more and more sources as the Government's term of office expires. In a recent article headed 'Lies, lies, lies' in the September 1979 issue, we read: >It is a fact that over the last few years promises and performance in the area of road funding have continued to diverge. {: .speaker-ME4} ##### Senator Peter Baume: -- I rise to a point of order. With not great emotion, I simply ask whether the use of the term lies lies, lies' is in accordance with the Standing Orders. {: #subdebate-51-0-s1 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -Is the honourable senator using them in the context of what appeared in a publication? {: .speaker-RG4} ##### Senator GIETZELT: -- It is a quote from a newspaper dealing with road funds. I do not know why **Senator Peter** Baume is so sensitive. It is not my expression; it is a quotation from a newspaper. {: .speaker-ME4} ##### Senator Peter Baume: **- Mr President,** I believe that you gave a ruling that it was not permissible to quote from a newspaper words which, if used on their own by an honourable senator, would not be parliamentary. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Yes. {: .speaker-ME4} ##### Senator Peter Baume: -- I did not hear the exact context of the quotation. {: .speaker-RG4} ##### Senator GIETZELT: -- For the benefit of the honourable senator, I repeat that I am quoting from *Road News,* the journal of the Australian Road Federation. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: **- Senator, this** matter having arisen earlier I ruled that for an honourable senator to quote language that was in itself unparliamentary would equally be out of order. However, the matter was referred to the Standing Orders Committee for determination and in the meantime I would appreciate it if such references were not used. {: .speaker-RG4} ##### Senator GIETZELT: -- The article goes on: >There has been no real growth in road funds and the Government has failed to meet its pledge to 'maintain the value of these grants in real terms'. Although the Government has cut back road works funding it reaps huge sums from the Australian motorist. Farmers and other country dwellers are particularly hard hit. For example, in 1979-80 the Government expects to rake in some $2,023m by the crude oil levy. It takes 42c of every dollar paid for petrol. The oil companies, which take 33c are the other main beneficiaries. The oil-producing countries take 11.5c and the service stations 13.5c. So it is a clear case not of taking from Peter to pay Paul but of robbing both Peter and Paul. That is exactly what this Government is doing as far as the Australian motorist is concerned. Under the proposed legislation New South Wales, for example, will receive back $ 177m but the Federal Government will have taken from New South Wales motorists $675m, or $498m more than it will return. Of course, the same formula applies in respect of the other five States. This is another example of the Government's failure to honour not only its election policies of 1975 and 1977 but also the commitment which the Minister for Transport, **Mr Nixon,** made in 1977 when he presented the principal legislation to the House of Representatives. State grants for roads must be seen- I suggest that the Government has failed to so see it- in the context of Australia's overall transport system. On this, the Government's record is a sad testimony to ignorance, bad planning and sectional interest. Unfortunately today most Australian working men and women are dependent on private cars to get to and from work. One has only to join the queues of motorists driving to and from our major cities to note the great deterioration in transport facilities that has occurred in the last four or five years. As a result of that congestion, which is becoming intolerable to the motorist, a survey was undertaken by the National Roads and Motorists Association on work travel habits in South Sydney, Botany, Bankstown, Auburn and Warringah. The report thereon was released last November. It showed how heavily workers rely on cars to reach their jobs. Despite these surveys, which are taken by reputable community organisations, when the Government drew up its budget- and, after all, this legislation merely seeks to give legislative effect to Budget decisions- their important results and conclusions obviously were ignored. They show that in the five suburbs named, 82.2 per cent of respondents normally travel by car to work and that 87.9 per cent of these park their car in a company car park. I am referring, of course, to Sydney, where congestion is at its worst but, comparatively speaking, the same can be said of the other capital cities. However, a great need was seen for efficient public transport. Some 70 per cent of such car users said that they would employ public transport if more were available but simply had now no reasonable alternative. If one counts those who do use public transport, or who cycle to work, one finds that 95 per cent of respondents rely solely on roads to travel to work. Another survey has shown that in the last year, as a result of the Government's petrol parity policies, the cost of taking one's car to and from work in the Sydney region to which I have referred, has risen by an average of some $10 a week, for petrol alone. Therefore, although on the one hand the Government talks about doing something to reduce the level of taxation, by using on the other hand a regressive petrol levy and taxing policy it reduces accordingly the living standards of the workers. In 1972, when the Labor Government came to office, in accordance with the Australian Labor Party's policy prior thereto, it recognised the transport problems of this country and established the Department of Urban and Regional Development in an endeavour to alter the irrational trend that had been evident in the previous decade. It set up programs for the express purpose of trying to use Federal funds and influence to arrest the trend that was taking place. But what did this Government do? In its first, second, third and fourth Budgets it has dismembered completely the Department of Urban and Regional Development, and reduced its funding to the point where it has become ineffective and has in the process thrown overboard urban planning initiatives which could have brought about improvement in our urban transport system. This has affected the mass of the working people in our major cities who are forced to use their cars to travel and who pay through the nose in doing so as a result of this Government's petrol policies. By cutting back on road construction and maintenance, they will be forced to travel on sub-standard roads. Whilst we cannot oppose this legislation because at least it is making some money available, it has to be seen as backward, irrational and carefree in its approach to dealing with the fundamental problems of public or private urban transport. There would be perhaps some rationale in this Government's policies if it used its enormous resources from the crude oil levy to provide alternative means of transports such as urban, inter-urban and regional public transport. We should use the massive tax impost that has been placed upon the motorists of this country for the purpose of fundamentally changing the direction of our public transport system. In that sense I am referring not only to the public transport system that is provided by the State authorities, but also to the road system which has to be regarded in the way in which it has developed in recent years- that is, as part of a public transport system. Instead of using these extra millions of dollars to improve employment opportunities by undertaking road construction and maintenance and by developing cheap, efficient and attractive forms of public transport, this Government is committed to creating unemployment through its irrational and inane economic cutbacks. I draw the attention of the Senate briefly to the popularity of the eastern suburbs railway system which became a commitment and a financial responsibility of the New South Wales Government. That railway system is so appreciated by the users of public transport that the optimistic expectations of the State Transport Commission have been exceeded beyond its wildest dreams. Because of public response to that important new transport system and because of the growing cost of energy needed to travel from the point of residence to the point of work, that new eastern suburbs railway is going to be profitable. The State Government, despite its inadequacies of public funding, has now put on its agenda for consideration the possibility of doubling the railway's present length. This indicates that if the Commonwealth made available for energy conservation- to which this Government and its Ministers say they are committed- the funds collected from the petrol tax to relieve the States of their responsibilities of providing alternative means of public transport, we would have less cause to criticise this Government for the sort of action it is taking in reducing capital funds for road construction. One has to conclude that this is a shortsighted, callous policy. It will continue the congestion that is now apparent in our capital cities. Public and private transport systems could be avenues, if this Government had the will and the philosophy, for long term and socially productive investments which would benefit all Australians and reduce the social costs of transportation which are growing day by day. The cost of transportation in the development of our economy and the way in which it is structured is becoming an increasing problem from the point of view of both the public and private sectors. What does this Government do? It reduces the amount of money available for road purposes which adds still further to the overall cost structure of all our goods that are manufactured and distributed in our major cities. So this Government stands indicted for its cutback in public spending on road construction and road maintenance to enable the States to carry out their proper responsibility. It has cut back public spending to local government which will have to carry an increasing burden rather than a decreasing burden if we are to have a decent, adequate main and secondary road system. Because money is being made available, even in reduced terms, the Opposition will not oppose the legislation. {: #subdebate-51-0-s2 .speaker-4H4} ##### Senator HAMER:
Victoria -The States Grants (Roads) Amendment Bill on the surface is a routine Bill to amend the States Grants (Roads) Act to update the amounts to be made available by the Commonwealth to the States for roads. I am sure you, the Deputy President, will be thinking that surely no one, except perhaps **Senator Gietzelt,** could carp at such a piece of benevolent generosity. But as I pointed out last year when a similar Bill was before us, it is not as simple or as benevolent as it seems. There are serious defects in the principal Act. Honourable senators may not be aware of the very tight control this Act gives the Federal Minister for Transport **(Mr Nixon)** over road expenditure throughout Australia. In the principal Act, road expenditure is divided into eight different categories: The construction of national highways, the maintenance of national highways, the construction of national commerce roads, the construction of rural arterial roads, the construction and maintenance of rural local roads, minor traffic and engineering road safety improvements, the construction of urban arterial roads and the construction of urban local roads. For each of these eight different categories the amount to be allocated by the Federal Government is laid down in detail and overall matching grants are demanded of the States. These matching grants range from the highest in Victoria at $1.25 from the State for each Federal dollar to the lowest in Tasmania at 56c from the State for each Commonwealth dollar. I am sure that honourable senators will have noticed that this gives the Federal Minister for Transport control over not only the Federal road grants but also over State expenditure on roads. {: .speaker-KVK} ##### Senator Mulvihill: -- Do you think that it is a pork-barrel exercise? Is that what you are implying? {: .speaker-4H4} ##### Senator HAMER: -- I will explain in a few minutes to **Senator Mulvihill** what I think about this. There are areas of the principal Act that I am concerned about and I will deal with them in a moment. I think the whole approach of the principal Act is quite contrary to the fundamental approach of the Liberal Party to federalism. It is very much Labor socialist-centralist legislation. {: .speaker-KVK} ##### Senator Mulvihill: -- That is good. {: .speaker-4H4} ##### Senator HAMER: -- I would say it is bad. The present Act, as **Senator Mulvihill** is undoubtedly aware, is based on the 1974 Whitlam Government Act which was heavily criticised by the then Opposition in this chamber. Unfortunately, the present 1977 Act repeats nearly all the defects of the earlier Labor Government Act. It is littered with unnecessary controls by Canberra. For example, the Act contains expressions such as the State may propose to the Federal Minister for Transport . . .'; 'the Minister may exclude the program of projects . . .'; 'the Minister may require . . .', and so on. All those provisions are concerned with urban and rural local and arterial roads, which on any sensible definition of co-operative federalism should be an exclusive State responsibility. All that the 1977 Act did was to remove some of the detailed special requirements for State governments to submit their proposed programs for urban arterial roads for approval by the Federal Minister for Transport and to permit the transfer of funds between categories. This was subject to the approval of the Federal Minister for Transport. Otherwise the 1977 Act is as objectionable as the 1974 Act was. I think that the Labor shadow Minister for Transport was quite justified in saying in the debate on the 1977 Bill that it was, in the main, the development and refinement of the progressive roads legislation enacted by the Labor Government. I should like to deal with the question of principle before I turn to how the Act is administered by the present Minister for Transport. Our policy in the first issue is clear. We believe in dynamic co-operative federalism. The policy was well summed up by the Minister for Education **(Senator Carrick)** when he said: >The States have gained new financial capacity, new financial flexibility and new opportunities to make independent policy decisions and initiate new programs. The New Federalism has given the States significant freedom from the dictates of Canberra. They now enjoy more genuine sovereignty and more real responsibility. This ringing statement might perhaps have been qualified by saying: 'Except with regard to roads'. The Prime Minister **(Mr Malcolm Fraser)** has also said: >The drift towards centralism created its own inefficiencies, in particular in the duplication of administrative agencies and the growth of a large central bureaucracy. However, this drift runs completely counter to the kind of society where a real decentralisation of power is required if people's needs are to be met in ways most sensitive to those needs. This remark by the Prime Minister brings me to the second area of concern, that is, the inefficient way in which this present Act is being administered, at least as far as my State of Victoria is concerned. There are many criticisms. The road funds- the bulk of which are State funds anyway- are directed by the Federal Minister for Transport **(Mr Nixon)** in ways which do not meet Victoria's real road needs or priorities. The apparently political motivation of these grants is certainly not to the advantage of the Liberal Government of Victoria. The distribution of the grants is neither that desired by the Victorian Government nor that recommended by the Commonwealth Bureau of Roads, now the Bureau of Transport Economics. If I may elaborate on that, the Commonwealth Bureau of Roads recommended a total allocation to Victoria of $208. lm in 1979-80, but the actual allocation was $ 1 1 3.7m. Perhaps this is fair enough in view of the general expenditure restraint. Yet in the allocation to categories, the Commonwealth allocated $ 12.8m to rural arterial roads against the Bureau's recommended $7. 8m, an increase of 64 per cent for rural arterial roads. The Bureau's recommended figure for rural local roads was $ 18.4m. Yet the Commonwealth allocated $2 1.8m to rural local roads, a 17 per cent increase on the recommended figure. At the same time, although the Bureau recommended that $89. 2m was required for urban arterial road construction, the Commonwealth allocated only $25.58m. What happened overall was that the Commonwealth allocated only 29 per cent of the funds recommended for urban arterial roads, yet in the same Act it granted sums vastly in excess of the recommendations made by its own Bureau for rural arterial and rural local roads. It is this massive imbalance which the State has been called upon to correct by allocations from its own funds. The second criticism relates to the unnecessary administrative costs and the duplication of administrative effort involved in preparing Statewide road programs for approval by the Federal Government, regardless of the magnitude or cost of the works. This is the sort of wasteful duplication of administration that the Prime Minister was talking about in the passage I have just quoted. The final criticism is of delays in receiving Federal ministerial approval of programs, especially during the last three years. Again the remarks of the Prime Minister apply to this. This convinces me that a very bad Act is being badly administered. I am not suggesting for a moment that the Federal Government has no responsibility for roads. I know some have argued that this is so, and that the Commonwealth should grant the States merely the amounts now spent by the Commonwealth on roads as increases in the States' general revenue grants, leaving the State governments to decide what they wish to spend on roads, on hospitals, on schools, on houses or whatever. I think that this goes too far. I think that a national government does have certain responsibilities for roads, and I suggest the following principles: firstly, that the Commonwealth should determine the requirements of national roads and should, through the States, fully fund their construction and maintenance; secondly, that the Commonwealth should determine the minimum acceptable national expenditure on roads other than national roads and should control such minimum expenditure by making grants to the States for such purposes' under section 96 of the Constitution, and by requiring matching expenditure from State governments, there being no objection to State governments spending amounts on roads in excess of their matching requirements from their own resources; thirdly, that the Commonwealth should not attempt to control, supervise or direct the way in which the State governments or local governments spend available funds on roads other than national roads, other than to be satisfied by State Auditors-General that the necessary funds have been properly expended so as to qualify for the appropriate road grants under section 96 of the Constitution. On the subject of grants to local governments I support entirely the way in which we are giving local governments a share of tax revenue- 1.75 per cent this year, with the promise of an increase to 2 per cent next year. This is for the general revenue purpose of local governments, to spend on whatever they choose for the benefit of their local communities. The actual amount that each local government receives from the State share of the tax revenues is decided by bodies set up by the various State governments. I believe that this is good, but it is quite another matter when we attempt to come between State governments and local governments in specific matters such as road grants. Local governments are the creations of State governments, and are their responsibility. I know that some how senators rather like being the patrons of local government. There is no doubt that local governments like receiving road grants from the Commonwealth under section 96 of the Constitution. They feel they receive more that way. But if this is true, let us think about what we are doing. We are not increasing the total amount available for roads. What we are doing is distorting the balance between arterial and local roads and urban and rural roads as recommended by both the Commonwealth experts and by the State governments, and giving more to local roads at the expense of arterial roads and more to country roads at the expense of city roads, against the recommendations of the experts and against the wishes of the State governments. I suppose we might get some short term political credit out of this, but credit achieved by such unprincipled means normally evaporates fairly quickly. But much more important is that this is not an area in which we should be involved. Our policy on federalism and sensible administration dictates that the development of the road network inside a State, other than national roads, should be left to State governments. Federal interference is both improper and inefficient. We should keep our fingers out of it. The question is what to do about it? The principal Act is not before us. We are only considering the Schedule. Also there is the valid point that has been put to me that the State Premiers apparently accepted the 1977 Act without too much fuss. I do not find that very surprising. Grants under section 96 of the Constitution are normally offered by the Commonwealth on a take it or leave it basis, and the States have no real option but to take it. But next year the principal Act comes up for renewal and I hope that the State Premiers will challenge strongly the principles involved in the State Grants (Roads) Act. If they do, and if suitable and proper principles are not embodied in the new Act, in other words, unless it is a vastly different Act from the present one, then I will move the necessary amendments and divide the Senate as many times as necessary in order to put the Act in a shape which meets our principles of federalism and the requirements of efficient administration. {: #subdebate-51-0-s3 .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES:
Queensland -I listened carefully to the last words that **Senator Hamer** spoke. {: .speaker-KUU} ##### Senator Missen: -- They are not his last words. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES: -Perhaps they are not his last words on the matter but for my own edification I listened to the last words that he spoke. I find myself in disagreement with him on the principle that roads should be a federal responsibility. {: .speaker-EF4} ##### Senator Chaney: -- Hear, hear! {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES: -- I should have thought that **Senator Chaney** would not engage in joking today because of the recent article that took him to task on the matter and warned him that he could go the way of another Minister in this place if he was too facetious on too many occasions. To get back to the serious matter that is before us, my view is that roads, whether they be main arterial, national, rural or urban, are a national responsibility. They are a matter of great concern to the nation. I believe the nation to be a single nation and a single people. I have said that before. I cannot see any good purpose being served in applying the policy of federalism in this area. Federalism has operated in the past to the disadvantage of the transport system throughout Australia. It has cost us many millions of dollars and taken us many years to recover from the tragedies of federalism of the past when decisions have been made on transport. I am also concerned about the railway system. The same unevenness of development can be achieved in this area through the policy of federalism as was achieved in that area. I think that the concern we share is equal. Tremendous amounts of money and effort need to be spent on all our roads. To concentrate on the main arterial and national roads, as is the policy of the Government at present and the direction of its funding, is to act to the serious disadvantage of the country and the economy as a whole. The point has been made that considerable revenue is gathered every year from those who use the roads. I am not talking about the ordinary motorist; I am talking about those who transport goods for our general use from one place to another. A tremendous amount of money is gathered from that area. It has occurred in the past and it will occur again this year. Added to that amount is the $2,000m-odd that the Government is now obtaining by special taxation measures that allow oil prices to reach world parity. Petrol prices have risen to such an extent that the Commonwealth Government can gather, as has been stated, some $2,000m to reduce its deficit. Having accepted the need to do that- whether we agree with it or not- one would have thought that the large sums of money being gathered in this way would find their way back and would be being applied to the improvement of the road system throughout Australia. Our whole network of roads, which need to be improved, ought to be improved by the use of these funds. If we were to attack the problem of unemployment in a sensible and progressive way we would spend money in this area. It could be spent in this area in a most effective way and would provide increased areas of employment for the vast number of people who are unemployed. I refer now to the position of roads in Queensland. It is serious. It is much more serious than it is in Victoria and, perhaps, New South Wales. Perhaps it is no more serious than it is in Western Australia, the other large State, but it is a serious matter in Queensland. Queensland's roads have deteriorated to the point where it will take many years for them to recover. The sad situation in Queensland is that the large amount of money which has been spent has hardly met the cost of the maintenance of the roads, let alone improved the style and type of road or lead to the creation of new roads. The national highway that is causing most worry is the Bruce Highway. An authority on roads in Queensland recently stated that it would take 70 years to finish the Bruce Highway on the present federal funding levels. Honourable senators who travel from Brisbane to Townsville and Cairns would appreciate how unacceptable that position is. In certain areas that road can only be described as a horror stretch. In many places it has deteriorated to a narrow, broken-edged strip of bitumen which is of great danger to motorists and transport drivers. It is a condemnation of the Federal Government that, having such funds available to it, it cannot make provision for this road to be quickly brought up to standard. The prediction that it would take 70 years to finish the Bruce Highway was made by the Queensland Minister for Main Roads, **Mr Hinze.** He made that statement earlier this year. A newspaper report of his statement reads: >He said the State Government would 'go it alone' on the completion of the horror stretch. > >It would take over the Federal Government responsibility for national highways and double its current $ 1 5 million programme for the area to finish the job . . . He is saying that, because of the failure of the Federal Government to provide sufficient funds, it is necessary for the State to take over that responsibility due to the dangerous level of repair into which the road has fallen. The $15m which it has to spend on the national highway means that it has $ 15m less to spend on improving secondary and rural roads. **Mr Hinze** had some very serious things to say. I am wondering whether I would be transgressing the ruling of the President if I were to use certain words but I cannot see how I could do that if the words I used were words that the Queensland Minister for Main Roads used. {: .speaker-ME4} ##### Senator Peter Baume: -- If they are outside the Standing Orders, you would be transgressing. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES: -- I do not know about that. That matter is under appeal to the Standing Orders Committee. **Mr Hinze** described the roads funding as a 'con trick'. Possibly Government senators would object to my saying that but they cannot object to my repeating it. I refer to a Press report which states: >The Main Roads Minister **(Mr Hinze)** yesterday accused the Federal Transport Minister **(Mr Nixon)** of attempting to pull an enormous con trick ' on Queenslanders. > > **Mr Nixon,** he said, was trying to dupe Queenslanders into believing Canberra had made an additional $47m available Tor national highway construction. > >But only $37m would be spent on construction, the remainder going on highway maintenance and national commerce roads. **Mr Hinze** has made other statements on the subject, such as: 'I hope Fraser chokes'. I refer to a Press report which states: >Queensland 's Main Roads Minister **(Mr Hinze ) yesterday said he hoped the Prime Minister (Mr Fraser)** 'choked' on Central Queensland dust during his northern tour. {: .speaker-GD5} ##### Senator Ryan: -- Who said that? {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES: -That was **Mr Hinze.** {: .speaker-GD5} ##### Senator Ryan: -- About the Prime Minister? {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES: -- He suggested that the Prime Minister ought to have choked on the dust on those roads because he may then have realised just how bad the road conditions were. The report continues: >He said this might impress him with the enormous problems Queensland faced in maintaining its huge road network which was urgently in need of an immediate $ 100m infusion. **Mr Hinze** was speaking at a special Australian Transport Advisory Council meeting. The report continues: >The meeting was called to discuss the adoption by all States of legislation allowing fuel price rises to compensate for revenue loss with the abolition of road maintenance charges. He highlights the extra problem which arises now because of the removal of road taxes. It is very evident that in the next wet season in Queensland the increase in road transport over rail transport following the removal of the road taxes will lead to roads deteriorating much faster. More revenue will have to be supplied. What **Mr Hinze** is saying- I would agree with him- is that much more money should be made available to the States. I quote again: > **Mr Hinze** accused the Commonwealth of 'thieving $ 1 ,200m from Australian motorists under the guise of energy requirements'. He said he hoped that at the next Federal election, the Government's majority was reduced to one- as that's all it deserves'. I am not the person saying these things; they were said by a Minister of the coalition government in Queensland. He said that this Government only deserves a majority of one. I would go a little further and say that it does not deserve a majority at all. What arises out of all the comments which have come from Queensland is this: There is a need for further Federal funding of State roads in Queensland. What emerges is that the State needs a further $100m. What also emerges is that it is not coming from Federal sources. The policy of federalism, which has been propounded by **Senator Hamer,** is just not working in this respect. What Queensland has to do in order to maintain its roads, to make them safe for people to use and make their use efficient, is to borrow the $ 100m overseas, which results in a further impost upon the people in Queensland. It is my belief that the Government will suffer because of its failure to meet the requirements of the States. The people who use the roads, having experienced their poor quality day after day, having risked their lives because of their poor quality in some areas, will take action against this Government. I take the opportunity at the second reading stage of this Bill merely to reiterate that funds raised from the transport industry should revert to that industry. It is unacceptable that the Government should raise large sums of money from levies on fuel, be it in one way or another, and not allow it to flow in that direction. What is the honourable senator opposite suggesting? He is shaking his head. I ask him to speak up so that we can have the opportunity of hearing his advice. The shaking of his head means nothing tome. {: .speaker-PJ4} ##### Senator Teague: -- We should decrease income tax. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES: -- The honourable senator is suggesting that we should impose a heavy burden on road transport, upon communications, and reduce income tax in other directions. Could I say to him that if we are going to have high levels of taxation in a particular area then those moneys should be spent for the purpose for which they are raised. If the honourable senator does not accept that then, of course, I would say that his priorities are all wrong. The road system is important to us all. The communications system, whether it be road, rail, sea or air, is important to us all. We should be prepared to spend money on it. If we are to have an efficient economy, if we are to be able to move our goods as we require, if we wish to get our goods to the coastline and have them exported, then our roads, railways and shipping lines must be of the highest efficiency. We should be prepared to spend money on them. We are raising over $2,000m a year by a variety of taxes. The proposition which I was putting to the Senate- maybe I slipped away from putting it clearly- was exactly as I have outlined. The honourable senator is saying that because we raise money in this direction we should lower taxes on, maybe, tobacco. {: .speaker-KSW} ##### Senator Maunsell: -- Do you think that excise duty on alcohol should be used for the support of alcoholics? {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES: -Of course. I believe that exactly. I believe that high excise on what is essentially a luxury, something we can do without, is justified, especially when those taxes are on addictive products which lead in some cases to lengthy periods of hospitalisation and incur costs to the whole community. I do not care if a person brews his own beer, gets himself highly intoxicated and withers away his brain provided he does it on his own. {: .speaker-9V4} ##### Senator Grimes: -- What is the Bill about? {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES: -The Bill is about taxation and the expenditure of money on roads. I was diverted somewhat by an interjection from **Senator Maunsell** who questioned whether I believed in high taxation on certain items, and I do. I also believe in substantial taxation which will provide for us the efficiency in transport and communication which the nation needs. That is the point that I have been putting. To get back to Queensland, Queensland is one of the States which is suffering considerably from the failure of the Government to refund the taxes which are raised for the improvement of roads. One needs to accept what the Minister for Local Government and Main Roads in Queensland is saying; that the State has to provide large sums of money to maintain national roads, which are a federal responsibility, and so decrease its ability to expend on rural and arterial roads. {: #subdebate-51-0-s4 .speaker-ZI4} ##### Senator ROCHER:
Western Australia -- The measure entitled the State Grants (Roads) Amendment Bill 1979 sets out to amend the State Grants (Roads) Act 1977. The amendment will enable funds to be spent by the States on roads in specific categories. Supplementary money from the States will be used in some cases. I think that there are eight categories. Indeed, **Senator Hamer** must think so also, although the information in the Parliamentary Library Bills Digests indicates that there may be ten. However, I will stick with the eight that I have been able to identify. The first two categories relate to the construction and. maintenance of national highways. In this area the Commonwealth has a role to play in directing and overseeing expenditure. The same may be said for the national commerce roads, although the Commonwealth's role should be limited, in my opinion, to funding specific major construction. Like **Senator Hamer,** I wish to express concern and reservations about the measure of control exercisable by the Federal Minister for Transport **(Mr Nixon)** by virtue of the provisions in the Act and in this amendment. Before developing that point, I would like to deal with some aspects of road funding concerning Western Australia. In this area there is a drift which is both significant and serious. Western Australia's share of taxpayers' funds committed by the Commonwealth to expenditure on roads has decreased from 1 7.96 per cent of total expenditure on roads in 1968-69 to only 12.67 per cent in 1978-79. Although total grants were increased by 19.8 per cent in the period July 1975 to June 1979, grants to Western Australia rose by only 10.46 per cent. Although I have no real argument against restraining growth in overall expenditure of taxpayers' funds on roads, or for most other purposes, my State has suffered cuts which are not in keeping with or consistent with the general trend. Whilst nearly 18 per cent of total funding in the financial year ended 30 June 1969 could not be reasonably maintained, I seriously question the appropriateness of the current level of funding for Western Australia. To add fuel to the fire of my concern, the report of the Bureau of Transport Economics entitled 'An Assessment of the Australian Road System 1979' recommends further savage reductions, to less than nine per cent of total road funds for Western Australia in the future. From my reading of that BTE report- I emphasise my reading because I defy any layman completely to absorb its contents- it seems that its recommendations are heavily oriented to road user benefits. I submit to the Senate that that is a very narrow approach. For example, it ignores the contribution made by Western Australia to the nation's economy and the vital role of a viable road system in maintaining and improving that contribution. There is compelling economic argument for increasing funding for roads in the Kimberleys and in the Pilbara region to facilitate oil exploration and exploitation of the North West Shelf gas reserves and other resources. I emphasise that point by mentioning that with only 8.4 per cent of the nation's population Western Australia has produced 22 per cent of the total value of Australia's exports in the year 1976-77. Per capita export earnings were twoandahalf times the national average. Social factors are also involved in providing good roads in certain isolated areas in Western Australia, and perhaps elsewhere. Just as Kalgoorlie has good access by road to the south and west coasts, so should the people in the townships of Paraburdoo, Newman and Tom Price have easy access to the nearest coastal centres. Ideally, recreational considerations warrant overland access to the south-west from all towns of the Pilbara and Kimberley regions. I believe that currently there is a demonstrable need to upgrade the intra-Pilbara road system. If we are to maintain harmonious communities in the northwest, which ensure the economic contribution to which I have referred, road usage alone should not determine the level of funding for roads. Most importantly, I believe that the only authority capable of determining priorities for road construction, maintenance and upgradingperhaps with a couple of exceptions- is the State Government. In the case of Western Australia, the Main Roads Commission has all the resources at its command to enable it expertly to advise the State Government. Under the States Grants (Roads) Act 1977 the Western Australia Government is obliged to convince the Federal Government that its determinations and preferences should attract an allocation of taxpayers ' funds. It must do so under eight separate headings, the first three of which I have mentioned, namely, construction and maintenance of national highways and construction of national commerce roads. The last five- construction of rural arterial roads, construction and maintenance of rural local roads, minor traffic and engineering road safety improvements, construction of urban and arterial roads and construction of urban local roads- are of particular interest and concern. I see no logical reasons why the distribution of funds in these areas should be at the whim of a Minister in a federal government. Determination of priorities should be the sole province of State governments. The use of section 96 grants in this context to entice State governments to forgo their rightful responsibilities should not be condoned by this Senate as a proposition to be repeated for the next triennium. I sincerely trust that the forthcoming negotiations with the States will result in block grants for roads replacing specific distributions apart from, perhaps, grants for national highways and national commerce roads. Whilst I support this amending Bill, partly because it is part of an agreement made with the States before I came to the Senate, like **Senator Hamer** I give notice of serious reservations regarding similar measures in the future. {: #subdebate-51-0-s5 .speaker-KUU} ##### Senator MISSEN:
Victoria -- I rise particularly to speak on the States Grants (Roads) Amendment Bill, to express my reservations about the principal Act, and to support the views which my colleague from Victoria, **Senator Hamer,** has expressed today. I want first to turn to what I think was an interesting diversion in this debate by **Senator Georges,** who suggested that somehow the determining factor of the amounts of moneys that ought to be allocated for roads would be those funds which were collected from the sale of fuel. The honourable senator had some idea that that was one way of measuring what is the appropriate amount to be spent, taking into account all the priorities which the Commonwealth and the States have. I suggest that that is nonsense, quite apart from the fact that fuel and the moneys recovered from taxes on fuel are not necessarily connected in any way with roads. Of course, it includes transport by sea and matters which do not concern the use of roads. Even if that were so, it would be a nonsensical argument. One would expect **Senator Georges** then to enunciate that all the money that is recovered from taxation on incomes should be spent on taxpayers only, with nothing to be spent on people such as widows, orphans and deserted wives; that it should be spent only on those who actually pay the tax. One could go on with the addictive products about which the honourable senator spoke. He seemed to say that money which is paid in tax on liquor should be spent only in repairing the damage that is done to people who consume liquor. I see that the Minister at the table, **Senator Chaney,** is nodding his head. {: .speaker-4H4} ##### Senator Hamer: -- He may be going to sleep. {: .speaker-KUU} ##### Senator MISSEN: -- As my colleague, **Senator Hamer,** has said, he may be going to sleep. In view of his nodding his head to that argument, we would hope that that is so. Seeing the Minister at the table reminds me of the fact that this Bill is one that follows legislation such as the States Grants Act, under the Whitlam Government, which **Senator Chaney** tackled in the full flush of his career as a backbencher in this Parliament in 1974. He and **Senator Baume,** who has been here this afternoon, **Senator Maunsell, Senator Sim** and I all made a fairly valiant onslaught on certain provisions of that Bill in 1974. We were able to achieve some success and we were able to improve some of the pennypinching restrictions which were imposed on States and State departments at that time. {: .speaker-KTJ} ##### Senator Mcintosh: -- That was a good Parliament. {: .speaker-KUU} ##### Senator MISSEN: -- As the honourable senator says, that was a good Parliament. Even though I recognise his vested interests, I agree with him that it was a good Parliament. It was a vintage period. Nonetheless, we could achieve only a certain amount. One cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear and we were not able to change this Bill which, of course, ran roughshod over federalism and which unfortunately has been continued to a major degree by the 1977 Act. The Bill with which the Senate is involved today involves the provision of $38m in Commonwealth grants. That is desirable and useful; nonetheless, it is the major Bill which is the subject of the complaint which **Senator Hamer,** backed by **Senator Rocher,** mentioned today and which complaint I, as a senator from Victoria, certainly support. I noted that in the course of **Senator Hamer's** speech he mentioned the important fact that the whole approach of the principal Act is contrary to the fundamental approach of the Liberal Party to federalism. He said that it is very much Labor socialist centralist legislation. It was at that stage that **Senator Mulvihill** said: 'That is good'. **Senator Mulvihill** is a conspicuously honest member of this chamber and of the Labor Party, and what he was telling us was what he honestly believes is the position. I have no doubt that in their hearts most Labor senators think so too. They are satisfied with that type of socialist centralist legislation. {: .speaker-KTJ} ##### Senator Mcintosh: -- Are you saying that your own Cabinet is full of Reds? {: .speaker-KUU} ##### Senator MISSEN: -- I beg your pardon? {: .speaker-KTJ} ##### Senator Mcintosh: -- Are you saying that your own Cabinet, is full of socialists? {: .speaker-KUU} ##### Senator MISSEN: -No. I thought that the honourable senator was talking about red wine when he said 'full of Reds'. I do not think our Cabinet is socialist at all. Our Cabinet has not moved fast enough, and perhaps as back benchers we have not stressed sufficiently the deficiencies. In 1977, when this Act came into existence, perhaps the federalism policy was not sufficiently appreciated in its ramifications and was not put forward logically. **Senator Hamer** described what had happened in the years following in Victoria, where even the recommendations of the Commonwealth Bureau of Roads have not been carried forward but something different has been done. So it is not as though some superior knowledge-- {: .speaker-ZI4} ##### Senator Rocher: -- In all States. {: .speaker-KUU} ##### Senator MISSEN: -- In all States, as **Senator Rocher** has pointed out. We have seen, therefore, that it is not a matter of superior overall national knowledge. The people who are experts had a different idea, and their advice arid views have not been followed. Like other honourable senators, I trust that the Government will have a hard look at this matter in the next year. I trust that the State governments, which have been so affected by this, will make their pressure felt, and that we can look forward to a main Bill next year which will carry out the real principles of federalism, a Bill which is adequate to meet the challenge. {: #subdebate-51-0-s6 .speaker-EF4} ##### Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP -- I thank all honourable senators who spoke for their support of this Bill, albeit that in each case their support was qualified in some way. Those qualifications were raised with great seriousness by honourable senators, and I will certainly draw them all to the attention of the Minister for Transport **(Mr Nixon).** Out of respect for the views that have been put forward, I wish to make some brief comments on the matters raised. The three Government senators who spoke shared a concern about the Commonwealth role in the allocation of finance for roads. That concern is being raised at a particularly appropriate time, notwithstanding that, as was made clear in the earlier speeches, the legislation simply completes a program over three years, the pattern of which was established in 1977. It is appropriate that the matter should be raised now because the arrangements are up for discussion between the Commonwealth and the States, and the views of honourable senators can be taken into account in those discussions. The June 1979 Premiers Conference decided that road funding from the termination of the program at the end of this financial year would be a matter for discussion between the Prime Minister **(Mr Malcolm Fraser)** and Premiers within the Premiers Conference. The operation of the arrangements is being examined by the Australian Transport Advisory Council, and I understand that there is to be a special meeting of the Council in November. The roads arrangements are also the subject of study by the Advisory Council for Inter-Government Relations. So these valuable instruments of federalism of the sort that are solidly supported by the Government and by this side of the Senate are involved in examining the whole issue. No doubt the matters that have been raised by **Senator Hamer** and those who spoke in support of him will be before those, meetings. It should be noted that while the States from time to time have argued within the Australian Transport Advisory Council for less detailed Commonwealth involvement in roads arrangements, this issue was not raised by any State Premier during discussions at the June 1979 Premiers Conference. To some extent we are in the hands of the State Premiers in that the interests of the States are represented by them at these meetings and by the State Transport Ministers at the ATAC meetings. The attitude the Commonwealth has adopted consistently over a period is that it needs to retain some say over the direction of its funds and to be aware of the use to which its funds are being put by the States. The political dilemma that exists in this area was underlined by the comments of **Senator Rocher,** who spoke about an area of roads which is very familiar to me and about problems which are very familiar to me and to **Senator Thomas,** who is now in the chamber and who is a regular visitor to the Pilbara, as is **Senator Rocher.** I venture to say that **Senator Mcintosh** also visits that area and would be aware that there is a considerable amount of feeling in the Pilbara in support of the views put by **Senator Rocher,** namely, that the Pilbara raises a great deal of export income and is entitled to better roads than it has so that people can enjoy the amenities that most Australians enjoy, in particular, access to the coast over roads that do not destroy one's motor vehicle. All that is common ground to a large number of honourable senators in this chamber, and the Government acknowledges it as being a serious matter. One of the problems we have at the moment is that Western Australia's 1979-80 rural arterial program includes only one small project in the Pilbara. Last year's program had two projects in the region amounting to an estimated $3. 3m, neither of them yet completed, and the program currently before the Federal Minister for approval involves virtually no Commonwealth funds for Pilbara roads. Because of the matters raised by **Senator Rocher-** not because he raised them but because they are there and are understood by the Government and by many of usthere is a concern about that program not providing for the Pilbara. For that reason the Minister has taken the view that the State program needs to be reconsidered. One has there the practical question running up against the point of principle that the honourable senator put forward with great seriousness and which I know he believes very deeply. I simply draw attention to that problem as being an example of the difficulty the Commonwealth faces if it is called upon to make judgments about particular cases. **Senator Georges** referred to the Bruce Highway as causing turn great concern because it was a national highway. If we are to consider these things then we have to have some say over the way in which money is being spent. I simply draw that by way of example to the attention of honourable senators who have spoken. I think it underlines the difficulty the Commonwealth faces in stepping back completely from any interest in where its funds are going. I do not wish to over-simplify the view put by **Senator Hamer** and others. I know that **Senator Hamer** reserved to the Commonwealth a specific obligation as well as a right and a duty with respect to national roads, and he put the suggestion that there should be less involvement further down the line, or indeed no involvement at certain levels. But the matter is not without its political difficulty, and at this stage all I can do is draw the Minister's attention to the points raised by the three honourable senators on the Government side who spoke so that the matters can be considered at the appropriate time. With respect to some of the comments made by **Senator Georges,** I must say that this has been a quite extraordinary debate in the cross-currents of support around the chamber. If I had been asked to predict that one day I would sit here and listen to **Senator Georges** quoting **Mr Hinze** at great length and with approval, I would have been prepared to lay a fair sum that that would never happen. {: .speaker-9V4} ##### Senator Grimes: -- They are the same shape. {: .speaker-EF4} ##### Senator CHANEY: -- However, bearing in mind that they come from the same State and bearing in mind that the senior Opposition member present reminds me that they are the same shape, perhaps it is not so surprising that the words of **Mr Hinze** should meet with such unqualified approval from **Senator Georges.** I noted that in the course of his speech he kept saying: 'I am not the person saying these things'. That left me a little mystified because I was not quite sure who was standing in the place of **Senator Georges.** In any event, I do not wish to introduce any levity in this debate, bearing in mind **Senator George's** reminder to me earlier of the fate of other people in similar circumstances. I will move on from that point. I am very grateful to **Senator Missen** for the fact that he devoted some attention to **Senator Georges'** strong assertion that because money was raised on roads it should be spent on roads. **Senator Missen** made the point that we might have some difficulty, and he misunderstood my nodding at the time. I was agreeing with his point that he might have some difficulty if we insisted that revenue raised from tobacco and alcohol should be spent on smokers and drinkers. No government, including the Government supported three years ago by **Senator Georges,** has ever adopted the principle that was also adverted to by the Opposition spokesman in this area, **Senator Gietzelt.** No government has ever accepted the principle of locking expenditure into the area in which the revenue is raised. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: -- But you don't expect the opposite of locking it out. {: .speaker-EF4} ##### Senator CHANEY: -- There is no question of its being locked out. The two matters are determined separately. There simply is not a direct relationship. The only other comment I wish to reply to is that made by **Senator Gietzelt** about the Commonwealth 's failure to increase Commonwealth funding at a level that he thought was appropriate. Statistics in the 1 979 roads report of the Bureau of Transport Economics show a fall in the Commonwealth's funding effort in 1979 and that in real terms there has been a fall in Commonwealth funding between 1974-75 and 1978-79 of about six per cent. On the other hand, during the same period State expenditure has increased by 39 per cent and local government expenditure has increased by 7.3 per cent. In money terms, between 1974-75 and 1978-79 the average annual growth was 7.4 per cent for the Commonwealth, 1 8.3 per cent for the States and 10.9 per cent for local government. In this area, as in other areas, the position of the Government is that its allocation of funds is one which is made in the light of the Government's overall approach to the economic management of Australia. We came into government and were re-elected to government on the basis that we believed that restraint in expenditure was necessary. It is therefore obvious that in debates such as this restraint can be pointed to. It would be a little odd if one could not do so. I make no apology for that. The Commonwealth has the overall responsibility for national economic management and it accepts that that involves taking decisions which are not as easy as the decisions made in those halcyon days when government expenditure was increasing by very large lumps each year. The point to be noted, however, is that the position of State and local government in recent years has been eased by Commonwealth general revenue assistance. The increase to the States in 1 976-77 was 1 9.6 per cent. In 1 977-78 it was 1 6.6 per cent; in 1978-79 it was 10.5 per cent; and in 1 979-80 it will be 1 3.4 per cent. The increases for local government in the same period- I refer to the same years in series- are 17.7 per cent, 17.8 per cent, 10.7 per cent and 22 per cent. In fact both of those areas of government have had the opportunity to increase their expenditure in this important area. We inevitably spend a lot of time debating Bills on which there is agreement. I would like to leave some time for those Bills on which there is disagreement between the Government and the Opposition. I commend the Bill to the Senate and again thank honourable senators for their thoughtful and constructive speeches on the legislation. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. {: .page-start } page 1349 {:#debate-52} ### QUARANTINE AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1979 {:#subdebate-52-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from 23 August, on motion by **Senator Webster:** >That the Bill be now read a second time. {: #subdebate-52-0-s0 .speaker-9V4} ##### Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania -The Opposition does not oppose the Quarantine Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1979. The legislation provides for the regularisation of the compensation procedures to be used when goods or animals must be destroyed or damaged in the interests of preventing the introduction into this country or spread of exotic diseases or pests. It also gives to quarantine officers proper powers to inspect imported goods and to search premises when breaches of quarantine regulations are suspected. In passing, I point out that the Bill also repeals a provision of the principal Act. Air travellers are no longer obliged to report any illness that occurs to them up to 14 days after they arrive in this country. This provision was completely impracticable as over 400 people arrive by aeroplane each day. My colleague in another place- the honourable member for Prospect, **Dr Klugman-** pointed out that when he was in practice he did not know that the obligation existed. I must confess that I was in exactly the same position. It is essential that expert quarantine officers in this country have the powers given to them in this legislation, powers which are at present confined largely to the police and Customs officers. They need these powers if they are to protect this country by quarantine measures, as this country needs to be protected. Our isolation, the great distances from the sources of exotic diseases and pests and the long duration of travel involved in reaching our shores in past years have given us relative protection from some of the world 's great scourges- scourges which affect humans, animals and plants. That also made us unfamiliar with the effects of most of these diseases or pests. I believe that it bred a complacency in our population which still exists about the possibility of these imported agencies affecting us. Incidentally, we have a population of humans, animals and, I suspect, plants which has also not been exposed to many of the potentially disastrous epidemics of various types. So our resistence in many cases is low. The onset of greater air travel, the cheapness of air travel, the incredible size of some of the aircraft which come to this country and the ability of these aircraft to carry a greater and larger variety of goods and animals give us every reason not to be complacent. The increasing number of refugees from our near north adds to the problems which will face us in the future. Health and agricultural authorities in this country have always been acutely aware of the dangers to our population and to our agricultural industries in general from the importation of overseas pests and diseases. Our quarantine regulations are tough. They have always been tough, and they must remain so. But the costs are high, and the costs will continue to be high. Parliamentarians and the departments involved must be in a position to educate both the people of this country and visitors to it as to the reasons for the necessity for such stringent regulations and why we have to take the stringent actions we sometimes have to take to protect our livelihood and our population. We have an almost impossibly long boundary, we have vast unpopulated areas and we have a wide variety of animals and plants, both native and introduced, which are capable of carrying and transmitting the various diseases and pests which we have managed to avoid in the past. These factors also mean that the cost to our country of adequate quarantine protection will remain high and we, as a community, have to pay for it. We have to convince the members of our community of the need to pay for it. Education in this area is always difficult. Experience is the great educator and, as I said, through the generations we have not had the personal experience of some of the difficulties which could beset us if we relaxed our guard in this area. Our period of complacency should have ended some time ago. One hopes that it will end now with the introduction of pests such as the Sirex wasp and the European wasp, amongst the insects; the lucerne eating aphids; Newcastle disease, of which we have had a couple of outbreaks amongst poultry; equine metritis amongst horses; and the regular appearance in the last few years of a few cases of cholera. Each case of cholera cropped up as a result of travel by aircraft from our near neighbours to the north. The ease with which infected material can arrive in this country in humans and in baggageinfection can be imported by people, bent on profit at any price to the community, illegally, introducing such easily concealable material as animal semen- makes life very difficult for our quarantine officers. In fact one can say that the odds are stacked in favour of those who would disregard our regulations and who would have no regard for the dangers to which they submit this country by their actions. These dangers are far too great for quarantine to be taken other than very seriously in this country and for this reason legislative changes of the type brought forward now are very important. There are several dangers quite close to us which must be watched carefully. I think that in the debate on the last amendment to the Quarantine Act I spoke about one of the greatest menaces which is worrying everybody in the world today- rabies. That disease is advancing throughout the world on two fronts. One front is across Europe towards the French coast where it is being carried largely by the native animals of that area- foxes, badgers and others- but also by people who unwisely choose to ignore the quarantine regulations of various countries. On another front rabies is advancing across South East Asia. It is endemic in many of the countries of South East Asia. The simple fact is that if this disease, one of the worst infectious diseases known to man, reaches our shores the chances of controlling it are extremely remote. We have any number of animals who can transmit the disease. We have vast areas through which they can transmit it. Unless we were extremely fortunate and confined it very quickly to a very small area we would have no hope in the world of eradicating it from our country. But the human animal being what he is, people still attempt to introduce into this country pets which potentially can carry rabies. They are foolish, they are misguided and they must be prevented from doing so. They must be prevented at almost all costs from breaching the quarantine barriers that we have set up. Another problem is that the other scourges, typhoid, typhus, plague, malaria, et cetera, are always present at some places in the world. The only one which appears to have been eradicated is smallpox. These diseases are always present and ready to break out at times when public health facilities and provisions break down and when the general hygiene of the community fails. Of course, this happens in time of conflict, and we are certainly nowhere near ending conflicts in our own area or in any other parts of the world. When health facilities break down in this way the danger to this country is very real and we must guard against it. As I said, the costs of quarantine services are very high, but they are very small when compared with the potential cost of the introduction of some diseases. I notice that in the *Bills Digests* it is stated that the potential cost of foot and mouth disease breaking out in this country is over $ 100m. One can imagine the potential costs in money and in human suffering if some of the other diseases and pests known to man get through our quarantine barrier. We need an efficient service. We need the best means to prevent breaches in out quarantine defences. The best defence is to increase to 100 per cent, if possible, the chance of people committing breaches being detected. As long as people think they can get away with breaching our regulations they will try to do so. If we can increase our guard in this area so that the risk of people being detected is very high, they may stop trying. I suppose that some will always try. It is for this reason that I and the Opposition support the legislation. We hope that the changes to the principal Act have the desired effect of making our quarantine service a more efficient one by giving our quarantine officers the ability to detect breaches more efficiently at a time when their job is becoming increasingly difficult because of the rapid increases in world travel to this area. {: #subdebate-52-0-s1 .speaker-K8H} ##### Senator THOMAS:
Western Australia -- I wish to make a short contribution to this debate on the Quarantine Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1979. In doing so I would like to congratulate the Opposition for supporting this Bill and **Senator Grimes,** in particular, for the quite interesting contribution he made. Although **Senator Grimes** expressed concern about deliberate breaches of the Act, I suggest to him and to the Opposition that in many cases breaches are committed through ignorance. There is a great need to educate the potential visitor to this country, in the country of origin and on the way to Australia, about the tremendous risks to our agricultural industry presented by the introduction of these diseases and to point out to them the very large increase in penalties that was enacted earlier this year. I welcome this legislation. It seeks to do three things. Firstly, it seeks to compensate for the destruction of animals and plants not directly diseased or infected. Secondly, it seeks to give assistance to quarantine officers in the carrying out of their duty by giving them much wider powers of entry and search. Thirdly, it removes the requirement for travellers to report an illness experienced within 14 days of entry. **Senator Grimes** expressed concern as to the reasons for removing that requirement. I confess a similar problem but I suspect, although it is not explained in the second reading speech, that it is because of the huge volume of travellers now coming to Australia and because the health cards, which are checked at the port of entry, are considered to be sufficient protection for the Australian population and for the Australian livestock and plant industries. I am chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources which has recently completed an inquiry. Because the Committee had some difficulty in relating national resources to quarantine, for the benefit of the Senate I will read the Committee's terms of reference. Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m. {: .speaker-K8H} ##### Senator THOMAS: -- Before the sitting was suspended for dinner I was making the point that the Senate Committee on National Resources, which I have the honour to chair, and in respect of which I am ably supported by Senators Tate, Robertson, Maunsell, McLaren and Teague, has since May 1978 been considering the subject of quarantine. Also, as I was outlining to the Senate, we had some difficulty in trying to rationalise how that subject could be associated with national resources. We discovered that quarantine did not fall within the responsibility of any other Senate Committee. Our terms of reference provide for inquiry into: >The adequacy of quarantine and other control measures to protect Australia's pastoral industries from the introduction and spread of exotic livestock and plant diseases. During the inquiry we received 68 submissions and heard evidence from some 45 individuals and organisations. We expect to bring down our report in November. This Bill follows that introduced earlier this year, and passed by the Senate, which had also to do with quarantine and substantially increased the penalties imposed for offences under the Act. Our Committee applauds that move, because it tends to bring to the notice of the public, especially the travelling public, the great risks to our pastoral industries created by breaches of quarantine. It would be a departure from Senate practice to comment at this stage on our findings; and I do not intend to do so tonight. However, it is safe to say that certainly the Bill before us does not conflict in any way with the public evidence that we received. I am not saying that these changes would not have come about in any event, but many of the witnesses that we heard claimed that these changes had been suggested over a long period, and our Committee may well have been the catalyst for the changes which, after all, have occurred since our inquiry began. Australia, as **Senator Grimes** pointed out, by an accident of geography is remarkably free of many of the animal and plant diseases that plague the rest of the world. But, because of the tremendous increase in traffic into Australia, which is creating a greater degree of risk, that accident of geography is no longer enough. For that reason, our Committee recommends that certainly there should be a greater awareness of the risks involved. Those penalties will underline to the general public, the travelling public, and to magistrates in particular, the tremendous risks to agriculture that flow from the introduction of exotic diseases. I underline 'magistrates' because in recent history there has been very little desire on the part of the courts to award damages, or sufficiently severe penalties, when appropriate cases have been brought to their attention. The Bill provides for the compensation that is payable to people whose stock or goods, although they are not directly involved in the carrying of disease or insect pests, are destroyed. We applaud that provision very strongly. I refer, for example, to the recent bluetongue outbreak, which caused a great deal of distress in certain parts of northern Australia where the disease was not in evidence but a great many people were seriously disadvantaged. I refer to the creation of the buffer zone, an action which I do not think anyone argued against at the time. The carrying out of the controls was later criticised by rural organisations, but the risks to our export trade made necessary what was done. However, under the existing Act there was no provision for compensation to the people who, despite the fact that disease was not in evidence, were adversely affected. Another benefit of this legislation, which will guarantee producers compensation even though they may not be directly involved in a disease outbreak, is the encouragement of producers to report outbreaks or the risk of outbreaks. In the past, because compensation has not been clearly defined or guaranteed, human nature being what it is people have been reluctant to report what they suspect may be an outbreak. If compensation is guaranteed such reporting will be encouraged. {: .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster: -- Do you feel that the compensation was justified in the bluetongue outbreak that you have mentioned? {: .speaker-K8H} ##### Senator THOMAS: -- In the light of subsequent events, I certainly do believe that some compensation should have been paid; that the legislation before us would have provided for its payment to people who, through no fault of their own, were subjected to great loss of markets and diminution of the prices received for their products. In some cases they could not even get their products to market. As I read it, the Bill before us would have taken care of that situation. A second provision of the Bill will give quarantine officers the power to enter and search, a power that has hitherto been lacking. This not only overcomes a serious anomaly in the Act but also puts quarantine officers on a level similar to that of Customs officers. It draws to the attention of the public the importance of quarantine to the Australian livestock industry. However, the Bill does not go far enough. Proposed new section 69a provides: {: type="1" start="9"} 0. The compensation payable under this section in respect of goods is an amount equal to- {: type="a" start="a"} 0. except where paragraph (b) or (c) applies- the market value of the goods immediately before their destruction; 1. in the case of an animal (other than an animal to which paragraph (c) applies) destroyed by reason of the animal being infected, or suspected of being infected, with a disease- the market value that the animal would have had at the time of its destruction if it had not been infected or suspected of being infected; That does not envisage a situation in which there might be a serious outbreak of foot and mouth disease involving the slaughtering of huge numbers of stock and restocking at prices many times higher than those obtaining at the time of destruction. Also, the Bill does not refer to the effects of such events on associated industries. For instance, an abattoir might have to close down if the wholesale destruction of stock occurred as a result of suspected outbreak of foot and mouth disease. Similarly, the Bill does not contemplate the effects of such an occurrence on stock companies. I draw to the attention of the Senate the fact that in certain areas of the United Kingdom that were subject to strict control of the movement of people and stock even the tourist industry was seriously affected. In my opinion, this legislation does not go far enough to consider some of the secondary effects and the necessity for massive destruction of livestock if an outbreak of foot and mouth disease occurred in Australia. Because of the qualification I gave in the early part of this address, I will not go any further now. I will have an opportunity to speak again when the Committee's report is before the Senate. It is my belief that until now quarantine has received insufficient attention from the Government, but I support the legislation as far as it goes. {: #subdebate-52-0-s2 .speaker-5V4} ##### Senator COLEMAN:
Western Australia -- I am grateful to **Senator Thomas** for his comments because I do not believe that in the past our Quarantine Act has gone far enough. **Mr Bill** Toomer has made this quite obvious over many years. **Senator Thomas's** reference to foot and mouth disease reminded me of a letter by **Mr Toomer** who, as honourable senators may already be aware, has now tendered his resignation on the grounds of ill-health. Bill Toomer was, of course, the chief quarantine officer in Western Australia for a number of years. He was put in a position, I suppose, of some notoriety because he had a habit of speaking out to the Press which is against the provisions of the Public Service Act. His only crime, if one can call it a crime, was his concern that Australia should remain free of exotic disease. He did everything in his power to ensure that that happened. He made reference to foot and mouth disease in a letter to *The Bulletin* on 5 June 1976. Perhaps it is opportune at this time that I remind the Senate that the controversy over Bill Toomer arose back in 1973 when he drew the attention of the Australian people to the inadequacy of the Quarantine Act. He said, in his letter to *The Bulletin:* >Departmental expertise relating to much of the Quarantine Act has disappeared or never developed. There is a large drop out' of personnel in top positions where a perpetual game of administrative musical chairs exists in Canberra. > >It is a phenomenon that Australia has to date not inherited foot-and-mouth disease. There is no knowledge or explanation yet as to why we have not. We should therefore not flog our good luck, nor find expression of this in statements that the foot-and-mouth argument is emotional. Emotion enough would be introduced following a $2000 million a year loss of exports and a horrific slaughter of livestock. Ask the Argentinians. > >The cheese import restriction may or may not be valid but on performance it is unlikely that the Department of Health is capable of judging this. > >The department showed no concern at reported regular, distinct possibilities of foreign meat, bones, and ships' garbage being highly susceptible to the foot-and-mouth virus. I presented such evidence at a public service appeal hearing and it is on transcript. It was dismissed by the departmental experts for their comfort. > >There are many other examples of unrealistic quarantine application by the minister's experts and their dangerous disregard of the Quarantine Act and Regulations. > >Among American food supplies for the Exmouth naval base, the department bans sterilised baby food with egg content in order to prevent the possible introduction of Newcastle disease affecting birds and poultry. The experts do not prohibit imported egg in cake mix because they say it will be cooked in cakes; that is, if it does not become weevil infested and is thrown to the chooks. > >Recorded in a departmental publication (1973) the Minister's experts say that if rabies was introduced into our wildlife we would never get rid of it. Also recorded in the transcript of my public service appeal hearing, the department says that it would be easy to rid Australia of rabies should it be introduced into our native fauna. The advice was to shoot all our wildlife! > >Such examples of incredible ineptitude, contradiction and confusion constitutes the hallmark of **Mr Hunt** 's experts who wear a cloak of knowledge which is ill-fitting and many sizes too large. With the introduction of this amendment to the Quarantine Act, the Government has, at long last, heeded the words of a person who could be considered an expert in this area. He devoted his entire working life to the Quarantine Division of the Department of Health. He was concerned that officers in the Health Department had no knowledge of quarantine procedures. There have been a number of headlines in newspapers throughout Australia about **Mr Toomer** 's activities. I will draw attention to these headlines and I will ask for the incorporation in *Hansard* of these documents at a later stage. The *West Australian* on 8 May 1976 reported: 'Toomer Hits Out at N.W. Quarantine'. Other reports were headed: 'Hedland health threat from sea' and Council to ask for quarantine incinerator'. In Western Australia garbage from aircraft arriving from overseas is dumped on the local tip because there is no incinerator at the airport. These were some of the things that **Mr Toomer** was bringing to the notice of the Department seven years ago and no one was taking any notice of him. Perhaps we can sit back now and say that this is rather marvellous when we have agreed that we need tighter quarantine controls. Perhaps we need to look at the installation of incinerators at all arrival airports for overseas aircraft. Perhaps we need to have incinerators at the ports in the north west of Western Australia where overseas ships come in or where ships come to Australia illegally, as has happened on a number of occasions. **Mr Toomer** was the subject of a long debate with the Department at one stage when he ordered that a ship be fumigated. I understand that the owners of that ship subsequently charged the Western Australian Government an amount of $2,200 for the fumigation. **Mr Toomer** had a habit, as I said earlier, of going to the Press and this was not recognised by the Department as being quite the right thing as he came under the provisions of the Public Service Act. **Mr Toomer** has had a number of questions and comments raised in the various houses of Parliament both State and Federal. I must admit that they have been raised mainly in the Federal Parliament because **Mr Bungey** from Western Australia has been quite prolific in his comments about **Mr Toomer,** He has placed a number of questions on the Notice Paper, as has **Mr Gordon** Scholes who first took up the case of **Mr Toomer** back in 1974-75. My regret about this whole amendment to the Act is that it is five years too late in the case of **Mr Toomer. Mr Toomer** was demoted and sent to Port Hedland as a quarantine officer having been degraded from chief quarantine officer in Western Australia. He was then further demoted and will finish his career in the next few days as a quarantine inspector at the airport in Melbourne. The activities of the Department and the bureaucracy over the last few years have caused a breakdown in his health. We in this Parliament are just as responsible as the Department and the bureaucracy to which I referred because we did not pay sufficient attention to what this man was saying. We did not consider that perhaps he was sane and that we were the ones who were not looking at the matter in a logical way. We did not care a great deal about what happened in those rather isolated ports in the north of Western Australia and we did not pay sufficient attention to the possibility that we could be subjected to a number of exotic diseases. I am very grateful for the fact that the Standing Committee on National Resources of which **Senator Thomas** is the chairman has seen fit to take evidence from a number of people around Australia, including **Mr Toomer.** I will read the report with great interest. I will also obtain a copy of the transcript of evidence to see what he had to say about our present quarantine measures and whether he considers they are adequate. He is the man, I believe, who is most capable of judging whether this amendment to the Quarantine Act is adequate or whether we are not just hiding our heads in the sand and we will have to sit back and wait once again for another Bill Toomer to appear on the scene. As **Senator Grimes** said earlier, we do not disagree with this Bill. We commend it to the Government. I do not believe that it is strong enough and I would sincerely hope that the Minister and his Department would look very carefully at a further application of stringent measures to ensure that we remain free of any exotic diseases in Australia. {: #subdebate-52-0-s3 .speaker-PJ4} ##### Senator TEAGUE:
South Australia -The Quarantine Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1979 seeks to amend the Quarantine Act 1908. All honourable senators who have preceded me in this debate have supported the Bill and commend the need for such revisions to our quarantine procedures in Australia. I also support the Bill, along with **Senator Coleman,** who preceded me in the debate. I feel that this Bill goes only some small way towards giving greater attention to erecting that secure quarantine barrier which we need and which is so important to Australia. **Senator Coleman** has referred particularly to one individual who has concern for quarantine in Australia. Let it be said that there have been hundreds of people in Australia who have had a most conscientious and careful concern for quarantine in this country. Sometimes when one individual is picked out, particularly a controversial personsome would describe him as a purist- it is too easy to make a martyr of him and to overlook the many hundreds of conscientious public servants who have been careful in maintaining our quarantine barriers. Putting all that aside, there is a very real need to press on from this Bill, which really only amends the Quarantine Act 1 908 in three or four minor but significant ways, to a total revision of the Bill. I believe that the Quarantine Act needs to be revised completely and rewritten, and that there needs to be a public awareness campaign sponsored by the Government in order to bring before the public the need for realistic quarantine. There is an enormous contrast in Australia between the huge lack of public awareness of quarantine and those leaders of industry in every primary industry in our country who are so careful, well informed and aware of the grave dangers should our quarantine barriers lapse. As I see it, there has been an enormous shift throughout this century in relation to our perspective of quarantine, from an emphasis on human health to matters of animal and plant quarantine. The Act that it is proposed to amend by this Bill was first passed in 1908 and the parlance of the Act is in terms of human health matters, human quarantine. Right from the beginning the Department concerned with the question of quarantine has been the Department of Health, and the Minister responsible for quarantine has been the Minister for Health. This follows this early emphasis upon human health. But there has been a tremendous change towards plant and animal quarantine, those aspects involving the lion's share of quarantine activities in Australia. This Bill is symbolic of this change. It is the first stage of what I believe to be a major reflection of this kind of change in an Act of Parliament. The Bill sees one section of the principal Act repealed, that is, the section which requires persons to report any illness suffered by them within 14 days of entering Australia. The Bill extends the powers of quarantine officers to enable them to search baggage immediately, without refer*ence to Customs officers, and to go beyond the premises of the immediate port of entry to any place at which any material newly arrived from overseas may be found, with an appropriate, fair and reasonable warrant to inspect newly arrived material. With these new powers that are given by the Bill there is an emphasis upon plant and animal quarantine. I believe that no more than a very small proportion of the Australian public is really aware of the dangers of screw worm in the north of our country, or realise how this could ravage our herds of cattle. People are not aware of the enormous risk from foot and mouth diseased areas only hundreds of miles to the north in Malaysia and many other countries. If this disease were to gain any foothold in Australia the consequences would be catastrophic. Several years ago there was a bluetongue scare which did alert the public by way of sensational headlines, with pictures of sheep suffering the full symptoms of the disease. People became overly excited and feared that this was actually happening in Australia. In fact, the bluetongue scare was just that- a scare. The disease was never found in any animal in Australia. It was discovered as a virus within an insect which was taken during the conduct of a monitoring scheme in the Northern Territory. Nevertheless, it had the good effect of stirring many people in government, in the departments concerned and in industry, to an awareness of the terrible consequences should the incidence of bluetongue be extended from being found in a mere single insect to the point where it was actually having some effect upon this country. Lucerne aphids have devastated lucerne crops in many areas of Australia. This has arisen by way of some unforeseen lapse in quarantine whereby this aphid has got in and destroyed lucerne worth millions of dollars, a loss of great value to our country. **Senator Grimes** has already spoken at some length of the enormous risks of rabies. As each month goes by we are seeing a spread of rabies across Europe to the border of England. The British Channel has not been breached recently, but the disease poses an enormous risk for the United Kingdom. If it were to come to Australia, as has been mentioned already in this debate it could very quickly be contacted not only by our domestic animals but also by our feral animals, which would make it almost impossible to eradicate. Then what would be the risk to every man, woman and child in Australia. The poultry industry fears any outbreak of Newcastle disease, and our very exacting total ban upon the importation of eggs or fowl gives some indication of the enormous consequences should that quarantine barrier lapse. The rice industry has very real fears of a disease being introduced from exotic varieties of rice which are popular with a minority of people in Australia. From time to time stories are published of what might happen to our grain if the khapra beetle were introduced, or what might happen to our timber industry if a further outbreak of the sirex wasp occurred. These are diseases which are endemic in many parts of the world but which are exotic to Australia. We must continue to exercise the greatest vigilance to keep them out. Our primary industries, let alone the health of the Australian people, are of enormous consequence to our country. Despite this shift of emphasis in all the instances that I have mentioned, to animal and plant disease rather than human health quarantine, we have not yet seen a reflection of the change in the legislation which has passed through the Parliament and which guides the maintenance of quarantine procedure by the Government. I believe that this small beginning towards amending the Quarantine Act should be followed up vigilantly by the Government, leading to a wholesale reconsideration of the entire Act, and that the whole Act should be rewritten in terms of the next several decades, with emphasis directed almost totally towards plant and animal quarantine. I welcome the power that this Bill will give to quarantine officers to take steps by their own initiative to search any baggage which they might reasonably suspect to be at risk. Throughout the history of our country this power has never been in the hands of quarantine officers. They have relied upon the powers given to Customs officers. It seems incredible that a quarantine officer cannot follow up the real evidence he has and search and eliminate material that is at risk even when a prima facie case can be clearly established that certain goods, having once passed through a port of entry, have gone to some point in the city or the country. This Bill will make sure that there is such a power both at the time of entry with the power to search and later by way of warrant to enter and to search any premises. The other significant section of the Bill concerns compensation for destroyed goods. I believe that by spelling out so carefully and so justly the ability for full compensation to be provided at market value for any destroyed stock or property, as this Bill does, we will be giving to the public confidence and a basis for cooperation, which are entirely necessary for the best eradication of any outbreak of exotic disease. This is only one small step towards solving the problem. I am not convinced that there are well developed contingency plans in other than perhaps the poultry industry for the eradication of an exotic disease outbreak. The matter is complicated by some initiative in this area being under State control and some under federal control. Some of it is directed towards the elimination of a disease within Australia- domestic to Australia- and some of it is directed towards eliminating a disease which is newly arrived and exotic. I have high respect for the officers of the Department of Health who are pressing ahead with negotiations and discussions with industry leaders to develop such contingency plans, but the plans are not fully and publicly able to be circulated in every industry. I believe that this means that the goal we have before us of trying to win the greatest public confidence and cooperation has not been reached. Whilst the Bills sets out a clear basis for compensation, I believe that it should be only the beginning of a much more wide sweeping approach to the whole question of contingency and compensation plans. In terms of the importance of quarantine to our country, most Australians would be very surprised to know that the Budget allocation for quarantine is very low. It is only about $8m. Half of that amount is regained by quarantine charges, so that the net cost to the taxpayer- the government purse- of maintaining our quarantine procedures is only about $4m a year. This is a tiny insurance policy against the horrors at which I have hinted and which can be described in much fuller terms. I believe that we should press on not only with this minor amendment Bill but also with a complete rewriting of the Act and a much greater commitment of funds to the important task of maintaining the quarantine barriers in Australia. I support the Bill. {: #subdebate-52-0-s4 .speaker-NJ4} ##### Senator TATE:
Tasmania -My remarks will be brief in consequence of the excellent contributions made so far by honourable senators on both sides of the chamber in this discussion of the Quarantine Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1979. No doubt, when discussion takes place at a later date on the report of the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources there will be an opportunity to engage in a much fuller and detailed discussion of the best way of providing for a quarantine service to protect Australia's pastoral industries. I will confine my remarks at this stage to the Bill as presented to this chamber. In the repeal of section 18A of the Quarantine Act, I think that we have an immediate indication of how, as **Senator Teague** pointed out, the emphasis at present has changed from quarantine directed towards preventing human exotic diseases from entering Australia to quarantine directed towards preventing the introduction of diseases which may affect plants or animals. That emphasis has been brought about largely by the fact that humans travel round the world so quickly that the disease which they may be carrying or subject to when they enter this country will not manifest itself until they have reached a point in the community quite remote from the port of entry and remote in time from the time of entry. The Bill recognises, very properly, that the introduction of a human disease is almost unable to be prevented at the port of entry in that the symptoms will not manifest themselves there. Therefore, one needs to recognise that the treatment of an exotic human disease is a matter for general community medicine. It is only logical that the provision hitherto obtaining, although not often put into practice, that one was to notify a quarantine officer if one manifested some exotic disease after entry into Australia is to be deleted from the Act. There will be simply a reliance on the normal general medical facilities of the community. In fact, as honourable senators know, when one re-enters Australia or when one comes into Australia for the first time one receives from the Commonwealth Department of Health a little yellow pamphlet- a health warning- which one is advised to hold for six weeks and to hand to one's doctor if one becomes ill in that period. That enables the doctor to be alert to the possibility that one might have contracted the disease while abroad. The doctor is instructed to report immediately any suspected quarantinable disease, such as smallpox or yellow fever. The Bill, very properly, recognises immediately that human quarantinable diseases need to be dealt with not at the port of entry, where the most one can do is deal with some clearing documentation, but when the disease manifests itself at a point in time remote from the port of entry. This may lead to quite different physical arrangements existing at the port of entry. There is no need to have any high level medical personnel at the actual port of entry, given the decline in the importance of some hitherto common diseases, such as smallpox, and, as I have said, the fact that the diseases will manifest themselves in human beings until much later when they are within the community. The emphasis in the Bill is on animal and, to a lesser extent, plant diseases. lt is gratifying to see a very major provision relating to compensation for the destruction of goods, plant or animal. Hitherto it has been the law that one only receives compensation in the case of the destruction of an animal when the animal was diagnosed as diseased but which after destruction was found not to be diseased. Of course, that is a totally inadequate approach to the problem, as **Senator Thomas** and **Senator Teague** have both pointed out, of engendering confidence in the pastoral industry about when it should approach the authorities. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh: -- But shouldn't the owner get compensation if they are destroyed? {: .speaker-NJ4} ##### Senator TATE: -- He ought to. That is what this Bill does. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh: -- No. You are deleting section 57 which gives it to them. {: .speaker-NJ4} ##### Senator TATE: -- Section 57 contains the limited provision for compensation which I have outlined, namely, that one only receives compensation, as I understand it, if an animal was destroyed because it was thought to be diseased but turned out not be be diseased. The new provision is that when an animal is destroyed, for example, by reason of the animal being infected or suspected of being infected with a disease, the owner is entitled to the market value of that animal, the market value being determined as at the time when the destruction took place. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh: -- No. The Minister may pay. There is a distinction. {: .speaker-NJ4} ##### Senator TATE: -- I have not picked up that distinction. The section says that the compensation payable shall be an 'amount equal to', and then it goes on in general terms in the way that I have outlined. {: .speaker-PJ4} ##### Senator Teague: -- There is specific reference to an arbitration system. {: .speaker-NJ4} ##### Senator TATE: -That is right. Where there is some dispute between the owner and the Minister as to the proper compensation payments, an arbitrator may be brought in to settle the matter between the parties. I have cause to remark that this amendment has been so long coming. I believe in part- here I agree with **Senator Teague,** or perhaps **Senator Thomas;** certainly I heard **Senator Teague** make the point- that the pastoral industry has not been sufficiently involved in the various contingency plans drawn up to deal with an outbreak of exotic disease within Australia. Unless the industry is satisfied with the practicability with the and the justice of any contingency planning to deal with an outbreak of a virulent exotic disease, it is quite clear that cooperation will not be forthcoming. People will not take the initiative in reporting a suspected instance of a disease to the relevant quarantine authorities. Had the various industries been involved- I am speaking generally- in the same way as I believe the poultry industry has been, then I believe that we would have had very good models which would have been such as to engender confidence in the producers in the various industries. The contingency plans for Newcastle disease and fowl plague are well known and well understood by those involved in the poultry industry. Had the same sort of co-operation, planning and consultation taken place, say, with the beef-cattle industry then I believe that provisions enabling compensation to be made on a just basis would have been brought to the Parliament much earlier. It is the knowledge that one will receive just compensation which produces and engenders the co-operation needed from the producers concerned. Even given a provision which is simple and necessary, the question of its adequacy does arise. Here I merely reiterate what **Senator Thomas** had to say. The compensation that might be needed to be just would need to cover the widespread social and economic damage that an exotic disease outbreak might cause. The experience in Britain that **Senator Thomas** alluded to shows the need to provide for widespread social and community co-operation. Compensation needs to be provided for a much wider range of matters than merely the monetary value of the stock at the time of destruction. It is well known that where there are standstill orders, for example, there will be a loss of business, perhaps a complete cessation of business, of abattoirs, rural veterinary practitioners, auctioneers, stock transporters and even local shops and tradesmen, although, of course, they would be at a point too remote perhaps for compensation provisions to operate. A much wider range of compensation for damages might need to be contemplated in order to keep the whole economy of local communities at a viable level. The Act, quite properly, I think- perhaps in the only way possible- provides for the value of stock to be the stock at the time immediately prior to the outbreak of the disease. However, it is clear that this may not be adequate for restocking, and may almost certainly not provide the necessary funds for producers to bring their herds up to the same number as they had before the destruction. Quite clearly, as fewer stock will be available on the market the price will be forced above the pre-outbreak level. The question which needs to be asked is whether the Government might give some consideration to providing supplementary compensation to bridge that gap. Of course, I am not suggesting any attempt after an outbreak to control the market and to keep prices down. The Government needs to recognise that prices for restocking almost certainly will be far higher than will be realised by any compensation arrangements based on the Bill as presently drafted. There is also the question, for example, of ordinary farm workers who might find themselves drafted to handle a disinfection program or to deal with the disposal of carcasses and so on. What sort of compensation will they receive for losing time normally spent earning wages in the normal way on the properties of the district? Would their wages be guaranteed at pre-outbreak levels while dealing with this necessary community work? Would they receive any compensation for loss of income? The question might arise as to whether any consultation has taken place with the trade unions that might be involved in this wider aspect of compensation. I do not intend to develop this theme at any greater length. I simply say that insofar as the Act contains this provision, it is certainly not before time. It may not yet be adequate to ensure that those most intimately involved with the social and economic consequences of the destruction of livestock, in particular, are adequately protected. I believe that a wider ranging set of compensation provisions may well emerge if the sort of co-operation and consultation with industry in the drawing up of contingency plans, which **Senator Teague** spoke of, takes place in the open, as is occurring even now. I instance the case of the poultry industry as a good example and a model of how that can take place. The third major element of the Bill deals with appropriate powers to be granted to quarantine officers. The Committee of which I am a member found much concern. It took quite a deal of evidence on the lack of adequate powers by quarantine officers, a lack which was evidenced by the fact that for many years there were legal opinions- for example, I think one was given by a Deputy Crown Solicitor of one of the States, perhaps New South Wales- to the effect that after the granting of pratique- that is the granting by quarantine officers of permission to a vessel to unload passengers or goods because it is thought to be free of infection- quarantine officers lost any power to deal with goods discharged from a ship or aircraft. Clause 7, which I take it is directed to that particular problem, states: >A quarantine officer may search any baggage that has been taken off or out of an oversea vessel . . . Of course, that taking out of the oversea vessel will have occurred after pratique has been granted. That is only a suspicion on my part. If that clause is not directed to dealing with that particular problem, and the quarantine may have lost power once pratique is granted, then I think the Minister for Science and the Environment **(Senator Webster)** may care to tell the Senate whether it is intended to deal with it by either an amendment to this Bill or at some stage in the very near future. It is a gap that was brought up in evidence quite often before the Senate Committee on Natural Resources, as indeed was the whole question of the powers of quarantine officers. All the speakers preceding me have indicated how, in a sense, the quarantine service, though staffed by people of diligence and conscience and with great practical experience, has nevertheless been treated in many of the practical operative aspects of their work in a rather Cinderella-like fashion. It has been dependent more often than not on the co-operation of other Commonwealth agencies like the Bureau of Customs in order to secure a proper inspection and search of persons and goods as they come into Australia. This Bill is very welcome, and it goes quite a long way towards granting powers to quarantine officers to enable them to enter premises either with the consent of the owner or with a warrant granted by a justice of the peace in order to carry out his functions of inspection where he reasonably suspects that some infected article is present in those premises. The need for such powers to be given to quarantine officers came up time and time again in the evidence received by the Senate Committee on National Resources. I will not elaborate on that, but will leave it to the actual tabling of the report. It is not too early to have brought before the Parliament these sorts of clauses which help to establish the status and powers of quarantine officers, as they ought to be persons who can operate independently of other agencies, whether of State or Federal character. I believe that this sort of section, together with the enhanced penalties both within this Bill and within the Bill with which the Senate dealt earlier in the year, will give to the quarantine service some of the aspects of independence and status which are needed to bring home not only to the Australian public but to the magistrates of this country the very great importance of the quarantine service. As **Senator Teague** pointed out, it is a fact that because it has not been very much in the public eye, Australia has managed perhaps luckily to get away with an investment of $4m or $5m for the protection of industry and trade worth many billions of dollars. We need to realise, as a community, that we have been lucky and that the havoc that follows from breach of quarantine is such that both the general public and the courts need to take a more sympathetic view of the necessary inconvenience that may be caused by the exercise of power to search, inspect and question which this Bill gives to Australia's quarantine officers. I will leave any further remarks to the tabling of the report of the Senate Committee on the wider aspects of the place of quarantine in the Australian community. I believe this Bill is worthwhile so far as it goes, and it is timely. On that basis it receives the full support of the Opposition. {: #subdebate-52-0-s5 .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator WEBSTER:
Minister for Science and the Environment · Victoria · NCP/NP -- in replyThe level of debate on the Quarantine Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1979 has been most heartening. I congratulate those honourable senators who in a responsible and very well informed way have put their various interests in the debate on this Bill. Of course, I speak for the Minister for Health **(Mr Hunt)** in this matter and I can only say, from the interests that I have in a connected way relating to the research into some of the problems that are aimed at by the amendment to the Quarantine Act, that it presents perhaps one of the most important aspects of legislation in this country. On two or three occasions honourable senators who have spoken have suggested that as from now the whole of this legislation should receive investigation so that it may be amended further. I am not aware of the improvements that are necessary but 1 do acknowledge that those honourable senators who have served on the Senate Committee on National Resources have made themselves so expert and knowledgeable on these matters that they do stand in a position from which they are able to offer sound advice to the Government. I have no doubt that the comments made will be taken into account by the officers of the Department of Health, and certainly by the Minister as he studies those remarks. **Senator Grimes** opened for the Opposition and I was pleased to note that he finds no objection to the Bill. He spoke with some knowledge relating to the problems that may be created in this country should rabies enter. That is certainly a matter of concern. He spoke to the important point of the improved education that is required of the Australian population in regard to the problems that can be brought to this country by the unintentional action of people, or perhaps their ignorance in recognising the effects that may follow should some of these diseases that have been mentioned enter the country. I think his contribution was quite sound. **Senator Thomas** spoke with some authority, as he is the Chairman of the Senate Committee on National Resources. I would say to him that the Bill provides for the payment of compensation at market value, which is a value that a beast may have had prior to destruction. This approach has been decided upon by the Government as being appropriate, and it is a practical approach to the determination of compensation. The Senate will note that where there is a dispute with the owner over the amount of compensation, in section 10 there is provision for arbitration machinery to come into being. It is the Government's view that that will provide a proper basis for valuation. The Government did not consider it appropriate to extend the compensation provisions to cover such matters as loss of markets or other indirect losses, and it appears that that is the appropriate way to handle this matter. **Senator Thomas** also spent some time discussing bluetongue, which is a matter certainly of interest to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, as that was the organisation that informed the community that this disease, even in its latent form, had been found in the Northern Territory. It has always seemed of enormous importance to me that the CSIRO had noted that there were in existence in the Northern Territory over, I think, 66 exotic diseases which may be found in cattle, probably brought in by arboviruses. Indeed, they were in a latent state and had not come to light in the same way as bluetongue has. The new Bill provides machinery by which compensation will be received for any animal necessarily destroyed in a bluetongue eradication campaign. **Senator Thomas** brought forward that point and I hope he will be content with my comment. **Senator Coleman** spent some time discussing a **Mr Bill** Toomer. I am advised that it is fairly well known that **Mr Toomer** has been in dispute with the Department over a number of years. Generally, his allegations about quarantine procedures and quarantine policies have been the subject of a number of departmental and independent inquiries that have been carried out at some length. I am informed that the general terms of those inquiries and their outcome have shown generally that his allegations have not been substantiated. **Mr Toomer** apparently has been prepared to accept that the policies and procedures which have been set down and which are not in accord with his own views may be deficient in some ways, and perhaps that is a matter with which officers in the Department should deal by way of notation in order to express their views. **Mr Toomer** apparently has sought to go about that in a different way. Quarantine policies are developed in consultation with leading veterinary and agricultural authorities, both throughout this country and overseas, and are implemented and maintained as appropriate. When there is argument in relation to a particular policy or procedure taken by the Department of Health certainly we would seek to amend it, but it probably could be done in a less expensive way than **Mr Toomer** has sought to do. **Senator Teague** spoke about the rewriting of this Bill. As he said, I think, it would be appropriate to await the outcome of the report from **Senator Thomas's** Committee. It will be interesting to see whether that Committee can bring forward some sound advice. I am quite sure that the attitude of this Government to reports of both Senate and House of Representatives committees demonstrates a uniqueness which has not applied previously in the Federal Parliament, that is, Ministers must react as quickly as possible to make an input into the Senate or House of Representatives, whichever House may be appropriate to committees' findings. We look forward to reading that report. I noted that **Senator Thomas's** Committee had shown its interest by visiting ANAHL- the Australian National Animal Health Laboratory- just a week or so before I was there and had seen that quite impressive building getting under way. Undoubtedly, the members of the Committee were taking note of what in a few years will be a very great protective service for us in Australia. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: -- It took 10 years to get it. {: .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator WEBSTER: -Yes, the honourable senator is quite right. Certain governments have seen fit to press ahead with these important matters, and the Fraser-Anthony Government is the one which provided the funds. I do not doubt that the rural population is well aware of that. {: .speaker-KTZ} ##### Senator McLaren: -- Oh, who instigated it in the first place? We set aside $56m. {: .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator WEBSTER: -The honourable senator should go back overseas. I am so easily taken away from the subject with which I am dealing. It is unfair for honourable senators to interject. **Senator Teague** went on to question the funds that were available for the 1 979-80 year, and I think he commented that the Estimates provided roughly $26m. I am informed that the figures referred to by **Senator Teague** do not include large capital outlays on animal quarantine stations or the cost of new waste disposal arrangements under negotiation with the States, nor do they include the quarantine costs of coastal surveillance. I understand that one can find those figures in the Estimates. The compensation provisions do not cover loss of salary or loss of markets, as I mentioned earlier. Perhaps it could be said that in this Government's view those things should not be covered. The question arises as to where one should stop in attempting to evaluate compensation. We feel that the Commonwealth is not providing comprehensive insurance; rather it is providing a practical system of compensation designed to avoid hardship arising directly from events beyond a person's control and ensuring protection from the problems that occur when eradication measures are necessary. {: .speaker-NJ4} ##### Senator Tate: asked whether there can be a search of baggage once pratique is granted. The answer is yes. The intention of the Bill is to provide search powers for baggage, even though pratique has been granted for ships or aircraft. The provisions would be useless unless that were the situation. Again, I say that the Senate can be particularly pleased with the level of debate on the Quarantine Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1979. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. In Committee The Bill. {: #subdebate-52-0-s6 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia -- Despite complete agreement with the statements made in the second reading speech, an abundance of time during the long drawn-out reply of the Minister for Science and the Environment **(Senator Webster)** to everyone who supported him left me unsatisfied with the wording of the Bill. The Senate Standing Committee on National Resources did its job and studied the question, and all members favoured providing quarantine officers with additional powers. However, while they are all conversant with the subject, none of them appears to have examined the Bill, which contains many clauses with which I do not think a democratic Parliament would agree. I have been agitating continually for the Minister to instruct the Parliamentary Counsel to provide in legislation that when an appeal provision is included an opinion should be formed on reasonable grounds. I notice that in this Bill when a quarantine officer requires a warrant before he can search premises he must form an opinion on reasonable grounds. That provision is duplicated in almost every instruction; accordingly, I congratulate the person responsible. It looks as though continual agitation is getting across in some quarters. Nevertheless, the Bill contains other faults. Proposed new section 69a ( 1 ) states: >Subject to this section, where any goods (including any animal or plant) are destroyed in accordance with section 48 or 58, the Minister may, if he considers it appropriate to do so, approve the payment of compensation under this section in respect of these goods. {: .speaker-KSY} ##### Senator McAuliffe: -- But he only may; is that your point? {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH: -- I am not very worried about the use of the word 'may' because there is a British judgment which states that a public officer who has a discretion which bestows a favour or benefit on someone must use the discretion in favour of the applicant. I think that is negated by this Bill because the person who drafted proposed new section 69a( 1 ) used the word 'may' which gives the Minister a discretion, but in sub-sections (2), (3) and (4), which give reasons why payments will not be made, it is stated that the Minister 'shall' not approve, not that the Minister 'may' not approve. Obviously the mind of the draftsman has been drawn to a distinction between the application of the words may' and 'shall'. Therefore 'may' must clearly mean that the discretion is with the Minister. The proposed new sub-section says that the Minister may approve the payment of compensation only if he considers it appropriate to do so. That was the thrust of my interjection to **Senator Tate.** Sub-section (2) of section 57 of the Act, which is being deleted by clause 5 of the Bill, states: >If any animal so destroyed (not being an animal which has been brought into Australia in contravention of this Act, the Regulations or a proclamation under this Act) is found not to to be diseased, compensation shall, in accordance with the Regulations, be paid to the owner of the animal. That provision contains a compulsion. We are now taking away the compulsion. It is now being left to the discretion of the Minister; no criteria are being established. There is no suggestion of arbitration being available if failure occurs. Subsection ( 1 ) of proposed new Section 69a reads: >If the Minister and the owner or the owners entitled to compensation under this section in respect of goods do not agree as to the market value or sum that, in accordance with sub-section (9), is to be the amount of that compensation, that market value or sum shall be determined by a person agreed upon by the Minister and by the owner or owners entitled to that compensation. Firstly, any payment must be in accordance with sub-section (9). The sub-section relates to the destruction of an animal which is infected with some disease and to an animal which was in quarantine at all times between its importation and destruction. This applies only after the Minister has used his discretion. The market value has to be ascertained at the time of destruction or importation. That is where the arbitration comes in. The arbitrator has no say as to whether compensation shall be paid. I turn now to proposed new sub-section (2), which states: >The Minister shall not approve the payment of compensation under this section in respect of- > >goods unlawfully imported into Australia; or - I think that is understandable- {: type="a" start="b"} 0. goods lawfully imported into Australia that were in quarantine at all times between their importation and destruction, other than an animal destroyed at a quarantine station. We are making it mandatory for the Minister not to pay compensation unless it involves an animal which is at a quarantine station and which has been lawfully imported into Australia. That is one prohibition which the Minister has at his discretion. Sub-section (3) provides: >The Minister shall not approve the payment of compensation under this section in respect of goods where the Minister is satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that- > >the goods were destroyed by reason of an act or omission in contravention of a law of the Commonwealth, a law of a State or a law of a Territory; I do not know what that actually means. My interpretation is that because someone in the quarantine service made a mistake and destroyed an animal or some property no compensation can be paid. Again, the Minister is prohibited from making payment on that occasion. I refer now to proposed new sub-section (7), which reads: >An owner is not entitled to compensation under this section in respect of goods unless a claim for compensation in respect of the goods is made by or on behalf of the owner within 12 months after-. > >if under sub-section (6) notice of the destruction of the goods is required to be given to him- that notice is given; or - 1 think that is understandable. After a person receives notice he has 12 months to apply for compensation. The proposed sub-section continues: > >b ) in any other case- the goods are destroyed. If the goods are destroyed and the person is not notified he is not entitled to compensation. Surely this is not reasonable. The person involved is subject to a time limit. How can he make an application within 12 months if he receives no notification that the goods have been destroyed? I think that that warrants an explanation from the Minister. Clause 7 seeks to insert proposed new section 70A (3), which provides: >A person shall not- > >without reasonable excuse, refuse or fail to answer a question put to him under sub-section (2); or - This relates to a person associated with the infected goods- {: type="a" start="1"} 0. b) in answer to such a question, make a statement that is false or misleading in a material particular. {: .speaker-KSY} ##### Senator McAuliffe: -The penalty is $2,000. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH: -Yes, a penalty of $2,000 can be imposed. We have thought it incorrect until recent times for a person to be required to answer a question that may incriminate him. Since the Evidence Act came into being we have adopted the principle in some cases that, if it is essential to ask such a question, a person shall not be exempt from answering a question that may incriminate him but such an answer cannot be used in a court of law in a case against him. The poor devil involved in this proposed new section will get none of that protection which we have accepted as a right unless he has a reasonable excuse. I do not know whether the fact that an answer may incriminate a person is a reasonable excuse for not answering, but the person involved in this legislation is not being given the protection that we have given in other Acts which we have passed since such time as we have insisted on incriminatory questions being answered. I hope that the Minister can give us some explanation for the questions I have raised. I add that I question very much the right of quarantine officers to go into a property with a warrant, to search premises, to force open cupboards, to refuse any vehicle to go into or out of a property and to detain any person inside a property. I do not know whether it is sufficient for the officer to have such tremendous power under a warrant issued only by a justice of the peace. I do not think justices of the peace are permitted to issue many warrants. I think that the power of the inspector justifies a requirement for an approach to a magistrate if there is reasonable ground for suspicion. I am not happy about this matter. I protest at the giving of this power just on the signature of a justice of the peace. {: #subdebate-52-0-s7 .speaker-PJ4} ##### Senator TEAGUE:
South Australia -I have listened carefully to **Senator Cavanagh** 's analysis of a number of clauses in the Bill. The matter that I too would like the Minister for Science and the Environment **(Senator Webster)** to answer relates to clause 6 which proposes to insert new section 69A(7) which states that an owner is not entitled to compensation if, in the case of his not being notified by the quarantine officer of the destruction of goods, the goods have been destroyed. That is a puzzle to me. I join **Senator Cavanagh** in asking the Minister for an explanation of that. But I am not as moved by **Senator Cavanagh** 's argument with regard to the other matters which he has raised. I acknowledge his principal point which is that in clause 6 the word 'may' occurs in a crucial position in proposed new section 69A ( 1 ) whereby there is a discretion remaining with the Minister. I believe that a good government and a good Minister, led by a department with the record that the Department of Health has, will give every consideration, as the Bill allows, to what is appropriate. So I am not objecting to a discretion that remains with a good Minister. The only question which remains in my mind is the one concerning the situation that when goods are destroyed compensation cannot be paid. {: #subdebate-52-0-s8 .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator WEBSTER:
Minister for Science and the Environment · Victoria · NCP/NP -- With regard to the point dealt with by **Senator Teague** and **Senator Cavanagh** relating to the notification of destruction, I am informed that proposed new section 69A(7)(b) obliges a quarantine officer who causes goods to be destroyed at the time of destruction to notify the owner where the name and address of the owner is known. That notice is to be in writing. Such an owner can apply for compensation-- {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh: -- Where does it say that? {: .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator WEBSTER: -- I am informed that that notice is to be in writing. Where the name and address of the owner is not known the owner may still apply for compensation within 12 months of destruction. I think honourable senators would acknowledge that it would be unusual for an owner not to inquire within that time about the fate of his goods if he had any interest in them. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh: -- But where in the Bill is the obligation for notification? {: .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator WEBSTER: -- I thought that **Senator Cavanagh** may have studied the Bill better than I have. Proposed new section 69a (6) states: >For the purposes of this section, where a quarantine officer who causes goods to be destroyed under section 48 knows, at the time of the destruction of the goods, the name and address of the owner or of any of the owners of the goods at that time, the quarantine officer shall cause written notice of the destruction of the goods to be given to that owner or each of those owners either personally or by post. I do not know why **Senator Cavanagh** brought the matter forward. It is quite clear. **Senator Cavanagh** brought forward a matter relating to a justice of the peace. In clause 8 the Bill authorises a justice of the peace to issue a warrant to enter and search premises where he is satisfied by information on oath or affirmation that there are reasonable grounds for believing that there are infected goods at the premises. This provision is similar to section 10 of the Crimes Act which authorises a justice of the peace to issue such warrants. It is more restrictive than the Customs Act which authorises the Comptroller of Customs or a collector of Customs for a State or Territory to issue a Customs warrant which would authorise an officer to enter and search premises. The initial point that was brought up by **Senator Cavanagh** related to what may be meant by 'on reasonable grounds'. I am told that it has been traditional for professional assessment to be an essential component of this legislation, and one can acknowledge that that may be readily so in this instance. The wording on reasonable grounds' has been found acceptable over a period. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh: asked whether a person is compelled to answer a question if his answer may incriminate him. The answer to that is no. Our understanding is that it would be a reasonable excuse not to wish to answer and that that would be in conformity generally with the law. **Senator Cavanagh** also queried why the Minister has a discretion to pay compensation. I suppose that he was querying the justification for a discretionary provision. I am informed that this approach, rather than one which provides for compensation as a right, is required because cases may arise where the payment of compensation may be inappropriate. For instance, if the animals, plants or goods are of a kind not previously known to exist in Australia, compensation should not be payable unless it can be established by the owner that they were legitimately introduced. A second example is where the owner is known to Commonwealth authorities as a person suspected of being implicated in illegal movement of animals et cetera which could have introduced the disease which necessitated destruction of his property. A further example is a case where the owner has taken deliberate measures to increase the goods, animals or plants which otherwise would properly be subject to destruction and compensation. Another example is where the importer of an animal is otherwise indemnified comprehensively against the loss of the animal. Some other instances could be given. That is not intended to be an exhaustive list. All the circumstances under which the Minister may decide to refuse compensation and thus open the way for appeal cannot be anticipated. Therefore, it is not possible to identify them specifically in legislation. **Senator Cavanagh** also queried why section 57 is being repealed by clause 5. 1 am advised that sub-section 57(1) authorises the destruction of an animal only where a quarantine officer can certify that the animal is diseased. The disease certification procedures have proved to be unworkable in practical disease eradication situations. In many cases animals in contact with diseased animals must be destroyed without delay before symptoms develop. Reliance is placed on section 48 as authority to destroy these animals. Section 48 authorises the destruction of animals as well as other goods where, in the opinion of a quarantine officer, they cannot be effectively disinfected or ought not to be released owing to the danger of infection. Clause 4 of the Bill amends section 48 to enable goods to be effectively treated, as well as disinfected, rather than destroyed, These are considered to be more workable procedures. Further, under sub-section 57 (2) compensation can be paid only in respect of certain animals, namely, animals which have been imported into Australia, have been destroyed and subsequently have been found not to be diseased. Goods, animals or plants of Australian origin do not quality for compensation. Clause 6 inserts alternative provisions to enable the payment of compensation in respect of goods, animals or plants of Australian origin and imported animals in a quarantine station, except where investigation shows that the animals were infected before contact with other animals at the station or before reaching it. **Senator Cavanagh** referred to proposed new section 69a (2) (b) and asked why compensation was not paid when imported goods, other than animals, that had not been released from quarantine were destroyed. I am advised that it is not the intention of the Government to set up a free insurance scheme for importers. The provision of the Bill excludes from compensation imported goods found to be diseased before they are released to the importer. The importers of such goods are given the option of re-exporting them or of having them destroyed. Without this exclusion, importers could import goods which did not comply with quarantine requirements, safe in the knowledge that they would be compensated if the goods had to be destroyed. Imported animals are treated differently. As many diseases of animals are very infectious, a healthy animal may be infected at the quarantine station. Such animals will be destroyed and may qualify for compensation. The purpose of quarantine is to ensure that imported animals are isolated from local animals until there is no risk of exotic disease being introduced into Australia. Of course, in dealing with this particular legislation the definition in the Act of 'goods' includes animals. The new section 69a (3) does not refer to Commonwealth officials. The word 'and' between paragraphs (a) and (b) is significant. The intention is not to pay compensation to any persons having an interest in the goods who suffer loss by reason of an act or omission by them in contravention of the law. I hope that my comments have dealt with the various points that have been made by honourable senators. {: #subdebate-52-0-s9 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia -- I think further clarity is needed. The Minister for Science and the Environment **(Senator Webster)** can say what the Department believes and **Senator Teague** can say what a good Minister will do. However, we do not make laws on> the basis of what departments say or the fact that we may have a good Minister. Situations change over a period. We do not build legislation around a person but to protect any individual who may be endangered by it. According to the Minister, **Senator Cavanagh** was so stupid that he did not read clause 6. Perhaps I did not accord it its due importance in discussing it. The Minister tells us that everything is covered. However, if we look at clause 6 we find that new section 69a ( 1 ) provides: >Subject to this section, where any goods (including any animal or plant) are destroyed in accordance with section 48 or58 . . . Thus, there are two sections, sections 48 and 58, in respect of which one may destroy the plant. Further, under sub-section (6) of new section 69a the following is provided: >For the purposes of this section where a quarantine officer who causes goods to be destroyed under section 48 . . . Not goods under section 58- knows, at the time of the destruction of the goods, the name and address of the owner or of any of the owners of the goods at that time, the quarantine officer shall cause written notice of the destruction of the goods to be given to that owner or each of those owners either personally or by post. Thus, the only goods covered under sub-clause 6 are those destroyed under section 48. Sub-clause (7) provides- >An owner is not entitled to compensation under this section in respect of goods unless a claim for compensation in respect of the goods is made by or on behalf of the owner within 12 months after- > >if under sub-section (6) notice of the destruction of the goods is required to be given to him- that notice is given; or > >b ) in any other case- the goods are destroyed. The obligation to give notification of destruction relates only to goods mentioned in sub-clause (6), which in turn relates to the destruction of goods under section 48. But section 58 of the Act provides: >If a quarantine officer certifies that any plants or goods ordered into quarantine are infected with any disease . . . {: .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster: -- You are reading the right clause now, senator, and the right part of it. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH: -- I thank the Minister. I would be lost without his guidance on this question. I repeat, section 58 provides: >If a quarantine officer certifies that any plants or goods ordered into quarantine are affected with any disease or with any noxious insect or any pest, or have been exposed to infection from any plant affected, or article contaminated, with any disease or with any noxious insect or any pest, and in his opinion are a source of danger to other plants and ought to be destroyed, the Minister, after notice to the owner or agent, if known, may order them to be destroyed and they shall be destroyed accordingly. {: .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster: -- So he will have to give notice. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH: -He will notify that he is going to destroy the plants or goods but no mention is made of compensation. In other cases where goods are destroyed compensation is paid. My criticism concerns the deletion of section 57. 1 note what the Minister has said concerning the restrictions imposed by section 57 but my concern was with sub-section (2), which I suppose had to be deleted because of the desire to strengthen sub-section (I). The Bill will replace the statement in 57 (2), that compensation shall be paid, by the expression 'may in the discretion of the Minister'. The provision has been weakened. The term 'which may' lets the Minister off. I lack **Senator Teague** 's faith in all Ministers. He relies on always having a good, reliable Minister for Health and a good, reliable Department of Health. He must be absent a great deal from Question Time in this place if he puts his trust in such a department and in such Ministers. I am not being critical of the Minister himself. I am seeking protection of the individual. If an injustice has been done him it should not be up to a Minister to say whether or not this Parliament should have inscribed in the Bill criteria establishing when compensation shall be payable or when it shall not be payable. {: #subdebate-52-0-s10 .speaker-PJ4} ##### Senator TEAGUE:
South Australia -I am entirely satisfied with the enlightenment and explanation provided by the Minister in relation to sub-section (7) of proposed new section 69a. I merely rise to note that fact because **Senator Cavanagh** persists in his comments on that subsection. Clearly, in this matter two cases are outlined in which no compensation is paid: After the lapse of 12 months, when either notice has been given or goods have been destroyed. Clearly, that 12 month period is entirely sufficient for the workings of the Bill. I have gained that knowledge from the enlightened answer of the Minister and perhaps I had been distracted by paying attention too carefully to **Senator Cavanagh** 's query on the matter. I rose to speak only to say that I find no objection to the entire Bill. {: #subdebate-52-0-s11 .speaker-KTZ} ##### Senator McLAREN:
South Australia -I refer to Clause 6 (2) (a) (b). **Senator Cavanagh** has expressed his concern for the owner of goods which may be destroyed. I want to express my concern for primary producers and about the reason they might be affected by contaminated goods coming into Australia which are not destroyed. I am disturbed that there is nothing in the Quarantine Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1979 which sets a time limit, or a specified period for the destruction of goods which are imported legally or illegally into Australia. I quote the case in Darwin that members of the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources had brought to their attention. A consignment of soya bean meal was brought into Australia. The person who imported it was under the impression that he had authority to bring it in. The officers assisting the Minister would be well aware of the case. I would have thought that something would have been put in this Bill to overcome this problem so that it would not occur again. This consignment of soya bean meal was brought into Australia, the quarantine officers impounded it and it lay in the compound in Darwin for many months. It may still be there for all I know. The cost of the consignment was about $6,000. By the time all the litigation was dealt with I understand that the cost to the taxpayer of Australia was going to be about $100,000. We should have something in this Bill so that this type of product can be destroyed within a specified time and the owner compensated, whether he imported it illegally or legally. That would have to be determined by a court of law because some officer in the Department authorised its admittance. If the Minister had the power within a certain period to destroy that product and paid the owner- in this case we were informed that the amount involved was about $6,000- that would have been the end of the case. But this soya bean meal had been lying there for many months until the Committee members went on an inspection and we were shown it. Not only was it a threat to primary industry in Australia; it was also taking up valuable space in the quarantine division in Darwin. I would have thought that as officers of the Department of Health were at most of the hearings that our Committee held, some action would have been taken to put a clause in this Bill so that we could destroy imports like this immediately they are brought to the attention of the authorities. I am concerned also that no mention is made in this Bill of officers of the Bureau of Customs having to confer by law with quarantine officers. I cite the case of illegally imported birds in Queensland which occurred some time ago. The Customs officers were aware, for about a fortnight, that birds had been illegally imported into Australia and the quarantine officers were not advised. That again comes back to what **Senator Tate** was talking about- that is, the concern expressed by the poultry industry. Newcastle disease could have been introduced into this country. The quarantine officers were not told by the Bureau of Customs that it knew these birds were in Australia. The Customs officers said that they were hoping they could catch the ringleaders of the smuggling gang. That is not good enough for the primary industry of Australia, particularly the poultry industry. Perhaps such provisions might be in some other Bill that is to be brought into this place. I hope that that is the case. But there ought to be some compelling legislation under which Customs officers have to consult immediately with the officers of the quarantine division when they become aware that there are illegal imports of birds into this country in order to safeguard our primary industry. These things are well known to the Department of Health. I thought that they could have been taken care of in this legislation. I hope that after the report of the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources is tabled we will see very soon further amending legislation to the Quarantine Act so that those two matters I have mentioned and many other things that may be in the report when it is tabled are taken into consideration and embodied in the law. Perhaps the Minister might be able to answer me as to whether that case I have mentioned in Darwin has yet been tidied up or whether that soya bean meal is still lying there awaiting destruction or whatever is going to become of it. {: #subdebate-52-0-s12 .speaker-NJ4} ##### Senator TATE:
Tasmania -- I express my dissatisfaction very briefly at the answer given by the Minister for Science and the Environment **(Senator Webster)** to **Senator Cavanagh** concerning clause 6 which seeks to insert a new section 69 ( 1 ) in the Act. The language reinforces the fact that the Minister for Health is given a discretion to award or approve the payment of compensation. Not only is the word 'may' used but, as **Senator Cavanagh** pointed out, it is reinforced by the clause if the Minister considers it appropriate to do so. The fact is that I was perhaps in error in my remarks at the second reading stage in saying that I thought we had in this Bill a provision which would engender the support of people engaged in the livestock industry in notifying the appropriate authorities of their suspicion that an exotic disease was in their herd. I had thought that the Bill would give a right to compensation where diseased stock are destroyed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. One finds on the contrary that the Minister retains an untrammelled discretion not to approve the payment of compensation. The Minister for Science and the Environment said in some of his replies to **Senator Cavanagh** that this might cover a case where the owner had already recovered moneys through some other form of indemnity. Surely we can provide in the Act that the owner must exhaust all other remedies, including the recovery of insurance moneys. The Minister also said that there may be cases where the Minister for Health thinks that the person concerned may have himself introduced the disease into his herd by presumably illegally importing some materials, plant or animal which itself was diseased, but in a way which has not been susceptible to proof before the court, and is just known to the quarantine service. This was the answer given byne service. This was the Minister. 1 find it totally unsatisfactory that the right to compensation is not such that it is a mere privilege which one can apply for. But if the Minister without having to justify his suspicion before any independent tribunal formed the view on advice received that for some reason compensation ought not be paid, he merely says it will not be paid. The arbitration provisions only go to the quantum of compensation if he decides that some sort of compensation ought to be paid. It seems to me that in this respect- I know **Senator Thomas** would possibly share my concern- the Bill does not create that atmosphere of absolute assurance that compensation is payable where diseased stock are destroyed. This is necessary if the producers are to give their full support to the formation and consultative process going into the contingency plans and their actual operation. {: #subdebate-52-0-s13 .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator WEBSTER:
Minister for Science and the Environment · Victoria · NCP/NP -- A number of matters have been brought forward. My understanding of the point which **Senator Cavanagh** first raised was merely answered by him in the main when he read section 58 of the Act which includes provision for notification. New section 69a clearly covers compensation under both sections 48 and 58 and a claim for compensation under section 58 is covered by sub-clause 7 (b). I think **Senator Cavanagh** noted that. He complained that a discretion rested with the Minister. He was quite correct. A discretion does rest with the Minister in the particular instance that he mentioned. That is the way in which the Bill reads and unless there is any great argument against that, I imagine that it will stand. One or two points were mentioned by **Senator McLaren.** I am advised that there is no known situation of the kind mentioned by the honourable senator, of illegal importations being concealed from quarantine officers. I think the point being made was that if in actual fact the importations were not notified, it could well be construed that there was an attempt to conceal. There is very close co-operation between officers of the Bureau of Customs and the Department of Health, and there is close consultation on all these matters. It would be very uncommon for one department not to advise the other, and my advice is that there is no knowledge or instance of the kind mentioned by the honourable senator taking place, that is, quarantine officers not being advised. Some reference was made to the eradication campaign in northern Queensland. My understanding is that it was carried out efficiently without the introduction of diseases. Apparently, the whole matter was successfully concluded. **Senator McLaren** raised also the matter of the Darwin soya bean meal. I am advised that the soya bean meal is being destroyed. It constituted a danger to Australian agriculture, where it was. The Act authorises the destruction of goods where they present a danger of an exotic disease being introduced. However, normal practice is to allow the importer the option of re-export where this is possible. The Darwin soya bean meal case demonstrated the need for a time limit on the exercise of this election, and this practice is now being adopted in similar cases. In relation to the point of appeal that was mentioned, I am informed by officers of the Attorney-General's Department that the appropriate form of appeal against a decision of the Minister for Health not to approve compensation would be to the Federal Court of Australia under the provisions of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act. This Act was assented to on 16 June 1977 but its commencement date has yet to be proclaimed. Until that Act comes into operation aggrieved persons would have available to them the existing common law remedies. The Act would be sufficient authority for an appeal and an appeal need not be mentioned in the quarantine legislation. Under the provisions of clause 5 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act a person who is aggrieved by a decision of the kind provided for in the Quarantine Bill may apply to the Federal Court for an order of review in respect of the decision. The Act provides the grounds under which a person may apply for an order of review, and those grounds include: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. that a breach of the rules of natural justice occurred in connexion with the making of a decision; 1. that procedures that were required by law to be observed in connexion with the making of the decision were not observed; and 2. that the making of the decision was an improper exercise of the power conferred by the enactment . . . I am advised in relation to the comment that I made about: the Darwin soya bean meal that the soya bean meal apparently did not constitute a disease risk where it was located. I said that it created a disease risk, but I correct that. The soya bean meal did not constitute a risk of the introduction of disease where it was located. {: #subdebate-52-0-s14 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia -- This argument is becoming more complicated, and I realise that I am not the one to unravel the question. It is a legal question. The genius and ability of the Minister for Science and the Environment **(Senator Webster)** are far ahead of mine, so I wish he would bring the argument down to my level so that I can understand it. He thought I gave an answer to subsection (7) of proposed section 69a by reading out section 58 of the Act. But let us just go through it again. Section 58 of the Act reads: >If a quarantine officer certifies that any plants or goods ordered into quarantine are affected with any disease or with any noxious insect or any pest . . . and in his opinion are a source of danger to other plants and ought to be destroyed, the Minister, after notice to the owner or agent- I think that is what the Minister refers to, 'the Minister after notice to the owner or agent'. Of course, the Minister says that the owner or agent has been notified. But whether notification is given or not, proposed sub-section (7) must surely exclude compensation in that case. Subsection (6) of proposed section 69a reads: a quarantine officer who causes goods to be destroyed under section 48 . . . Under that proposed sub-section written notice must be given to the owner or agent. But proposed sub-section (6) does not include goods destroyed under section 58. Coming back to subsection (7): >An owner is not entitled to compensation- I emphasise that; he is not entitled to compensation. It is one of the occasions when he does not get compensation- an owner is not entitled to compensation under this section in respect of goods unless a claim for compensation in respect of the goods is made by or on behalf of the owner within 1 2 months after- {: type="a" start="a"} 0. if under sub-section (6) notice of the destruction of the goods is required to be given to him- that notice is given; or 1. b) in any other case- the goods are destroyed. There is no claim for compensation. There is no time limit under section 58 of the Act. The claim for compensation does not exist. It has a time stipulation, and the owner is not entitled to compensation unless he makes his claim within 12 months. If notification has been given to the owner of the goods under section 58, he is not entitled to compensation under proposed subsection 69A (7). I wonder how much this might conflict with sub-section ( 1 ) of proposed section 69a of the Bill, which reads: >Subject to this section, where any goods (including any animal or plant) are destroyed in accordance with section 48 or 58, the Minister may, if he considers it appropriate to do so, approve the payment of compensation under this section in respect of those goods. This brings me back to the other point. There is an appeal against the Minister, I think to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, under the clauses that the Minister read out to the Senate. Among them is the question of the Minister's improper use of his power under the legislation, and that is what I am concerned about. If there is an appeal against the discretion of the Minister, we want grounds so that a man can establish in accordance with this legislation that the Minister was wrong . But the proposed new section 69A, in sub-section ( 1 ) says: >Subject to this section, where any goods (including any animal or plant) are destroyed in accordance with section 48 or 58, the Minister may, if he considers it appropriate to do so . . . Therefore it will need to be established that the Minister did not consider it appropriate to do so. But how can one establish the formation of thoughts in any person's mind? The Minister does not even have to have reasonable grounds if he considers the action is appropriate. I could go along to the Tribunal and say that the Minister did not consider it appropriate. That is the criterion of the appeal. How I would establish that I do not know? Under the very wording of the clause an appeal would not exist. That is why I ask that legal consideration be given to the matter. If it is not agreed that some alteration to the clause is needed, at least it should give us a more comprehensive explanation than we have had tonight. {: #subdebate-52-0-s15 .speaker-KTZ} ##### Senator McLAREN:
South Australia -- I refer to the reply of the Minister for Science and the Environment **(Senator Webster)** to the question I raised in regard to the soya bean meal in Darwin. I would like to set the record straight. At no time did I say that the soya bean meal was brought into the country illegally or smuggled into the country. I think that the Minister will see, when he reads *Hansard* tomorrow, that I said that the person who brought the soya bean meal in thought he was bringing it in legally but because some person incorrectly signed a document the soya bean meal was confiscated when it arrived in Darwin. The Minister's answer causes me great concern because it is just five months to the day since I inspected that soya bean meal. I understood the Minister to say that it is now to be destroyed. I am concerned about why it was not destroyed long ago. The Minister said that it does not constitute any danger to primary industry but it is there and it is taking up space which the quarantine officers in Darwin could well use for other purposes. It is also costing the taxpayers a lot of money to keep it there. It is worth only about $6,000. Why cannot the Government destroy this soya bean meal and pay the owner $6,000 and be done with the matter instead of dragging out litigation? That is one reason why I have expressed concern that no time limit is embodied in the Bill. I hope that that will be taken care of in a further amending Bill. As I have said, I hope that that will come about shortly after the report of the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources is tabled. In response to my query about the importation of birds into Queensland the Minister said that there was close co-operation between the Customs officers who found those birds and the quarantine officers. I have been informed that there was no co-operation and that the quarantine officers did not know that these birds were even in Queensland until nearly a fortnight after they were found because the Customs officers were sitting pat and hoping that they would catch the ringleader. As the Minister said, fortunately there was no danger to the poultry industry. But there could well have been. Those birds should have been destroyed immediately they were found. I wish to raise another matter about which I do not see anything in this legislation. I refer to clause 7, which gives power to search baggage. In my view Customs officers should be bound to notify quarantine officers that incoming passengers have stated that they have been on a farm prior to entry to Australia. I have just come back to Australia for the second time this year. The Minister said a while ago that I should have stayed overseas. I will refer to that in the third reading stage. On my return there was a failure by the Customs officers to have my shoes fumigated, although I filled in the appropriate card. I am most upset about that. I had hoped that in this legislation there would be a clause giving quarantine officers the power to stand alongside Customs officers at ports of entry. What is the good of passengers coming into Australia answering a question on a card which we are all given as to whether they have been on a farm within three months, or whatever it is, if one can go through Customs without having one's shoes inspected. I asked the Customs officers why I could not have my shoes fumigated and they said: 'You have not got any dirt on them, have you? You will be all right.' That is not good enough for primary industry in this country. Some powers should be given to quarantine officers so that they can stand alongside Customs officers at every port of entry into Australia and when a person states on his card that he has been on a farm the quarantine officers should then have the right to look at his luggage, inspect it and fumigate his shoes, particularly in cases where passengers request to have their shoes fumigated. I am well aware of the fact that primary industry in Australia is very concerned about the possibility of the introduction at some time of foot and mouth disease and, particularly in the case of the poultry industry, Newcastle disease. Another anomaly in this amendustry nding legislation is that no power is being given to a quarantine officer to enable him to search luggage. There is nothing in the Bill to ensure that he shall be notified by Customs that a person coming into Australian has signified that he has been on a farm and may constitute some danger to Australia's primary industry. I hope that in any further amending legislation the Government will take some note of what I have said and will see whether we can tie up an anomaly which in my view exists in regard to the safeguards in Australia at this time. {: #subdebate-52-0-s16 .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator WEBSTER:
Minister for Science and the Environment · Victoria · NCP/NP -- The points that have been raised by honourable senators will be taken into account by the Minister for Health. I have been given a note by my advisers. I have been informed in regard to the delay in the destruction of the soya bean meal that the matter has been under consideration. The owner was unwilling to exercise an election to destroy or re-export it. It is basically because of these unacceptable delays that a time limit is being set for the exercising of that election. In relation to the declaration, I am quite surprised that some action was not taken when **Senator McLaren** declared that he had been on a farm within three months. I think that would be a most unusual circumstance. I certainly know of what happened in an instance in which I was involved. The area from which one has come has some relationship to the question. Certainly quarantine officers are very close to the matter. I have been advised that shoes require cleaning only if there is adherent mud or other material. Dirty shoes are a risk only when the passenger has been in a foot and mouth disease country. Persons from such countries have their shoes inspected and, if necessary, cleaned. I do not think that I can further help **Senator McLaren.** Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. {:#subdebate-52-1} #### Third Reading Motion (by **Senator Webster)** proposed: >That the Bill be now read a third time. {: #subdebate-52-1-s0 .speaker-KTZ} ##### Senator McLAREN:
South Australia -- I did not think I would have to speak to the motion for the third reading of the Bill but my contribution has been brought about by a statement made by the Minister for Science and the Environment **(Senator Webster)** in his reply to the second reading debate when he made mention of the Australian National Animal Health Laboratory in Victoria and said that primary producers should be grateful to his Government for establishing the laboratory. The Minister would be well aware that it was the Labor Government which instituted the establishment of that laboratory. I have spoken in this Parliament many times and asked the Minister many questions about the delay in getting on with the establishment of the laboratory after the Labor Government was removed from office in 1975. I think the Minister is well aware that it was the Labor Government which acquired the old Geelong rifle range and which made the public announcement to which I have referred in this Parliament many times that it was prepared to provide funds to the tune of $56m for the establishment of an animal health laboratory. I do not want to get into an argument with the Minister on this matter. As a member of the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources, I have inspected that establishment. It is a very fine establishment. I know that primary producers throughout Australia will get great benefit from it. Let us not now get into an argument with the present Government about its claiming all the credit for the establishment of the laboratory, otherwise we will have a series of long debates in this place as to who rightfully instigated the establishment of this laboratory. I hope that the Minister is prepared to give due credit to the Whitlam Government for deciding that the laboratory was necessary after receiving a report from the Public Works Committee. Credit should not be taken away from the Whitlam Government. I know that the Minister does not like to give us any credit for anything we did while in government, particularly for primary producers. I think that most primary producers are well aware that it was the Whitlam Government which first instigated the establishment of the laboratory. Many of them are well aware of my repeated questions in this Parliament as to why the present Government could not establish that laboratory at a much faster rate. I conclude by saying that I am very pleased at the construction which is taking place. I think it will be a credit to both governments, firstly to the Labor Government for instigating it, and secondly to this Government which at last is getting on with the work and constructing it. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. {: .page-start } page 1369 {:#debate-53} ### AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY ELECTRICITY SUPPLY AMENDMENT BILL 1979 {: .page-start } page 1369 {:#debate-54} ### OMBUDSMAN AMENDMENT BILL 1979 {:#subdebate-54-0} #### Second Readings Debate resumed from 23 August, on motion by **Senator Webster:** >That the Bills be now read a second time. {: #subdebate-54-0-s0 .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES:
Queensland -These Bills are concerned with minor procedural changes. The Opposition does not oppose them and gives them a speedy passage through the Senate. {: #subdebate-54-0-s1 .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator WEBSTER:
Minister for Science and the Environment · Victoria · NCP/NP -- in reply- I thank the Opposition for its support of these Bills. They are of the character that was referred to by the speaker for the Opposition. I have pleasure in accepting that support. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time, and passed through their remaining stages without amendment or debate. {: .page-start } page 1370 {:#debate-55} ### NITROGENOUS FERTILIZERS SUBSIDY AMENDMENT BILL 1979 {:#subdebate-55-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed. {: #subdebate-55-0-s0 .speaker-TJ4} ##### Senator WALSH:
Western Australia -- The Nitrogenous Fertilizers Subsidy Amendment Bill 1979 reduces the bounty payable on nitrogenous fertilisers as from 1 January next from $40 per tonne of nitrogen content to $20 per tonne of nitrogen. The Opposition will be opposing, in the Committee stage, clause 4 which actually reduces the bounty from $40 to $20. This Bill is the final product of the series of announcements made on 24 May which constituted what was then deservedly known as the horror mini-budget. It was one of the announcements, made on that day, reducing Government assistance to agriculture or increasing Government charges to agriculture to a total of some $67m. The saving to expenditure in a full year of the operation of the Bill, if it is passed, will be in the vicinity of $5m or, putting it another way, it will halve the annual cost of the nitrogenous fertilisers bounty from the present $10m to about $5m. Shortly after the Fraser Government was elected, it embarked on a program to phase-out the nitrogenous fertilisers bounty which had stood for many years at a level of $80 per tonne of nitrogen. In the 1977-78 Budget legislation was introduced to reduce the bounty to $60 a tonne. At that time the Government promised that the payment would be maintained at that level. However, with the 1977 election safely out of the way, in the 1978-79 Budget the Government reduced the bounty from $60 to $40. The Bill which is before us tonight, consequential to the announcement made in May of this year, aims to reduce the bounty from $40 to $20 per tonne. Apart from the broken, dishonoured undertaking which was given in the 1977-78 Budget to maintain a bounty at a level of $60 per tonne, the Government has repudiated a more unequivocal and earlier promise by the former Deputy Leader of the National Country Party and Minister for Primary Industry, **Mr Sinclair.** Speaking during an election campaign prior to coming into government, quite ironically in Mackay in Queensland, **Mr Sinclair** said: >I can give an unqualified assurance on behalf of the National Country Party, that in Government with the Liberal Party, we will restore the bounty on superphosphate and ensure that the Nitrogenous Fertilizer Bounty continues. I repeat: >I can give an unqualified assurance ... in Government . . . that the Nitrogenous Fertilizer Bounty continues. The Prime Minister, **Mr Malcolm** Fraser, did not remove **Mr Sinclair** from the Ministry for his failure to honour that undertaking. I suppose one might well ask how **Mr Fraser** could remove anyone from anything for failure to honour any undertaking they might have given. How could he remove anyone for failing to honour an undertaking or a promise? He did, of course, remove **Mr Sinclair** almost two weeks ago fom the portfolio he had held, not because of any broken promise of **Mr Sinclair** but because **Mr Fraser** 's own Liberal Party backbench had made it very clear to him that unless **Mr Sinclair** left the ministry **Mr Fraser** would be leaving the Prime Ministry. He was given the ultimatum that either Sinclair went or he went. That is the only reason he got rid of him. Despite the tirade of near continuous abuse of rhetoric which the Australian Labor Party faced when in government from 1972 to 1975, particularly from the National Country Party and to a somewhat lesser extent from the Liberal Party, the Labor Party maintained this bounty at its pre-existing level of $80 per tonne. It is worth examining the inconsistency in the record of the present Government as displayed by its attitude towards the nitrogenous fertiliser bounty and the superphosphate subsidy. The superphosphate subsidy, as some members of the Senate at least will remember, was enacted for a period of five years by this Government at the rate which had existed since 1967. That was $12 per tonne of superphosphate or $12 per tonne of 22 per cent P2O5 We had unequivocal legislation introduced by the Government to pay that bounty at a level which had prevailed for some time for a period of five years. On the other hand the Government has extended the nitrogenous fertiliser bounty year by year for the last three years at a reduced rate. The clear implication of what it is doing this year and what it did last year is that next year the Government will phase out the bounty altogether. Of course, it may be deterred from doing that by the fact that next year will be an election year and it will probably wait, hoping to be re-elected in 1980- although that looks an increasingly forlorn hope- with the intention of passing legislation in 1981 to phase out the bounty from 1 January 1982. That is clearly the Government's intention. On the one hand, without any serious equivocation the Government enacts a superphosphate bounty for a period of five years all in one hit, on the other hand, in this instance, in a grudging, penny-pinching way it renews the bounty at a reduced rate for one season only. There appears to be some mystery about this record. I think the mystery can be fairly easily solved if honourable senators are aware of the extreme subjectivity of the Prime Minister and the degree to which his ideas dominate the policies of this Government. As is well known- I am sure **Senator McLaren** could speak for some time on this- **Mr Fraser** personally uses an enormous amount of superphosphate on his Western District property. The PRES DENT- You are imputing improper motives. Will you keep to the subject of debate, which is the Nitrogenous Fertilizers Subsidy Amendment Bill 1979, and matters relevant to it. {: .speaker-TJ4} ##### Senator WALSH: -With respect, I think that in debating this matter the inconsistent record of the Government in regard to the payment of a bounty on one type of fertiliser and the payment of bounty on another type is a matter which is relevant to the Bill and which quite reasonably ought to be considered by the Parliament. I was trying to present an hypothesis which I think is compatible with the facts that are known about this matter. There may be an alternative hypothesis which a member of the Government might care to pui up as to why the Government has adopted one course of action for one fertiliser subsidy and the opposite course of action for another fertiliser subsidy. I was not imputing any improper motives to the Prime Minister, I was just mentioning- I think it is a matter of record once again- that **Mr Fraser** is a highly subjective man and that he is well aware of the financial benefits to Western District landholders through the subsidy on superphosphate. He is not so aware of financial benefits to Queensland sugar growers from a subsidy on nitrogen because people in the Western District, and in Victoria as a whole, use very little nitrogen. I will be citing some figures on that shortly. I submit that that is an hypothesis which is at least compatible with the facts as they are known about this contradiction. I would welcome an alternative hypothesis from a Government member when he speaks on this Bill. Perhaps this alternative could be that this Government hates Queensland, because that is the effect of its actions in this matter. Quite clearly the Government's record in regard to these two subsidies discriminates very heavily against Queensland. The peak long term level of consumption of superphosphate in Queensland was in the calendar year 1974, when 80,000 tonnes of superphosphate was used. That was slightly under 2 per cent of the national consumption. On the other hand, for the 1966-67 season no less than 185,000 tonnes of nitrogenous fertilisers was used in Queensland, which is some 57 per cent of the national consumption of nitrogenous fertilisers. My source for those figures is the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Superphosphate is almost irrelevant to Queensland, since its consumption is so small, but nitrogenous fertilisers are quite important. I daresay my colleague, **Senator Keeffe,** will be expanding on this point when he speaks, probably tomorrow. The major crops on which nitrogen is used do include cereal crops which, contrary to popular belief, in aggregate do use more nitrogenous fertilisers than does sugar cane. That was the case when the Industries Assistance Commission made its study. In total, cereal crops used 37.5 per cent, sugar cane used 30.5 per cent and pasture used 20.7 per cent. Then came a number of minor categories of usage. Of course, virtually all Australian sugar is grown in Queensland and the cereal crops upon which nitrogenous fertilisers are used are also grown in Queensland to a very significant degree. Those two crops account for Queensland's using somewhat more than half the total nitrogenous fertiliser used in Australia. The fact that the Government has done one thing with respect to superphosphate and something quite different- almost contradictory- with respect to nitrogenous fertiliser, coupled with its importance to the State of Queensland, constitutes discrimination against Queensland by the Government. It also reflects very badly and sadly on the Queensland politicians, both in this chamber and in the House of Representatives. They are clearly incompetent at pushing the interests of their State before this Government. {: .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator Keeffe: -- You mean the Country Party. {: .speaker-TJ4} ##### Senator WALSH: -- Primarily the Country Party, but the other party as well. I note that two Queensland members of the House of Representatives spoke on this Bill in the House last week. Neither of them opposed it. **Mr Braithwaite,** the honourable member for Dawson, spoke - {: .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator Keeffe: -- Until the next election. {: .speaker-TJ4} ##### Senator WALSH: -- Yes, until the next election. **Mr Braithwaite** spoke mostly about indexation and then said that what we really need is a new report on this matter by the Industries Assistance Commission. I am not sure whether I should call the Liberal member for Herbert **(Mr Dean)** a colleague of the honourable member for Dawson or not, because the way things have been going in Queensland lately between the Liberals and the National Country Party it is probably somewhat of a misnomer to describe them as colleagues or allies. The honourable member for Herbert, despite his claim that the Government is not using the IAC report as a crutch- that is, the IAC recommendation of some years ago that the subsidy be phased outlike the honourable member for Dawson, then fell back on the IAC and said that another IAC report was needed. Of course, that implied that the Government is obliged to implement the recommendations of the IAC. All honourable senators know that that is patent nonsense. What do they call that party in Queensland- the National Party? It changes its name so often that it is hard to keep up with it. Presumably that is in the hope of not being recognised. {: .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator Keeffe: -- It is really the Flo and Joh show. {: .speaker-TJ4} ##### Senator WALSH: -- I will say something about Flo in a minute. Three other National Country Party members whose electorates are substantially affected by this measure did not bother to speak at all. I refer to the honourable member for Wide Bay, **Mr Millar,** the temporary member for Leichhardt, **Mr Thomson,** and of course **Mr McVeigh,** the honourable member for Darling Downs, who despite his well earned reputation as one of the most, if not the most, verbose members of the House of Representatives declined to speak on this Bill. It will be interesting to see the degree, if any, to which the situation changes if **Mrs Bjelke-Petersen** should become a member of this Senate. I do not know what will happen to nitrogenous fertilisers, but if that does happen I guess we can expect to see Brych's medicine being advocated in the Senate and Butler's economics. I am referring to Butler of the League of Rights. That should be an entertaining spectacle. I will resist the temptation to savour those delights any more. As I have stated already, the Opposition intends to oppose clause 4 of the Bill, thereby maintaining the bounty at $40 a tonne. We believe that it is a particularly inappropriate time to reduce the bounty when consumers of nitrogenous fertilisers, principally sugar producers, are being subjected to this double squeeze, with an enormous increase in the price of nitrogenous fertilisers - Debate interrupted. {: #subdebate-55-0-s1 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question: >That the Senate do now adjourn. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 10.30 p.m. {: .page-start } page 1373 {:#debate-56} ### ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS The following answers to questions were circul {:#subdebate-56-0} #### Social Security: Transfer of Power to States (Question No. 1084) {: #subdebate-56-0-s0 .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator Wriedt: asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 24 November 1978: >What powers within the Minister's jurisdiction have been transferred to the States since December 1975. {: #subdebate-56-0-s1 .speaker-C7D} ##### Senator Guilfoyle:
LP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: >I refer the honourable senator to the Minister assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs' answer to Question No. 1074 which appeared in *Hansard on* 2 1 August 1 979. Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs: Meetings with Lobbyists (Question No. 1195) {: #subdebate-56-0-s2 .speaker-TJ4} ##### Senator Walsh: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 20 February 1979: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) On what dates since 10 December 1977 has the Minister or members of his personal staff met representatives from (a) Canberra Liaison Pty Ltd; (b) Cramb Tariff Services Pty Ltd; (c) Peter Cullen Pty Ltd; (d) Dunkley International Ltd; (e) Ronald C. Fisher Trade Consultants Pty Ltd; (f) Denis M. Gilmour and Associates Pty Ltd; (g) International Public Relations; (h) Macintosh Parkes and Associates; (i) Eric Walsh Pty Ltd and (j) Eric White Associates. 1. What organisations was each firm representing on each occasion. 2. What was the name of each person present on each occasion. 3. Where did each meeting take place and what was its duration. {: #subdebate-56-0-s3 .speaker-C7D} ##### Senator Guilfoyle:
LP -- The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) The members of my personal staff and I are contacted from time to time by various representatives of public relations firms and lobbyists. 1. Because of time involved and the cost to the taxpayer no record is kept of the name of the organisation, the name of the person, the venue and duration of the meeting. 2. and (4) See (2) above. {:#subdebate-56-1} #### National Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Council (Question No. 1279) {: #subdebate-56-1-s0 .speaker-TJ4} ##### Senator Walsh: asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 2 1 February 1979: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What energy research projects have been recommended for funding by the National Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Council since its establishment. 1. Which of these projects has the Minister actually approved for funding. 2. What proportion of projects recommended by the Council for funding are associated with the development of nuclear energy. {: #subdebate-56-1-s1 .speaker-8G4} ##### Senator Durack:
LP -- The Minister for National Development has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) and (2) Lists of the 181 projects approved in 1 978-79 under the National Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Program were recently provided in response to House of Representatives' questions 3373 and 3374. All projects recommended to date by Council have been approved by me except for one which I deferred pending further consideration. This has been resubmitted in the current round and is being further assessed by Council. 1. Four of the 181 projects approved are in the field of nuclear energy. {:#subdebate-56-2} #### Graduates: Research Funds (Question No. 1729) {: #subdebate-56-2-s0 .speaker-EJ4} ##### Senator Sibraa:
NEW SOUTH WALES asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 8 June 1979: >Has the General Secretary of the Federation of Australian University Staff Associations made statements concerning the alarming situation which has developed whereby many of Australia's brightest graduate students are unable to gain sufficient funds for research work and are forced to find posts overseas; if so, what action is proposed to increase research expenditure in Australia. {: #subdebate-56-2-s1 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: >The General Secretary of the Federation of Australian University Staff Associations has made statements as reported by the honourable senator. > >The Government is aware that identifiable expenditure by universities on research relative to operating expenditure has declined over recent years. However, I would point out that the operating grant provided by the Commonwealth Government for universities (including funds for research) in each year of the current Biennium is at a level, in real terms, slightly above that for 1978. The universities themselves have considerable discretion over the use of these funds and, in fact, devote a considerable proportion to research and research training. In 1977, for example, some $5lm (December quarter 1978 cost levels) was spent from general recurrent grants directly on these activities. In my view, universities should continue to exercise this discretion and allocate resources according to their own assessment of priorities, particularly in the area of research which does not lend itself to external direction. > >Despite the decline in identifiable research expenditure, it is relevant to note that figures released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that the number of university staff engaged wholly on research rose by 1.9 per cent from 30 April 1978 to 30 April 1979, from 1,838 to 1,873 (equivalent full-time positions). Source: University Statistics, Australia 1979 (Preliminary), 25 September 1979. > >The Government also supports university research through such bodies as the Australian Research Grants > >Committee, the National Health and Medical Research Council, the National Energy Research Development and Demonstration Council and the Education Research and Development Committee, which are responsible to my colleagues the Ministers for Science and the Environment, Health and National Development and myself respectively. > >Further support is given to research through the provision of Commonwealth Postgraduate Research Awards for studies at an Australian university leading to a Masters or Ph.D. degree. At 30 June 1978 1,840 students were being assisted by a Postgraduate Research Award. For 1978 and 1979 555 new Research Awards were made available and the same number will be provided again for 1980. {:#subdebate-56-3} #### Apples: Export to European Economic Community (Question No. 1734) {: #subdebate-56-3-s0 .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator Wriedt: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 8 June 1979: >Has Australia, together with South Africa and New Zealand, agreed to limit the export of apples to the European Economic Community (EEC); if so: (a) what were the terms and conditions of the agreement, and when does the agreement expire; (b) by whom, or by what organisation, was the agreement negotiated; (c) what has been the effect of the agreement on apple exports from Australia to the EEC; and (d) is it expected the EEC will ask for the agreement to be extended to operate in 1980. {: #subdebate-56-3-s1 .speaker-8G4} ##### Senator Durack:
LP -- The Minister for Special Trade Representations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >Yes. > >I refer the honourable senator to parts 1 and 2 of the Minister for Trade and Resources' answer to House of Representatives Question No. 3993. > >The agreement was negotiated, in consultation with the Australian apple industry, between the Australian Government and the Commission of the European Communities. > >None. Australia's export availability of apples for EEC markets during 1979 was within the restraint levels negotiated with the EEC. > >I refer the honourable senator to part 4 of the Minister for Trade and Resources' answer to House of Representatives Question No. 3993. {:#subdebate-56-4} #### Uranium Advisory Council (Question No. 1756) {: #subdebate-56-4-s0 .speaker-KVK} ##### Senator Mulvihill: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 2 1 August 1979: >On how many occasions has the Uranium Advisory Council met since its creation and what has been the attendance record of its members. {: #subdebate-56-4-s1 .speaker-8G4} ##### Senator Durack:
LP -- The Acting Minister for Trade and Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >The Uranium Advisory Council has met seven times since its establishment. The attendance record of its members is as follows: **Mr Yunupingu** was unable to attend meetings of the Uranium Advisory Council for reasons including illness and personal matters associated with a close family bereavement. This situation has been discussed with **Mr Yunupingu** and arrangements have been made for an alternate to attend when **Mr Yunupingu** is not available. {:#subdebate-56-5} #### Accommodation for Aged Persons (Question No. 1846) {: #subdebate-56-5-s0 .speaker-9V4} ##### Senator Grimes: asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 29 August 1979: >How many additional beds were provided under: (a) the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act 1954; and (b) the Aged Persons Hostels Act 1972, in each of the years 1976-77, 1977-78 and 1978-79. {: #subdebate-56-5-s1 .speaker-C7D} ##### Senator Guilfoyle:
LP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: >The Aged or Disabled Persons Accommodation Program is a continuing program and the number of beds approved or completed in any financial year is dependent upon progress made on planning or construction of particular projects. At the end of each year there is a number of projects still in the course of construction. > >However, an indication of the level of activity can be gained by a comparison of beds approved for funding. The table below indicates the number of beds approved in each year in a manner consistent with the statistical series shown in the Annual Reports of the Department of Social Security. The number of beds completed in each year varies from the number approved for funding, but a statistical series showing beds completed is not available. {:#subdebate-56-6} #### Accommodation for Aged Persons (Question No. 1847) {: #subdebate-56-6-s0 .speaker-9V4} ##### Senator Grimes: : asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 29 August 1 979: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Was the three year program of aged persons accommodation announced on 20 May 1976, to run from 1 July 1976 to 30 June 1979. 1. Was the amount of $225m promised for those three years. 2. When will the amount of $225m be spent. {: #subdebate-56-6-s1 .speaker-C7D} ##### Senator Guilfoyle:
LP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. The program announced in 1976 involved expenditure estimated at that time to be $22 5m over three years, subject to budgetary considerations. 2. In each of the three years from 1 July 1976 to 30 June 1979, unavoidable delays hampered the completion of the program. Some organisations have not proceeded with their projects and others have varied the size of their projects from those initially intended. In addition, some organisations have experienced difficulty in finalising their plans or in raising their share of the costs. Other factors, such as Council zoning requirements, have also caused delays. As a result, 4 1 1 projects had proceeded to completion by 30 June 1979 and the projects remaining in the program will proceed this current financial year. An amount of $ 147.2m had been spent on the program as at 30 June 1979. A further $62. 5m has been allocated for expenditure in 1 979-80 to enable remaining approved projects to proceed to completion, bringing the current estimate of the cost of the program to $209.7m. The final cost of the program cannot be precisely determined until all the approved projects have been completed and all the grants finalised. {:#subdebate-56-7} #### Australian Citizenship: Applications (Question No. 1870) {: #subdebate-56-7-s0 .speaker-KUJ} ##### Senator Melzer:
VICTORIA asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 30 August 1979: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Have some applicants for Australian citizenship: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. received letters from the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs refusing their applications on the grounds that they did not have an adequate knowledge of the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship; and 1. been told at their first interview with departmental officers that they had been refused because their English was not sufficiently fluent. 1. What standards are required of applicants, before Australian citizenship is granted, and what are the relevant guidelines. {: #subdebate-56-7-s1 .speaker-C7D} ##### Senator Guilfoyle:
LP -- The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answers to the honourable senator's questions: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) The Australian Citizenship Act (Section 14) requires applicants for Australian citizenship to satisfy the Minister that they have an adequate knowledge of the English language and of the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship. The ability of applicants to satisfy these requirements is determined at interview. It is a general rule for applicants to be advised at the time of interview should they be unable to satisfy these requirements. This advice is subsequently confirmed by letter in which applicants are informed that they may re-apply at any rime they feel that their knowledge has improved sufficiently to satisfy the requirements. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Information persons need to know when applying for Australian citizenship is outlined in a pamphlet entitled 'Becoming an Australian Citizen' which is available to all applicants. The pamphlet sets out how to apply and what requirements have to be met. Applicants are not required to read and write English but are expected to satisfy the interviewing officer that they are able to speak and understand English sufficiently well to enable them to follow any ordinary occupation, to procure without difficulty their everyday requirements and to explain their knowledge of the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship. Where a husband and wife apply for citizenship together, only one of the two needs to meet the language requirement. Exemptions from the language requirement are granted to the wives or husbands of Australian citizens or anyone over 60. When applicants are informed of their inability to meet the language requirement they are advised that if they need help in reaching the required standard of English they are welcome to attend free English language classes. {:#subdebate-56-8} #### Social Security: Special Benefit (Question No. 1911) {: #subdebate-56-8-s0 .speaker-9V4} ##### Senator Grimes: asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 12 September 1979: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) How much money has been issued in over-the-counter cheques for special benefit; (a) from 1 September 1978 to 31 December 1978; (b) from 1 January 1979 to 31 March 1979; (c) from 1 April 1979 to 30 June 1979; and (d) from 1 July 1979 to 31 August 1979. 1. What was the delay in processing special benefit applications in the following periods (a) January to June 1978; (b) July to December 1978; and (c) January to June 1979. 2. How is it known, if this information is not available, that delays in paying social security benefits, including special benefit, are not the cause of other agencies having to pay out funds to support people who are eligible to receive social security payments. 3. How much of the estimate for the payment of special benefit in 1979-80 is expected to be used for emergency relief. {: #subdebate-56-8-s1 .speaker-C7D} ##### Senator Guilfoyle:
LP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) The information sought is not readily available. For many reasons, it would not be practicable to maintain a separate accounting for the value of cheques issued over the counter (as opposed to posted) at over 145 offices of my Department. For example, a cheque may be prepared for mailing and then withdrawn at short notice for issue across the counter. Also, in cases of need, a replacement cheque may be issued at any office of my Department to replace one originally issued elsewhere and not received by the beneficiary. 1. As a general rule there is no delay in processing special benefit applications, particularly if such a grant is for emergency relief- i.e. hardship is involved. Such payments are made in advance and processing times would not have varied from January 1978 to June 1979. 2. The Joint Study of Emergency Relief found that in April 1978, 30 per cent of applicants to emergency relief agencies were waiting for their first or an overdue Department of Social Security cheque. These cheques were not special benefit cheques. This finding immediately led my Department to change the readiness with which special benefit (Hardship) was granted to those in the waiting period for other benefits, and to also increase the issue of counter cheques to those waiting for an overdue cheque. Indications are that these changes have been very effective in reducing the load of Department of Social Security clients on emergency relief agencies. For example, the Victorian Council of Social Service Committee *on* emergency relief mounted a monitoring survey which found that in July 1979 only 3 per cent of emergency relief applicants were experiencing delays in pension or benefit cheques. This compares with a figure of 24 per cent in Victoria in April 1978. This result is supported by preliminary figures from my own Department which has monitored referrals to emergency relief agencies over a ten week period during 1979. Both sets of evidence show that delay in social security payments is no longer a significant cause of demand on emergency relief agencies. {: type="1" start="4"} 0. The estimate of $40.6 million for special benefit payments in 1 979-80 is based on the average numbers expected to be paid special benefit, for any reason, in that year. No separate calculation for the emergency relief element has been made. Most special benefits would, however, be in the nature of income maintenance payments to persons in need who lack qualifications for other benefits or pensions. {:#subdebate-56-9} #### Northern Land Council (Question No. 1923) {: #subdebate-56-9-s0 .speaker-GD5} ##### Senator Ryan: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 1 1 September 1979: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) When and where did the Deputy Prime Minister, the Right Honourable J. D. Anthony, M.P., meet **Mr Yunupingu,** the Chairman of the Northern Land Council, during the period 8-10 August 1978. for an official discussion of the then current Ranger negotiations. 1. Who else was present at that meeting. {: #subdebate-56-9-s1 .speaker-8G4} ##### Senator Durack:
LP -- The Acting Minister for Trade and Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) **Mr Anthony** met with **Mr Yunupingu,** the Chairman of the Northern Land Council, at **Mr Yunupingu** 's request in **Mr Anthony's** office at Parliament House, Canberra, on 10 August 1978 for a general discussion on the progress of the Ranger negotiations. 1. Also present at the meeting were counsel for the Northern Land Council, **Mr E.** Pratt, and an officer of the Department of Trade and Resources, **Dr J.** Brooks. {:#subdebate-56-10} #### Employment: Fares Assistance (Question No. 1949) {: #subdebate-56-10-s0 .speaker-9V4} ##### Senator Grimes: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 1 8 September 1979: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many persons received fares assistance during 1 978-79 for work inquiries or work interviews. 1. ) What was the cost of providing this assistance. {: #subdebate-56-10-s1 .speaker-8G4} ##### Senator Durack:
LP -- The Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. From 1 July 1978 to 30 June 1979 a total of 39,551 persons were assisted under the Fares Assistance Scheme. 1. The cost of providing this assistance was $ 108, 1 35. Empress of Australia': Dry-docking (Question No. 1953) {: #subdebate-56-10-s2 .speaker-TI4} ##### Senator Puplick:
NEW SOUTH WALES asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 18 September 1979: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What was the cause of the extension of the period of dry-docking of the *Empress of Australia* beyond 24 July 1979. 1. At what time did it appear that it was: (a) possible; (b) probable; and (c) certain, that the dry-docking period would have to be extended beyond the advertised recommencement date for trans-Bass Strait services. 2. Were any members of the Australian National Line (ANL) organisation aware that it was possible that the drydocking period would extend beyond the advertised recommencement date prior to the vessel entering dry-dock; if so: (a) who were these officers; and (b) when did they become aware of the possibility. 3. When was the Tasmanian Government Tourist Bureau advised of the possibility of extension of the drydocking period. 4. What were the reasons for any delay between the possibility being known by officers of the ANL and it being communicated to the Tasmanian Government Tourist Bureau. 5. What arrangements were made by the ANL to inform delayed passengers and persons consigning freight or vehicles of the delay on this occasion, and when were such arrangements made. 6. What were the reasons for any delay between the time of knowledge of the extension of the period of dry-docking and the time arrangements were made for informing passengers and persons consigning freight or vehicles. 7. How many passengers were involved in each sailing that was cancelled, and how many of them were pensioner co many of them were pensioner ncessions 8. What arrangements were made, or have been made, to compensate passengers, particularly pensioners, who were travelling on concessions, for inconvenience caused by the Australian National Line's extension of dry-docking. {: #subdebate-56-10-s3 .speaker-EF4} ##### Senator Chaney:
LP -- The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) During the dry docking for annual survey a crack was found in the port tailshaft This crack would eventually have caused the shaft to fracture. Replacement of the tailshaft was necessary and added four days to the docking time of the vessel. 1. The crack was initially discovered after normal business hours on Friday 20 July. The seriousness was unable to be determined until late on Saturday 2 1 July when it became apparent that the return voyage commencing Wednesday 25 July would have to be cancelled. On Monday 23 July as work progressed the further extent of delay was determined. It became evident that the voyage commencing on Friday 27 July would also have to be cancelled. 2. Prior to the docking, and until the above times, ANL expected the repairs to be completed on schedule. 3. Tasmanian Government Tourist Bureau offices in all mainland capitals and Hobart were advised by telex at 9.30 a.m. on Monday 23 July, that the round voyage commencing on Wednesday 25 July was cancelled. Later on 23 July, following further assessment, the offices of the Bureau were advised that the round voyage commencing on 27 July was cancelled and that the ship would resume service on Monday 30 July 1979. 4. to (7) In addition to advising the Tasmanian Government Tourist Bureau offices early on Monday 23 July, ANL contacted those persons making direct bookings with it. The majority of passengers would have been advised by the Bureau or ANL. To cover those persons who could not be contacted personally, public notices were placed in all metropolitan daily newspapers of southern and eastern Australia on the morning of Tuesday 24 July. 5. Passenger bookings for each sailing at the time of cancellation of voyages were: ex Melbourne 25 July-209 ex Devonport 26 July- 275 ex Melbourne 27 July-207 ex Devonport 29 July- 2 10. The category of passenger is not readily available for these cancelled voyages because the ANL transferor booked passengers to air transport or other sailings automatically deletes this data from the computer. {: type="1" start="9"} 0. ANL advertises a schedule of sailings for the *Empress of Australia* which is subject to change without notice. This condition is also included in clause 1 of the terms and conditions of carriage printed on the passenger ticket. In accordance with normal commercial practice it adheres to this schedule except on those occasions when operational or industrial problems arise. In this instance ANL made every endeavour to assist affected passengers by giving full refunds, rebooking and assisting in making alternative travel arrangements. Arrangements were also made for accompanied vehicles to be shipped by cargo vessels. Indexation of Material Inputs {: #subdebate-56-10-s4 .speaker-EF4} ##### Senator Chaney:
LP -On 19 September 1979 *(Hansard,* page 785) **Senator Watson** asked me as Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, a question without notice concerning the price index of materials used in manufacturing industry. The Minister for Industry and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Australian Statistician is responsible for producing the Price Index of Materials Used in Manufacturing Industry. The Statistician has informed me that this index is compiled as a 'net sector' index; that is, it relates only to those materials which are used by manufacturing establishments and which have been produced by establishments in sectors other than manufacturing (including overseas producers). Because of this, most of the items in the index are produced in agricultural and mining industries and therefore prices of items such as live animals necessarily have a significant influence on overall movements in the index. Although prices of live animals have contributed significantly to increases in the index in recent months there have been other occasions (for instance, the second half of 1977) when price decreases for live animals have resulted in less rapid increases in the overall index. It is possible to compile sector indexes on a 'gross basis' reflecting, for example, all materials entering the manufacturing sector (including semi-processed materials used in further manufacture). However the net sector approach is generally regarded as being more useful for studies of how inflationary pressures are transmitted from one sector of the economy to another. It is worth noting that the net sector approach is being adopted by an increasing number of countries. The Price Index of Materials Used in Manufacturing Industry is a 'fixed weights' index, in common with most analytical price indexes produced in Australia and throughout the world. The weights are based on material usage in 1971-72. The Australian Bureau of Statistics plans to commence a review and reweighting of this index in 1982; this review will be part of a program in which each of the wholesale price indexes are being reviewed in turn. Resources and other pressing commitments in the field of price indexes are unlikely to permit the review to commence any earlier than 1982. {:#subdebate-56-11} #### Commonwealth Assistance to Local Government (Question No. 1808) {: #subdebate-56-11-s0 .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP asked the Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs, upon notice, on 22 August 1979: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Did the Minister say in a statement made on 28 June 1979, that general purpose assistance was only part of Commonwealth assistance to local government. 1. What funds are made available to local government: (a) by the Commonwealth through the States; and (b) directly by the Commonwealth, and for what specific programs have these funds been used in each case. {: #subdebate-56-11-s1 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Yes. The statement was made in a joint Press release by the Treasurer and the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs. 1. The details of funds made available to local government are contained in pages 100-113 of 1979-80 Budget Paper No. 7, 'Payments to or for the States, the Northern Territory and Local Government Authorities 1979-80'. {:#subdebate-56-12} #### Australia Council Grants (Question No. 1885) {: #subdebate-56-12-s0 .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 30 August 1979: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Which persons who are, or have been, members of the Australia Council or any of its Boards have received grants from the Council since its inception, and how much has each received. 1. Have any board members or former board members received more than one grant. {: #subdebate-56-12-s1 .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster:
NCP/NP -- The Minister for Home Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) The following table provided by the Australia Council outlines, in alphabetical order, grants made to people who are or have been on the Australia Council and its Boards, and have been on its predecessor the Australian Council for the Arts and its Boards. The Australia Council has advised that on 3 May 1 974, the Council brought in a ruling that, while all grants made before November 1 973 should stand, no Board should make a grant to one of its own members, a member of another Board, the Council or one of its committees during the period of their membership. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Yes. Banks, Don; Bishop, Tony; Hibberd, Jack; Hughes, Robert; Levy, Col; La Motte (Medlin), Pru Shapcott, Tom; Underhill Nancy; Williams, Kim. Australian Citizens Imprisoned Overseas (Question No. 1892) **Senator Knight** asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 12 September 1979: >In which overseas countries are Australian citizens imprisoned. > >How many Australians are imprisoned and for what offences. {: #subdebate-56-12-s2 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >There are known to be 143 Australian citizens imprisoned or detained overseas. Of this number 88 are detained on drug related charges and 55 on other charges. > >The details sought by the honourable senator are given in the following table: {:#subdebate-56-13} #### Australian Opera (Question No. 1924) {: #subdebate-56-13-s0 .speaker-GD5} ##### Senator Ryan: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 1 1 September 1979: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Who is to replace the out-going Director of the Australian Opera. 1. Why has the Australian Opera had such difficulty in retaining directors. {: #subdebate-56-13-s1 .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster:
NCP/NP -- The Minister for Home Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) It is assumed that the honourable senator is referring to the position of General Manager of the Australian Opera Company. I am advised by the Australia Council that the Australian Opera Company has not made a decision in respect of a replacement for the present General Manager of the Company. 1. The Board of the Australian Opera Company is solely responsible for the employment of the Company's administrative and artistic personnel. I do not believe it is appropriate for me to comment on its decisions in this regard. Australian Government Centre in Japan (Question No. 1934) {: #subdebate-56-13-s2 .speaker-L8O} ##### Senator Mason: asked the Minister represent ing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 13 September 1979: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is the Government planning to build a $30m 12-15 storey Government centre in Toronomon district in Tokyo, Japan, as reported in the National Times for the week ending 1 5 September 1979. 1. What rents are being paid by the Australian Government at present in Tokyo. {: #subdebate-56-13-s3 .speaker-EF4} ##### Senator Chaney:
LP -- The Minister for Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) The Government is considering the desirability and practicability of a property consolidation in Tokyo, but no decisions have as yet been taken. 1. The Government owns the bulk of its office accommodation and a substantial part of its residential accommodation in Tokyo. For the accommodation which it leases it currently pays as follows: Office accommodation- $ 1 90,556 per annum. Residential accommodation- $ 1,059,444 per annum. {:#subdebate-56-14} #### Valium (Question No. 1944) {: #subdebate-56-14-s0 .speaker-L8O} ##### Senator Mason: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 13 September 1979: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Is Valium only a trade name for diazepan. 1. What is it generally prescribed for. 2. How many members of the benzo-diazepine group are there, and what are their trade names. 3. Are these drugs now doing most of the work of barbiturates, which were much cheaper but more dangerous. 4. What are examples of the cost differences in the two drug-family groups. 5. How many prescriptions have been written for: (a) barbiturates; and (b) members of the benzo-diazepine group by type, during each year since 1 955. 6. Are benzo-diazepine drugs generally safer than the barbiturates, both medically and sociologically. {: #subdebate-56-14-s1 .speaker-C7D} ##### Senator Guilfoyle:
LP -- The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. Anxiety and its manifestations. 2. Eleven benzodiazepines are currently on the Australian market: Diazepam: ' Ducene'' Lorimon '' Pro-Pam''Valium ' Nitrazepam: 'Mogadon''Dormicum' Flurazepam: 'Dalmane' Oxazepam: 'Benzotran' 'Murelax' 'Serepax' Adumbran' Conazepam: 'Rivotril' Medazepam: 'Raporan' Bromazepam: 'Lexotan' Flunitrazepam: 'Rohypnol' Lorazepam: 'Ativan' Chlorazepate: 'Tranxene' Chlordiazepoxide: ' Librium''Librax'. (Librax is a combination product which also contains clidinium bromide.) {: type="1" start="4"} 0. Yes, benzodiazepines do most of the work of barbiturates which are potentially more dangerous. 1. Barbiturates range from $0.55 per 100 to $0.99 per 25, at 'price to chemist', depending on the type of barbiturate, brand and strength. Examples Amylobarbitone 15 mg $0.55 per 100 at price to chemist Amylobarbitone 30 mg $0.57 per 100 at price to chemist. Amylobarbitone 50 mg $0.61 per 100 at price to chemist. Amylobarbitone 100 mg $0.39 per 25 at price to chemist Benzodiazepines range from $0.80 per 50 through to $6.66 per 50 at 'price to chemist' depending on the type of Benzodiazepine, brand and strength. Examples Diazepam 2 mg $0.80 to $0.85 per 50 at price to chemist depending on the brand Diazepam 5 mg $ 1 . 05 to $ 1 . 1 0 per 50 at price to chemist depending on the brand. {: type="1" start="6"} 0. Prescribing statistics for barbiturates and benzodiazepine drugs supplied as pharmaceutical benefits from 1967-68 to 1978-79 are given below. Statistics are not available for supply of these drugs on private or Repatriation prescriptions or for hospital usage. Statistics for pharmaceutical benefits supplies prior to 1967-68 are not available. It should be noted that only nine months' figures are available for 1969-70. {: type="1" start="7"} 0. Benzodiazepines currently available in Australia are medically safer than barbiturates with respect to accidental or intentional overdose but sociological differences between the two groups have not been clearly established. {:#subdebate-56-15} #### Australian Representation in South Africa (Question No. 1956) {: #subdebate-56-15-s0 .speaker-KPV} ##### Senator Knight: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 19 September 1979: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What is the nature and location of Australia's official diplomatic trade and other representation in South Africa. 1. What other countries have embassies, legations, consular, trade or other formal representation in South Africa, and what is the nature and location of that representation in each case. 2. What other countries maintain formal diplomatic, trade and other relations with South Africa, but do not have missions located in South Africa. 3. In what countries does South Africa maintain diplomatic, trade or other official representatives. {: #subdebate-56-15-s1 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The Foreign Minister has provided the following answers to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Australia maintains an Embassy in Pretoria, a Trade Commission in Johannesburg and a Consulate in Cape Town. 1. According to the latest available edition of the South African Department of Foreign Affairs List, the following countries have formal representation in South Africa: Argentina: Pretoria (Embassy); Cape Town (Consulate) Austria: Pretoria (Embassy); Cape Town (Consulate) Durban (Consulate); Johannesburg (Consulate-General) Belgium: Pretoria (Embassy); Cape Town (ConsulateGeneral); Johannesburg (Consulate-General); Durban (Consulate); East London (Consulate); Port Elizabeth (Consulate); Walvis Bay (Vice-Consulate) Bolivia: Pretoria (Embassy)- vacant; Johannesburg (Consulate) - vacant; Cape Town (ViceConsulate)- vacant Brazil: Pretoria (Embassy); Cape Town ( Consulate-General ) Canada: Pretoria (Embassy); Johannesburg (Consulate-General); Cape Town (Consulate) Chile: Pretoria (Consulate-General), Cape Town ( Consulate )- vacant Colombia: Johannesburg (Consulate) Costa Rica: Pretoria (Embassy)- vacant; Johannesburg (Consulate-General) Denmark: Johannesburg (Consulate-General); Cape Town (Consulate); Durban (Consulate); East London (Vice-Consulate); Port Elizabeth (Vice-Consulate) Dominican Republic: Johannesburg (Consulate) El Salvador: Cape Town (Consulate-General) Finland: Pretoria (Legation); Cape Town (Consulate); Durban (Consulate); Johannesburg (Consulate) France: Pretoria (Embassy); Johannesburg (ConsulateGeneral); Cape Town (Consulate) Federal Republic of Germany: Pretoria (Embassy); Johannesburg (Consulate-General); Cape Town (Consulate-General); Durban (Consulate); East London (Consulate); Port Elizabeth (Consulate) Greece: Pretoria (Embassy); Johannesburg (ConsulateGeneral); Cape Town (Consulate-General); Durban (Consulate)- vacant; Port Elizabeth (Consulate) Guatemala: Cape Town (Consulate); Johannesburg (Consulate) Iceland: Johannesburg (Consulate) Ireland: Johannesburg (Consulate) Israel: Pretoria (Embassy); Johannesburg (Consulate-General) Italy: Pretoria (Embassy); Cape Town (consulate); Johannesburg (Consulate-General); Durban (Consulate) Japan: Pretoria (Consulate-General); Cape Town (Office of the Consul) Luxembourg: Johannesburg (Consulate) Malawi: Pretoria (Embassy) Monaco: Cape Town (Consulate) Netherlands: Pretoria (Embassy); Johannesburg (Consulate-General); Cape Town (Consulate-General); Bloemfontein (Consulate); Durban (Consulate); East London (Vice-Consulate); Port Elizabeth (Consulate) . Norway. Cape Town (Consulate-General); Durban (Consulate); East London (Vice-Consulate); Johannesburg (Consulate); Port Elizabeth (Vice-Consulate); Walvis Bay (Vice-Consulate) Panama: Cape Town (Consulate-General); Johannesburg (Consulate); Durban (Consulate) Paraguay: Pretoria (Embassy); Cape Town (ConsulateGeneral) vacant; Durban (Consulate) Peru: Cape Town (Consulate-General); Johannesburg ( Consulate-General )- vacant Portugal: Pretoria (Embassy); Johannesburg (Consulate-General); Cape Town (Consulate-General); Durban (Consulate); East London (Consulate); Port Elizabeth (Consulate) Spain: Pretoria (Embassy); Cape Town ( Consulate-General ) Sweden: Pretoria (Legation); Johannesburg (Consulate); Cape Town (Consulate); Durban (Consulate); East London (Vice-Consulate)-vacant Switzerland: Pretoria (Embassy); Johannesburg (Consulate-General); Cape Town (Consulate) Taiwan: Pretoria (Embassy); Johannesburg (Consulate-General); Cape Town (Consulate) Thailand: Durban (Consulate) United Kingdom: Pretoria (Embassy); Johannesburg (Consulate-General); Cape Town (Consulate-General); Durban (Consulate-General); Port Elizabeth (Consulate); East London (Consulate)- vacant United States: Pretoria (Embassy); Johannesburg (Consulate-General); Cape Town (Consulate-General); Durban (Consulate-General) Uruguay: Cape Town (Embassy); Cape Town (Consulate-General); Boksburg (Consulate). {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 3 ) Certain other countries are believed to have some form of relations with South Africa, but the Government does not have reliable information as to who they are or the nature of their relationships. 1. According to the latest available edition of the South African Department of Foreign Affairs List, South Africa maintains diplomatic, trade or other official representatives in the following countries: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Denmark, 'Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Finland, France, Federal Republic of Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Hong Kong, 'Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Malawi, Mauritius, Monaco, Netherlands, Nicaragua, 'Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, United Kingdom, USA, Uruguay. * Indicates headed by an Honorary Consul-General, Consul or Trade Commissioner. {:#subdebate-56-16} #### Electoral: Enrolments (Question No. 1971) {: #subdebate-56-16-s0 .speaker-9V4} ##### Senator Grimes: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 20 September 1979: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What proportion of eligible 18-20 year olds have chosen not to enrol as electors in each year since 1 976. 1. What is the Electoral Office's explanation of their failure to go on the electoral roll. 2. What surveys have been done of the probable numbers of 1 8-20 year olds, migrants and Aboriginals who are eligible to vote but are not enrolled. {: #subdebate-56-16-s1 .speaker-EF4} ##### Senator Chaney:
LP -- The Minister for Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) and (2 ) The Australian Electoral Office has no information concerning the attitude of 18-20 year olds in relation to their choosing or not choosing to enrol. I am, therefore, unable to provide statistical or other information in response to these parts of the honourable senator's question. 1. 3 ) I am not aware of any survey of this kind and none has been undertaken by the Australian Electoral Office. The Office however has conducted and is engaged in programs designed to encourage all electors to meet thenlegal obligations under the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. A simple information pamphlet written in English and nine other languages and describing clearly and succinctly electoral rights and responsibilities has been produced and is widely distributed Colourful, eye catching posters highlighting enrolment qualifications and requirements are displayed in schools and public offices throughout the Commonwealth. Use has also been made of radio and press advertisements to inform 1 8 year olds, persons who have changed their residential address and the ethnic communities of their electoral rights and responsibilities. So that students can be better informed about the development and operation of the Commonwealth electoral system, the Office in conjunction with the Curriculum Development Centre is producing a kit of teaching materials for use in secondary schools. A program of electoral education for Aboriginals living in remote communities is being conducted by Australian Electoral Office staff initially in South Australia and Western Australia and extending later to the Northern Territory and other parts of the country. In addition to these programs of encouragement a door to door check designed to see that all eligible persons living at each residence are correctly enrolled is earned out as far as practicable each year throughout Australia except in small towns and remote localities where 'Electoral Agents' perform a similar function. {:#subdebate-56-17} #### Aid to Kampuchea (Question No. 1993) {: #subdebate-56-17-s0 .speaker-3V4} ##### Senator Chipp:
VICTORIA asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 26 September 1979: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Upon whose advice, and on what basis of logic or morality, did the Government's representative in the United Nations vote to continue to recognise the Pol Pot regime as the legitimate Government of Kampuchea. 1. Will this decision in any way delay the air-lifting to Kampuchea of substantial quantities of aid, at least to the extent of the 700 tonnes of food per week which was flown into Cambodia by the United States at the height of the Vietnam war. {: #subdebate-56-17-s1 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The Foreign Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >On 21 September 1979 the United Nations General Assembly voted 7 1 countries in favour, including Australia, 35 against, and 34 abstentions, to adopt the report of the credentials committee recommending acceptance of the credentials of Democratic Kampuchea's representatives. > >As the Australian representative to the United Nations said in plenary debate on the credentials committee report, it has been the long standing attitude of the Australian delegation that the task of the committee is strictly legal and technical to determine whether a member has submitted its credentials in the proper form. There was no evidence to suggest that the credentials submitted by Democratic Kampuchea were other than in their due and proper form. Therefore, in accordance with United Nations procedures, the Australian delegation voted in favour of the committee's report. > >The Australian Government continues to recognise the Pol Pot regime of Democratic Kampuchea. It does so because the Pol Pot administration at the time of Australia's recognition satisfied the generally accepted criteria of recognition. The Heng Samrin regime of the People 's Republic of Kampuchea, which was installed as a result of Vietnam's armed intervention in Kampuchea, does not have superior claims to recognition. Only 23 countries recognise the Heng Samrin regime. They are mostly pro-Soviet countries. > >Australia and other, like-minded countries in the region cannot condone Vietnam's use of force to overthrow the government of Kampuchea. To transfer recognition from the Pol Pot to the Heng Samrin administration would be tantamount to endorsing the right of Vietnam to intervene militarily in the affairs of other states in the region with impunity. This implication would be unacceptable to the Australian Government and to other like-minded countries in the region. > >Recognition of the Pol Pot regime does not carry with it approval of the policies of Democratic Kampuchea. Australia has joined other nations in condemning the excesses of the Pol Pot administration and will continue to make its position clear on the question of the massive violation of human rights which this regime perpetrated. > >The Government will continue to follow the situation in Kampuchea closely and will keep the recognition question and other matters under review in consultation with the ASEAN and other friendly governments. > >The Government's policy on recognition has not prejudiced and will not prejudice efforts to send humanitarian relief to the starving people of Kampuchea. Detention of Malaysians {: #subdebate-56-17-s2 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- On 30 August **Senator Missen** asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the following question without notice: >I draw the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs to disturbing reports received from Amnesty International and released on 23 August which claim that an estimated 1,000 Malaysians are being detained without trial by the Malaysian Government. Will the Minister advise the Senate of any knowledge concerning claims in the report that the treatment of prisoners during their detention is 'cruel, inhumane and degrading and in complete violation of the United Nations standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners'? In accordance with the Government's concern for human rights, will the Minister also urge the Government to call on the Malaysian Government to conduct a full investigation into the claims of torture and illtreatment of detainees? The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >Although I am aware of the Amnesty International reports, I have no specific knowledge about the numbers and treatment of prisoners detained in Malaysia under the Internal Security Act of 1960. This Act is based upon earlier legislation introduced by the British Colonial Government to counter the communist insurgency which broke out in 1948 and provides for the detention without trial of any person with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of Malaysia or any part thereof or to the maintenance of essential services therein or to the economic life thereof . . .' The Act has in the past been used in circumstances such as to detain persons believed to be supporting the communist insurgency- which continues at a low level- and others believed to pose a threat to communal harmony within Malaysia 's multiracial society. > >The Malaysian Government has not yet commented on the Amnesty International report on Malaysia released on 29 August to which **Senator Missen** refers. In the normal course of events, however, I would imagine that the Malaysian Government will want to address and comment upon the matters raised in the Amnesty International report. > >I would only add, at this stage, that the Australian Government views reports of violations of human rights, wherever they occur, as matters for concern. Successive Governments have reiterated Australia's attachment to the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the international community is well aware of our concern to see international standards respected. It will, however, be clear that many Governments see reports in violations of human rights as amounting to interference of their internal affairs. It is my understanding that the Malaysian Government would maintain that the form and administration of its legal system is a matter falling entirely within its domestic jurisdiction. East Timor: Red Cross Aid {: #subdebate-56-17-s3 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- On 13 September 1979 **Senator Primmer** asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the following question without notice: >In light of the Government's gift of $200,000 to the Red Cross for aid in East Timor and the statement that such aid is to be distributed by both the Indonesian and the International Red Cross, can you state how many personnel from the International Red Cross are available in East Timor to help in this task? The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >I understand that the ICRC will have three representatives in East Timor for the duration of the joint relief program and that accounting for the operation will be audited by accountants used by the ICRC itself. Helicopters and other aircraft will be obtained by the ICRC to ensure an effective distribution of relief materials into inaccessible areas. As the name implies, it will be a joint relief operation and the ICRC will use the existing infrastructure developed by the IRC in East Timor and, of course, its resources, including personnel. I believe that the experience of ICRC representatives will be of assistance to the Indonesian Red Cross in the implementation of the relief programs in East Timor and in ensuring that assistance is available in areas where it is most needed. Mary Ellen Eather {: #subdebate-56-17-s4 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- On 18 September 1979 **Senator Keeffe** 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 Queensland girl, Mary Ellen Eather, has been in a prison in Tihar, India, for three years? I ask the Minister whether he has received a letter from a relation of Miss Eather, containing an extract from a letter from herincidentally, the letter was written on 18 August 1979 and did not arrive until 4 September- in which the following passage is included: > >The Australian Government has not shown any particular interest in helping me- when they could not afford me the money to buy soap, toothpaste, toiletries so much needed by me as a woman, et cetera, et cetera. How could I expect to depend on them. When first brought to jail I stood in the same clothes for over two months, with not a brush for my teeth, nor a comb for my hair- let alone the soap to wash myself, only after repeated requests to the jail authorities to contact my Australian Embassy did my visit finally come- they did of course know I had been arrested, they, to my disappointment, turned up empty handed. The Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: > **Senator Carrick** has already provided some background information about Miss Eather, the reason for her detention, the progress of her trial and the fact that approaches have been made to the Indian authorities in relation to her situation. > >Miss Eather was arrested on 9 July 1976 and she was first visited by an Australian official on 13 July. During this visit Miss Eather said she had no funds, but it was not until 29 July that an official was able to see her again to provide her with some money as she was travelling with police in relation to their investigations. Since her arrest the High Commision has made 7 1 visits to Miss Eather in gaol while officers of the High Commission have attended court hearings on 32 occasions. The High Commission has no pattern for visits but Miss Eather has been visited on a fairly regular basis. > >During visits officers take any mail which has been received at the High Commission *from* friends and relatives in Australia together with magazines, clothing and foodstuffs as allowed by the authorities. Miss Eather is able to purchase simple items in gaol while some purchases are made by High Commission officials on her behalf outside the prison. The High Commission has kept her supplied with writing material. > >The question of Miss Eather 's continued detention and the manner in which the Government has assisted has been raised on a number of occasions. On those occasions inquiries have shown that Miss Eather is being cared for to the extent that is possible in the circumstances. The complaints referred to in the honourable senator's question were not made to the High Commission by Miss Eather. Nevertheless, they have been investigated and found to be groundless. After publication of a similar report Miss Eather apologised and said she had been misrepresented. > >Recently in answer to another question about Australians in prison overseas the Minister for Foreign Affairs said there were 143 on record at that time. The Department receives regular reports on the activities of officers at our posts on behalf of these persons and advice is conveyed to families in Australia where this is agreed to by the person detained. Each of these cases is considered and reviewed on a continuing basis. > >It has been emphasised on many occasions that every person who visits a foreign country is subject to the laws of that country and it is not proper for one Government to seek to intervene in another country's process of justice. Australia has no right to suggest to another country that an Australian citizen receive special treatment. Provided our citizens receive the benefit of the same laws, administration, protection and means of redress which the country affords its own citizens then we have no standing to make any representations. This is accepted international practice. However, if we believed that there was any discrimination, then we would approach the authorities. > >In Miss Eather's case the approaches made to the Indian authorities were not in relation to discrimination but rather about what appears to be an unusual delay in the proceedings in which she is involved. Kampuchea {: #subdebate-56-17-s5 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -On 25 September 1979 **Senator Wheeldon** asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the following question without notice: >I also direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs on Kampuchea. Whilst I recognise that the Government may have acted properly in considering the report of the Credentials Committee to the General Assembly of the United Nations on legal and technical grounds, does the Government have any policy on what ought to be the future of Kampuchea and on whether the government supported by the Vietnamese or the remnants of the government of Pol Pot should continue to administer that country? Does the Minister not remember that it is only a few years ago that his Government took a very keen interest in Indo-China to the extent of sending Australian conscripts to fight there? Has the Government now lost interest in the matter? If it has not, when will we learn what the Government's policy is on this question. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >The Government continues to believe that only a negotiated settlement, in which all sides are involved, can bring peace and stability to Kampuchea. A prerequisite for the establishment of an independent and neutral Kampuchea, free of Great Power rivalries, is the withdrawal of Vietnamese armed forces. > >As regards the recognition question, I refer the honourable senator to the answer given to a question on notice from **Senator Chipp** on 26 September. > >The Government continues to follow events in Indo-China closely. In particular the situation in Kampuchea is being kept under constant review, to enable Australia to respond promptly and sympathetically to the needs of its stricken population.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 16 October 1979, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1979/19791016_senate_31_s82/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant