Senate
14 May 1980

31st Parliament · 1st Session



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

page 2173

PETITIONS

Moscow Olympic Games

Senator MASON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

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

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

The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: that we the undersigned oppose the proposed boycott of the 1 980 Olympic Games in Moscow, and we therefore pray that the government take no action to prevent Australian athletes from competing.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Social Security Benefits

Senator COLSTON:
QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition from 69 citizens of Australia:

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

That there is an urgent need to ensure that the living standard of pensioners will not decline, as indeed, the present level of cash benefits in real terms requires upward adjustment beyond indexation related to the movement of the Consumer Price Index; by this and other means your petitioners urge that action be taken to:

Adjust all pensions and benefits quarterly to the Consumer Price Index, including the ‘ fixed ‘ 70 ‘s rate.

Raise all pensions and benefits to at least 30 per cent of the Average Weekly Earnings.

Taxation relief for pensioners and others on low incomes by:

The present static threshold of $75 per week for taxation purposes be increased to $ 1 00 per week.

A substantial reduction in indirect taxation on consumer goods.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Social Security Benefits

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

That there is an urgent need to ensure that the living standard of pensioners will not decline, as indeed, the present level of cash benefits in real terms requires upward adjustment beyond indexation related to the movement of the Consumer Price Index. By this and other means your petitioners urge that action be taken to:

Adjust all pensions and benefits quarterly to the Consumer Price Index, including the ‘ fixed ‘ 70 ‘s rate.

Raise all pensions and benefits to at least 30 per cent of the Average Weekly Earnings.

Taxation relief for pensioners and others on low incomes by:

The present static threshold of $75 per week for taxation purposes be increased to $ 100 per week.

A substantial reduction in indirect taxation on consumer goods.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Social Security Benefits

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

-I present the following petition from 121 citizens of Australia:

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

That there is an urgent need to ensure that the living standard of pensioners will not decline, as indeed the present level of cash benefits in real terms requires upward adjustment beyond indexation related to the movement of the Consumer Price Index. By this and other means your petitioners urge that action be taken to:

Adjust all pensions and benefits quarterly to the Consumer Price Index, including the ‘ fixed ‘ 70 ‘s rate.

Raise all pensions and benefits to at least 30 per cent of the Average Weekly Earnings.

Taxation relief for pensioners and others on low incomes by:

The present static threshold of $75 per week for taxation purposes be increased to $ 100 per week.

A substantial reduction in indirect taxation on consumer goods.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Social Security Benefits

Senator MASON:

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

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

That there is an urgent need to ensure that the living standard of pensioners will not decline, as indeed the present level of cash benefits in real terms requires upward adjustment beyond indexation related to the movement of the Consumer Price Index. By this and other means your petitioners urge that action be taken to:

Adjust all pensions and benefits quarterly to the Consumer Price Index, including the ‘fixed ‘ 70s rate.

Raise all pensions and benefits to at least 30 per cent of the Average Weekly Earnings.

Taxation relief for pensioners and others on low incomes by:

The present static threshold of $75 per week for taxation purposes be increased to $ 100 per week.

A substantial reduction in indirect taxation on consumer goods.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Alice Springs to Darwin Railway

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I present the following petition from 23 1 citizens of Australia:

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

The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:

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

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

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Alice Springs to Darwin Railway

Senator KILGARIFF:

– I present the following petition from 22 1 citizens of Australia:

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

The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Northern Territory of Australia respectfully showeth that:

1 ) hostilities in Asia, and most recently in Afghanistan, highlight the vulnerable situation of DarwinAustralia’s gateway to the north;

better defence preparedness is required in Northern Australia with increased surface mobility for the defence forces;

more economical and reliable transportation is required between Darwin and the south, and

additional facilities are required for the development of the north.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should: Urge that the Commonwealth Government give foremost priority to the immediate construction of the Alice Springs/Darwin railway as a matter of prime national concern.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

National Women’s Advisory Council

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

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

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

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the National Women’s Advisory Council has not been democratically elected by the women of Australia;

That the National Women’s Advisory Council is not representative of the women of Australia;

That the National Women’s Advisory Council is a discriminatory and sexist imposition on Australian women as Australian men do not have a National Men’s Advisory Council imposed on them.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the National Women’s Advisory Council be abolished to ensure that Australian women have equal opportunity with Australian men of having issues of concern to them considered, debated and voted on by their Parliamentary representatives without intervention and interference by an unrepresentative ‘Advisory Council’.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

National Women’s Advisory Council

Senator COLLARD:
QUEENSLAND

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

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

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the National Women’s Advisory Council has not been democratically elected by the women of Australia;

That the National Women’s Advisory Council is not representative of the women of Australia;

That the National Women’s Advisory Council is a discriminatory and sexist imposition on Australian women as Australian men do not have a National Men’s Advisory Council imposed on them.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the National Women’s Advisory Council be abolished to ensure that Australian women have equal opportunity with Australian men of having issues of concern to them considered, debated and voted on by their Parliamentary representatives without intervention and interference by an unrepresentative ‘Advisory Council ‘.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

National Women’s Advisory Council

Senator MASON:

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

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

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the National Women’s Advisory Council has not been democratically elected by the women of Australia;

That the National Women ‘s Advisory Council is not representative of the women of Australia;

That the National Women’s Advisory Council is a discriminatory and sexist imposition on Australian women as Australian men do not have a National Men ‘s Advisory Council imposed on them.

Your petitioners therefore pray:

That the National Women’s Advisory Council be abolished to ensure that Australian women have equal opportunity with Australian men of having issues of concern to them considered, debated and voted on by their Parliamentary representative without intervention and interference by an unrepresentative ‘Advisory Council’.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Life Insurance and Superannuation Contributions: Tax Deductibility

Senator PUPLICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 240 citizens of Australia:

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

The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the proportion of pensionable people within our community is increasing at a significant rate. The number of people 65 years old will rise from approximately 8.5 per cent of the population as it was in 1970 to over 10 per cent by 1 990 and about 1 6 per cent by the year 2020.

That technological change is accelerating the trend towards earlier retirement from the workforce.

That the above factors make incentives for self-provision in retirement years a matter of great urgency if future generations of Australians are to be spared the crippling taxation which would be necessary to fund such provisions from social welfare.

That Australia is in urgent need of locally raised investment capital for national development and that life insurance and superannuation funds are important mobilisers of such capital.

Your petitioners therefore most humbly pray that the Government will forthwith take the steps necessary to:

a ) Remove contributions paid by the taxpayer to superannuation funds from the rebate system and make them a separate deduction from assessable income.

Allow as such deduction amounts necessary to provide the individual with a reasonable retirement benefit as defined from time to time by the Commissioner for Taxation.

Remove life insurance premiums paid from the rebate system and make them a separate deduction from assessable income also.

Allow such a deduction to take the form of a flat rebate of 20 per cent of life insurance premiums up to a limit of $2500.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Life Insurance and Superannuation Contributions: Tax Deductibility

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I present the following petition from 79 citizens of Australia:

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

The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the proportion of pensionable people within our community is increasing at a significant rate. The number of people over 65 years old will rise from approximately 8.5 per cent of the population as it was in 1970 to over 10 percent by 1 990 and about 1 6 per cent by the year 2020.

That technological change is accelerating the trend towards earlier retirement from the workforce.

That the above factors make incentives for self-provision in retirement years a matter of great urgency if future generations of Australians are to be spared the crippling taxation which would be necessary to fund such provisions from social welfare.

That Australia is in urgent need of locally raised investment capital for national development and that life insurance and superannuation funds are important mobilisers of such capital.

Your petitioners therefore most humbly pray that the Government will forthwith take the steps necessary to:

Remove contributions paid by the taxpayer to superannuation funds from the rebate system and make them a separate deduction from assessable income.

Allow as such deduction amounts necessary to provide the individual with a reasonable retirement benefit as defined from time to time by the Commissioner of Taxation.

Remove life insurance premiums paid from the present general rebate system and make them a separate deduction from assessable income also.

Allow deductions for life Assurance premiums to take the form of a flat rebate of 20 per cent of life insurance premiums up to a limit of $2500.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Anti-discrimination Legislation

Senator WHEELDON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 1 4 citizens of Australia:

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

The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth:

That the right to work without discrimination on any ground including, inter alia, discrimination on grounds of race, ethnic origin, marital status and/or sex is a fundamental human right;

That it is both the duty and responsibility of society to fully support those denied work and therefore those who are unemployed as a result of society ‘s inability to provide full paid employment should be guaranteed an adequate income without discrimination on any ground, including inter alia discrimination on grounds of race, ethnic origin, marital status and /or sex.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

That appropriate and adequate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in Commonwealth employment, in employment of persons by statutory bodies and quasi-governmental organisations, in employment of individuals under federal awards, and in employment of all persons in areas over which Commonwealth and Australian Capital Territory equal opportunity legislation should have jurisdiction; and

That appropriate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in the provision of unemployment benefits to all persons without regard to race, ethnic origin, marital status and/or sex.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Anti-discrimination Legislation

Senator TEAGUE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

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

The petition of certain citzens respectfully showeth:

That currently discrimination in provision of work, in appointment to jobs and in promotion exists in Australia on particular grounds including, inter alia, grounds of race, ethnic origin, marital status, pregnancy, sex and/or sexual preference; and

That currently discrimination in the provision of unemployment benefits is exercised against particular groups of individuals- in particular, against married women.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

That appropriate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in Commonwealth employment, in employment of individuals under federal awards, in employment of persons by statutory bodies and quasi-governmental organisations, and in employment of all persons in areas over which Commonwealth and Australian Capital Territory equal opportunity legislation should have jurisdiction; and

That appropriate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in the provision of unemployment benefits to all persons without regard to sex and/or marital status.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Anti-discrimination Legislation

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 1 5 citizens of Australia:

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

The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth:

That currently discrimination in provision of work, in appointment to jobs and in promotion exists in Australia on particular grounds including, inter alia, grounds of race, ethnic origin, marital status, pregnancy, sex and/or sexual preference; and

That currently discrimination in the provision of unemployment benefits is exercised against particular groups of individuals- in particular, against married women.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

That appropriate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in Commonwealth employment, in employment of individuals under federal awards, in employment of persons by statutory bodies and quasi-governmental organisations, and in employment of all persons in areas over which Commonwealth and Australian Capital Territory equal opportunity legislation should have jurisdiction; and

That appropriate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in the provision of unemployment benefits to all persons without regard to sex and/or marital status.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Anti-discrimination Legislation

Senator RYAN:
ACT

– I present two petitions each from 30 citizens of Australia as follows:

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

The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth:

That the right to work without discrimination on any ground including inter alia, discrimination on grounds of race, ethnic origin, pregnancy, marital status, sex and/or sexual preference is a fundamental human right; and

That it is both the duty and responsibility of society to fully support those denied work and therefore those who are unemployed as a result of society’s inability to provide full paid employment should be guaranteed an adequate income without discrimination on any ground, including inter alia discrimination on grounds of race, ethnic origin, marital status, sex and/or sexual preference, or pregnancy.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

That appropriate and adequate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in Commonwealth employment, in employment of persons by statutory bodies and quasi-governmental organisations, in employment of individuals under federal awards, and in employment of all persons in areas over which Commonwealth and Australian Capital Territory equal opportunity legislation should have jurisdiction; and

That appropriate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in the provision of unemployment benefits to all persons without regard to race, ethnic origin, marital status and/or sex.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petitions received.

Superannuation Contributions: Tax Deductibility

Senator KNIGHT:
ACT

– I present the following petition from 399 citizens of Australia:

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

The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:

Employees and self-employed contributions to approved superannuation fund.

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

Contributions paid each year to superannuation funds should be removed from the rebate system and made a separate deduction from assessable income.

The amount allowed as a deduction to be at least that required to provide a retirement benefit of $ 1 55,400.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Lead Concentrates in Motor Spirits

Senator MASON:

– I present two petitions from 50 and 47 citizens of Australia, respectively, as follows:

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

The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:

That the lead content levels in Australian motor spirit have been proved to have detrimental health effects on our child population.

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

Take legislative action to reduce and ultimately remove lead concentrates from motor spirit in Australia.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petitions received, and first petition read.

Citizens Forces: Decorations and Medals

Senator YOUNG:

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

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

The humble Petition of the undersigned members and exmembers of the Citizens Forces of Australia respectfully showeth:

On 14 February 1975 the then Australian Government deprived the Officers and men of the Australian Citizen Naval, Military and Air Forces of the distinctive and historic Decorations and Medals for long service and good conduct, namely the Reserve Decoration, the Efficiency Decoration, the Air Efficiency Award, the Efficiency Medal and Long Service and Good Conduct Medals, awarded for long and meritorious voluntary service in the Citizen forces:

The proposed substitution of the National Medal for these Decorations and Medals varies the principle of selective recognition of efficient voluntary service in the Citizen forces in that it recognizes the period of service only and embraces also full time service as well in the defence forces as in the police, lire brigade and ambulance services:

This deprivation caused and is continuing to cause serious discontent amongst personnel of the Citizens Forces who willingly and cheerfully give of their spare time outside their normal full time civilian careers, to serve Her Majesty and Australia:

The Reserve Forces of Australia have been recognized by the present Government as a valuable- and cost-effective- component of the Defence Forces. Anomalously, whilst the Government is actually supporting recruiting for these Forces it has imposed and continued this deprivation which as foresaid has depressed the morale of the Citizen Forces:

Her Majesty has not cancelled the said Decorations and Medals.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray

Your Honourable House take appropriate action to resume the award of the several distinctive and historic Reserve Forces Decorations and Medals to members of the Royal Australian Naval Reserve, Citizens Military Force (Army Reserve) and Citizens Air Force.

Petition received.

Uranium Mining and Enrichment

Senator KEEFFE:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Petition received and read.

The Acting Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:

Social Security Benefits

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

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

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

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

Accordingly, your petitioners call upon their legislators to:

  1. 1 ) Restore twice-yearly pension payments in the Autumn session.
  2. Raise pensions and unemployed benefits above the poverty level to 30 per cent of Average Weekly Earnings.

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

Petition received.

Social Security Benefits

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

That there is an urgent need to ensure that the living standard of pensioners will not decline, as indeed the present level of cash benefits in real terms requires upward adjustment beyond indexation related to the movement of the Consumer Price Index. By this and other means your petitioners urge that action be taken to:

  1. 1 ) Adjust all pensions and benefits quarterly to the Consumer Price Index, including the ‘ fixed ‘ 70 ‘s rate.
  2. Raise all pensions and benefits to at least 30 per cent of the Average Weekly Earnings.
  3. Taxation relief for pensioners and others on low incomes by:

    1. The present static threshold of $75 per week for taxation purposes be increased to $ 1 00 per week.
    2. A substantial reduction in indirect taxation on consumer goods.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Evans (2 petitions), Lajovic, Mulvihill and Puplick (2 petitions).

Petitions received.

National Women’s Advisory Council

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

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth-

That the National Women’s Advisory Council has not been democratically elected by the women of Australia;

That the National Women’s Advisory Council is not representative of the women of Australia;

That the National Women’s Advisory Council is a discriminatory and sexist imposition on Australian women as Australian men do not have a National Men’s Advisory Council imposed on them.

Your petitioners therefore pray:

That the National Women’s Advisory Council be abolished to ensure that Australian women have equal opportunity with Australian men of having issues of concern to them considered, debated and voted on by their Parliamentary representative without intervention and interference by an unrepresentative ‘Advisory Council ‘.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Evans, Hamer (2 petitions) and

Sheil

Petitions received.

Anti-discrimination Legislation

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

The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth-

That currently discrimination in provision of work, in appointment to jobs and in promotion exists in Australia on particular grounds including, inter alia, grounds of race, ethnic origin, marital status, pregnancy and /or sex;

That currently discrimination in the provision of unemployment benefits is exercised against particular groups of individuals- in particular, against married women.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

That appropriate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in Commonwealth employment, in employment of individuals under federal awards, in employment of persons by statutory bodies and quasi-governmental organisations, and in employment of all persons in areas over which Commonwealth and Australian Capital Territory equal opportunity legislation should have jurisdiction; and

That appropriate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in the provision of unemployment benefits to all persons without regard to sex and/or marital status.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Walsh and Wriedt.

Petitions received.

Superannuation Contributions: Tax Deductibility

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

The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:

Employees and Self-Employed Contributions to approved Superannuation Fund.

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

  1. Contributions paid each year to Superannuation Funds should be removed from the Rebate System and made a separate deduction from Assessable Income.
  2. The amount allowed as a deduction to be at least that required to provide a retirement benefit of $ 1 55,400.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Ryan (3 petitions).

Petitions received.

page 2178

PRECEDENCE OF GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

Notice of Motion

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

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

That, unless otherwise ordered, Government Business take precedence of General Business after 8 p.m. on Thursdays for the remainder of the present period of sittings.

page 2178

WESTERN AUSTRALIAN ABORIGINALS (RIGHT TO ELECTORAL ENROLMENT) BILL 1979

Notice of Motion

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– I give notice that on Friday, 16 May 1980, contingent on the President’s proceeding to the placing of business, I shall move:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Walsh moving a motion for the postponement of intervening business until after the consideration of the Order of the Day, General Business, for the resumption of the debate on the Western Australian Aboriginals ( Right to Electoral Enrolment ) Bill 1979.

page 2178

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2178

QUESTION

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA: SITTINGS

Senator BUTTON:

– My question is directed to the Attorney-General. What plans has the Government for the sittings of the High Court of Australia once the new High Court building is opened and the High Court judges are resident in Canberra? Is it envisaged that the High Court, at the expiration of this calendar year, will sit only in Canberra or will it continue to sit on circuit in the various State capitals?

Senator DURACK:
Attorney-General · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

-Sittings for the High Court of Australia for this year, as I think Senator Button recognises, have already been determined by the High Court. The Court, after its opening and first sittings in Canberra, proposes to sit in Perth and Adelaide in accordance with its program and past practice. Decisions for the future will be made in essence by the High

Court judges, but I am more than hopeful that the Court will continue to visit, as it has traditionally done in the past, Perth, Adelaide, Brisbane and Hobart. There will not be any Full Bench sittings in Sydney and Melbourne but single judges may well sit in those cities for the convenience of witnesses and counsel involved in cases of that character.

The policy which has been expressed by me, both publicly and privately, in relation to sittings of the High Court in the future is that the Court should continue to visit the capital cities at least to the extent to which I have indicated. The Government certainly will be providing the financial means by which it can continue to make visits to other parts of Australia, but decisions as to when and where the Court will sit reside with the judges. As I have said, I am hopeful that the Court will continue to maintain a connection with the States, not to the extent of traditional long sittings in Sydney and Melbourne but at least in the way in which I have indicated.

Senator BUTTON:

– 1 ask a supplementary question. The Minister expressed the Government’s policy in essence as being more than hopeful that the High Court will continue to sit in Hobart, Perth, Adelaide and Brisbane. I ask the Minister: Does the Government have no view of the important social and economic implications of a court of the nature of the High Court sitting only in a very sociologically artificial environment such as Canberra and not going on circuit, as I have indicated? ls there no firmer view from the Government about the importance of those matters than a pious expression of hope?

Senator DURACK:

-I would have thought from what I have said on other occasions, and perhaps I did not emphasise it enough in the answer that I have just given, that it would be understood it is the Government’s view that there is social and legal importance in the High Court continuing to sit occasionally in the State capitals. That is the view which has been expressed not only by me but also by State Attorneys-General and by the legal profession. I am fully conscious of the views that are very widely held within the community, within the legal profession and within all governments of Australia that the High Court, as the national court, the apex of our judicial system, should in fact keep some connections with the States and with the communities and the legal profession in the States. I am also able to say that the High Court judges are conscious of these factors. But as I indicated 1 believe that it is the decision of the justices themselves to determine their sitting program and it is not for the Government actually to give any formal directions to them. Short of giving a formal direction to them, and I doubt very much that I have the power to do so, the views of the Government have been conveyed to them and they are in no doubt as to what those views are.

page 2179

QUESTION

METROLINER CRASH: ESPERANCE

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

– I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Transport to the crash of a Metroliner aircraft in Western Australia yesterday which was the second crash of a relatively large commuter airliner in the last six months, this time thankfully without loss of life. 1 ask the Minister whether that type of aircraft was capable of flying and maintaining height on one engine. If so, is the Minister able to say whether the aircraft would have been more likely to land safely had it had two pilots? Will the Department reconsider which commuter aircraft should have more than one pilot?

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

-I am aware of the crash of a Metroliner at Esperance in the last day or so. As yet 1 have had no report on it although of course, as the honourable senator would be aware, the crash would be the subject of the usual very careful and intensive investigation by the Department of Transport and its investigators. My understanding is that the aircraft in question is capable of flying and maintaining its height on one engine; but I will seek confirmation of that, and refer the suggestion made by the honourable senator with respect to pilots and the inquiry to Mr Hunt for reply.

page 2179

QUESTION

RUNDLE SHALE OIL DEPOSIT

Senator TATE:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for National Development and Energy. lt relates to the Minister’s answer to Senator Elstob on 4 March concerning the shale oil deposits in Queensland, in the course of which the Minister said:

Towards the end of this decade the aim is to extract 200,000 barrels a day from the Rundle deposit, which would be well on the way to matching what our imports are. 1 ask: Is it a fact that crude oil imports are refined? Is it a fact that the Rundle deposit will produce a type of fuel oil quite unsuitable for refining to motor spirit? Is it a fact that the venturers in this project have made it clear to the Government that they can give no undertaking that this enterprise will help alleviate Australia’s only energy crisis, namely, in relation to transport fuels?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I recall indicating that the Rundle partners had foreshadowed that by 1988 or later they would be producing, 1 think they said, in the order of 240,000 barrels a day. In fact that is roughly an equivalent of our imports. The oil that comes to Australia from Saudi Arabia, in particular, is of a certain kind; it is a light crude. Oils coming from different countries have different kinds of characteristics, lt is true that oil that comes from oil shale has special refining problems. Nevertheless, in the whole register of what Australia wants- that is, oil for fuel oil, oil for distillates, oil for gasolene, oil for the whole range of things- the contribution of oil from oil shale will be a significant one. It is simply a matter of re-adjusting the usages of our various types of oil.

Senator TATE:

– 1 ask a supplementary question. The Minister has not addressed himself to that aspect of my question which sought to get a clear understanding from him on the point that the oil to be produced from the Rundle deposits is quite unsuitable for refining and that therefore there is no equivalent to the oil being imported from Saudi Arabia which does help to alleviate our transport problems.

Senator CARRICK:

-I did address myself to the question. 1 said that it is a different type of oil. It would require different specialties in refining, but of course it is capable of being refined.

page 2180

QUESTION

SCIENCE SHOW: TOPICS

Senator PUPLICK:

-The Minister for National Development and Energy will undoubtedly be aware that the Australian Broadcasting Commission ‘s Science Show is one of the ABC’s most successful programs, with over 200,000 people as its listening audience. 1 am sure he is also aware of the prestige and the quality of the program. Is the Minister aware thai a recent analysis of the Science Show programs which appeared in the 5 May issue of the ANZAAS journal Search indicated that, in terms of topics broadcast on the Science Show, not one single item relating to any energy topic had been broadcast. Will the Minister therefore ask his Department to see whether there is material or whether there are stories available through his Department relating to energy matters which could be submitted to the Science Show in order that that program’s management can consider whether they are worth broadcasting so that this vital topic is not ignored within the framework of this very valuable program?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The ABC’s Science Show is well supported by listeners 1 have not seen the issue of Search to which Senator Puplick referred. I will look at it. I am a recipient of that journal. 1 am not aware, therefore, that an analysis shows that the Science Show has not featured energy matters. I will refer the matter to my Department to see whether material can be provided. The Department provides material for a wide range of demonstrations throughout Australia, and this would obviously be a significant one.

page 2180

QUESTION

ELECTION EXPENSES

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Attorney-General. I express concern at the apparent blockade that, in conjunction with the Minister for Administrative Services, has been imposed to stop dialogue between the Chief Commonwealth Electoral Officer, the Crown Solicitor’s officers and the Federal Parliamentary Electoral Committee, of which I am the secretary, in relation to the provisions of the Electoral Act which apply to election expenses. This is a project in relation to which I have been negotiating for weeks and weeks. In the light of a telegram which he would have received in his office this morning, may I have an assurance from the Attorney that we will be able to meet those officers not later than next Wednesday night, in view of the termination of the sittings?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– This matter was raised with me before I went overseas.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Yes. I am indicting your interim deputy more so than you. The letter is from Mr Ellicott. He is the one I am indicting.

Senator DURACK:

-The position is that I thought that matter had been resolved. I am sorry to hear that it has not been. I will certainly attend to it and see that the matter is sorted out as quickly as possible.

page 2180

QUESTION

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LEGISLATION

Senator HAMER:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Attorney-General. I preface my question by pointing out that it is now more than six months since the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs reported on the Freedom of Information Bill. As the Government cannot now meet its commitment to respond within six months of the presentation of the report, I ask the Attorney whether he still stands by his commitment to respond before Parliament rises. 1 further ask the Attorney whether he regards the leaked, but obviously authentic, response of the Public Service on the Senate Committee report- such a leak being a perfect example of what happens if we do not have proper freedom of information legislation- as being designed to ensure that the freedom of information system is run to suit the convenience of the Public Service rather than the legitimate rights of Parliament and the community. Will the Government ruthlessly scrutinise the Public Service response to ensure that we meet our political commitment to produce effective freedom of information legislation, which undertaking must have been given in the knowledge that a lot of Public Service resistance would have to be overcome to make such freedom of information legislation effective?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-I do not have the actual dates clearly in mind and I do not know whether the time for response has now passed but I must admit that it is pretty close to it.

Senator Missen:

– It has.

Senator DURACK:

-Thank you. The view Senator Hamer expresses that freedom of information legislation will somehow eliminate leaks is, I think, a very bold assertion and a very optimistic view. I would not share such optimism. Any freedom of information legislation- even the very generous and expansive kind- still will have some areas that are exempted. I regret to say that I believe there will always be attempts by some people to get access to documents even if the law does not really permit it.

Senator Button:

– Pessimist.

Senator DURACK:

– I may be being pessimistic, but I think I am being realistic. I have said that it was my intention and the intention of the Government to make a response to the report before the end of this session. That is still my intention. The matter is before the Government and we are working towards my being in a position where a response can be made by the end of this session. In regard to the matter of the Government ‘s attitude to the Public Service, I emphasise that the submission before the Government was made by me and not by public servants although, of course, they have major input in these matters. But it would be quite wrong for the Parliament to believe that the Government considers major submissions as though they were Public Service submissions. The Minister takes responsibility for the submissions which are made and which are considered by government. That is the principle of our system of government. The Government and Ministers certainly are giving personal consideration to these matters.

page 2181

QUESTION

SCIENCE CONGRESS

Senator MASON:

– Did the Minister for National Development and Energy note a report to the Fiftieth Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science Congress from the University of California that, after many years of research, a material has been developed that can produce hydrogen as a fuel by simple exposure to sunlight, thereby duplicating the action of green chloroplasts in plants? Is it a fact that Professor Melvin Calvin of that University was quoted in yesterday’s Melbourne Age as saying ‘it is going to work, there is no doubt about it’, and as predicting that the device would be ready for commercial production within five years? In view of the enormous potential of such a device to use solar power to produce a fuel for motor vehicles, will the Minister ask his Department to commence early and continuous monitoring of this development so it may be used in Australia as soon as it becomes possible and economic?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I saw some reference to this matter. Indeed my interest- and that of my Department, of course- is keen in any development that may foreshadow a breakthrough particularly in the production of hydrogen which offers new opportunities for fuels. The Department and I will be monitoring whatever may be produced at the Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science Congress. We will certainly follow up those matters. We will be looking at developments throughout the world in this regard. I will pursue the matter and, if there is something of more relevance than is known already, I will let the Senate know.

page 2181

QUESTION

AUSTRALIA POST: PRIORITY PAID ITEMS

Senator LEWIS:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications and refers to the imposition by Australia Post of an additional charge for the priority paid service. Is it a fact that the priority paid mail service operates only between capital cities in Australia and a very few nominated provincial cities, although Australia Post accepts the extra payment for priority paid mail for delivery throughout Australia? Is this service in fact no service unless some part of the delivery is between capital cities and even then it may not speed up delivery unless the mail firstly arrives in the capital city, which is part of the journey, before the closing time for onward dispatch to its destination? If this is so will the Minister ask Australia Post to publish, in understandable form, some reliable guide to people throughout Australia as to whether the substantial additional impost for priority paid mail will in fact result in a more speedy service?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

-I understand that the facts are in accord with those put forward by the honourable senator in his question; that is, the priority paid service is available only between capital cities and a few other centres. It is selfevident from that statement that sending a priority paid item to other than one of the nomi.nated destinations will be an advantage only in the circumstances the honourable senator has outlined; that is, where part of the route that the item has to take is between those nominated centres. I was not aware that there was a situation where people may be paying the additional charge which is imposed on priority paid items in circumstances where they may gain no advantage. I will ask the Minister to have that matter examined by the Australian Postal Commission so we can be sure that the Australian public is getting the service to which it is entitled and which I have no doubt the Postal Commission wishes it to receive.

page 2182

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY: COMPUTER

Senator GRIMES:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-Has the attention of the Minister for Social Security been drawn to reports of difficulties in the Adelaide office of her Department with the new computer system, whereby payments are delayed, first cheques are delayed, where the State Director, Mr Taylor, says that there are some teething problems and where the local secretary of the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association says that there are considerable problems because of the nature of the computer system and insufficient staff? What action is she and her Department taking?

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLEMy attention has been drawn to some difficulties in the implementation of the new national benefit system in South Australia. I understand that there were difficulties after the system was introduced on 14 April. There have been operational problems with the system and this has required the use of extra staff and overtime to minimise the possibility of the problems impacting on the clients of the Department. I understand that, in the main, the objectives have now been met and the bulk of the payments have been made correctly and on time.

However, as with the system that it replaced, some transactions intended to generate payments are rejected and manual intervention is needed to issue a cheque. I am told that this happens with the introduction of any new system, and this has had constant attention from the staff in the Department in Adelaide. I understand that they feel that they are now overcoming some of the difficulties. Some overtime by programming and computer staff was required. The rejection rate is dropping and the program deficiencies are being removed.

I am told that for the last two daily runs it has run without fault. It was tested prior to its introduction. It was hoped that as many problems as possible were eliminated prior to its introduction but, as with any new computerised system of this sort, there were some difficulties. We had difficulties with the payment of benefits and some cases of unemployment benefit were delayed slightly in payment. Some sickness benefit cheques were delayed for one day or two days. Some of the data held on the clients’ records was incorrectly processed. I am now told by my Department that the initial problems have been overcome. It is hoped that the system will function satisfactorily, as it has for the last two runs.

page 2182

QUESTION

TRAVEL INSURANCE

Senator YOUNG:

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. I do so following previous questions I have asked of the Minister about the problems created when people who have taken out travel insurance to protect themselves in many cases, because of small print in some of the policies, have not received any insurance payment. I have asked the Minister to obtain information from the Minister for Transport. I ask him again whether he has any such information from that Minister. If not, will he endeavour to obtain it before the Parliament rises at the end of this session?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

- Senator Young has asked a number of questions on this matter. The most recent was asked on 1 April. I have obtained some additional information from the Minister for Transport, Mr Hunt. The honourable senator will be aware from answers to his previous questions that the operation of the insurance companies is beyond the direct authority of the Minister for Transport. The establishment of a set of rules and conditions for travel insurance is a matter that can be dealt with only by the companies or, legislatively, by the relevant State authorities. Mr Hunt has been concerned about reports that some intending travellers have experienced hardship. For example, I understand that some policies have limitations as to the nature of illness which might lead to a cancellation which entitles payment to be made. This has caused problems for people. The Minister, although he has no power to deal with the matter directly, has taken an interest in it. A number of measures have been undertaken to provide more effective protection for intending passengers. The Australian airline, Qantas Airways Ltd, now advises all intending passengers booking for travel on promotional fares that travel insurance should be purchased to provide against unavoidable cancellation.

The problems which are associated with the operation of travel insurance were factors behind the Department of Transport’s recent initiatives in relaxing the more stringent conditions on advance purchase excursion fares to Europe. Before the relaxation there was a 100 per cent penalty for cancellation within the advance purchase period. That penalty has now been reduced to 50 per cent, which obviously eases the position for both insurers and passengers. Provisions for changes to return segments of the journey have been relaxed. The pre-payment period has been extended from seven to 14 days.

There have also been direct discussions between officers of the Department of Transport and representatives of the travel industry on the matters concerning Senator Young. I am advised that following these discussions and as a result of the Government’s recent initiatives in relaxing conditions on APEX fares to Europe at least one organisation, the Australian Federation of Travel Agents, is currently reviewing its insurance policy. It is hoped that this will result in improved arrangements for passengers seeking travel insurance.

page 2183

QUESTION

DRUIDS HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL BENEFITS FUND

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

-I draw the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Health to a question I asked last month concerning the Tasmanian Druids Hospital and Medical Benefits Fund, whose contributors were disadvantaged by the collapse of the Fund. The contributors were given to understand that some clarification of their position would be made within a month. When will the official financial situation of the Druids Hospital and Medical Benefits Fund be known? A month ago it was stated that the application by Druids to be wound up was expected to be before the Commonwealth court by mid-May. If there is to be any further delay, does the Minister have any explanation that can be given to those contributors who are in a state of uncertainty at present?

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLEI recall the earlier interest of Senator O ‘Byrne in this matter, but I have no information with me from the Department of Health or the Minister for Health. I will refer the matter to the Minister again and see whether he has any information along the lines of that sought in the question.

page 2183

QUESTION

YOUTH EXCHANGES

Senator MISSEN:

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, concerns those many young Australians who, each year, travel overseas as part of organised exchange programs. Does the Minister agree that the area of youth exchanges is an important one? Does the Minister also agree that, as ambassadors for our country, young Australians travelling abroad should be given some degree of government support? What assistance is currently provided by the Government to those young people travelling abroad through the aid of organisations such as Rotary? Will the Minister assure the Senate that consideration will be given by the Government to formulating an effective policy on youth exchanges, covering such areas as selection of exchangees, briefing, arrival in host country and return to home country, to assist those individuals and organisations involved in this vital area? Will he also assure the Senate that consideration will be given by the Government to compiling a handbook on living in foreign countries, including a bibliography to provide background information on the country involved, so as to make sure that Australians abroad understand more about their hosts and are able to find help in the event of difficulties?

Senator DURACK:
LP

- Senator Missen ‘s question is a very important one, and it contains some interesting suggestions. I am surprised that there seems to have been some objection to it by the Opposition.

Senator Bishop:

– You have the answer in your hand. It is a question on notice.

Senator DURACK:

– It is a question about which I have been given notice. That is the normal practice in the Senate. Any honourable senator who wants an answer and who has any common sense would give notice of a question to a Minister who is not responsible for the matter but who is representing another Minister. The Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs has indicated that he agrees that the area of youth exchanges is an important one. The Government recognises the value of international youth exchanges in increasing mutual goodwill among nations and in developing understanding of different cultures. It supports the activity of voluntary organisations in promoting exchanges.

Although the Government does not provide direct financial support to exchanges sponsored by voluntary agencies, it actively co-operates by providing information and other services through appropriate government departments both in Australia and overseas. The Government ensures also that for any program in which it is directly involved adequate briefings and other forms of advice and assistance are provided to exchangees to lessen the effects of culture shock and associated problems in adapting to life in another country. Whether this provision of information can best be achieved by compiling a handbook or by other more flexible means is one of the matters receiving the attention of the Office of Youth Affairs. The honourable senator has raised a number of detailed questions and ideas about the compilation of a handbook. The Minister will give further consideration to that matter and will provide a further answer.

Senator McLaren:

– I ask that the document quoted from by the Minister be tabled.

Senator DURACK:

-Yes, I will table the document.

page 2184

QUESTION

AIR NIUGINI

Senator SIBRAA:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Transport aware of any move by Ansett Airlines of Australia to purchase Air Niugini? What effects would the purchase of Air Niugini by an Australian domestic airline have on the present civil aviation agreement between Australia and Papua New Guinea?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I can answer that question very briefly: No. But I assume that the question really relates to whether the Minister for Transport has any information on that point. I will ask Mr Hunt to advise the honourable senator if he has any information on a possible purchase. Certainly, it has not come to my attention. I will get an early reply for the honourable senator from Mr Hunt.

page 2184

QUESTION

HOME LOANS

Senator KILGARIFF:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Special Trade Representations. Media reports have indicated that the trading banks in Australia have warned the Government that there could be cutbacks on home loan finance from banking institutions unless they are allowed to increase interest rates. Having in mind the increasing demand for homes in most States and Territories of Australia, what would be the Government’s reaction if such threats were substantiated?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The Government is aware of the role played by interest rates in the allocation of funds amongst institutions and between sectors of the economy. The Treasurer has said on a number of occasions that ultimately the level of interest rates will be determined in accordance with the supply and demand for funds. The Government has been careful to ensure that its monetary policy, which continues to emphasise the importance of pursuing anti-inflationary objectives, does not unjustifiably impinge upon the supply of finance to housing. Indeed, in the last Budget the Treasurer made it quite clear that the Government would be seeking to have the lending institutions provide funds for housing to the maximum extent possible which was consistent with our monetary policy objectives and their commercial j judgment

Over the last year, finance for housing and home building has been running at quite high levels. Lending for housing by the banks in the March quarter was still at a satisfactory level. Total lending for housing by the major lending institutions rose by 8.4 per cent in the March quarter. In the nine months to March banks helped 118,118 would-be home buyers, some 2,381 more than the corresponding period of the previous year. Reflecting the high levels of housing lending over the last 12 months or so there has been a strong pickup in private sector dwelling activity since the September quarter 1978. Private dwelling commencements in the December quarter 1979 were 13.5 per cent above the level of the previous year. Coupled with the continued buoyancy exhibited by both private dwelling and finance approvals in the early months of 1 980, it is clear that 1 980 will see further growth in private housing activity.

page 2184

QUESTION

SOUTH AUSTRALIAN RAILWAYS

Senator BISHOP:

– My question to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport refers to the shock announcement today in Adelaide by Dr Williams, the general manager of the Australian National Railways Commission, that 140 railway staff at an important railway junction town, Peterborough, will either be transferred from that northern area or be sacked because of amalgamation arrangements. The Minister will recall from his own knowledge that as a result of representations to the former Minister for Transport, Mr Nixon, that Minister said that he would confer with local authorities in respect of any curtailment of services in country areas because of the takeover by ANR. Consequently, I ask the Minister whether he will make sure that the present Minister for Transport will confer with the local authorities in Peterborough to ensure that there are immediate consultations between the Australian National Railways and the trade unions to avoid any drastic changes in the economy of the city of Peterborough which will affect that area seriously. I put it to the Minister that any changes should be phased in over a longer period. I ask the Minister to acquaint himself with this situation and to do what he can to consult with the Minister for Transport in respect of these matters.

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I will take up with the Minister for Transport the matters raised by the honourable senator as he requests and advise the honourable senator of the result of those consultations.

page 2185

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS

The PRESIDENT:

– I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the Gallery to my left of the members of the United Nations Council for Namibia led by the permanent Turkish representative, His Excellency Mr Orhan Eralp. To you gentlemen we tender a very warm welcome.

Honourable senators- Hear, hear!

page 2185

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2185

QUESTION

ETHNIC RADIO AND TELEVISION

Senator NEAL:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. Will the Government further examine the possible effect on the commercial ethnic Press of a Government funded and quasi-commercial ethnic television and radio network? Will the Minister concede the possibility that the Government funded media are likely to cream off advertising revenue which, at present, allows many ethnic newspapers to survive? Finally, will the Minister assure the Senate that the Government does not seek to destroy the independent ethnic newspapers and replace them by a publicly funded television and radio network at great expense to the Australian taxpayer?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I assure the Senate that the Government does not seek to destroy the ethnic Press. The proposal which is at present before the Parliament is the fulfilment of a very longstanding commitment to establish ethnic broadcasting in Australia. That is a policy commitment which has been before the Australian people and in the knowledge of this Parliament now for a good number of years, lt should not carry the sort of inference which has been given to it by the honourable senator. But I will refer the content of the question to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications so that he is aware of the concern which is expressed by the honourable senator in his asking this question.

page 2185

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY SUPREME COURT

Senator EVANS:
VICTORIA

– Has the Attorney-General noted the decision of Mr Justice Connor in the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court on 2 May in which a magistrate, Dr Desmond O’Connor, was prohibited from hearing a case with which his wife was indirectly connected by virtue of her status as an employee of a firm of solicitors assisting one of the parties? Has he noted further that the test of propriety applied by Mr Justice Connor in that case was an objective one, based on the possible suspicions of reasonable people, and not one in any way based on the subjective state of mind of the judicial officer himself? Does the Attorney accept this view of the law as accurate? Does it prompt the Government to reconsider the terms of the Prime Minister’s defence of the Chief Justice delivered in the House of Representatives on 29 April?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I have seen the report of the decision by Mr Justice Connor. I have not seen the full text of the decision. I will give it consideration. It did appear that it was certainly providing an objective test in relation to these matters. I have not given the matter any further consideration. I propose to do so. I have had another question from Senator Evans in relation to this matter. I am catching up to some extent with what went on in my absence. At this stage I do not propose to add anything further.

page 2185

QUESTION

PHYSICAL AND NUTRITIAL EDUCATION

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

-Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Education been drawn to a survey reported at the Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science conference which pointed out that 25 per cent of all eighth year school children at three Adelaide high schools miss breakfast on up to four days a week and another 26 per cent had only a beverage such as milk, juice, cordial or water? Over half of those children virtually had no decent breakfast. Having regard to the undoubted success of government-sponsored programs such as ‘Life. Be in it.’ and, it is to be hoped, the new program ‘Help yourself to health’, does the Minister agree that the very success of these programs with adults could be an indication of our failure to instil in school children a sufficient awareness of the need for lifelong physical fitness? Will the Minister consider initiating a program of physical and nutritial education throughout Australia by making compulsory the appointment of a specialist of nutrition and physical education in every school?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– This is a matter which I will refer to the Minister for Education. I did not see the report from the Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science conference. I am keenly interested in the debates of the ANZAAS conference. They deal with a wide range of subjects. I have not seen a report on this matter. During my term as Minister for Education I faced the very real need, particularly amongst Aborigines, to ensure that children came to school sufficiently well fed and with a balanced diet to be able to undergo the learning process and retain a proper measure of health. There is no doubt that nutrition is a key aspect in the balance of education. My recollection is that several years ago I asked one branch of my Department to look at the whole question of nutrition with regard to education. I will refer the whole question to the Minister for Education for his study.

page 2186

QUESTION

TAKEOVER BID BY DUNLOP AUSTRALIA LTD

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs aware of yesterday’s statement by Mr Ken Egan, President of the Australian Tyre Distributors Association, that the takeover bid by Dunlop Australia Ltd for Olympic Consolidated Industries Ltd will, if approved, create a monopoly among the country’s largest tyre manufacturers? He said that such a monopoly could result in 400 independent tyre dealers being squeezed out of business. Will the Minister undertake to discuss this matter with the Government and take such action as is necessary to avoid this monopoly development and thus save 400 more small businesses from going to the wall?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-Senator Gietzelt asked whether the Minister was aware of the statement by Mr Egan concerning the takeover offer by Dunlop Australia Ltd. I am not aware of it nor have I knowledge of the state of mind of the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs on this matter. I will refer the question to the Minister and ask him to provide an early answer for Senator Gietzelt.

page 2186

QUESTION

AGENT ORANGE

Senator KNIGHT:

– I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs to my question on 25 March this year concerning developments relating to the use of defoliants in Vietnam, particularly agent orange as it is known, and the results of research being conducted in Hanoi. Has the Government now been able to give consideration to my suggestion that a medical and scientific research team from Australia should go to Hanoi to assess this research and its results? What is the outcome of that consideration?

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE:

The Government has considered the question and has decided not to send a medical or research team to Vietnam to study the problem. I am advised that following the screening of the segment of the television program 60 Minutes concerning herbicides in Vietnam on 23 March 1980, the permanent head of the Department of Veterans ‘ Affairs, Sir Richard Kingsland, and his Chief Director of Medical Services, Dr Fleming, visited television station executives in Sydney to receive and to discuss material given to them by the Vietnamese. At the request of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs the Australian Embassy in Hanoi has been seeking information on the subject of the relationship between herbicides and disabilities. During April the Department of Foreign Affairs forwarded a collection of notes, graphs and articles by Professor Tung and his colleagues for use in the Department of Veterans ‘Affairs.

It will be recalled that on 3 1 March this year the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs advised that the Government had asked the Commonwealth Institute of Health to carry out a study of all Australian veterans who served in Vietnam to determine whether they or their offspring could have been adversely affected by the exposure of exservicemen to agent orange or other chemicals in Vietnam. I have no other information on this matter, but I will refer Senator Knight’s question to the Minister for Veterans ‘ Affairs to determine the up-to-date position.

page 2186

QUESTION

MARALINGA ATOMIC TESTS

Senator ELSTOB:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and may also bring some response from the Minister representing the Minister for Health. What plans has the Government for initiating an inquiry into the deaths and illnesses of Aboriginals and white people who were exposed to the fall-out of the Maralinga atomic tests? According to reports received by Dr T. Cutter, who is heading an

Alice Springs based Aboriginal health service team, many Aboriginals died immediately after the tests. Will the Minister consider holding a full inquiry into the short and long term effects on the health of the people living in the north of South Australia at the time of the atomic tests and check on the reports of mass burials of Aboriginals?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– Needless to say, this matter has been of concern to me. The concern predates the recent spate of publicity which related to Dr Cutter’s visit to northern South Australia and, of course, to a series of articles in, I think, the Advertiser in South Australia. At present the Commonwealth is seeking information on the matters which have been raised. Perhaps it is worth quoting Mr Toyne, one of the people who has been interviewed in this area and who is an employee of the Pitjantjatjara Council. I refer to his comment on radio the other morning. When asked about possible deaths he said:

All I can say is that that is quite speculative.

We are still in the area of speculation. We are still seeking information. Over the past month or so I have written on a couple of occasions to the Minister of Health in South Australia seeking information from the South Australian Health Commission. I am not in a position to give a final response but I think my colleague Senator Carrick has something to say because the question also impinges on his area of responsibility.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The atom testing events at Maralinga over the period involved a series of departments. My department was asked recently whether it would co-ordinate a review by a series of departments ranging over possible threats to any people, be they Aborigines or nonAborigines. An inderdepartmental committee has been collecting evidence on the matter. I hope that I will be able to make a statement here tomorrow indicating the direction that the Government wishes to take in this matter.

If any people in the community feel that they have direct evidence or believe that they have been affected in any way, they should come forward. They will certainly be given sympathetic examination. My understanding is that something like 2,000 Service people were involved throughout the period. I understood also that the area was patrolled during the tests to ensure that nomadic Aborigines did not come within something like 270 kilometres of the tests. As far as is known, and this information could be imperfect, only one incident of Aborigines coming within the test area was known and that involved four persons who did suffer some mild contamination.

Expert attention was given to them immediately, and by the simple process of bathing the contamination was removed. That is not to say that that is the definitive answer. I hope to add something to that tomorrow.

page 2187

QUESTION

POWER CONSERVATION

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I ask the Minister for National Development and Energy whether he heard a statement on the Australian Broadcasting Commission news this morning by a Canberra businessman claiming that his company is saving approximately $30,000 a year through power conservation methods in its Canberra stores. I understand the company has 50 stores in Canberra. Is the Minister aware, also of this man’s claim that Government departments or the Government itself could save up to 25 per cent in energy costs by introducing inexpensive conservation methods throughout its departments? Finally I ask the Minister whether the Government has in fact introduced energy conservation methods within the Government departments? If so, has this reslulted in any savings? If not, will the Minister investigate the claims of this businessman with the object of introducing such conservation methods throughout Australia?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– Like Senator Jessop, I listened with very considerable interest this morning to the Australian Broadcasting Commission program and to the news item he mentioned. My department certainly will be having a look at the particular methods used. There have been discussions with the States and with local government with the aim of developing building codes for new buildings, both domestic and commercial, and for renovated buildings to provide energy-efficient buildings. I share Senator Jessop ‘s belief that, effectively done, a major saving in energy of the kind of dimension mentioned, certainly 15 to 20 per cent, could be achieved. That is underway. I am hopeful that in the course of the months ahead we will be able to get some arrangements for announcing those building codes. I believe, for example, that demonstration houses and demonstration buildings should be provided around the countryside showing those facilities. We have in fact issued advice to Government departments on energy saving. My understanding is that that has been significant. I do not know the exact gains in percentages as yet. I will seek those out. One of the reasons that we will be increasing our advertising to the public is that we will want to talk to commerce and to industry about the need for them to practise energy conservation in the widest possible way, including in buildings.

page 2188

QUESTION

RUNDLE SHALE OIL DEPOSIT

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and follows the question asked earlier today by Senator Tate. What is the anticipated position concerning Rundle shale development? Is it understood that that deposit can be processed into motor spirit? If it cannot, what is required of the companies involved in the development of the project to ensure that the shale can at some stage be processed into motor spirit? If the question of commercial viability is in issue, what is the agreement as to who determines the commercial viability of the product once that further refining has been agreed upon?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– Following upon Senator Tate’s question, I sought from my Department clarification on whether there are any difficulties in the refining of the synthetic crude oil from Rundle. My attention was directed to its own briefing note to me, which I will read in a moment, and specifically to the Prime Minister’s statement of Thursday, 28 February, which was in fact checked for accuracy with the Rundle partners. The prospective partner is the Esso company, or Exxon, which has very considerable technical experience in the whole of the refining business. I draw the honourable senator’s attention to the specific paragraph of the statement and remind him that the partners had agreed that it was accurate. That statement reads as follows:

Esso’s proposal to SPP/CPM contemplates that all production would ultimately be upgraded to a synthetic crude oil for feedstock to Australia’s refineries where it will be refined into normal petroleum products, including petrol.

That was my clear understanding. The brief which my Department -

Senator Tate:

– That is not my understanding.

Senator CARRICK:

-Senator Tate shakes his head. If he has any technical reasons beyond those stated here, he should supply them. Honourable senators should bear in mind that this has been made as a public statement by the partners to the stock exchanges of the world. One could be very certain also that the refineries and the technical people in the oil industry would have contradicted this statement if there had been any disability about it. In any case, the advice to me from the technical people in my own Department is that the proposal contemplates that the shale oil produced will ultimately be upgraded to a synthetic crude oil feedstock for Australia’s refineries where it will be refined into normal petroleum products, including petrol. If there is any dispute- I do not say this in any vexatious fashion- as to the technical reasons behind this, I would be delighted if either Senator Wriedt or Senator Tate would give me the information, in which case I will have it pursued. Those are the statements of advice to me.

Senator WRIEDT:

– I ask a supplementary question. I refer the Minister to Part I of the Queensland Rundle Oil Shale Agreement Bill 1980. Clause 8 of the preliminary notes states:

The shale oil extracted in retorts is not suitable for refining to motor spirit without further processing which would impose extra costs. The Agreement recognises that the Companies might produce only fuel oil but this clause 8 places an onus on them to undertake further processing within the State should this be commercially viable.

I also refer the Minister to clause 8 on page 9 of the same Bill. The last sentence reads:

The Companies shall undertake the construction and operation of such facilities -

That is, refining facilities- at such time and to such extent as it is commercially viable to do so.

Is the intent of that which I have quoted obviously different from that which the Minister has quoted? I am not questioning whether he is right or wrong, but quite obviously there is a difference. Will he clarify this? Obviously, a judgment has to be made under the terms of the agreement as to what is commercially viable. Who has the right to make that judgment? If this arrangement that I have read from is the correct one, will the Minister tell honourable senators what the ir -formation is that he is reading to the Senate?

Senator CARRICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– Basically, what Senator Wriedt has done has been to confirm what I have said and to deny what Senator Tate’s inference was, because what he read shows what I have said, and that is that it is perfectly possible technically to turn shale oil into gasolene. The Bill says so.

Senator Wriedt:

– Read that again. There is nothing about commercial viability.

Senator CARRICK:

-Senator Wriedt interjects. The question asked by Senator Tate was whether in fact shale oil can be turned into gasolene. My answer was as I have said. I have responded in terms of the partners and otherwise. Senator Wriedt read out something which says that it can be done but that there may be a question of commercial viability. I had not responded to that matter at all because I had not been asked about that before. I had only been asked whether it was possible to do.

Senator Wriedt:

– I asked you that in the first question.

Senator CARRICK:

-If I may be allowed to answer, the whole question in this matter is whether Rundle will be commercially viable, that is, whether it will be commercially viable in producing oil or whether it will be commercially viable in producing oil refined stocks. That, of course, will depend entirely upon the pursuit in this community of import parity pricing. The basis of the partners’ advice to the community of Australia was that the one basis of their viability in producing oil stocks for Australia would be the sustaining of import parity pricing.

page 2189

QUESTION

COCOS QUARANTINE STATION

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

– Will the Minister representing the Minister for Health convey to the Minister for Health the concern of many potential users of the Cocos Island quarantine station that, so far, no procedural details are available as to its operation? Will the Minister ask when details will be made available as to predetermination of eligibility, who or what body will determine access priorities, to whom application will be made, and when advice on fees and the length of quarantine and such matters will be available? Will the Minister suggest that, in view of the time necessary for potential users to make their arrangements and the fact that it is expected that occupancy will be possible within 12 months, the matter is now urgent and that a full statement would be of considerable help?

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE:

A number of matters have been raised by Senator Archer. In view of the interest expressed in the question I am sure that, if he were to place it on the Notice Paper, the information that would be made publicly available would be of assistance to a number of people. I suggest that he does that. In the meantime, I will refer the question to the Minister for Health to see what information he is able to give at this stage.

page 2189

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION: CRICKET BROADCASTS

Senator CHANEY:
LP

- Senator Rocher asked me a question on 30 April about the value of sales by the Australian Broadcasting Commission of cassettes and publications relating to cricket in the context of a question about the cost of advertising undertaken by the ABC of cricket broadcasts. I am now advised that the Australian Broadcasting Commission is not in a position to provide a final figure of the sale of cricket books as those books are distributed on a sale or return basis. At this time, a return to the ABC of at least $80,000 is expected but the actual figure will not be known until the end of the financial year. The flash-back cassette which was referred to is being sold on a continuing basis. To date sales amount to approximately $20,000. That figure relates to an advertising program which program, according to Senator Rocher, cost about $70,000.

page 2189

QUESTION

TOURIST BUS ACCIDENTS

Senator CHANEY:
LP

-Yesterday Senator Bishop asked a number of questions arising out of the recent bus accident near Hay in New South Wales and relating to the safety of tourist buses generally. I gave him a general reply but undertook to obtain further information. I have obtained a lengthy but useful reply to those questions from my colleague, the Minister for Transport. I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

Although the responsibilities related to the design and serviceability of buses reside with each of the State and Territory administrations a great deal of uniformity has been achieved through the Australian Transport Advisory Council. The model legislation endorsed by that Council is to be found in sections 16 and 16a of what is known as the draft regulations and covers a wide range of requirements aimed at ensuring the continuing roadworthiness of buses engaged in the provision of all types of services including long distance interstate services.

In practice there are some variations in the detail or requirement from State to State but all States have licencing and inspection systems aimed at minimising the likelihood of bus accidents.

At the request of the Council, its Advisory Committee on Vehicle Performance has recently completed an extensive review of the bus roadworthiness requirements and new proposals will be coming before the Council for consideration in July next. I understand that these proposals involve a rolling system of maintenance in addition to the periodic inspections which are currently undertaken.

In respect of coachwork design and the structural integrity of buses, which was also an issue raised by Senator Bishop, I am informed that the Department’s Office of Road Safety is about to commission a major research project designed to improve the restraint of bus passengers and minimize injuries in forward or rear-end collisions. The question of adequate protection in a roll-over type accident is more difficult and has worried road safety authorities around the world for a number of years. There are at present no comprehensive standards for these purposes anywhere in the world but the Office of Road Safety is closely following a program of experiment and evaluation currently being earned out by road safety authorities in Europe which may well give a basis for the development of adequate standards in this country.

I can assure Senator Bishop that, although the responsibility for the investigation of these accidents rests with the relevant State authorities, the Commonwealth has, and will continue to maintain, a close contact so that any lessons there to be learned can be applied in the wider consideration of national standards. There certainly can be no suggestion that the safety of bus passengers is being neglected but at the same time it would be foolish for anyone to suggest that there is not room for the development and improvement of safety standards in this area. I can assure the senator that the Commonwealth, State and Territory authorities responsible for safe road operations have frequently exhibited their concern and interest in the safety of bus operations through the deliberations of the Australian Transport Advisory Council. I have no doubt that the wide range of current inquiry will be pursued as quickly as resources permit.

page 2190

SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES OF TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

The PRESIDENT:

– I have received a letter from Senator Button proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely:

The failure of the Fraser Government to deal with high unemployment and the social consequences of technological change.

I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

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

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-The matter of public importance which the Opposition seeks to bring before the Senate today is the failure of the Government to deal with high unemployment and the social consequences of technological change. In part we are raising this matter of concern today because on 29 April this year the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, Mr Viner, tabled in the House of Representatives a statement which purported to deal with the question of employment and the prospects of employment in the future. That document was titled ‘Challenges and Prospects for Employment in the 1980s’. One would have thought that with nearly 500,000 people unemployed in Australia that important document would have been brought into the Senate, but it was not. It has not been debated in the Senate. One can draw only two conclusions from that fact. Either the statement is not regarded as important enough- that is to say, the Government attaches so little importance to the question of employment that it thinks the statement is not fit to be debated in the Senate, which after all is the chamber which can sack governments- or, alternatively, the statement in itself is not worthy of debate. Either alternative is open. Either it is not an important issue in the mind of the Government or the statement is not worth debating. In either case it is an indictment of the document and of the Government’s attitude to these questions.

I do not want to deal with the very dubious figures about unemployment levels which the

Minister has put forward; suffice to say that they have been queried by a number of expert authorities and are the subject of very much doubt. When I deal later with the costings mentioned in the Minister’s statement of the Opposition’s proposals in relation to employment one will see how doubtful all the figures must be regarded because one has the extraordinary situation of the Minister assessing the cost of the Opposition’s proposals at something like three times what the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) assesses them at. It is quite an extraordinary document from that point of view. Need I remind the Senate that a number of Government spokesmen have made statements about unemployment since the Fraser Government was elected in December 1975. There has been a lot of talk, not much action and not much by way of results. The classic statement was made by the Prime Minister when, in the context of the 1977 election, in December 1977 he said:

Unemployment will fall from February next year and continue to fall.

Of course if he had been right, the statement brought down by Mr Viner need never have been made; nor the statement by Mr Street two years ago when as Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations he laid down the Government’s 1978 blueprint to deal with employment. Now in 1980 we have a new blueprint for tackling unemployment which one must suspect will be no better than any of the other three or four we have had in the five years of this Government. We are left with very high levels of unemployment and particularly a critically high level of youth unemployment- the third highest level among Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, exceeded only by Finland and Spain. What this Government persistently and callously ignores are the very disastrous social consequences of disillusionment, uncertainty, loss of self-esteem and so on, and, more particularly I suppose, a lack of sense of purpose which affects those who are victims of the present employment situation. In his statement in 1978 Mr Street mentioned some of those consequences when he said:

There are reports of some disillusionment, loss of morale and anti-social behaviour among young people.

I want to look very closely at the analysis of the statement made by Mr Viner on 29 April because that is presumably the current position of the Fraser Government, not only about employment now but also about employment prospects for the future. The Minister admitted that the same challenge exists now as existed in 1 978. The then

Minister, Mr Street, put the challenge in these terms: . it would appear unlikely that more than 10 percent new employment will be generated in the manufacturing industry or that rural or mining industries will produce large numbers of additional jobs. The bulk of the new jobs will have to come from the services sector.

Mr Viner has sought in his more recent statement to qualify that remark of Mr Street’s in several important ways which go to the heart of the Government’s policy. First of all, he has claimed that since 1978 when the blueprint for dealing with unemployment was laid down by Mr Street the economy has improved. He has said that the economy is now healthy and vital. I do not know what are his indices for deciding that that is the case. All I know is that in 1980 compared with 1978 interest rates are up, inflation is up, unemployment is up and bankruptcies are up. The human beings who are affected by those factors, the unemployed, the businessmen, the home buyers and so on will have difficulty in accepting Mr Viner ‘s conclusion that the Australian economy is more healthy. There is a lot of room for debate about that conclusion.

According to the Government, the second reason why things changed is the development of what one might call the mining El Dorado thesis. In the interests of simplicity I will summarise the Government’s statements on that thesis. It has said that enormous developments will take place in the Australian mining industry in the Northern Territory, Queensland and so on, and that those projects will develop wealth for Australia. That is perfectly true. The developments are desirable. The Opposition shares the view that they should take place. But it does not follow that more jobs will become available for Australians in any significant way. Senator Carrick in the Senate chooses the classic example of the Rundle development. In answers to questions he suggests that it will generate more jobs. When will it generate more jobs and how many will it generate? We were told 10 years ago that the development of the North West Shelf would generate a vast number of jobs. I do not see much evidence of that.

Before the 1977 election the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) told us that the uranium mining industry would generate 500,000 jobs in Australia. We do not see much evidence of that in 1980. The Minister for Industry and Commerce, Mr Lynch, always rubbery with figures, suggested in 1977 a vast list of mining enterprises which would solve the unemployment problems of Australia. We have heard all that stuff before. Yet in 1980 the Fraser Government talks about the development of the mining industry in Australia and suggests that it will provide jobs for Australians, particularly young Australians in Footscray in Melbourne and in the provincial towns of Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia and so on where youth unemployment is high. It suggests that developments in the mining industry will generate jobs for people in those places. When we ask for examples of what is happening we are told all the time about the Rundle development and a mythical new figure is lumbered into the employment debate as the cure-all for the unemployment problems. The Mining El Dorado thesis is quite contrary to what Mr Street, a very honest Minister who was probably sacked for his honesty, was able to say two years ago. Of course, the mining industry will not be a large generator of employment in the immediate future. The employment will not be in the right places and it will not occur for at least five or 10 years, particularly at places such as Rundle.

Let us look at the defects in the Government’s position in the whole employment argument as revealed by Mr Viner. Firstly, when will all this employment occur? We heard many promises before in 1975 and 1977. The Prime Minister said in 1977 that the problem would go away. When will the problem go away? Where will the jobs be generated? Will they be generated in relevant areas? More importantly, what will happen in the meantime? What will happen to the thousands of young people who, even if the El Dorado in the mining industry comes about, will by that time be mature adults? What will happen to the social problems which face them in the meantime? The Minister in his statement argued that the education system was partly responsible for unemployment as well as junior wage rates and things of that kind. Members of the Minister’s Department who are better informed in these matters know quite well that those arguments are not very well sustained. More importantly, the Government’s own committee of inquiry, the Williams Committee on Education and Training, made the very clear and simply put comment, which this Government studiously ignores, that youth unemployment is the result of there being no jobs. It is silly to blame junior wage rates and the other things which are chosen as scapegoats by the present Government.

Another defect in the Minister’s statement was his extraordinary figures on job multipliers as a result of developments in the mining industry. I do not have to go into them in detail. Many commentators were absolutely stunned by the Minister’s vast imagination in suggesting the multiplier factors that would create jobs as a result of investment in the mining industry. The Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs stands alone if for nothing else as a man who, like Hotspur, can generate figures out of his head on job multipliers as a result of mineral investments. Those figures have been a matter of public discussion. Another important omission in this Government’s policy has been in grappling with the question of technological change in a statement on employment. The Myers Committee was appointed to examine the effects of technological change in Australia. Like every other Committee that this Government has appointed to sweep problems under the carpet, the Myers Committee is, in a sense, doing the same thing. We have had numerous committees of that kind.

Examples of the effect of technology on employment are now clearly available. A major bank four years ago engaged 2,500 junior employees, mostly girls, each year. In 1979 it engaged 600. The Australian Bureau of Statistics employment figures for the clerical industry division show a reduction in employment in the clerical industry between 1976 and 1979 of 25 per cent. Those figures are very much consistent with overseas figures on the same industry. In the House of Representatives on numerous occasions my colleague the honourable member for Lalor (Mr Barry Jones) has raised important questions of the impact of technology on society and, more particularly, on young people. He has referred on many occasions to the French Nora report, which drew similar conclusions. Mr Street in his statement in 1978 adverted to this question in a much more frank way than Mr Viner is prepared to advert to it in 1 980 for the simple reason that the Government has very little grasp of this issue.

Not only is there a need for Government direction and guidelines on technological change but also there is a need for data. When I asked a question in the Senate a year ago about what information the Government kept about the introduction of computers in Australia the answer was none. The Government said that we do not keep any information about that. Computers are assessed like socks, bits of machinery of other kinds and anything else that comes in from abroad. We keep trade statistics but we have no real information about the impact of computers in Australia. That is a real indictment of the Government’s planning and lack of foresight in considering the important matter of technological change.

We need to distinguish between what is useful technology in the social sense and what is dictated to us by the technological imperative that the thing is there and therefore we have to use it without thought of the social consequences. The computer industry is already pressing banks for cash dispensers on every street corner in Australia. Is that a socially necessary device? Do we need it as a society or do we have the capacity to assess its social implications in terms of employment and so on? I think we have all got by pretty well for quite a few years without that facility; I think we can do so again when we think of the consequences in terms of jobs.

In relation to employment the Fraser Government has embarked on a philosophy of despair and hopelessness. It is content to leave the issue, to hope that it will go away, and to create these myths about the consequences of development in the mining industry at some time in the future. That is of no comfort to young Australians who are unemployed now. It is of no comfort to Australians who are unemployed to be told that something good might happen five or 10 years hence- if the people are idiotic enough to re-elect Malcolm Fraser at the election this year. To be told that sort of thing is an insult to many Australian citizens. That is what the Government is saying in this statement. Of course, the Opposition supports the development of the mining industry. But let us be honest about the jobs consequences of that development. The Opposition supports it because it creates wealth, and the important debate is how that wealth is distributed, not only in social terms but also in terms of the creation of new and viable industries in this country- many of which will be based on technology- which will be permanent employers of people. That is the important argument which the Government fails to deal with in the statement made by Mr Viner.

In the meantime, what is to be done? Cannot we, as a society, do something for the 480,000-odd unemployed, particularly the young people? When the Opposition puts up a program to create 200,000 jobs as a short term measure, the Government says: ‘Yes, but they are not real jobs; they are artificial jobs’. They are not artificial to those who are unemployed now and who would be given something to do. They are not artificial in social terms. Of course, when the Opposition puts up a program for the creation of jobs in community service and public works projects for adults and a program offering incentives to business to create new jobs, the Government says: ‘Well, this will cost an enormous amount of money and really we haven’t got that sort of money to spend in a society like Australia’. Mr Viner said that the Australian Labor Party’s proposals would cost about $800m. The Prime Minister said they would cost half as much as that. Who will believe the Government’s costings of programs when its members disagree amongst themselves to the extent of such an enormous amount?

One sees the absurdity of a ministerial statement which goes out of its way to say that any effort by way of short term endeavour to create jobs, particularly for young Australians, is too expensive for our society. Tell that to, for example, President Carter. The Prime Minister says that job creation programs have never worked anywhere. President Carter has spent $6 billion on them in the last four years. Every country in Europe is spending significant amounts of money on youth employment programs. Sweden, Germany, the other Scandinavian countries and Holland and so on are prepared to spend money because they recognise the social importance of so doing. It is only in Australia that that is not done because the Fraser Government’s priorities are not concerned with the people of this country- particularly the young people- who are unemployed. It is only the Fraser Government, in Australia, which is capable of adopting this unique posture, of saying that those things do not matter, and it condemns any political party that says they do because, it is not really concerned with real jobs. There should be more debate in the Senate about this sort of phoney analysis which the Fraser Government again is putting forward in relation to jobs. I hope Senator Ryan will deal with that matter in her contribution to the debate.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Young)- Order! The honourable senator’s time has expired.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

- Senator Button’s speech on the topic he introduced today as a matter of public importance was long on rhetoric and rather short on facts and policy. Probably the reason for that came out at the end of his speech when he made it perfectly clear that the Opposition is preoccupied not so much with the creation of wealth- apparently it is happy for this Government, private enterprise and people with initiative in the community to create wealth- but with the distribution of it. He made that clear. What Senator Button has raised as a matter of public importance and what has been alleged by him and by the Opposition is as follows:

The failure of the Fraser Government to deal with high unemployment and the social consequences of technological change.

I want to deal with these matters separately because different questions arise although the matters are very closely associated. Senator Button spent most of his speech dealing with the allegation of the Government’s failure to deal with high unemployment. He cited unemployment figures and at one stage I thought he mentioned that something like 500,000 people were unemployed. Perhaps that was just a figure given in general terms. The latest statistics- they are for April 1980- show that the number of unemployed persons looking for full time work was 339,300, or 6. 1 per cent of the full time labour force. The total number looking for work- that is, either full time or part time work- is 404,700. Strangely enough, that also represents 6.1 per cent of the labour force. These are the latest statistics provided by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. They show that the true situation is considerably better than that indicated by the figures that were bandied about by Senator Button in the course of his speech this afternoon. The Government has always acknowledged the seriousness of the rate of unemployment, the need for government, to adopt and pursue policies which try to contain and reduce unemployment, and- this is very important- the need to take steps to alleviate the positions of those who are, or who might become, unemployed.

This afternoon I propose to say a few words in relation to both those aspects of government policy. The Government agrees that there is a problem in dealing with unemployment. That matter has been debated in this chamber many times and I have said over and over again during numerous debates that the Government acknowledges the problems and the need to adopt policies in relation to them. The question is: What policies are to be adopted? The Government’s policies deal with the economy generally. Its view has been that the problems of unemployment are not solved purely by artificial job creation schemes, which is apparently the only policy in that area that the Opposition now puts forward. Very high levels of unemployment occurred in Australia during the period that the Australian Labor Party was in government. After a long period of low unemployment- in fact, almost full employment for 20 or 30 years under Liberal-Country Party governmentsunemployment rates skyrocketed. At that time, that Government endeavoured to adopt the same job creation scheme policy that is now advocated. It was then known as the Regional Employment Development System. Yet, before it was defeated in 1975 the Labor Party abandoned the RED System. However, now it is back in opposition its only policy is the reintroduction of job creation schemes.

The Government’s policy has been to get the economy straight by reducing the high levels of inflation, taxation and so on which had been imposed on the taxpayers. At the time this Government was elected the inflation rate was running at 1 6 per cent or 1 7 per cent. That rate has been reduced significantly. That factor is probably the major achievement in the Government’s fight to deal with unemployment as well as the problems of the economy generally because until such time as we could get the inflation rate down to the level which it is now at- a level which compares more than favourably with a number of our major trading partners- there was no way in which the economy could be revived. Until the economy is revived there is no way in which new realistic jobs can be created.

Senator Button made another fairly broad sweeping statement about the economy in which he mentioned that interest rates and the level of inflation were up. I think he probably meant there had been some very recent small movement upwards in inflation. But a very significant reduction in the level of inflation has occurred between 1975 and today. One very significant figure that Senator Button did not mention is the significant increase that has occurred in the total number of employed persons over the last 12 months. In the year to March 1980, the number has risen by 181,600 or 3 per cent. Similarly, as one would expect, there has been an increase in the total number of persons employed full time for that same period. Honourable senators can see from those clear, cold, hard statistics the effect of the Government’s policies. The benefit in the creation of real jobs of the economic policies that we have been pursuing since we came into government in 1975 is now clearly visible. As I said, those figures clearly support that statement. That basically illustrates not the failure of the Government as has been alleged in this discussion but the success that the Government has had and is having in the creation of employment.

We agree that in the last 1 2 months that has been the first sign of hope. It is a long haul to repair a virtually ruined economy as it was in 1975 but we are now seeing the fruits of those policies in that very long haul that we have been engaged in in repairing the economy. Honourable senators can see from those statistics I have given that there has been a creation of real jobs. This is only the beginning and that is what Mr Viner, my colleague the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, was trying to say. Apparently the argument was somewhat lost on the Opposition and Senator Button in particular. Mr Viner was trying to point out the future prospects for the creation of wealth. I am very pleased that Senator Button is acknowledging the importance of those policies which will encourage investment and development and thereby create wealth and jobs. It is not just a matter of creating wealth. It is a matter of distributing it. I think large numbers of people who are unemployed or potentially unemployable are looking not for a redistribution of that wealth or handouts which they may be getting as a result but for meaningful and satisfying jobs. The policy of the Government will create real and satisfying jobs. The jobs may not be created in the same place as historically has been the position.

I am sure that the governments and the people of Western Australia and Queensland, for example, where a great number of these jobs are created, would be surprised to learn from the Opposition that people would not be interested in going to those places where so much new employment is to be created. The fact of the matter is that the development that has occurred in Western Australia and in Queensland clearly has attracted a great influx of people from other parts of Australia resulting in the creation of new towns and new, thriving, and vigorous communities. The prospects for development, as I said, in these new areas are very great indeed. Senator Button alleged that Mr Viner had used multiplier figures which were the subject of rejection by all economists. I think that is what he said. But this is what Mr Viner said:

Let the economists argue and the commentators cavil at whether the ‘multiplier’ effect of jobs is 2, 4, 6, 8 or 10 the number directly created. One thing they cannot do is to deny the reality of such development in Kalgoorlie, the Pilbara, Mt Isa, Gove, Weipa, Broken Hill. I suggest a few of them visit these places and light industrial areas like those in my own electorate-

That is in the electorate of Stirling: which feed off resource developments.

There is not only the creation of the jobs in the mining areas themselves but also the flow-on effects in those industrial areas which, as he said, feed off the resource development. Experience has proven that jobs are created in all parts of Australia as well as in those specific places where the developments are taking place.

Let me refer to some of the programs that the Government has embarked on and some of the initiatives that it has taken to deal with the problems of the unemployed people. We have been talking in general terms about the Government’s economic policies and the creation of new jobs. That is fundamental to tackling the problem. But at the same time the Government has recognised the problem of those who are unemployed and the Government has tried to assist the individual himself to obtain better skills and better motivation.

I shall mention also some of those programs in the short time remaining to me this afternoon in this discussion. When we came into government the National Employment and Training Scheme was restructured. It now gives a good deal more attention to on-the-job training. The Special Youth Employment and Training Program was introduced to deal with particular problems of the young who lacked qualifications, training or work experience. The Government created the new apprenticeship scheme known as the Commonwealth Rebate for Apprentice Full-time Training Scheme which extended assistance to the whole apprenticeship training period. We also introduced the Community Youth Support Scheme. We developed and we are in the process of developing pilot community youth programs. We have given much greater assistance to Aboriginal employment and training and of course we reformed the Commonwealth Employment Service. Recently the Government has embarked on the development of a comprehensive school to work transition program. With the support of the States, we are extending and diversifying the education and training opportunities available to young people and we are particularly seeking to add great vocational dimension to the education of young people. As far as that scheme is concerned, we are committed to a policy of providing $ 1 50m over a five-year period.

Over the four and a half years that we have been in office more than $400m has been expended on these programs. Over 400,000 people have been assisted with training and work experience by these programs and these initiatives to which I have referred. The Government has not only expended large sums of money on these programs of work but also been particularly conscious of the problems involved. The foundation of the various reforms we have made is the result of the various inquiries that we have set up such as the Norgard inquiry into the Commonwealth Employment Service, the Crawford investigation on structural adjustment and the Williams inquiry on education and training.

I now come to the final point with which I need to deal in this matter of public importance. It referred to the failure of the Government to deal with the social consequences of technological change. Of course, the Government has introduced programs which are designed to assist people in the acquisition of new skills. They are designed to deal with the technological revolution which is taking place and with the technological age in which we are living. This Government has increased spending on technical and further education. That is one of the areas on which this Government has concentrated. All these measures are designed to deal with technological change. The Government has established yet another special committee. It is presided over by Professor Myers and is inquiring into technological change. That committee is dealing specifically with that subject. The Government, of course, is awaiting the report of that committee with interest. In relation to the reports that the Government has commissioned in these areas and to which I have referred it has a solid record of giving serious concern to and taking action in relation to such reports.

I believe the facts I have given and the implementation of government policies to which I have referred show that the Government’s policies are working. I come back to the point that there has been a significant increase in the creation of real jobs. In the past 12 months there has been an increase of 181,000 in the number of persons employed which indicates that the Government’s policies are working. They show signs of being more successful in the future. They show that there is no basis for the Opposition’s allegations that there is a failure on the part of the Government to deal with high unemployment or to have regard for the social consequences of those who have suffered. The Government is tackling the major problem of job creation, wealth creation. It is attempting to alleviate the social problems of those who are unfortunate enough to suffer unemployment.

Senator RYAN:
Australian Capital Territory

– I support the matter of public importance brought before the Senate today by my colleague Senator Button. The matter of public importance is:

The failure of the Fraser Government to deal with high unemployment and the social consequences of technological change.

The Federal Opposition regards these matters as matters of absolute urgency in the face of the pathetic and inadequate response of the Government both to the crisis of unemployment in this country and to the way in which that unemployment crisis is being exacerbated by the ad hoc, unplanned introduction of technology in certain areas of the work force. Nothing said by the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) has modified to any extent our concern that these matters are being ignored or neglected by the

Government. The pathetic and inadequate response of the Minister to Senator Button’s contribution is typical of the Government’s handling of this matter. We have an unemployment crisis which is worsening. We have a crisis which is being exacerbated by technological change. We have all sorts of expert predictions from Europe, the United States of America and Japan about the effects of technology on the work force. What has the Government said in response? It has said virtually nothing. Senator Durack did not even reach the subject of technological change until four minutes before his time in this debate expired. I think that is a good indication to the Senate and to the Australian public of the low priority the Government is prepared to afford to this crucial matter.

We have an employment crisis which is being exacerbated by technological change. All decisions about technological change are ultimately political decisions. The Government either is taking no decisions or is making the wrong decisions. Of course, we are all aware that the Government has set up a committee to investigate technological change. Frankly, the Opposition is not optimistic about the outcome of that inquiry. It is not optimistic that that inquiry will come up with a report on which the Government will be prepared to act in a way that is constructive in terms of employment and in terms of the economy of this country. The Government has such a poor record with regard to inquiries into employment, inquiries into the work force and action on such inquiries that the Opposition cannot muster any optimism about the consequences of the Myers inquiry.

I must make clear on behalf of the Australian Labor Party that it is not opposed to technological change. It welcomes technological innovation where it is in the interests of the Australian public. The Australian Labor Party believes that technology can create employment if it is introduced within the context of a planned economy. By that, I mean an economy which has a national manpower policy, a national training and retraining scheme and, of course, national economic and employment objectives to which a national manpower policy and a national training scheme are directed. Without a planned economy, without a national manpower policy and a training scheme but with the unplanned, ad hoc introduction of technology into the economy we find that technology is destroying jobs.

The particular area of the work force which is suffering from the introduction of technology and to which I wish to draw attention in the debate this afternoon is the area relating to women.

The Government generally is accused of ignoring the economic and employment problems of Australian women as workers. It is the case, of course, that most Australian women are in the work force for some years of their lives. The number of years that Australian women spend in the work force is increasing. I am not talking about a minority group; I am not talking about a minority interest. I am talking about a central part of our economy, that is, the contribution made by women workers and the potential contribution made by women workers. Women have the highest record of unemployment in every age group, starting from teenagers. There are far more teenage girls unemployed than there are teenage boys. The same situation applies to every age group. Yet the Government has made no specific response to the problem of female unemployment. The actual statistics about female unemployment underestimate the situation because a great deal of women’s unemployment is hidden unemployment. This includes women who have dropped out of the work force, women who are not eligible for the unemployment benefit because they are married and women who no longer apply for jobs because they know there is no opportunity for employment. Therefore, their unemployment is not measured. The extent of female unemployment is much greater than even the high levels which are indicated in the statistics we have available to us.

It seems to me to be a matter of great concern that the Government in the few attempts it is making towards establishing some sort of social policy for this country is emphasising what it likes to call family policy at the expense of women’s economic independence. We have heard a great deal about the family policy which puts women squarely into the context of a part of a family unit. We hear nothing at all from the Government about the problems of women who become unemployed, in many cases because of technological change, and who are no longer able to contribute to their families’ well-being by being wage earners. That seems to me to be a much more basic problem than some of the problems to which the Government has addressed itself. It is certainly a much more basic economic oppression for women who are suffering from unemployment than the recent tax change to increase the dependent spouse rebate would accommodate.

I am very concerned- I hope that further Government speakers in this debate might care to comment on this- about rumours that the Government intends to abolish the one office which concerns itself with women in the work force, that is, the Office of Women’s Affairs, and merging it with the Office of Child Care, which provides child care assistance for working women, and replacing these two offices with an office of family affairs. If that is the Government’s intention I would be very critical of it because the particular needs of women, particularly women as workers, could not be met in my view adequately by an office of family affairs.

One of the major problems facing women in the work force in Australia and in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries is that women are still involved in what is a sex segregated work force. Up until now the segregation of the work force generally has been in terms of skill and wage levels. To put it simply, the majority of women have been employed in the least skilled jobs, the lowest paid jobs and the jobs with the least career opportunities. Now a new form of sex segregation is developing in the work force- the segregation between those in part time and full time employment. As women are losing the opportunity to gain full time employment, the part time work force is increasing. However, that is not a development that we can judge as progressive in terms of women’s employment rights, because most of those part time jobs are poorly paid and do not carry the benefits of permanency. Again, the development of part time jobs is one in which women are mainly participating. So, we have a new form of a sex segregated work force where the men generally have much better opportunities to get full time, well paid jobs with proper terms and conditions and where women are forming this inferior parttime work force.

To a very large extent this has come about because of technological change. I cite, as an example of the degree to which women are moving into this part time work force, figures from the Parliamentary Library statistics branch which show that in March 1980, 34 per cent of the female work force was in part time employment whereas only 5.3 per cent of the male work force was in part time employment. Between 1970 and 1977 part time jobs accounted for more than 55 per cent of the new jobs created. At the same time full time employment fell by 41,000 jobs and part time employment increased by over 1 76,000 jobs. Seventy per cent of women part time workers are married and 55 per cent of female part time workers are aged between 25 and 44- the time when child care responsibilities are the heaviest. It is quite clear from statistics like these that women with family responsibilities are moving into part time employment but, as I have said, they are moving into inferior employment. The circumstances from which this situation has developed have a great deal to do with technological change.

I draw the attention of the Senate to some examples of how new technology has destroyed jobs, particularly jobs traditionally done by women. Firstly, I will quote from the submission of the Council of Australian Government Employee Organisations-Australian Council of Trade Unions to the Myers Committee of Inquiry which pointed out that the banking and insurance sector will be able to cut staff by between 30 to 40 per cent in 10 years and that the new technology has already accounted for 150,000 jobs, about one third of the present number of unemployed. Of course most of the jobs which disappeared in the clerical and banking areas were women’s jobs. Other examples which were given to the Myers Committee include one by the managing director of Westaff staffing agency who said that word processors had taken over the jobs of more than 20,000 typists in Sydney alone. The Federal Government is going into technology and is expected to be a big buyer of word processors. Public Service unions estimate that more than 9,000 jobs have already been lost through computerisation. The Commonwealth Banking Corporation said that computerisation will cut staff by 2,000 after allowing for the employment of 700 staff in the electronic data processing area. The examples go on. Time does not permit me to bring any more to the attention of the Senate.

The point is not that we do not want technology of this kind. We recognise that word processors have an important contribution to make to the efficiency of an office. We recognise that other forms of automation have contributions to make to efficiency, but where the introduction of those forms of technology is destroying jobs- in particular destroying the jobs of women who are already seriously disadvantaged in the labour market- the Government ought to concern itself with employment policies which take account of the new technology. The Government ought to be developing training schemes for typists, for example, who are being displaced by word processors. It ought to be developing training schemes for other office employees who are being displaced by the new technology. In order to do that the Government needs a manpower policy which, of course, it does not have.

In the time remaining to me I draw the attention of the Senate to a communique recently issued by the OECD which revealed that OECD countries generally are experiencing similar problems to Australia, although many other countries have taken much more positive steps in response to these problems. The OECD has declared a number of policies affecting the employment of women. One is to adopt policies to deal with unemployment which do not discriminate, either directly or indirectly, against women. Another is to stimulate and further the development of and increase access to employment training and recurrent education programs, particularly for women whose skills need upgrading and women who are re-entering the labour force, and to take into account new technologies. Governments should use more actively those measures directly available to them to expand equality of opportunity for women, for example, recruitment, training and promotion in the public sector, employment exchanges, employment creation programs, regional development policies and public procurement. Governments ought to ensure that there are effective organisational arrangements for the co-ordination and implementation of policy over the whole range of relevant public policies which affect equal employment opportunities for women.

Australia participates in these OECD conferences. The Australian Government has available to it the OECD policies regarding employment of women, particularly in respect to technological change and technologically induced unemployment. My recommendation to the Government is to take the steps it ought to take to start to implement those policies in Australia. The Government can enact anti-discrimination legislation; it can introduce equality of opportunity programs with time scales and take assertive action and so forth within its public sector which accounts for a huge area of employment. The Government can provide more child care services and more training facilities so that women are not further disadvantaged as technology destroys jobs. It has been disappointing to date to note that the Government has made no public response to such recommendations. It has not exercised the powers that it has available to it. The social consequences of wide scale unemployment already are severe. They will grow worse because of technological change. Women belong to a group which is particularly badly affected by technological change insofar as there is no manpower policy, no training scheme and no government action with respect to equal opportunity and employment.

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

-I am surprised that the Australian Labor Party should bring such a matter of public importance before the Senate today, particularly in view of its confusion on its own technological policies. Recently the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Hayden, was in conflict with his masters in the trade union movement on this very subject. So I find it quite mystifying why the Labor Party should choose to attack the Government in this way. As far as I am concerned, technological change is with us. I believe the advent of the microprocessor and miniaturisation of computers will mean that within the decade the computer industry will undoubtedly take over world industry domination from the motor industry.

That is precisely the reason why the Government commissioned Professor Myers to make an up-to-date assessment of the implications of technological change not only in Australia but also in the world. I understand his report will be presented by the end of May.

I have been asked to address a seminar at the University of New South Wales in July. That has been arranged to discuss his report. This approach by the Fraser Government to get a report from an expert in these matters and to get a reaction- an international as well as a national reaction- is a wise one for the Government to pursue. Also, the people of Australia, through seminars similar to the one that I have alluded to, are given an opportunity to make an input. The Government can extract from the papers that are presented sensible policies with which we can confidently go into the future. I believe the Government appreciates this problem. I believe that, in order to face up to these technological changes a total reassessment by governments will have to be made of the education systems in this country. Governments will have to reassess the direction that education policies must take in order to provide the work force that will be necessary to take the jobs that will be opened up as a result of this technological revolution which will be to the benefit of Australia. We need not be frightened of the computer becoming our master. Rather we should use the computer as a tool to improve our quality of life and to provide the job opportunities. That is precisely what the Fraser Government proposes to do.

Another matter that the Opposition talks about is unemployment. I would have thought that the Australian Labor Party would have been ashamed to bring that subject before the Senate, bearing in mind its record of mismanagement, its record that created tremendous problems for Australia and for this Government to come to grips with. But the Government has been successful in bringing the inflation rate down to something of the order of 10 per cent. It has injected confidence back into industry. Only the other day I was talking to a company official who congratulated the Government on its being able to contain inflation far more than the Labor Party was able to. The Labor Party was the last of the big spenders. It created inflationary problems which were almost the ruination of this country and which almost brought it to bankruptcy. But this Government has injected confidence into industry. Industry is now in a position, because of this Government’s relatively successful inflationary management policies, to compete internationally with countries such as America, which has an inflation rate of 18 per cent and with Britain, which has an inflation rate of the order of 20 per cent. Yet Australian industry has a competitive advantage because of the policies that have been pursued by this Government.

This Government has been able to recognise the need to inject finance into the economy wisely to enable certain capital works programs to be undertaken by the various governments throughout Australia. These projects will result in job opportunities. I will mention one or two of them for the information of honourable senators- the Adelaide-Crystal Brook railway. The Bill which was passed last night will enable the Australian National Railways to raise $62m and provide job opportunities for something like 390 people in 1980-81. On completion it will peak at 40. That may not sound very much but accumulatively new capital works projects throughout Australia will cause a tremendous increase in job opportunities. In about 1 984 the North West Shelf project will have a peak construction work force of 6,000 and an operating work force of 700. Stage 1 of the Rundle shale oil project, which everyone on the Opposition side seems to regard as being insignificant, will require a construction work force of 2,000 in the years 1980 to 1985, and an operating work force in the same period of 500 to 800 personnel. Stage 2, to be undertaken from 1985 up to the early 1990s, will require a construction work force of about 6,000 and an operating work force of 3,000 plus. I would like to suggest also that the Government has shown some wisdom in providing the capacity for the South Australian Government to raise money in order to provide infrastructure backup for the proposed Redcliff petrochemical works.

The Labor Party’s policies, I find, are quite unusual and quite incredible when it criticises the Government for not creating job opportunities.

Senator Messner:

– What policies?

Senator JESSOP:

– The Opposition has one policy which is preventing or retarding the progress of the Roxby Downs mineral deposits at Olympic Dam in South Australia. This project is being assessed now. The companies concerned are spending $50m to ascertain the total extent of the ore body and the quality of the ore. These companies were frustrated by the former Labor Government in South Australia; but fortunately now, with the change of government there, encouragement is being given to those companies to proceed. The Labor Party would have us retard that, if not stop it totally, because of its attitude to uranium. The Roxby Downs deposit contains a tremendous amount of copper ore. Perhaps it is not very high grade ore, but the operation will certainly be profitable in the long term. If the deposit is not the largest in the world, it is one of the largest. Unhappily, in the past, the progress of the exploration and exploitation of this ore body has been retarded because of the Labor Party’s attitude to uranium. It wants to keep uranium in the ground, but this project could provide opportunities for hundreds and perhaps thousands of workers and form the basis for a town in the northern part of South Australia larger than Mount Isa. Yet the members of the Opposition have the confounded impertinence to accuse us on the Government side of adopting policies that will add to unemployment.

It might be interesting to use as an illustration the attitude of the Wran Labor Government in New South Wales. I draw attention to the comment that was made by the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner) earlier this month. A Press release by the Minister stated: . . the lethargy -

The sluggishness- of the Wran Government had seriously delayed the development of trade training in New South Wales.

Mr Viner said the Commonwealth Government had first made in August 1978 offers of substantial funding to the NSW Government for the training of tradesmen additional to normal apprenticeship intakes. A total of $6m was offered to the States for pilot projects. ‘That was almost two years ago, and Mr Wran ‘s Government did not take up that offer. ‘ In fact, officials of my Department have held discussions with the NSW Government at frequent intervals since that original offer - -

Only a week or so ago did the Federal Government receive a proposal from New South Wales. That in my view typifies the sluggishness of the Labor Party’s attitude to these matters. I might add that a further allocation of $2. 8m was provided by the Federal Government to help school leavers make the transition to the work force in three States and the Australian Capital Territory. This new project will take the Commonwealth funding for projects in 1980 to a progress total of $ 15,686,000-odd. The Commonwealth’s contribution for the five-year transition for this program will be $150m. We can contrast those sorts of things that can be done and have been done with the policy of the Labor Party. The Hayden- Young socialist proposals suggest that the Labor Party could offer 100,000 more jobs for $330m more in public expenditure and at the end of the whole scheme. From overseas experience, such a scheme would cost $ 1 billion. Even with restraints on public expenditure, this Government has created 155,000 jobs spontaneously, at no cost to the taxpayer. I believe that there is no substance in the Opposition’s argument. ( Quorum formed). I move:

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

AYES: 32

NOES: 23

Majority……. 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 2200

ESTIMATES COMMITTEES

Estimates Committee A

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

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

Leave granted.

Estimates Committee B

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

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

Leave granted.

Estimates Committee C

Senator WALTERS:
Tasmania

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

Leave granted.

Estimates Committee D

Senator TOWNLEY:
Tasmania

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

Leave granted.

Estimates Committee E

Senator COLLARD:
Queensland

-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 KILGARIFF:
Northern Territory

– by leave- I bring up a report of Estimates Committee F in substitution for the report tabled on 29 April 1980 on particulars of proposed additional expenditure for the service of the year ending on 30 June 1980 and the particulars of certain proposed additional expenditure in respect of the year ending on 30 June 1980. 1 seek leave to make a short statement on the report.

Leave granted.

Senator KILGARIFF:

– The substituted report contains certain minor amendments to that originally tabled. The Committee draws attention to paragraph 1 on page 3 of the report. In Une 1 the word ‘department’ has been amended to read Chairman of the Export Development Grants Board’ and the words ‘Public Service’ deleted in line 2. 1 also table the additional information and seek leave for it to be incorporated in the Hansard record of the Committee ‘s proceedings.

Leave granted.

page 2201

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

Senator MELZER:
Victoria

– In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1 969, 1 present the report relating to the following proposed work: Research laboratory complexes for the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Divisions of Applied Organic Chemistry and Materials Science at Clayton, Victoria.

page 2201

PASSENGER FARES: TASMANIA

Notice of Motion

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

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

  1. 1 ) That the Select Committee of the Senate, appointed on I May 1980 to inquire into and report upon passenger fares and services to and from Tasmania, consist of four Senators, two to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate and two to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate.
  2. That the Committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that all members be not appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy.
  3. 3 ) That the quorum of the Committee be two.
  4. That the Committee elect as Chairman one of the Senators nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate.
  5. ) That the Chairman of the Committee may, from time to time, appoint another member of the Committee to be the Deputy-Chairman, and that the member so appointed act as Chairman of the Committee at any time when there is no Chairman or the Chairman is not present at a meeting of the Committee.
  6. That, in the event of an equality of voting, the Chairman, or the Deputy-Chairman when acting as Chairman, have a casting vote.
  7. That the Committee have power to send for and examine persons, papers and records, to move from place to place, to meet and transact business in public or private session and notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives.
  8. That the Committee be empowered to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it; a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings of the Committee as take place in public.
  9. That the Committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the Committee, with the approval of the President.
  10. 10) That the Committee have leave to report from time to time its proceedings, the evidence taken, and such recommendations as it may deem fit; and be expected to make regular reports as to the progress of the proceedings of the Committee and to present a final report as soon as possible.
  11. That, if the Senate be not sitting when the Committee has completed its report, the Committee may send its report to the President of the Senate, or, if the President be not available, to the Deputy-President, who is authorised to give directions for its printing and circulation, and in such event, the President or DeputyPresident shall lay the report upon the Table at the next sitting of the Senate.
  12. That the foregoing provisions of this Resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders.
Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

-by leave- I cannot remain silent, as much as I know Senator Rae’s objective. I believe that the failure of the Government to bring forward my request of last August for the appointment of a Senate standing committee to inquire into immigration is an negation of democracy and a travesty of the business of the Senate. I say that deliberately now hoping that before Friday week the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick) will do the right thing and cut through parliamentary procedure to allow a Senate committee during the parliamentary recess to study various facets of immigration.

page 2201

SUPPLY BILL (No. 1) 1980-81

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

First Reading

Motion (by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a first time.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– Yesterday, following the Government’s appointment of the former honourable member for Indi as Administrator of Christmas Islandincidentally he was the eighth failed Liberal or National Country Party politician to be appointed to a government position by the Fraser Government in just four and a half years- the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) rather predictably was asked about his 1975 election campaign promise that there would be no more jobs for the boys. He replied by saying that the questioner had evidently seen

Nationwide which, the Prime Minister said, ‘was inaccurate, as it often is’. He then added: . . and anyone who has looked carefully at what I have said should know quite well, that our opposition was to political appointments to positions of permanency within the Commonwealth Public Service.

The Prime Minister is, of course, noted for his veracity and for the diligent way in which he has kept all his electoral promises. Any misunderstandings that may have arisen from time to time because of misunderstandings about his electoral promises and the apparent non-keeping of those electoral promises, have been caused by the failure of people to read the fine print in his election campaign promises or, in this case, the Prime Minister’s failure to remember to put the fine print in in the first place. When one reads very carefully his 1 975 policy speech one can see that there is absolutely no qualification to his promise that there will be no more jobs for the boys. There is no mention of positions of permanency in the Commonwealth Public Service as the Prime Minister claimed there was yesterday. Like a Stalinist rewriting Russian history, the Liberal Party of Australia’s 1975 policy speech is being rewritten. The fine print which the Prime Minister forgot to insert in the first place is being inserted now.

Of course, the Prime Minister is a much misunderstood man. Unkind people who have questioned his veracity from time to time have failed to read the fine print or have failed to make allowances for the fact that in this case the Prime Minister forgot to put the fine print in. I note, in particular, the reference to permanency and the Public Service. Quite clearly, this reference did not rule out the appointment of Mr Nigel Bowen to a judicial position some years ago. As that is not generally regarded as a Public Service position but as a judicial position, I suppose that it fits in quite well with the Prime Minister’s redefined guidelines. Therefore, Prime Ministerial policy as it is now stated will not preclude the Minister for Home Affairs, Mr Ellicott, from becoming Chief Justice. Indeed, I can think of nobody better qualified to succeed his double cousin as Chief Justice than Mr Ellicott. Apart from his long-standing membership of the Liberal Party, he is a self-proclaimed man of principle- something which he demonstrated in telegrams to Aborigines in 1975 in the run-up to the 1 975 Federal election. Among other things, he said:

No cut in Aboriginal Affairs Budget or in programme Funds . . .

I repeat that Mr Ellicott, speaking as caretaker Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in the then caretaker Government, said that there would be no cut in the Aboriginal affairs Budget. It is a matter of record that the Government has not matched, even in money terms, expenditure on Aboriginal affairs in 1975-76 in any year since 1975-76. Even in money terms, expenditure in every year since then has been lower. Any incompatability between that fact and Mr Ellicott ‘s personal guarantee to the Aborigines was avoided by a smooth side-shuffle to another Ministry.

Just prior to the dispatch of that telegram in November 1975, Mr Ellicott was also noted for inspecting Mr Khemlani’s suitcases in Sydney. Prior to departing from Sydney (KingsfordSmith) Airport to return to Canberra he said that there was nothing in the suitcases to incriminate Mr Whitlam. That news was quickly flashed across Australian Associated Press telexes and reached the present Prime Minister in Canberra, who was Leader of the Opposition at that time, apparently before Mr Ellicott did. Mr Ellicott was quickly summoned to the office of the then Leader of the Opposition and emerged shortly afterwards to issue what he called a wellconsidered statement. It stated that, in fact, the Khemlani suitcases did incriminate Mr Whitlam.

Senator Mulvihill:

– He was born again.

Senator WALSH:

– Indeed. One could say that Mr Ellicott ‘s record exhibits the expedient flexibility of principle in judgment which will make him a perfect successor to his double cousin as Chief Justice. One of the matters that worries me is whether his statement of a fortnight ago defending his cousin was a wellconsidered statement or whether that too is likely to be contradicted. We do not know at this stage whether Mr Ellicott is the equal of his cousin in the commercial world. If he becomes Chief Justice and if he, like his double cousin, should also become a highly successful speculator in land and shares, let us hope he will not be so reticent. If he should be a participant in the commercial world at this stage, let us hope that his retirement from the commercial world will not be retroactive by some five and a half years.

It is often said by admirers of free enterprise that Australian capitalism is in some danger of atrophying due to the flaccid inertia and handout mentality of many of its senior managers. Against that troubled background it is pleasing to learn that the Chief Justice has been making his personal contribution towards keeping the entrepreneurial spirit alive. It is a pity that Sir Garfield was so reticent about his activities as managing and governing director of a thriving business trading in land and shares because awareness of that example might have inspired some of the present lacklustre bunch of industry and commerce captains to improve their performance. Let us hope that the belated awareness of that activity is not too late. Likewise, it is a pity that his friends in Parliament refuse to see the potential benefits of an inquiry into this previously unknown and highly successful business career. Australian capitalism might have gained more useful clues on improving its performance from such an inquiry than from the Vernon, Jackson and Crawford inquiries put together, even though Sir Garfield has been in retirement for 5V4 years; or at least so we were informed a couple of weeks ago.

The Chief Justice was no more communicative about his retirement than about his original career. Indeed the New South Wales Corporate Affairs Commission did not learn of it until 28 April 1980 when the annual returns for Mundroola Pty Ltd for 1974 and beyond were filed. On 2 May an Australian Financial Review journalist noted that the Mundroola returns for 1973 which were filed by Ross Barwick in June 1975 did not mention Sir Garfield ‘s retirement as governing director which we are now informed occurred six months previously. It is customary, so the Financial Review stated, to note such important facts as the retirement of managing and /or governing directors on annual company returns whenever they might be filed. Evidently Ross Barwick does not pay the meticulous attention to detail that one would expect from the lawyer son of a Chief Justice. It is curious that this error of omission was not rectified when Mundroola was fined in court in 1978 for not lodging returns. Every one I have asked in the Press Gallery seemed to think that the letter of resignation, which we are told is dated 1974, might not have been signed until some time later, like April 1980. A parliamentary inquiry could have allayed all those doubts and elicited more details about Mundroola.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I point out to the honourable senator that it has always been the practice that members of the judiciary are not criticised nor are reflections made on judges in general debate.

Senator WALSH:

– I am not reflecting; I am saying what a pity it was that with all these sorts of things being said, Government members denied Sir Garfield the opportunity of having all these doubts dispelled by a parliamentary inquiry, which could have allayed those doubts and elicited all the details of Mundroola ‘s business, of which there has been a serious dearth since 1974. Among other things which could have been established was whether Sir Garfield and his wife paid rent to Mundroola for the house they now occupy or which they occupied before and whether the rent was included in Mundroola ‘s tax returns for the relevant years; or if no rent was paid to Mundroola, whether the rental value of the house was included as imputed income in the income tax returns of Sir Garfield and/or his wife. Those doubts still remain. I think that is rather intolerable because citizens in various parts of the world with otherwise immaculate records so far as the law is concerned have been in trouble for taxation offences; indeed they have been incarcerated for taxation offences. Al Capone is probably the best known example. Mr Fraser ‘s determination not to have a parliamentary inquiry, which view he thrust upon the rest of his party, has denied Sir Garfield and Lady Barwick the opportunity to answer on oath questions about those and other matters. I think that is most unfair.

I return to the matter of jobs for the boys. I will read out a list of jobs and the boys who have received them. It is not an exhaustive list because it includes only failed Liberal Party and National Country Party politicians. Therefore it excludes such other luminaries as Harry M. Miller, who is now facing criminal charges; the retired ambassador extraordinaire to the United National Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation, Sir John Kerr, whose present whereabouts are unknown. I believe he may be again in a London clinic being dried out.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honourable senator will use parliamentary language. He must not use that sort of expression. He knows this is not the place for that sort of talk.

Senator WALSH:

– It is a well known fact that he has been in that condition before.

Senator McLaren:

– What about the Melbourne Cup?

Senator WALSH:

-Yes, what about the Melbourne Cup indeed. Very well, Mr President. I was not going to say any more about the former Ambassador to UNESCO anyway. As I said, the list I have of jobs for the boys is not an exhaustive one, it is just those who happen to be failed Liberal Party and National Country Party politicians, who were given jobs by this Government which was not going to issue any more jobs for the boys. There was no qualification to that statement. There will be no more jobs for the boys, the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) said 4’/4 years ago. The names in this list are not in chronological order.

The first one I mention is John England, the former member for Calare, now Administrator of the Northern Territory, on a $39,000 a year salary plus a parliamentary pension, I expect, in the vicinity of $15,000 or $16,000 a year. In 15 years in the Federal Parliament Mr England did not make the front bench, even in the Country Party. Gordon Freeth, a former Minister, defeated in the 1969 election has received two sinecures; one from a previous Liberal-Country Party Government as Ambassador to Tokyo, although he could not speak Japanese, and from the Fraser Government, High Commissioner to London on a salary of $41,500, plus a ministerial pension of, I expect, something in the vicinity of $25,000 a year. David Fairbairn, or Sir David I think he is these days, the former member for Farrer, managed to become a Minister in a former Liberal Government although many people were puzzled as to why. He was out of Parliament in 1975. He is now Ambassador to The Hague on a salary of $36,000 a year, plus a ministerial pension, again I expect in the vicinity of $25,000. Sir David is distinguished by having, as one of his qualifications to hold that position, a perfect diplomat’s wife, Lady Fairbairn, who when on holidays in Australia in early 1978 was reported in the Border Morning Mail, which is published in Albury, as saying that life was very difficult in Holland because the socialist Government made life very difficult. That was a perfect remark for a diplomat’s wife to make about the Government to which her husband is an accredited ambassador. As far as I know the Government offered no apologies to the Government in The Hague and did not have Sir David recalled. Under the circumstances, I suggest, at least one of those two things should have been done.

Sir Robert Cotton, formerly Senator Cotton, is known to most of us here. He was inconvenient to Mr Fraser after the 1977 Federal election and became ambassador or trade commissioner in New York.

Senator Puplick:

– Consul-General, actually, but don ‘t let the facts worry you.

Senator WALSH:

– Consul-General in New York. He had a salary of $36,000 a year plus a ministerial pension, again I expect in the vicinity of $25,000 a year. The next is Sir Nigel Bowenthis is almost a roll call of knights- is a Federal Court judge on a salary of $55,000 a year plus a ministerial pension. Next is Peter Coleman, a former Liberal Party leader in New South Wales who distinguished himself some years ago by hawking Australian Security Intelligence Organisation documents around which purported to contain information on Labor Party politicians. He hawked them around to journalists to see if he could get them to publish the documents. Mr Coleman clearly took the view that one of the acceptable roles which ASIO ought to play was to collect information which could be used against Labor Party politicians for political purposes and, of course, in secret. Apart from that he has the unique record, I think, of having simultaneously led the Liberal Party of New South Wales to a record defeat and losing his own seat in the process. He was made Administrator of Norfolk Island on a salary of $25,000 a year plus his parliamentary pension. Whether he receives any additional income from ASIO I am not in a position to say.

Senator Webster seriously embarrassed the Government by giving in answer to a question in the Senate information which was not correct. I personally doubt whether Senator Webster was consciously stating what was not correct. He probably did so through genuine ignorance. He did not know what the correct answer to the question was but thought that he would give any answer which came into his head. A problem arose when another Minister in the House of Representatives told the truth, at least on the first time round, which happened to contradict Senator Webster’s answer.

Last week Rendle McNeilage Holten was appointed as Administrator of Christmas Island. Mr Holten was the member for Indi until he was defeated in 1977. His file, which is still held in the Parliamentary Library, indicates that he was never the kind of politician who was troubled by consistency in his statements. For instance, in November 1971, as Acting Minister for Trade, he described the motor vehicle industry as ‘the cornerstone of the Australian engineering industry’. He also undertook to examine the threat posed to the local industry by increased imports. But in April 1 977 he sponsored a motion at the Victorian State Conference of the National Country Party calling for the immediate abolition of all protection for the motor vehicle industry. ‘It is time to let the weak ones die’, he said. However, this free trade attitude was not applied indiscriminately. Industries established within the electorate of Indi were apparently exempt. For example, in July 1974 he denounced Dr Cairns as ‘the leader of the movement to end private enterprise in Australia’ following the contraction of the textile industry in Mr Holten ‘s electorate, which he claimed was due to cuts in tariffs. Earlier that year on 30 July Mr Holten had accused Mr Whitlam of ‘rampant socialism’ because he had suggested that unemployed people at Wangaratta might be able to find jobs in the Albury-Wodonga growth centre. The then Government had offered to provide free transport for such people.

During the period of the Labor Government Mr Holten was chairman of the Country Party’s humanities committee. I must confess I did not know that the Country Party had a humanities committee. Evidently it had one at that stage. He was also spokesman on a number of issues including health, housing and what was called Federal electorate affairs. As housing spokesman he expressed particular concern about what he called Labor’s ‘grand socialistic program for cheaper land and housing’. Presumably, the Country Party’s humanities committee had a policy of dearer land and housing. As health spokesman he attacked the then Liberal spokesman, who happened to be Don Chipp, now Senator Chipp, for advocating universal health insurance, He played a significant role in having the original Health Insurance Bill which established Medibank defeated in the Senate- or at least so he claimed. Most of his crowing on this matter took place during the 1974 election campaign. In his role as Federal electorate affairs spokesman he attacked the removal of certain agricultural subsidies, particularly the phasing out of the dairy industry bounty. I observe for the record that, as even the Prime Minister acknowledged on 22 April last, the dairy industry is in much better condition than it was six or seven years ago. The industry has been restructured. The changes which accompanied the phasing out of the dairy industry bounty were a pre-requisite to the restructuring that took place.

Mr Holten ‘s career may have been characterised by inconsistency on policy matters, particularly economic policy, but it has been constant in some other ways. For instance, he has been a red baiter from way back. During the 1960s and early 1970s his bete noir was Dr Cairns. Hardly a parliamentary session went by when he did not refer to Dr Cairns as a communist. Indeed, he referred to Kim Beazley, the former honourable member for Fremantle, as a com lover’. The Melbourne Herald of 28 April 1971 states:

The investigation was made after allegations that the Minister for Repatriation, Mr Holten, called Mr Beazley (Labor Western Australia) ‘an arrogant bastard’ and ‘a Com. lover’ during a debate in the House last Thursday night.

As Minister for Repatriation, Mr Holten congratulated the Returned Services League for keeping the Government and the people of Australia alert to the dangers of communism. His red baiting was of the crudest and most virulent kind. Another consistent characteristic of his career was his capacity for venality and freeloading. For example, under the heading ‘Holten minister with the mostest the Australian newspaper of 1 1 December 1971 stated:

More than a quarter of all Government-approved chaner air flights by Federal ministers since June have been taken by the Minister for Repatriation, Mr Holten.

As a Minister he got himself a cheap government flat in Canberra and retained it after his defeat. He was also a heavy user of charter aircraft, as I have mentioned. Perhaps the best insight into what I think could be fairly described as his petty greed is to be gleaned from his statement on the 1974 parliamentary pay increase. After back benchers had voted against taking the pay rise he said:

I personally hope that the entire community now will follow this example.

If people don ‘t take note of the example I will feel fully justified in accepting increases in the future.

Of course he attended a good school, which probably explains why he managed to become a Minister. He went to Scots College in Melbourne. I understand that he was in those days a bit of a prankster. Administrator of Christmas Island is not the sleepy sinecure it once was.

Senator Puplick:

– If there is muck around you will wallow in it.

Senator WALSH:

- Senator Puplick does not like it. It hurts. He should have been in the Senate in 1975. He should have heard the lies told by people on his side about people on our side. Everything I have said tonight has come directly from contemporary reports or from the newspapers. Administrator of Christmas Island is not the sleepy sinecure it once was. Senator Puplick is no doubt very sensitive about the fact that his Prime Minister 4% years ago said: ‘There will be no more jobs for the boys’. There were no qualifications or fine print in that statement. Since then no fewer than eight failed Liberal and Country Party politicians have been appointed to government sinecures on salaries ranging from $25,000 to $55,000 a year plus fat parliamentary pensions of between $16,000 and $25,000 or $30,000 a year. No wonder Senator Puplick is sensitive. Administrator of Christmas Island is not the sleepy sinecure it once was. Industrial relations and, to a minor extent, race relations on the island have been, to say the least, sensitive for some time.

Rendle McNeilage Holten, a person as insensitive and intolerant as his record shows him to be, is clearly unfit to adjudicate the social and economic issues on that isolated multiracial island. Mr Justice Bowen was probably technically competent to take on the position to which he was appointed. Some of the others were appointed to positions which are really sinecures. If one can overlook the Prime Minister’s broken promise that there would not be any more sinecures for the boys, their capacity in those sinecures for doing damage is very limited. Some may argue that it is non-existent. This case is different. An insensitive bigot has been appointed as Administrator on the Australian Territory which probably requires, more than anything else for the effective discharge of those duties, that the person be tolerant and sensitive. Both attributes are sadly lacking in the revealed record of Rendle McNeilage Holten.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I wish to take the opportunity on the first reading of Supply Bill (No. 1 ) 1980-8 1 to raise a matter concerning social welfare. I am very pleased that the Minister for Social Security, Senator Guilfoyle, is in the chamber at this time. The Minister will recall that in 1977 1 raised with her the need to lift the ceiling on fringe benefits. We find that after some three years that has taken place. I thank the Minister for at last taking heed of that plea that I made in this chamber three years ago so that people in receipt of superannuation benefits- particularly ex-State Government employees in South Australia- are now able to receive a little extra without having their pensions affected. I am pleased that the Minister agreed to that request of mine.

The matter I wish to raise this evening is the lack of the appointment of social workers in four regional offices in South Australia; namely, Port Lincoln, Mount Gambier, Kadina and Murray Bridge. The Minister will be aware that on 27 October 1977, arising out of the Government’s decision to make unemployment benefit payable in arrears, I raised with her the urgent need to make available to State governments extra moneys to fund their departments of community welfare, particularly the regional areas where people who were and who still are receiving unemployment benefits in arrears had to call on the State community welfare department offices for financial assistance. I will not quote the speech I made then, as no doubt the Minister for Social Security remembers that on that occasion Mr Ron Payne, who was the South Australian Minister for Community Welfare, had to come to Canberra to make a plea to get that extra finance because of the action then taken by the Government to pay arrears of unemployment benefit. This problem has been exaggerated with the higher level of unemployment, particularly in the country areas I have mentioned. It is getting worse, not better.

I make a plea to the Minister to endeavour to see that social workers are attached to these four regional offices. The Mount Gambier office services a population of some 80,000 persons. Port Lincoln and Kadina each service 30,000 persons and the regional office in my home town of Murray Bridge services 30,000 persons. That makes a total of 170,000 people in South Australia for whom these four regional offices are responsible. But there is no social worker engaged. There is an urgent need for social workers to be on strength in these offices. Part of the duty of a social worker is to care for the immediate needs of persons who come to the office of the Department of Social Security with urgent problems, such as the seeking of sickness benefit, special benefit, and the like. I have a document which sets out a few more ways in which a social worker could assist in these offices. It reads: . . will aid the Department in its efforts to ensure that all eligible persons and organisations receive their correct entitlement without unnecessary delay . . . The social worker should expect to assist the Regional Manager to monitor the Regional Office’s performance, reviewing procedures and implementing changes where necessary as part of this responsibility.

Further on there is reference to income maintenance, subsidies, research and evaluation, the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service, community liaison, training, management, and income maintenance tasks. The document then states:

Welfare staff should assist in the dissemination of information on pensions, benefits and family allowances to individuals and community groups particularly those who do not have access to existing Department publicity.

There are many unfortunate people in the community who are not aware of their entitlements and they do not know where to turn. In many cases they go to community social welfare groups. Those groups then have to carry the burden of those needs, trying to help these people with their day to day problems. The document continues:

The social worker will have the major responsibility for assessing the community’s needs.

That is, a social worker has to keep in close contact with these community organisations which honourable senators know exist in every town in Australia. The document goes on:

Welfare staff -

If there is a welfare officer- should refer clients to appropriate agencies or services or other helping networks for assistance in situations where the Department cannot help.

Again, that raises the urgent need for the employment of social workers. Further on, it states:

In the course of their liaison activities . . . social workers are in a position to provide some impetus towards the development of other services where they are lacking . . Welfare staff involvement in the pre-grant interview for Unemployment Benefit provides an opportunity for preventive action to be taken on behalf of claimants before a crisis develops.

We all know that there are many crises developing in the community today because of this Government’s policies and because of the rapid increase in Australia’s unemployment figures. The document further states:

Welfare staff may assist in the review of Unemployment Benefit and Sickness Benefit by providing consultation and advice on the appropriateness of benefit where warranted.

It is stated that a social worker could advise the determining officer on eligibility for special benefit- I mentioned this when I first rose to speak- which would involve looking after persons in need and persons suffering hardship during the waiting period as well as caring for every other person in the community who is suffering because of the policies of the Government. I make this plea to the Minister and remind her that there is no shortage of social workers. I asked a question during the Senate Estimates Committee A hearing on 28 April in regard to student assistance programs. I asked:

The explanatory notes state that the assistance for postgraduate students in social work is being phased out. Why is it being phased out?

The officer from the Department of Education replied:

The scheme is phasing out because there is no longer a demand for the type of person who undertook training in that program. The scheme was introduced in 197S and there was only ever one offer of awards. Thirty awards were offered in 1975.

One can see that the Whitlam Government was very conscious of the need to engage and educate social workers. There were 30 awards offered in 1975 and further on I asked:

Have you received requests from the Department of Social Security for social workers? I understand that in South Australia in particular none of the country regional offices has a social worker.

The officer, in reply, stated:

The purpose of this scheme was not so much to train a social worker for the field but rather to improve the qualifications of those concerned with the teaching and administrative side of social work.

It is obvious from that answer that sufficient people have been trained in administrative and teaching procedures and that they, in turn, have trained sufficient social workers. I have been given to understand that there are over 200 registered social workers in the metropolitan area of Adelaide. If that be the position, I am at a loss to understand why the Department of Social Security cannot find four social workers, that is, one for each of the regional offices that I have mentioned- Mt Gambier, Kadina, Port Lincoln and Murray Bridge. There may be some reason why- and I hope that the Minister will be able to tell me when I have finished speaking- four of those social workers are not employed in these offices. If there is a problem with housing, surely the Government could find housing for them. No matter what the problem of securing social workers in these areas is, the problem is not as great as those of the people who need social guidance.

People are quite often coming into my officeyoung married couples with young children who have bought a home. They have a first, a second and sometimes a third mortgage. They find themselves in great financial difficulties because of the unemployment situation. They may be on short time work or they may have lost their job. These people need guidance in financial management from social workers. The Department of Community Welfare in South Australia instituted a management service in community welfare during the reign of the Dunstan and Corcoran governments. It works quite well. These people are able to go along and secure the worthwhile advice of the social workers in those offices but the burden has become too great because of the massive increase in unemployment. There is now a great need for social workers in the four regional offices that I have mentioned.

Having raised this matter in the Parliament and having had the good fortune to have the responsible Minister present in the chamber this afternoon, I hope that she will take on board what I have said, there is a desperate need for them. The Minister might be able to put a counter argument and say that we cannot get these people to go out, but I say again that some inducement must be offered. If there are 200 registered unemployed social workers in Adelaide and we cannot get some of them to go to these places we will have to make some better arrangements and give them higher remuneration, housing or whatever is needed. I hope that the Minister can do something to overcome the problem that now exists not only to help the people who are in desperate need but also to help the other members of the Department who staff these regional offices in those four country areas which I have mentioned.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

-Mr Deputy President, I thank you and the Minister for Social Security (Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) for your co-operation. I propose to speak for only a few minutes. Many people in Australia are extremely worried about the offer of the Australian Government to the American Government to allow a home port to be established at Cockburn Sound in Western Australia which will be used in the future by nuclear armed warships of the American Navy. This saga goes back to about 1963 when the North West Cape base was first established. We, of course, have had many debates in this chamber about the problems associated with the Pine Gap installation. What the Government ought to be doing is looking at the whole scene objectively instead of creating areas where there could be a possibility of some of these installations in any conflict that may arise in the future becoming nuclear targets. In other words, we ought to be doing away with such facilities rather than increasing their numbers.

I pay tribute to the very forthright statements that have been made in this regard by the leader of my own Party, Bill Hayden, who looks into the future and not at some agreement of convenience that is currently being made by this Government and other governments particularly the one to which I have just referred to allow the Cockburn Sound to be used as a home port for nuclear armed warships. I have in a document a series of Press cuttings which in fact substantiate the remarks that I have just made. I hope that the Government will have a second look at this proposed facility. My colleague Senator Walsh from Western Australia is worried about some of the pollution, which is a fringe disability for the local residents, that has been caused in the area, by the destruction of the causeway. But a whole lot of things are associated with this area that could only be criticised.

In the very limited time to debate this matter I will seek leave to incorporate in Hansard documents which spell out the picture very clearly indeed. Included in the documents to be incorporated is a brief summary of some experiences which some countries, including Australia, have had with the presence of United States bases on their soil, such as the bases I referred to a moment ago. Such bases could quite easily involve a country in being faced with annihilation without representation, as the Mayaguez incident shows, in being dragged into warfare by its allies in opposition to its wishes.

I do not think anybody in this country wants to see any part of Australia become a nuclear target. It is one of the things that we have complained about in relation to the establishment of the new uranium mine near the Ben Lomond area not far from Townsville. It was one of the very exciting projects, to use the words of the Queensland Premier, that he hoped would lead to the establishment of a uranium enrichment plant in that region. But he has lost interest in that endeavour of course because people in his own party have voted overwhelmingly against the installation of such a facility in that region. So it is unlikely that any further action will take place between now and the holding of the State election. I might also add that the right to mine was granted by the Queensland Government in an air of great secrecy. Nevertheless, that right has now been granted and I will be having much more to say about that, I hope, before this session finishes.

The Press summary that I will seek leave to incorporate in Hansard shows that the Australian Government understands that, in the event of any conflict between the United States of America, the Cockburn Sound area could quite easily become a nuclear target. The militarisation of the Indian Ocean and the general armaments race in this area began with the establishment of the United States base at North West Cape, as I mentioned a few moments ago. But the decision to offer the Cockburn Sound area to America under these circumstances can only lead to an escalation of the armaments race in the Indian Ocean. I hope some vote will be taken by the Government and I hope it will be taken seriously. I now seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the pages which have been agreed to by the Minister and yourself, Mr Deputy President.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

BASE OFFERS

While Cockburn Sound is a long way from the Persian Gulf and is restricted in its dimensions, the Pentagon is concerned that it is under active consideration. The Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, offered the use of its facilities to President Carter during a visit to Washington in January. However, hundreds of millions of dollars would have to be spent on the Stirling naval base to make it large enough to accommodate a carrier task force.

The Australian March 27 1 980.

Mr Fraser, in answer to Opposition Questions, said an offer had been made to the US and the US was considering it. ‘We have not yet reached the stage of talking about dollars and cents, ‘ he said.

Mr Fraser restated the Federal Government ‘s willingness to contribute to the cost of upgrading existing facilities if the US took up the offer.

The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Hayden, warned that Perth would become a prime nuclear target in super power conflict if the Cockburn Sound naval base was used by the US for its carrier groups. During a question to Mr Fraser, he said stringent conditions should be imposed on use of the base by the US excluding nuclear missile bearing ships.

Mr Fraser said precise arrangements and conditions would be worked out when the US decided whether it wanted to make use of Australian Facilities.

Financial Review 19.3.1980.

Perth would become a prime nuclear target in the event of superpower conflict if Cockburn Sound was used by the United States as a ‘home base’ for its carrier groups, the Leader of the Federal Opposition, Mr Hayden said yesterday.

And if the US Navy decided to use the HMAS Stirling facility at Cockburn Sound, stringent conditions should be imposed to exclude nuclear missile-bearing vessels, he said.

Mr Hayden said: ‘If HMAS Stirling were to become the home base of American carrier groups, it would undoubtedly become a prime nuclear target in the event of superpower conflict. ‘ He said there was no escaping the consequences for a city like Perth. A United Nations study had indicated that a one-megaton nuclear ground level explosion in a city of more than one million could be expected to cause 360,000 deaths.

Mr Hayden said the Labor Party strongly supported the American alliance, but the alliance had never before been extended to provide permanent bases in peacetime for American military forces.

The Australian 19.3.1980

From Graeme Beaton; Washington, Sunday. The United States is sending a team of technicians to Cockburn Sound, Western Australia, to see if it is suitable for use as a home port for an aircraft carrier task force. Administration sources said today that the Stirling naval base would be the first of several in the Indian Ocean and Western Pacific to be inspected. The technicians, whose mission is yet to be announced, would be in Australia ‘within two or three weeks’, sources said.

They said that an announcement of the visit would be made ‘with the concurrence of the Australian Government’ within the next few days. The sources, who asked not to be named, said that the choice of Cockburn Sound as the first site to be evaluated did not mean ‘that a final decision is about to be made.’

The Australian 7.4. 1 980

US SENDS TEAM TO LOOK AT UPGRADING

COCKBURN SOUND by Geoff Walsh.

The United States has given a firm indication of interest in taking up Australia’s offer of home port facilities in Western Australia by sending a top-level Navy team on a survey mission. The team of eight USN and Navy Department experts arrived in Canberra yesterday on its way to WA to make a technical survey of the Cockburn Sound area.

Led by captain C. W. Rowe, an assistant for joint chiefs of staff matters in the USN, the team will spend nine days in WA and make detailed site examinations. The survey is part of the US Government’s review of naval facilities and will include technical data on various port-airfield combinations including Cockburn Sound. The visit takes Australia’s offer, made by the Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, during his overseas tour earlier this year a step closer to being accepted.

The Defence Minister, Mr Killen, announced the visit of the team in Parliament yesterday. Discussions would be held in Canberra he said, and then possible recommendations made to the Government. Mr Fraser has already pledged that the Federal Government will contribute to any upgrading of existing facilities that would be needed if the US takes up the offer.

The USN team will have talks in Canberra today and tomorrow leave for WA with Australian Defence Department officials. Captain Noggle, USN, from the Harold E. Holt communications base at North West Cape will join the team in Perth.

Financial Review 1 8.4. 1 980

US WANTS CONSENSUS ON BASE by Stuart Simson.

The United States is highly unlikely to accept the Fraser Government’s offer of a home port at Cockburn Sound in Western Australia unless it has the support of the Labor Party. Senior US sources said last week a major factor in determining the value of Malcolm Fraser’s offer in strategic and money terms is whether it will attract bipartisan support.

Labor leader Bill Hayden has claimed by providing permanent base facilities at Cockburn Sound for nuclear miss ( bearing vessels of the US Navy, Perth will become a prime nuclear target. He has called for stringent conditions on any home port facilities and banning their use by nuclear missilebearing vessels- reason enough for the US to refuse the offer.

Malcolm Fraser offered the US Cockburn Sound as a home port during his January visit to the US . . Defence Minister Jim Killen told Parliament last Tuesday the offer had been made to ‘ensure the US is not lacking in the support of its Australian ally in the heavy burden which it bears in deterring war and nuclear attack . . .’

Killen went on: ‘In the event of hostilities, risks of nuclear attack arise for Australia as an ally of the US, whether or not it may be hosting particular US facilities’. This is the first time any Australian Defence Minister has said the nation as a whole might be a nuclear target because of the American alliance. The only previous reference was by Allen Fairhall who, as Defence Minister in 1969, said the North West Cape base might be a nuclear target.

In the space of a few weeks the Government has shifted dramatically the direction of Australia away from a continental’ defence policy towards the position of major co-belligerent with the US in its confrontation with Russia. The Cockburn Sound offer which would entail about 10,000 US personnel on Australian soil, and Killen ‘s declaration of preparedness to cop a nuclear bomb in the interests of the US alliance are the most striking examples.

The National Times 30.3. 1 980-5.4. 1 980

BASE EXPERIENCES

In the active phase of the almost continuous Arab-Israeli war which opened on October 6, 1 973, the action of the U.S. Government, which placed U.S. bases worldwide on alert, brought the world right up to the brink of a nuclear holocaust.

The official U.S. story was that in the early hours of October 25, President Nixon, working from his bedroom in the White House, sent out a cryptic order to U.S. military forces around the world: ‘All commands, assume Defcon Three’. Defcon Three (Defence Condition Three) is one of five defence readiness conditions for U.S. forces. Under it, leave for troops is cancelled, and servicemen are recalled to their bases to be ready for further commands. Nuclear weapons were armed during the alert.

One of the most startling aspects about the alerting of the U.S. forces is a revelation that U.S. bases in Australia were on red alert from October 8- seventeen days before the Defcon 3 order.

A Brisbane Telegraph report on 13 October under a Perth dateline said the U.S. navy communications base at Exmouth, 800 miles north of Perth had been on red alert since the previous Monday.

The report was confirmed in the main essentials in the Sunday Telegraph of 2 1 October. This report said the base had been placed on its first alert ten days earlier as the United States Navy increased its strength in the Mediterranean. The report indicated that the American base at Pine Gap had also been put on alert. The report said the ‘Activation of the Australian bases is part of a world-wide American defence alert because of U.S.-Soviet tensions over the Middle East war”.

WAS THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT NOTIFIED?

A report in The Australian (23 November, 1973) stated that Marshall Green, the U.S. Ambassador to Australia had conceded that the Australian Government was not told of the alerts in advance- but he quickly added it was told immediately afterward. In a press interview ( The Australian 9 November, 1973) Mr Whitlam was asked: ‘Were any of these bases in Australia, at North- West Cape, Pine Gap or Woomera, put on more than a normal alert during the general American alert on its overseas bases? If so, were you told?’

To this Mr Whitlam replied: ‘ I don ‘t know if they were put on alert. I wasn’t told’. Later he advised ‘The Australian Government was not at the time informed officially by the U.S. about the alert; nor was it informed that the alert applied to the North- West Cape installation ‘. ( Courier Mail 2 1 November, 1973)

Mr Whitlam has said: ‘The Anzus Treaty and the U.S. Naval Communication Agreement would both indicate Australia should have been consulted’. (The Australian 23 November 1973.)

All countries playing host to American bases also received this cavalier treatment. The European allies of N.A.T.O. were informed of the President’s order well after it was issued- but they were not consulted about it. With the U.S. Sixth Fleet being directed from London, its Polaris submarines operating from the Holy Loch base and its nuclear armed planes flying out from British airfields, it is clear that Britain was involved. So was the whole N.A.T.O. alliance, and so was Australia.

Had the conflict spread, Australia would have been immediately involved. By alerting its bases here, the U.S. violated Australian neutrality- but by playing host to the U.S. bases, Australia has in effect surrendered to a large degree its Sovereignty to the U.S. Any decision to go to war would not be made in Canberra- it would be made in the U.S.A.

A REGULAR PROCEDURE

As the 1 975 Mayaguez incident indicates- Nixon was not the only US president to violate another country’s sovereignty. With Gerald Ford in office, the US trampled upon Thailand ‘s rights- and this shows that such violations will be a regular feature when it suits the US. Daily Japan’s sovereignty is violated as contrary to the provisions of the Japan-US treaty which stipulates that the US will not store or hold nuclear weapons in that country the US home-ports its aircraft carriers in Japan- each one of which has a nuclear armoury.

Following on the seizure of the Mayaguez by the Cambodian Government, the US found that the only possible base for a helicopter borne assault upon Koh Tang Island, where the ship was being held was Utapao in Thailand. Formally, Utapao was not a US base; it belongs to the Royal Thai Air Force. However, the Thai government had allowed the US to use this base for operations in the Vietnam, Cambodian and Laotian wars.

Within hours of the news that the Mayaguez had been seized, the US Charge d ‘affairs in Thailand had been called in and told that Utapao was not to be used for any action against Cambodia. (Sunday Times, London, 18.5.1975)

On May 14 marines from Okinawa began to arrive surreptitiously at Utapao air base. The Thai Prime Minister, Mr Kukrit immediately ordered the US to remove the 1 100 men brought there without his Government’s permission. He told reporters that Thailand did not intend to be drafted into US preparations to take back by force if necessary the Mayaguez. Kukrit called the arrival of the marines ‘a violation of Thai sovereignty’. He said the US had acted in an unfriendly way- it was a breach of faith.

HOWEVER, THE U.S. WAS LIKE THE MAN WHO HAD COME TO BREAKFAST. HE WAS IN. HE WAS GOING TO STAY-AND WHAT WAS MORE-HE WAS GOING TO DO AS HE LIKED.

Any attempt by the Thais to stay ‘neutral’ in the Mayaguez affair was shattered firstly by the arrival of the marines- and then by the US use of jets flying out from Utapao to bomb Cambodian gun boats at Koh Tang.

A Thai Foreign Ministry official commenting on the report that US planes had sunk three Cambodian boats, called it piracy’ and ‘madness’ an ‘action taken with no thought for the consequences to Thailand’. . . . ‘What if Cambodia decides to retaliate?’ he asked. ‘It cannot retaliate against the Americans; they are too far away. But it can retaliate against Thailand, which is right next door’. (Washington Post 15.5.1975)

The Thais sent a protest note when the dust settled. They demanded an apology. The US replied offering regrets for a misunderstanding, and said: ‘the unique circumstances that have led to the recent turn of events … are not going to be repeated’.

The circumstances leading to war can always be described as unique- and they have never repeated themselves. Australia should ensure that it does not find itself in such unique circumstances. The Thai experience shows the danger of playing host to US bases. Not only should Cockburn Sound not be offered to the USA- US installations such as at North West Cape, Nurrungar and Pine Gap be removed; as well the Omega base, the rights to the construction of which some unions are fighting about, should not be allowed to be established.

United States interests and Australian interests are seldom identical- witness the refusal to stop trading with Iran and to break off diplomatic relations with it. US bases in Australia threaten our sovereignty- they prevent the development of an unaligned and independent Australian foreign policyand by tying the country to the wheels of the US war chariot could result in the atom bombing of Australian soil.

ALERT FROM COMPUTER MALFUNCTION

A low level nuclear attack alert on November 9, 1979, lasting from 10.50 to 10.56 am resulted from a computer malfunction. Yet it set the whole US war machine in motion. US Defence Department spokesman, LieutenantCommander Gordon Paterson, questioned by reporters refused to comment on reports that the alert set in motion operations at bases around the country and abroad. (The Nation, New York, 29.12.1980)

It is probable that the bases were activated without the host’ countries being asked or advised. It is clear that each additional base adds to the dangers the ‘host’ country faces. Should Australia have another US base?

Senator KEEFFE:

– I thank the Senate. Again I express the wish that the Government will in fact treat this matter seriously and look at the possibility of reversing its decision to establish one more nuclear target in Australia.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

(5.44)- I move:

This Bill, together with its companion Bill, Supply Bill (No. 2) 1980-81, seeks interim appropriations for the services of the Government for the period 1 July 1980 to 30 November 1980, by which date it is expected that the Appropriation Bills (Nos 1 and 2), forming part of the 1980-81 Budget, will have been enacted. Supply Bill (No. 1) seeks appropriations totalling some $4,247m for the ordinary annual services of the Government. This is $185m or 4.6 per cent greater than the amounts provided in the Supply Act (No. 1) 1979-80. The Bill includes $100m for the Advance to the Minister for Finance, which is the same amount as the provision in the Supply Act (No. 1) 1979-80. 1 wish to emphasise that the Supply Bills are not to be interpreted as in any way anticipating decisions yet to be taken in respect of the 1980-81 Budget. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 2211

SUPPLY BILL (No. 2) 1980-81

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 Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

(5.45)- I move:

I present Supply Bill (No. 2) 1980-81. This Bill seeks interim appropriations, totalling $772m, for expenditure on capital works and services, payments to or for the States and certain other services for the period 1 July 1980 to 30 November 1980. This is $ 17m or 2.25 per cent greater than the amounts provided in the Supply Act (No. 2) 1979-80. The Bill includes $100m for the Advance to the Minister for Finance, the same amount as was provided in the Supply Act (No. 2) 1979-80. As I emphasised when introducing Supply Bill (No. 1) 1980-81, the provisions in this Bill are not to be interpreted as in any way anticipating decisions yet to be taken in respect of the 1980-81 Budget. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Robertson) adjourned.

page 2211

AUSTRALIAN BICENTENNIAL AUTHORITY BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 13 May, on motion by Senator Durack:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-When this debate was adjourned last night I was dealing with a number of issues in relation to the bicentennial arrangements for 1 988 perhaps more expansively than I might have wished, but circumstances necessitated that I do so. In the remaining time available to me today I want to draw together what seem to be some very important considerations about the bicentennial for Australia in 1 988. The machinery for the bicentennial arrangements is set up by this legislation. Presumably we will plan a number of national extravaganzas to record the 200 years of European settlement in Australia. I was seeking to put the view that in 1980 we should be giving consideration to the sort of society which we would like to be in 1988 and not just relying, as it were, on the cosmetics of a bicentennial celebration or even on the cosmetics of a new parliament house which is planned to be built in time for those bicentennial celebrations.

A number of considerations which I believe we should take into account involve political decision-making. I think it is very important, in determining what sort of people we should be as a nation in 1988, to give consideration to the question of an Australian national identity, for a variety of reasons. I think it is very important that we develop the capacity, much more than we have done in previous years of European settlement in Australia, to stand on our own feet in a national sense and to have some consensus in relation to what we are about as a European people in this part of the world. Yesterday I attacked, perhaps with almost unnecessary vehemence what seemed to me to be inhibiting factors in developing a consensus and the capacity to stand on our own feet as a nation. They are important although in a sense they are only symbolic things.

I should like to make my point in this way: What Americans celebrate on 4 July is American Independence. What is the history of 4 July, the day it celebrates? The United States of America at some stage had to make a decision about its own future and its own destiny. In so doing it threw off the trappings of colonialism. The day that the Americans celebrate as an important national holiday, 4 July, is the day that the United States of America determined to stand on its own feet. The United States decision that it had to get rid of the British and to stand on its own feet was a very important factor in the vast and great development of that nation. That is something which has not happened in Australia and which I think is very unfortunate.

Senator Knight:

– Do you mean that we have not thrown off the British yoke?

Senator BUTTON:

– Yes, I mean that we have not thrown off the British yoke. We have not made that crucially important decision to stand on our own feet. Once the Americans made the decision to stand on their own feet, they developed a much greater degree of confidence in the United States and a much greater belief in their own technology and their own know-how. All those things are exhibited at the Smithsonian Institute at Washington. It is a triumph of American achievement- an achievement of indigenous performance and know-how which is a source of great national pride in the United States and from which develops all sorts of anticipations and confidence in the future and in the importance of United States technology and know-how.

Senator Knight:

– But it is a more complex issue than the United States simply becoming independent.

Senator BUTTON:

– Of course it is a very complex issue. I am not denying that. I am just trying to make a very humble contribution to some of the complexities.

Senator Knight:

– You are characteristically humble, if I may say so.

Senator BUTTON:

– I am doing it in this way. I have no doubt that Senator Knight will add something else which will be beneficial to the discussion. The point I am trying to make is that there is a very important distinction- it was very important when the Americans celebrated their bicentennial- between Australia and the United States. At some stage the Americans made the decision that they were on their own. My argument is that we in Australia have never really made that decision. All the sorts of things which are basically the hang-ups of the conservative forces in Australian society- I refer to the fact that some Australians cling to the imperial honours system and I refer to the incapacity to solve the problem of what is an appropriate national song for Australia- are in a very real sense inhibiting factors in our capacity to make that decision. The same sorts of inhibiting factors are, of course, present in all sorts of other problems faced by this country at the moment. I refer to the very real cultural cringe which is continually talked about. These things are manifestations of a cultural cringe. A problem faced by Australian industry at the present time is the fact that it is a totally derivative industry, lazy in terms of entrepreneurial skill and is not very competent in terms of management skills. We all know that. We discuss that in other issues which we debate. Having grown up behind a tariff wall Australian industry has become lazy and has not in any sense sought to rely on its own initiatives.

Senator Knight:

– I disagree utterly with your anaylsis. You may be a good lawyer but you make a terrible historian, if I may say so.

Senator BUTTON:

-We will have the benefit of Senator Knight’s wisdom later in this debate. I said that my view is a humble one. I am one of those Australians who look forward to celebrating a happy bicentennial in this country. It is part of the essence of our democracy that Senator Knight and I might have different views about these matters. I think that is a good thing.

Senator Knight:

– Express them freely.

Senator BUTTON:

-Yes. I think there are a lot of manifestations of what I would call cultural cringe. Senator Knight knows the figures on Australian patents. Some $79m worth goes overseas every year and we get back $ 1 m. He knows similar figures on research and development in Australian industry. He knows how all the money is borrowed and how everything is derivative. He knows all these things. These important matters are inhibiting factors in the development of this country. Last night I mentioned a number of other things which may be in a sense cosmetic but seem to me to be important in making that decision about standing on our own feet. From that, consequences flow in terms of national ambitions, development and so on. I think it is important, in the context of a bicentennial, that we consider those matters. As I said last night, Dr David Armstrong, who has been appointed under this legislation which has not yet been passed, has told me and others that he regards these matters as very important.

Senator Lewis:

– That is unfair. He has been appointed by a company, not by legislation.

Senator BUTTON:

– I was not seeking to be unfair. I am not making any criticism of either Dr Armstrong or the honourable senator.

Senator Lewis:

– You said he has been appointed under legislation which has not yet been passed. He has been appointed by a company.

Senator BUTTON:

- Senator Lewis pays marvellous attention to peripheral detail. I have the highest regard for Dr Armstrong and his views. That is the point that we are debating and that is the point about which we ought to be concerned. The second point I make about the bicentennial relates- I have referred already to what I regard as the inhibiting consequences of being a very derivative society- is much more political. Decisions about the future of any country have to be fundamentally political. Of course there was a time when the Fraser Government was prepared to make political decisions about the future of this country, and was prepared to make political promises about the sort of society it wanted to develop in Australia. They are relevant matters to the question of a bicentennial. For example, in 1975 the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) laid down a blueprint for the sort of society which he wanted to develop. It is all contained in that famous and memorable election policy speech called ‘Turn on the lights’. He was talking about idealism, concern for national needs, reform and change. The Prime Minister said:

Together in freedom, we can build an Australia of which we can be proud- an Australia for our children and our grandchildren.

We can have idealism, . . . reform, without handing control over our lives to politicians and civil servants.

He said that we have lived in darkness, et cetera. Then he laid down the program involved in turning on the lights. Of course one of the essential ingredients of the program was that the Government, of which Senator Lewis is a supporter was to be, as the Prime Minister put it, a government for all the people. That is very important when considering the question of a bicentennial celebration. What sort of people will we be in 1988 if this Government remains in charge unhappily of the destinies of this country? One has to look only at some of the specifications of what was involved in making us one people, a united people.

The specifications were very clear. Unemployment was to disappear, all the economic problems were to be solved and something great was to be done for the Aboriginals.

Senator Lewis:

– It created 155,000 new jobs last year. That is not bad.

Senator BUTTON:

-I wish Senator Lewis would devote his energies to making an occasional speech instead of chattering when other people are trying to speak. The matters which were talked about in that policy speech- I know Senator Lewis finds it very unpalatable for me to mention them- are vital to the credibility of this Government.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m. (Quorum formed).

Senator BUTTON:

-Before the suspension of the sitting I had been reflecting on the history of this country in relation to the history of the United States of America. I had been chided by Senator Knight, amongst others, for some comments that I had made about the history of this country in comparison with that of the United States. I raised both those issues in the context of the bicentenary celebrations. In the spirit of cooperation which is apparent in this chamber from time to time, Senator Knight very kindly provided me with a book by A. L. Rowse entitled The Use of History. In relation to what I had said, he drew my attention to a paragraph which reads:

In the end, we reflect man’s life is very much restricted, confined, in time: a mere three-score and ten years, often not that. If we had only that to go upon we should know little indeed. The truth is that without the sense of history human life as we know it would be unthinkable; history is as fundamental to our lives as that. It is only through a knowledge of history that our own brief lives- such a short span of experience- become one with the record of the human race; it is only through history that we know anything of that record and can share in it.

Senator Knight:

– Wise words from a great historian.

Senator BUTTON:

– I agree. They are wise words from a great historian. As I indicated earlier in my remarks, it was in the humility of a knowledge and sense of history, as A. L. Rowse has put it, that I made the remarks that I did about the Australian Bicentenary, with the full knowledge that in my brief three score years and ten, if I am granted that, I can make only a very limited contribution, as we all can, in the context of this debate.

What I was concerned to say was that in considering the Bicentenary we should consider many of the issues of fundamental importance to the identity of this country and the sort of people we want to be when we celebrate that Bicentenary. As the Prime Minister put it in 1 975:

The hour is on us when we must act to save our freedom, our prosperity, our self-respect. The hour is on us when we must act to save Australia and our way of life.

Those words were uttered in a very partisan political context. They are of course relevant to the sorts of things which we consider in connection with the Bicentenary. The Opposition supports this legislation, limited in its purpose as it is, and being in a sense a machinery Bill. But we do so in the light of some of the broader considerations which I and others have raised.

Senator LEWIS:
Victoria

-Last night we listened to Senator Button for some 23 minutes, and today we have listened to him for another quarter of an hour. I am sure that those who read his speech in Hansard will wonder what on earth he has been talking about.

Senator Knight:

– Until the last bit about history.

Senator LEWIS:

-I agree with Senator Knight. Until the last few minutes Senator Button could have been talking about any subject on earth. However, the subject that he has been debating is the Bill in relation to the Australian Bicentennial Authority. 1 use the words in relation to the Bicentennial Authority’ rather than the words ‘to create the Australian Bicentennial Authority’. The purpose of this Bill is not to create the Authority but to identify the role and the status of the Authority and to protect its name, its symbol and certain words and expressions when used in conjunction with relevant dates, in particular 1988, and the figures for 1988.

The Australian Bicentennial Authority is already established. The Australian Bicentennial Authority is in fact a company registered in the Australian Capital Territory, a company limited by guarantee. The memorandum and articles of association of that company are unique because the subscribers to the memorandum and articles of association are the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony), the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr John McLeay), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden), the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen), the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition in each of the States, the Chief Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in the Northern Territory, and Mr J. B. Reid, who is Chairman of the Authority. Clearly that is a unique document with those signatures attached to it. It is a clear indication of the bipartisan nature of this Authority.

The directors of the Authority are 17 in number. Seven of them are appointees of the Commonwealth Government, one from each State and one from the Australian Capital Territory. Another seven are appointees of the States and the Northern Territory, one from each. Two of the directors are appointees of this Parliament, one from the Government side and the other from the Opposition side. The seventeenth director is the Chairman, Mr J. B. Reid. That again is a clear indication of the intended bipartisan nature of this Authority. I say openly and bluntly that the Australian Bicentennial Authority is therefore not a creature of the Commonwealth Government. Notwithstanding this legislation, it is in fact a creature of Australia, a creature aimed at representing not only the Federal Government but also each of the State governments and the Territories, and aimed at representing all the people of Australia. The Chairman and the board members want it to be known publicly that their approach is a national one. They want it to be known publicly that the Authority represents every State and Territory as well as the Commonwealth. Indeed, the board members and their staff hope that every municipality, every organisation, every identifiable group within Australia will recognise that the board also represents them and further that all Australians as individuals will appreciate that the Authority is their Authority.

Senator Georges:

– Are the Aboriginals represented?

Senator LEWIS:

– The purpose of this Bill, as I mentioned, is to identify the role and the status of the Authority and to protect its name, its symbol and these words and figures. That is what the Bill which is currently before the Senate is about. The members of the board have not been appointed to represent groups in the community. There are any number of identifiable groups within our community. Clearly, the name of one group has already been murmured across the chamber, that is Aborigines. Another group might be the ethnic community and yet another group which one might think of is young people. But if the board had been appointed to represent individual groups, where on earth would we have stopped? What about religious groups, aged people, women, men, and the family? If one looks at the representation of groups, what would have been the attitude of the representative of each group?

I suggest to the Senate that the burden on each individual representative may very well have been intolerable. For example, if there had been a representative of the Aboriginal community, he or she may very well have wanted to adopt a national outlook, but no doubt would have been constantly pressurised by individuals of the group which that person represented and, ultimately, would have been forced by them to adopt a narrow approach. I do not say that specifically in relation to a representative of Aborigines; I say that in relation to a representative of young people, any representative of an ethnic group or any other group within a community. So the board, as I say, is endeavouring to represent the whole of Australia and not to represent individual groups within our community.

Let there be no doubt that it is necessary, if the Bicentennial Authority is to be successful in its work, for individual groups within the community to be represented in some way within the organisation. That problem has been solved by an intention to have State and territorial bicentennial committees. They will provide effective representation of community and other interest groups. The two representatives on the board from each of the States and the territories, in due course, will create State and territorial committees. Further, the Authority has power to appoint additional committees as it thinks fit. This will provide the opportunity for the further representation of community groups. No doubt the Authority, in due course, will arrange for groups such as young people to have their own committee through which they will be able to expresss their views to the Authority and to make their arrangements.

There is no doubt that the Chairman of the Authority, the board members and the staff are very conscious of the need to ensure effective representation of the different groups in the community. In particular, they are concerned to ensure that Aborigines take part in the celebrations and that the celebrations do not insult their sensitivities. Clearly, there is need to ensure the involvement of the Aboriginal community and their leaders in the celebrations and in our preparations for those celebrations. Similarly, it is important to involve the non-English speaking community. This is an opportunity for all Australians, whatever their ethnic origins, to take part in a major celebration in Australia.

One in four of the population of Australia was born overseas or is the child of someone who was born overseas. In other words, about 25 per cent of the Australian community is made up of people whose origins are perhaps Greek, Italian, Maltese, Polish, German, Austrian, Yugoslavian, Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese, et cetera. These people have made an enormous, wonderful contribution to Australian society in recent decades, and it will be important to involve them in our celebrations and to involve their leaders in our preparations for those celebrations.

Senator Grimes:

– Are you going to give us all that?

Senator LEWIS:

– The words of a currently popular song tell us that we are all Aussies and that, whatever our racial origins, we in this country are proud and have every right to be proud of what we have achieved. Let us not disparage the achievements of those of us who were born in Australia and who were the children or the grandchildren of those who were born in Australia. One of the problems in this Parliament and in Australia is that we want to knock things. I was interested to hear Senator Button in the course of his somewhat interesting perambulations, talk about matters which I am sure Senator Button would be one of the first to knock. He spoke about having some national pride in our heritage. His colleague, Senator Grimes, wants to knock any suggestions that we should be proud of our heritage. Well, let him know quite bluntly that I am proud of our heritage. Our culture is rich; our history is great. Australia has come a long way in the 200 years since Europeans settled this nation. Some of our earlier expectations are summed up in a verse which I discovered and which was published in Australia in 1788. It states:

They cannot too soon go to Botany Bay. They can go of an island to take special charge, Much warmer than Britain and ten times as large; No custom-house duties, no freightage to pay. And tax free they’ll live when at Botany Bay.

Well, that did not last for very long, did it? On the other hand, we had our early difficulties which were summed up in what might be called a characteristic outburst of sustained spleen by the Lieutenant-Governor, Major Ross, Commandant of Marines, who, in 1788, wrote these words:

I do not scruple to pronounce that in the whole world there is not a worse country than what we have yet seen of this. All that is contiguous to us is very barren and forbidding that it may with truth be said here nature is reversed, and if not so, she is nearly worn out, for almost all the seeds we have put into the ground have rotted, and have no doubt but will, like the wood of this vile country when burned or rotten, turn to sand.

He was talking about the country around famous Sydney. I am sure that Senator Douglas McClelland who is to follow me in this debate will agree with me that Sydney is no longer a vile and rotten land.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The greatest city in the world.

Senator LEWIS:

– Yes, he says it is the greatest city in the world, and I do not doubt him. Melbourne is pretty good too. Honourable senators should look at those words and imagine the trials and the tribulations which the people had to suffer in Australia’s early years. Frankly, I think that serves to highlight the achievements which we have made over the past 200 years. We have much to be proud of and much to celebrate.

Let me turn to the Authority’s role in these celebrations. Firstly, let it be quite clear that the Authority will not be organising the celebrations. That task would be far too large for any one body. In fact, from an examination of what happened in the United States during its bicentennial celebrations it is clear that one of the major mistakes which it made was to organise the celebrations from Washington.

The Australian Bicentennial Authority will not be trying to organise these celebrations. It is hoped that the people in the community will not sit back and wait to be organised but that they will, of their own volition, start making their own arrangements for celebrations. The Authority’s role is to formulate, to plan, to develop, to promote, to co-ordinate and, finally, to implement the arrangements.

Senator Button earlier referred to extravaganzas. I suppose there will be some extravaganzas, but that will not be the main form of celebration which the Authority will wish to promote. The Authority will wish to leave throughout the nation permanent reminders in communities of the bicentennial celebrations. I refer to the foresight of Sydney’s forefathers 100 years ago when they set aside a park in the heart of Sydney called ‘Centennial Park’ as a commemoration of the celebrations in 1888. That is the sort of foresight which we hope will develop throughout Australia. These sorts of achievements can come about only if people with ideas come forward to try to implement their ideas for the celebrations in 1988.

The Authority has some limited funds but clearly it is not in a position where it will be able to finance large arrangements. It will be able to give its seal of approval to arrangements and, thereby, it will no doubt be able, for example, to assist in the promotion of industries to finance various events, and to arrange for local government approval and finance to be given, for State approval and finance to be given and for Federal approval and finance to be given.

All of these ends will be achieved by the motivation of the people within our nation. I give as an example the many constitutional reformers in this Parliament. I say to them that their current trouble is that they get to 1975 and run into a brick wall. Why not try to go around 1975 and look at other areas in the Constitution which are in need of reform? Why not revitalise a convention or have an elected convention? They should set themselves a task of producing for Australia in 1 988 a series of proposals for constitutional reform to take us through into the next century. They will certainly never get a better opportunity for reform than in 1988 because that will be a year when the people will be thinking about the future. I say to all the small organisations within Australia such as Musica Viva Australia and local theatre groups that they should start to plan the programs they will have during 1988. These are just small examples of the sorts of things that will be happening throughout Australia.

I also say to people who are planning what they will do during 1988 that, if they are thinking of a trip overseas, they should forget it because in 1988 the place to be will be in Australia. For example, there will be a new Parliament House in Canberra which people will want to visit. Similarly, there will be other places throughout Australia that they may wish to visit or functions that they may wish to attend. For example, the Olympic Games may be held in Melbourne. All sorts of events will be planned for 1988. People throughout Australia will be travelling across this nation to participate in this bicentennial celebration. I say to those who are making their plans for the future that they should plan to be in Australia and to travel around Australia during 1988.

I wish to make only one other point. I was appointed as a director of the Australian Bicentennial Authority by my colleagues, the Government members and senators in our party room. Mr Barry Cohen was appointed as a director of the Australian Bicentennial Authority by his colleagues in the Opposition party room. I think we both recognise that many of our colleagues wished the appointment. We recognise the very great privilege which our colleagues have bestowed on us. I have read Barry Cohen ‘s speech in which he indicated that he was proud of the appointment. I also indicate that I am proud of the appointment. Although I was chosen by my colleagues, I see that the position as a director should be non-political and that my door should be open to anyone of any persuasion- political or otherwise- who wants to talk to me about the Authority and the celebrations of 1988.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Opposition does not oppose the passage of the Australian Bicentennial Authority Bill and, therefore, my remarks on the legislation will be short. Suffice it for me to say at the outset that in June 1978, nearly two years ago, the Premiers Conference agreed that there should be a major commemoration at the 1988 bicentenary of the first European settlement in Australia which, as my friend the honourable member for Sydney, Mr Les McMahon, reminded the Parliament in the House of Representatives when he spoke on the matter, took place at Sydney Cove in January 1788. The fact that the bicentenary is to take place in 1988 reminds me and should remind all honourable senators that it will take place eight years distant from now. That necessarily involves a long time for the planning that must take place between now and 1988. It involves looking into the crystal ball to predict what will happen in this country between 1980 and 1988 in order to ensure that the celebrations that take place at that time reflect the events that have taken place between 1788 and 1988.

I think it was in April of last year after the Premiers Conference in June 1978 that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) announced the establishment of an Australian Bicentennial Authority for the purpose of planning and staging the commemoration. That Authority has now been established, as Senator Lewis has said, and is registered as a company within the Australian Capital Territory. On it are representatives of the Commonwealth, representatives of the States, representatives of the Territories and representatives of the Australian Parliament. Senator Lewis has the honour of being appointed by his party as his party’s representative on the Authority. My colleague, Mr Cohen, the honourable member for Robertson, who is the Australian Labor Party shadow Minister for tourism and recreation, has the honour of being appointed by my party as its representative on the Authority.

Mr J. B. Reid, a prominent businessman who is connected with the Hardie rubber company, has been appointed as the Chairman. As I have said, two members of the National Parliament, Senator Lewis and Mr Cohen, are on the Board of Directors. Firstly, I must commend the Government on the appointment of Mr Reid as the Chairman of the Authority. I have known Mr Reid for some time. He is a highly respected and competent businessman in Sydney. Frankly, members of the Opposition were quite concerned at the outset when the Government previously appointed Mr Harry M. Miller as the Government’s adviser on the bicentennial arrangements. We were concerned at the way in which he appeared to be developing the Government’s role in the matter from the time of his appointment as an adviser. We were concerned, and we gathered the impression that he thought the organisation was one which he could control and in : which he could do what he liked. As I have said, there was quite a great sigh of relief on the part of members of the Opposition when his resignation was accepted- I put it in the neutral term- and subsequently Mr Reid was appointed.

I remind the Senate that it was on 1 March 1979 that I moved in this place:

That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations: All expenditures incurred since February 1977 by and related to the Silver Jubilee Commemorative Organisation, the Silver Jubilee Appeal and the Bureau of International Expositions in Paris and all expenditures incurred in anticipation of Bicentennial Celebrations Organisation.

There is no need for me to tell the Senate now that my colleague Senator McLaren was a constant cross-examiner of the Government at the Senate Estimates committees as to the amount of expenditure that had been indulged in in the Bicentennial Celebrations Organisation in the early days when Mr Harry M. Miller had been appointed as the Government’s honorary adviser on the arrangements. I commend the Government for having appointed Mr Reid as Chairman of the Authority. He is a man whom I personally know to be of outstanding ability and a man who is highly respected in the business circles of Sydney.

My particular interest in this matter stems from the days when I was Special Minister of State in the Whitlam Labor Government when I had the ministerial responsibility of arranging Australia’s participation in what was known as the American Revolution Bicentenary of 1976. 1 emphasise the title- the American Revolution Bicentenary of 1976. I want to place on record my personal appreciation and the appreciation of the Labor Government of the work which the Australian Commissioner-General did in directing Australia’s involvement in the American bicentennary. We, as a government, appointed the then Vice-Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, Mr Jack Neary, as Australia’s Commissioner-General. His organisational work and his entrepreneurial skill made Australia’s contribution to the American bicentenary arrangements an outstanding achievement as far as Australia was concerned. His insistence, planning and organisation in ensuring that the skills and talents of Australia’s writers, artists, performers and Australia’s cultural heritage were used in the American bicentenary celebration arrangements, were outstanding. Having been interested at that time in the arrangements that were being made by the Americans for their bicentenary in 1976-200 years after they had their revolution- I have had the privilege of reading the transcript of the hearings that took place before the American House of Representatives Sub-Committee on Census and Population of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, which insisted that all these arrangements that were being engaged in for the bicentenary celebrations came before and were the subject of scrutiny of the American Congress.

I would think, if these arrangements are going to be kept on a bipartisan basis in Australia, we as a parliament should be insisting that one of our standing committees, certainly of this Senate, should be keeping a watchful eye on the progress, activities and performance of the Australian Bicentennial Authority, just as the elected representatives of the American people, in order to keep the celebration on a bipartisan basis, kept a watchful eye on the arrangements made by the American bicentennial authority. In 1 974 Mrs Lynch- I notice she was the deputy administrator of the American Revolution Bicentenary Administration; and it might not be a bad idea on the part of the Australian Bicentennial Authority to appoint a woman as the deputy administrator as the Americans did for their authoritywent before the American House of Representatives to state the case as to what arrangements they had made for the celebrations that were to take place two years hence, namely in 1976. Of the 10 objectives that were set out by Mrs Lynch, I think at least six should be made the subject of attention of the Australian authorities.

I would ask that my good friend, Senator Lewis, who is one of the representatives of this Parliament on the Authority, pay particular attention to these matters. Quite frankly, having worked with Senator Lewis on the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations, I have a great respect for the way in which he conducts himself on a very practical basis as far as that committee and others of this Parliament are concerned. I hope that the way in which he conducted himself on that committee, when I was a member of it, will be transmitted into the Australian Bicentennial Authority arrangements. I say that even though we are of different political persuasion. I point out to him that of the 10 matters that were the basic objectives of the Americans in their arrangements, certainly six of those should be brought to the attention of the Australian authorities. The second of the American propositions was that the bicentennial commemoration should stem from and involve the maximum number of American people through their States, their local communities and their organisations and institutions. It is all very well for my friend Senator Lewis to say here tonight: ‘We hope that these things will come from the grass roots, from the local communities upwards’. I say to him, a member of the Authority- I will say it to my colleague Mr Cohen- that if these people, the ordinary rank and file members of the Australian community, are not going to be encouraged by the Authority to take part in these deliberations, the arrangements will be a failure. Eight years from now is a long time away. If the Authority is to be successful then it is now, when it is being established by an Act of this Parliament which the Labor Opposition supports, that it must ensure that the ordinary members of the community take an interest . in developing a program to take place in 1 988.

The next point that I wish to make is that the American Revolution Bicentenary Authority was to co-ordinate, facilitate, calendar and assist in the scheduling of activities of local, State, national and international significance sponsored by both government and non-government entities. The American authority by law cannot operate programs unless congressional approval is accorded. Again, I suggest that the activities of the Australian Authority be constantly supervised by a standing committee of the Parliament representing all sections of the political spectrum of this nation to ensure that there is a completely bipartisan approach and that members of the community are kept on the qui vive.

Other basic objectives of the Americans were to work with the State bicentennial commissions, the communities which had earned bicentennial designations and the universities and colleges developing bicentennial programs; to work with the private sector, including the labor unions, foundations and business organisations in the development of their programs and programs carried out in conjunction with local communities; to solicit from the private sector financial and other support for bicentennial programs developed by the authority, the States and the local communities; to develop standards for and evaluate the feasibility, relevance, status and desirability of bicentennial programs of Federal departments and agencies and co-ordinate Federal programs within the executive branch with those of other planners; to promote maximum citizen involvement in bicentennial projects at the national, local and international levels through voluntary organisations; to publish official master calendars and an official register of bicentennial activities and events to include the increasing number of projects developed nationwide; and to refine, categorise and provide such data for the special needs of State bicentennial commissions, travel and tourist organisations and others requiring such information for bicentennial planning purposes. I have mentioned only some of the 10 objectives that were set out in the American bicentennial arrangements.

I say from my previous experience as Special Minister of State in the Labor Government that the arrangements for Australia’s participation in the American bicentennial celebrations were an outstanding success. The requirement that the American authority had to report regularly to the American House of Representatives on its activities ensured that the activities, responsibilities and roles of minority groups throughout the American community were involved. I have referred to the statement of Mrs Lynch to the American House of Representatives Committee. Page 14 of the record of that statement in part reads:

I think you probably know that we have sponsored what we call the bicentennial Ethnic-Racial Coalition, probably one of the most interesting things I have ever seen. When they first started out, many of them were miles apart in what they wanted out of it. By the end of the two meetings we have had we now have a coalition which we are giving them a grant and it will be a permanent organisation to assist minority-

It will be no good at all if in 1988 we have all the jazz bands, fun and trappings and if we laud what this nation has done for the good of the whole community if, at the same time, there are demonstrations in the streets by the minority groups in the community demanding their rights as Australian citizens.

Senator Primmer:

– Like the unemployed.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I appeal not only to members of the Authority but also to members of the Government to ensure that that does not happen. I hope there will be a change of government between now and 1988; but if by mischance this Government still remains in office I appeal to its members to ensure that those responsible for arranging great celebrations in 1988 for the good of the Australian community properly attend to the problems of the minority groups. They include those who are underprivileged, those who suffer from poverty and as my colleague Senator Primmer reminded me, those who are unemployed and, as my colleague Senator Georges reminded me when Senator Lewis was speaking, the Aborigines, the descendants of the 150,000 Australians who were in Australia when Captain Phillip landed in Sydney Cove on 26 January 1 788. As a nation we will then be able to say that there is equality of opportunity for all Australians within our community.

Unless the Government, whether it be a government of the present Government’s political persuasion or a government of my political persuasion sets out to overcome those problems between now and 1988 anything that the Authority that we are now establishing does to ensure that the celebrations will be successful unquestionably will be a failure. Members of the Authority are not the only ones who have been charged with a great and tremendously important task to arrange the celebration of 200 years of European settlement in this country. I hope that at that time we as a nation will be saying to the world that by our words, deeds and actions we have done everything possible to ensure that there is equality of opportunity for every Australian citizen irrespective of how long he or she has been in this country.

I am rather envious of the role that my colleagues Senator Lewis and Mr Cohen have as representatives of the Parliament on the Authority. They in particular, as elected representatives of the Australian people, have a tremendous responsibility. As I understand it, they are the only two elected representatives of the Australian people on the Authority. In that role they have a tremendous responsibility to ensure that members of the Authority are kept on the qui vive. We are talking about something that will happen eight years from now, a very long time away. We must realise that in this land of apparent wealth and plenty, unfortunately, countless hundreds of thousands of people are living on or under the poverty line. Their problems cannot be ignored or swept under the carpet merely because in 1 988 we want to highlight the European settlement of Australia. The best way in which we can get complete satisfaction is to overcome, as much as we possible can, the problems of discrimination, poverty and unhappiness and to give all Australians an opportunity to develop their skills and talents.

The task of the Authority which is being established by an Act of Parliament is a daunting one indeed. It will have the task of trying to reunite this nation, because since 1975 we have lived in a divided society. We have to realise, and members of the Government and of the Authority have to realise- I say that completely on a bipartisan basis because I expect them to conduct themselves in a bipartisan way- that because of the political events that took place in 1975 a great gulf, a great division, exists along the political lines of our society. It is a dividend society.

Despite the rhetoric of the Prime Minister, his Ministers and his supporters, it seems to us on this side that the members of the Government have lived politically on pitting employer against worker, the Commonwealth against the States, and on seeing that everyone else but themselves is blamed for Australia’s economic ills and difficulties. As I have said, the Authority has a difficult task and it cannot accomplish its role unless it receives the complete co-operation of the Government and the community. I include in the term ‘community’ the members of the Australian work force and the trade union movement. Unless the Government recognises the problems in the community and deliberately sets out to overcome them the bicentennial arrangements that are being organised eight years from the time that they will take place will not be successful. However, if the Government is prepared to listen to the cries of those Australians who plead for a fair go, we as a nation, and particularly we as members of the Australian Parliament, can hope to see 1988 bring the light through the tunnel of darkness.

Sadly, because of the policies that have been pursued by this Government, Australians feel that they are becoming mere tenants in their own nation. The television programs that they watch, and that they have watched for years, are mainly imports. The foreign multinational companies appear to many of us to dictate where our development as a nation will take place. I hope that the establishment of the Australian Bicentennial Authority will help overcome many of the nation’s problems because Australia, properly governed and led, unquestionably can and should be the greatest nation in the world. I say to members of the Government, to members of the Authority, in particular to Senator Lewis, the Government’s representative on the Authority, and to my colleague Mr Cohen, the Australian Labor Party’s representative on the Authority, that 1988 at the latest should become the yardstick for ensuring that we are using all the nation’s resources in its best interests in order to provide a better standard of living for all Australians.

Having made those comments, I say again that the Labor Party supports the establishment of the Australian Bicentennial Authority. As the son of a man who worked in the trade union movement and the Labor movement before I did, I say with pride that the Labor movement has played more than its part in the development and history of this great nation. It will continue to play its part but it wants to see that the actions of government and of the Authority that will be established by an Act of Parliament are conducted in a bipartisan way. I suggest that this Parliament sees that from time to time a standing committee of the Senate ensures that members of the Authority come before it, as the Americans ensured that authority members went before the American Congress, to see that things are conducted in the proper way in the interests of Australia and Australians generally. I support the Bill. ( Quorum formed).

Senator MASON:
New South Wales

– The Australian Democrats support the Australian Bicentennial Authority Bill 1980. We are interested in the debate because we believe that now is the time for an effective framework to be built if in 1988 we are to have celebrations which are genuinely joyful- one hopes all celebrations are- and which are entertaining, original and representative of Australia. If that framework is not laid now and if mistakes are perpetuated from the beginning, we suggest that there will be problems and that the final result will not be what the Australian people hope it might be. This is something which we do only once every 100 years; it is something of great moment to this country.

We mig.it hope also that things will result from these bicentenary celebrations that will be of permanent benefit to the country. I refer to things whose benefits are more creative, productive and widely spread through the community, than those of the new and permanent Parliament House which is planned- I repeat planned- to be opened in 1988. The Australian Democrats wish to make several major points. In his second reading speech, the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) stated:

The Government has in mind Aboriginal and ethnic groups and young people being involved in the framework of the Bicentenary at all levels.

I repeat the words ‘ at all levels ‘. It was the Ethnic Communities Council of New South Wales which quite recently brought to my attention its deep concern that the Australian Bicentennial Authority was one of a number of bodies which lacked representation by Australians of nonEnglish speaking origin. In this matter, as in so many others, we seem to have a remarkable talent for running on the spot and never getting anywhere. I should have thought that during the last 30 years the penny- or perhaps I should say the cent- might have dropped and the profound differences in the Australian society as a result of non-British migration would have become obvious. Those of us who remember those days so long ago when we did not have these people here will know that those changes have been very much to the benefit of Australia. I think they could become very much more so but they will not become more so unless a deliberate effort is made by the Government and by this community to see that that happens. This bicentenary would seem to be an ideal opportunity to make that effort. Australia now is a multicultural society and we owe a tremendous amount to that fact. Indeed, I believe that fact represents possibly the most profound and influential change Australia has undergone in its entire history. So let it be recognised too as we approach the most important celebration for a century and a celebration that will not be repeated for another century that we are a multicultural society and all the better for it.

The authority has 17 members, as Senator Lewis mentioned earlier. He is one representing this Parliament and I congratulate him on his appointment and wish him well in his responsibilities. It is a fact that although all of them are without doubt worthy and valuable people they are, almost without exception, a singularly typical group of the Anglo-Saxon establishment in Australia. We are told that the Government has in mind involving at all levels Aboriginals, ethnic groups and young people but I think it would have been better at the very beginning when the 1 7 people were appointed if” somehow we had arranged to have on the Authority a representative of the group of people who after all make up a very substantial proportion of our population now. They have been coming here for 30 years literally in their millions and staying and their children as well as they are worthy members of this society.

I note that these appointments are for a limited period and are due to expire before 1988 in one way or another unless they are renewed. I put the point to the Government that it may like to consider when the time comes for the reappointment of some of these members that the ethnic councils in this country ought to be represented. By that I refer to people who are attempting to be a synthesis, to bring together the ethnic peoples of this country. I think that would be the way to get the help, co-operation and enthusiasm of the ethnic groups in Australia without which I suggest the bicentenary celebrations would be a mockery. It would seem desirable at this early stage that the secretariat of the Bicentennial Authority should make contact with groups of non-British origin, including of course the Asian people who have been coming to this country in increasing numbers. I refer to the Vietnamese, the Chinese, the Cambodians and people of that type as well as the more familiar groups in this society such as the Greeks, the Italians, the Yugoslavs and other European people.

I think we should be proud of the fact that we are a multiracial society. I think we should remember the invitation to the world on the Statue of Liberty in America to this effect: ‘Bring your poor and weak to us so they will become Americans’. We have done that too and those who have come here are now becoming Australians. If Dr Armstrong is looking for a starting point, I feel that since he is in Sydney he could do much worse than try the Ethnic Communities Council of New South Wales and similar councils elsewhere which I think would be the ones which could advise him and the Government at the beginning on how these people could contribute.

I think it is true that many people of nonEnglish descent in this country are diffident. They see themselves as grateful for being residents of a prosperous country, with a great future, as indeed Australia is. But they are diffident and I feel that unless they are encouraged to bring what they have to give to this task they will not do so. I think it is necessary to extend the opportunity as soon as possible for major participation by the ethnic groups in our society. By that I mean something a good deal more profound and meaningful than displays of national dancing and such like, although, of course, we would hope to have such colourful folk forms. In any case, I think that the colour and the multiplicity of our society could be one of the beautiful forms that this ceremony could take in 1988. I think that people coming from other parts of the world could be encouraged by seeing- I think, in that sense only- that Australia is becoming the new America where peoples from all parts of the world have come and become part of us. It would be a tremendous draw to tourists if they could feel that they were seeing the synthesis and expression of this process.

Basically, what I have in mind is a careful and comprehensive message to people of Australian birth- not a pompous message, not too scholarly and certainly not priggish or boring- of what the backgrounds of these other ethnic groups who are now Australian have been because I do not think they are sufficiently understood in Australia now. This, of course, could be done in very many ways. It could be done in the form of film, television or theatre, in the written and spoken words. As a writer myself and as an exworker in television, I would hope that in 1988 the Bicentenary will be expressed in all areas of communication in this nation- in our television, our radio, our novels, our plays and our operas. One would hope, for instance, that a special opera might be written to commemorate this occasion. If we can do that we will have done something which the world could look to and of which we can be proud. It would certainly be instructive.

Senator O’Byrne:

– Put the Parliament on television for opera.

Senator MASON:

– Put the Parliament on the television for opera, Senator? Well, you would all have to sing. Still, I suppose you would not mind doing that. After all, an opera has to be sung. My suggestion could be a bridge to understanding for the people of ethnic origins. Alsothis could be of even more importance- a permanent graft could be made into the Australian way of life through public appreciation of those things of value from other places. I feel that this has not been done so far because we have not really attempted it as a national task apart from a few very rare and sometimes distinguished exceptions. Surely this Bicentenary is the time to do it.

My next point relates to the relationship of other Australians to the Aboriginal community. I refer to the second reading speech of the Minister who said:

The Government has in mind Aboriginal and ethnic groups and young people being involved in the framework of the Bicentenary at all levels.

Senator Douglas McClelland made the point; I think it is a very good one- that we have deprived people in this country who have been deprived in the past for one reason or another, possibly because there was never a proper understanding or perhaps the climate for understanding was never there. Let us now see that that climate is created. I think that is more or less what Senator Douglas McClelland is saying. I agree with him that the Bicentenary ought to mark a major change in the relationship between Australians and the Aboriginal community.

I have been rather unhappy for some time with the concept of a treaty with Aboriginal people. That word has for me rather colonial, almost mercantilist, associations. One recalls trade treaties in which cheap mirrors and strings of glass beads played a part. Although that remark is not intended to be a facetious comment, I think we should avoid any connotations or even a hint of anything like that in our relationship with these people who, in the past, we have so deeply wronged and whom we continue to wrong. This question of a treaty implies a confrontation role because a treaty is normally something which is reached between two separate nations, so I do not think that is the impression that we should wish to convey. With respect to those who are pushing this treaty line, I wonder whether there are better ways, even if they are to some extent only semantic. I prefer the phrase ‘an accord with the Aboriginal people’ because I think that expresses more honestly and better what we ought perhaps to be doing.

There is another thought on the subject for which I am beholden to my friend, Ralph Harry, a distinguished Australian and until recently our Ambassador to the United Nations. He has mentioned to me the concept of a covenant. As a distinguished diplomat, of course, he understands the implications of these words better than I do. He feels that would be a more accurate description of something that could be achieved with dignity and honour between ourselves and the Aboriginal people. The point is made by him and by others that such a covenant would need to be a good deal more than mere words. It would have to include certain concepts that I think would be most important to the Aboriginal people such as reconciliation between the two communities at a historic time rather than as a tacit acceptance of superiority which I think in so many ways now marks the relationship we have with the Aboriginal people. This is the idea that somehow we can make them better by making them like us. I am not at all convinced that this is the right way of going about it.

The covenant could include a concept of contact to replace in 1988 the 200-year-old concept of conquest. I think there would need to be a practical application of this concept. It could amount to an offer- I was impressed that Senator Douglas McClelland made this point- of equality and of opportunity. Perhaps we should say to these people: ‘You have been wronged in the past. Yes, we have taken your land. We are here and nothing can be done about that. But there are good things in our lives. Some of them are intangibles such as education and opportunity. We recognise that you are disadvantaged. We will give you these things not as a gift, not out of charity, but because it is an obligation that rests with us from our treatment of you in the past’. I think that needs to be said and I think this is the time that it should be said. If this matter were thought through many things could arise from it- things such as educational scholarships or special treatment of many kinds. In this way we could redress the great disadvantage to the Aboriginal people, which, as I have said, is historical.

Mr Harry, of course, is a member of the National Australia Day Committee. I am given to understand that these ideas are now being freely canvassed by that Committee. I am encouraged to hear that. I express the hope that there might be some contact between the National Australia Day Committee and the Bicentennial Authority. Before leaving the question of the people appointed to the board of directors of the Authority I should like to indicate that I am a little concerned at the apparent absence of any outstanding names in the fields of the arts and letters which would add distinction to that board and perhaps would add a certain expertise which it will need before it is much older. The Authority certainly will need people who are skilled in presenting history, facts and events in an entertaining way. That is recognisably a special skill.

Senator Lewis made a good point. I agree that it is not the job of the people on the Authority to run the celebrations. I suggest that they will, in effect, be doing that to a large extent. Certainly they would need to have very broad and open minds because, with such a tentative program, those who would be required to carry out the creative work could be put down very easily by an indication from the people on the Authority to adopt a conventional approach, in other words, the easy way out. The conventional, the traditional, way of doing things, which perhaps is following what has been done overseas, is the easy way out. It would not be the best way for Australia. I wonder whether the Authority needs a number of specialist task forces which not only advise it in the early stages but also advise it over the years. They could plan projects and carry them through to completion. I think that is a possibility that is worth while considering. I am sure that if the Authority approached various concerns in Australia and distinguished Australians who have expertise in this field they would be only too willing to help. Ideally this is something which all Australians with goodwill will want to make the best of.

The final area of concern to the Australian Democrats is the need for some major achievements of a practical nature that could perhaps live on after the fireworks and the dancing are over. I am referring to something which would be of permanent benefit to the Australian people as a whole. I turn now to the second reading speech of the Attorney-General in which he said:

It is envisaged that some major bicentennial project, which could be revenue producing, would be handled by a separate organisation set up especially for the purpose.

I hope that does not simply mean that the Authority will turn out souvenirs for sale to the tourists and things of that kind. That is one aspect, but I hope that the Authority would want to go further than that.

I am impelled to say that the new and permanent Parliament House deserves a mention in this debate because it is planned that it should be opened in 1988. 1 do not think a new and permanent Parliament House fills the bill. Something should be established which would permanently benefit the Australian people as a whole. I believe the new building should not be proceeded with. Judging from our experiences with similar buildings the projected 1978 cost of $151m is likely to go a good deal higher, to $1, 000,000,000-$ 1 billion-of the Australian people’s money before that new building on the hill is completed, if indeed it ever is completed. The Australian people’s painful and expensive experience with the new High Court building in Canberra stands as a more eloquent testimony than any words I can add on this matter. I think it will be there permanently to remind us of that possibility. As it happens, the majority of Australians do not want a new and permanent Parliament House built with such extravagance at a time which we are told should be one of austerity and practical development for the country. I think this is something which is basic.

There are plenty of things that want doing in this country which would be of more benefit than a new and permanent parliament house. 1 am not saying that we should not have a new and permanent parliament house. Let us have it at some stage in the future when we can better afford it, when we are not faced with a time of change and a desperate need for adaptation. I know the Australian people do not want it. I have already had returned several thousand completed copies of a survey the Australian Democrats are conducting on this matter. I know from that survey the Australian people do not want that project to proceed when other things need to be done and when the people themselves are being urged by all political parties to be austere, to bite the bullet, to develop, to do without and to accept a lowering of their standards of living.

What do we want then if we do not want a new and permanent Parliament House in the context of the bicentenary celebrations? I think a long term project would be much closer to the lives of the people and the welfare of the nation than a new building in Canberra could ever be. One of a number of scientific projects could be funded especially for the bicentenary. It could be concerned, for instance, with the causes of cancer or some other medical theme. It could even be related to the energy field which most of us acknowledge- the Government itself acknowledges it- is one of the most important problems which will face this country over the next 10 or 12 years.

Senator McLaren:

– What about all the energy that we will generate in the new and permanent parliament house on Capital Hill?

Senator MASON:

– Could you think of some way of harnessing it, Senator McLaren? There may be some ground for thought along these lines. However, I believe- this is my view and I am aware that I am almost alone in this Parliament in expressing this view- the Government should not be going ahead with the new and permanent parliament house at this stage. It should be undertaking other projects and all senators know that in their hearts.

I mentioned a matter at Question Time today which could well be the sort of project that could benefit the whole nation. It is a project which we might not otherwise undertake. It could be a special bicentenary project. I think it is something that would appeal very much to the Australian people. It seems a very far-out idea which came from the Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science conference. In yesterday’s Melbourne Age it was stated:

American scientists have synthesised a plant-like material which can convert energy from the sun.

The material, designed to imitate the action of the green chloroplasts in plants,-

These are, of course, of the photosynthesis mechanism - has already been used experimentally to break up water, producing hydrogen which can be stored as a fuel.

Professor Melvin Calvin of the University of California, Berkeley, told the conference that his team had developed synthetic chloroplasts which produced hydrogen and oxygen from water when exposed to light. The matter is as simple as that. The article continues:

He envisages huge baths containing the synthetic chloroplasts to produce fuel for transport and homes and raw materials for the chemical industry. Unlike natural chloroplasts the synthetics should last indefinitely.

I was struck by Professor Calvin’s point that although this is still a laboratory device, it is going to work. He is quoted in the Age as saying: . . but it is going to work, there is no doubt about it.

That comment was made by a responsible scientist. The article continues:

Professor Calvin said oil and alcohol produced directly from plants-

This would be in the form of ethanol and methanol - would probably be needed within five years for transport fuels. By then synthetic chloroplasts should be ready for commercial production.

Already experiments are being carried out in the United States and elsewhere for the use of hydrogen to power the next generation of jet aircraft. In America and elsewhere cars are already running on hydrogen which, of course, is as good a gas as, if not better than petrol, for running cars and vehicles such as tractors, trucks, buses and anything like that. While these ideas may seem far out the world is changing rapidly. As we approach our bicentenary we should acknowledge the fact that we are part of a world that is changing quickly. We should be doing the same. Elsewhere in the world new ideas of science which promise a tremendous future for the world- a non-contaminating future for fuel and energyare being prosecuted with a great deal of diligence. Such a project could operate here soon. I think it could be in full operation by 1988 if an effort were made to establish it as a bicentenary project.

That is more than one can say for the gigantic Rundle shale fraud which has been presented to the Australian people as promising results it can never achieve. The way in which it has been presented as something which will solve the fuel problems of this country by the time our Bass Strait fuel is running down in 1 985 is one of the most cynical, unpleasant pieces of deception that I have ever seen practised by a government on the people that it is supposed to represent.

Senator Wriedt:

– It is a fraud.

Senator MASON:

– It is a fraud, and I am pleased to be able to stand here and say that I have looked into the matter. I have held Rundle shale in my hands and I have talked with representatives of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. There is no doubt about it- the development is a fraud. Virtually everything that has been said about it is a pack of lies. That is not what we want in this country.

So, let us look for a bicentenary project which is aimed at producing motor fuel, be it hydrogen, ethanol, methanol or synthetic petrol, over the next seven or eight years between now and the bicentenary. Those are the years in which we will really start feeling the energy crunch. That is something which is more important to the Australian people and to this country than building the new and permanent Parliament House. If $258m, only a quarter of what that building will cost, was made available methanol could be produced within two years from natural gas plants in Western Australia which would provide Ml 5, that is a 15 per cent additive to Australia’s petrol, for the whole country at a cost lower than we will be paying for imported Middle East crude.

In conclusion, I appeal to the Government to look at some of these thoughts, to be a little adventurous and to permit the organisation of the bicentenary to be bold and practical. Let us have something for the bicentenary celebrations which is an adventure for the Australian people perhaps and not something which is dull, tedious and commonplace. I should not make this statement because I know the person involved. The Government has made an excellent start in appointing Dr David Armstrong, a brilliant and innovative man, to lead this project. I make that statement with sincerity. I appeal to the Government to give him his head under guidelines, of course, that will make the Australian bicentenary something that this country and indeed the world can be proud of and will remember for a long time.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– The Senate is debating the Australian Bicentennial Authority Bill. I am attracted to some of the passages of the second reading speech of the Attorney-General (Senator Durack). The Minister said that there will be a bipartisan approach to the bicentenary celebrations. I will refer to that aspect later. The initial arrangements for the bicentenary celebrations were not bipartisan; they got away to a very sticky and unsavoury start. I am very pleased to note the names, qualities and qualifications of the persons appointed to the Australian Bicentennial Authority under this legislation and also that two members of parliament have been elected to serve on it. They are the only two members to be elected; the others are appointees. I hope the same criticism will not be levelled at those appointees as was levelled at one other appointee some years ago.

One of the things that I am interested in is that the Minister, in his second reading speech, said that the two Federal parliamentarians have been appointed for three years. Perhaps in the Committee stage the Minister for National Development and Energy (Senator Carrick) will be able to say whether the same two members are to serve for the three years or whether after the next election another ballot will be held to elect two more representatives, one from each side of the Parliament. The Attorney-General also said:

The Chairman was appointed by the Prime Minister and the Bill provides for the termination of his appointment in the event of misbehaviour or incapability or on six months notice should either party wish such termination.

The Minister further stated:

This Bill, together with the memorandum and articles of association of the Authority, provides an arrangement which confers upon the Authority an appropriate degree of autonomy and flexibility to enable it to operate in a businesslike way, yet at the same time provides for its accountability to the Parliament through the Minister for Administrative Services, who may give directions as to the policies the Authority is to follow. The Auditor-General will audit the Authority’s accounts and any appropriation by the Parliament for purposes of the Authority will be subject to the usual parliamentary scrutiny. The Authority will report annually to the Minister, with copies going to each of the Premiers of the States and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory.

I hope that those reports will be subsequently tabled in the Parliament. I think the Minister has come to a very good arrangement. Honourable senators will realise that we had to go through a very tedious task in the early stages of planning to try to ascertain just what the taxpayer would pay to get the bicentenary celebrations off the ground. I intend referring to that in some detail later. The Minister then said:

The application of moneys is restricted to payment within the objects and powers of the Authority in discharge of costs, expenses and other obligations.

It is a great pity that all of those safeguards and provisions did not apply when Mr Harry M. Miller, that favoured son of the ex-Minister for Primary Industry, was appointed as a special adviser for the bicentennary celebrations. Senator Douglas McClelland referred tonight to how he, Dr Klugman in the other House, Senator Sibraa and myself had religiously to pursue in this Parliament the question of how that money was expended and how much the Government was wilfully wasting on the appointment of Harry M. Miller. After a long period of questioning and a fairly long lapse of time we received some answers. They are very revealing, and I intend to quote them again tonight. As I have said, we will not now witness another scene like we witnessed before. I am referring to a person who was, I understand at the time of his appointment, the honorary treasurer of the National Country Party and the favoured son of Mr Sinclair, the ex-Minister. As somebody said the other day, the ex-Minister is one person who, before he faces the electors, has to face a jury. He is the person who appointed Harry M. Miller, and Harry M. Miller has great problems in the courts of this country.

I will refer to some of those matters but before I do so I turn to some of the points raised by Senator Mason. He has been very critical of the proposed expenditure on the construction of a new and permanent Parliament House. He ranged all over the place, from energy, methanol and all of these things where he said money could be expended more satisfactorily. One thing is sure, neither Senator Mason nor myself will be a member of this Senate when the new Parliament House is opened in 1988. We might be invited as visitors, having been ex-members, but it is almost certain that neither of us will be a member of this place at that time. I fully support the decision that was taken by the Parliament to construct the new and permanent Parliament House. We all know that the present Parliament House is only a temporary building. It has growing pains. We know of the trauma that surrounds the possible removal of some parts of the Parliamentary Library. We know of the problems in trying to accommodate staff and of the problems involved with people in t’-e kitchen and in the dining room. This place has outworn its usefulness.

It is high time that a new and permanent Parliament House was built. But even for most of the time that I have been a member of this Parliament, the Parliament was not able to agree that another Parliament House should be built. When Menzies was here- I was not a member then- he wanted some elaborate building on the lake so that the Governor-General, when he came to open the Parliament, could come down from Yarralumla in a gondola and step ashore and open the Parliament House on the shores of the lake. Then we had the other suggestion that the new building ought to be on Camp Hill. That suggestion was knocked on the head. Finally the Parliament had the courage to make a decision that the new and permanent Parliament House would be built on Capital Hill. That is where it should be. Canberra is the capital of the nation, and Parliament ought to be in the highest place in Canberra. I hope that I am alive to see the new building opened. I am sure that it will be a building which will be worthy of the people who made the decision to construct it. As I have said, it took a long time of agonising debates in both Houses before a decision was reached. It always seemed to be that some excuse could be put up to put off construction to another day. That goes for many, many things where governments are involved.

They always find some excuse to put off until tomorrow something which ought to be done today. I do not agree with Senator Mason that we can well do without the new and permanent Parliament House. It is very necessary.

I want to refer to the early days of the bicentenary arrangements when Mr Harry M. Miller was appointed as special adviser on the bicentenary celebrations. Honourable senators opposite may not recall that at that time, as the favoured son of Mr Sinclair, Mr Miller was appointed to the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation, he was appointed to the board of Qantas Airways Ltd- all the perks that could be handed out by a government. I do not need to remind some of the members here of the speech made by my colleague Senator Walsh this afternoon when chapter and verse he quoted all the jobs for the boys that this Government has created in the short time it has been in office, after the Prime Minister went to the people and said that there would be no more jobs for the boys and no more perks. Yet we find Senator Walsh here today able to instance a whole list of them, all wonderful perks which have been handed out to ex-members of this Parliament and a lot of the members of the National Country Party. Of course they are well to the fore when there are jobs to be handed out. As I have said, the former Minister for Primary Industry was the man responsible for the appointment of Harry M. Miller, who cost the taxpayers of this country an enormous amount of money as a special adviser setting up the bicentenary celebrations.

I want to refer to some of the questions that I have asked in this Parliament, and to the answers that I received setting out the amount of taxpayers’ money which was squandered by Harry M. Miller. On 21 November 1978 I put a question on notice. I asked in three separate paragraphs:

  1. 1 ) What facilities, other than those indicated in Estimates Committee E Hansard, 12 October 1978, p. 181 have beer provided to Mr Harry M. Miller since his appointment as a special adviser in relation to preparations for the 1988 Australian Bicentenary.
  2. What was the cost of these facilities in 1977-78, and what will be the cost in 1 978-79.
  3. What measures have been taken to ensure that these costs are specifically related to the Bicentenary planning, and not combined with Mr Miller’s other extensive Government positions or his private interests.

I have mentioned here tonight some of those Government interests. In reply Senator Chaney said:

The Minister for Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1), (2) and (3) Mr Miller’s appointment as Special Adviser commenced during June 1978 flowing on from his role during 1977-78 as Chairman of the Silver Jubilee Commemorative Organisation.

That was another job given to the friend of the Country Party. Senator Chaney went on:

The arrangement was that Mr Miller would receive no salary for this position but that certain administrative facilities of the Silver Jubilee Commemorative Organisation would be retained for the purposes of assisting him and in anticipation of the creation of a Bicentennial Celebrations organisation.

I interpose to say that repeatedly when questions were asked we were told by the Minister at the table in the Estimates committees or in this Parliament that Mr Miller was serving in an honorary capacity. But when we look at the cost of that honorary capacity we wonder, and we realise how the Government was trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the general public. Senator Chaney went on to say:

The administrative facilities consisted of office accommodation and office facilities, official transport as required and a staff of two persons- an information officer and a steno-secretary.

No expenditure relating to Mr Miller’s new post is included in the 1977-78 period. Expenditure on facilities provided for Mr Miller brought to account during the period 1 July 1978 to 31 December 1 978-excluding the costs of facilities referred to in the October meeting of the Estimates Committee and associated with the July meeting of the Bureau of International Expositions in Paris -

Of course there was a great kerfuffle over that. I well recall my colleague Senator Cavanagh asking questions about the $2,000 a day expenses for Mr Miller when he stopped over in Paris- $2,000 a day for a man serving in an honorary capacity. The answer continued: . . total $45,400 made up as follows:

Senator Walsh:

– What is he doing now?

Senator McLAREN:

– My colleague Senator Walsh asks what he is doing now. I do not know what he is up to now, but I know he is in a lot of trouble with his company Computicket.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Selling bulls to Fraser.

Senator McLAREN:

– I think he might be buying bulls for Nareen and probably doing that in an honorary capacity too, in the hope that he will get another perk for the boys when the smoke dies and the dust settles after everyone has forgotten about all the other jobs that he has been given. Senator Chaney went on to say:

The Department of Administrative Services is meeting only the cost of the facilities which have been continued on. Within the context of the arrangements normal administrative processes, including certification where applicable, are applied by the Department in meeting these expenditures.

So there we have it. All those expenditures of $45,000 odd were incurred by a man who we were repeatedly told in this Parliament by Minister after Minister was serving in an honorary capacity. I would like to have a job serving in an honorary capacity in which I could expend $45,000 of the taxpayers’ money. What a lovely time I would have- the same as Mr Miller had on one of his jaunts to Paris.

On 27 February 1979 I put a further question on notice. I asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services:

  1. 1 ) What telephone accounts have been submitted by Mr Harry M. Miller to the Department of Administrative Services for payment in respect of the positions he has occupied or now occupies as: (a) Chairman of the Silver Jubilee Commemorative Oranisation; (b) special expositions representative; and (c) adviser to the Government on bi-centenary celebration arrangements.
  2. At what address is each telephone installed.
  3. Have all these telephone accounts been paid; if so, against which departmental votes has each of the accounts been charged.
  4. What proportion of each account was for overseas calls.

Senator Chaney replied:

The Minister for Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

1 ) and (2) Special dedicated telephone services were provided at:

Mr Miller’s residence, Centennial Park, NSW;

Mr Miller’s offices initially at Kings Gate and subsequently at Westfield Towers; and

Mr Miller’s residence, Manilla, NSW.

Telephone accounts submitted to the Department of Administrative Services by Mr Harry M. Miller in respect of the positions referred to are as follows:

For the period 28 February 1977 to 31 May 1978 as Chairman, Silver Jubilee Commemorative Organisation, $1 9,7 1 1.

For the period 1 June 1978 to 16 March 1979 as Special Adviser, Bureau of International Exhibitions and Special Adviser, Bicentenary Celebrations, $10,427.

All accounts received in respect of the periods mentioned above have been paid, being charged against departmental votes as follows:

  1. In respect of accounts relating to the period of the Silver Jubilee Commemorative Organisation a significant proportion of the total amount would relate to overseas calls but it is not possible to specify an exact proportion from the records available. In respect of Mr Miller’s tasks as Special Adviser the proportion would be less, but again the records do not enable the precise proportion to be established.

Most people will remember that at that time Mr Miller was the entrepreneur for the launching of a book written by that infamous GovernorGeneral, John Kerr, who had the temerity to sack a duly elected government. I put a series of questions on the Notice Paper trying to find out the cost of the phone calls that Harry M. Miller made to London regarding the launching of that book, and how much of the taxpayers’ money John Kerr spent, and whether he had a free telephone which was being charged to the Australian taxpayers, ringing from London to Australia. I have it on pretty good authority that that book was written over the telephone at a cost to the Australian taxpayers. I put a question on the Notice Paper on 22 February 1978. I asked:

Is the former Governor-General of Australia, John Kerr, provided with a free telephone service between his country of residence, England, and Australia; if so: (a) what was the cost to the Australian taxpayer of telephone calls made to Australia by John Kerr during the writing and compilation of his book Matters for Judgment: or (b) if these particular costs cannot be separated, what is the total cost of all telephone calls to Australia by John Kerr since he took up residence in England.

In reply, Senator Carrick said:

The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

It is not the practice to make public the telephone accounts of current or ex-holders of Vice Regal or parliamentary office, and I do not propose to institute such a practice.

There is a complete cover-up of how much taxpayers’ money has been spent, firstly, by Harry M. Miller- we cannot dissect what he spent in the launching of that book- and, secondly, by the ex-Governor-General in telephoning from London, or wherever he has hidden out in England, to Australia in writing that book. The taxpayers of Australia are entitled to know what this Government has paid to its two stooges. First, it used Kerr as a stooge to sack a duly elected government and, secondly, it used Harry M. Miller as its stooge on all of these government instrumentalities. I have cited chapter and verse the money that we have been able to ascertain was spent by the taxpayers of this country on behalf of Harry M. Miller and I am still trying to find out what money has been spent by Kerr. I will pursue that matter until I retire from the Senate.

There are many people who read Hansard and who have heard the broadcasts of questions asked in the Senate. Those people come to me and ask why I, as an elected representative of the people of South Australia, cannot ascertain from this Government the amount of money that is has had to pay to cover the costs of this gentleman. One cannot get that information. This is supposed to be a democratic Parliament. This House is supposed to be a house of review to oversee the expenditure of taxpayers’ money. How do honourable senators go about getting that information? We just cannot get it because this Government certainly will not reveal it. I hope that at the end of this year, when we have a Federal election, the Labor Government will be returned to office so that I will be able to seek that information. I will then be able to acquaint the people at large of just what sort of a pay-off this Government gave to the exGovernorGeneral for services rendered when he sacked a duly elected Labor Government.

Senator Messner:

– Who will be the Prime Minister?

Senator McLAREN:

-The Prime Minister will be Bill Hayden; there is no doubt about that. Honourable senators opposite may run all the airy-fairy schemes they wish. Of course, Senator Messner has now dragged up the question: Who will be Prime Minister? The Liberal-National Country Party coalition has had more leaders in recent years than the Labor Party has ever had. If we look to the days after Harold Holt was drowned, its leaders included Gorton, McMahon, Snedden, and now we have Fraser. Of course, we all know the history of how Fraser got the leadership. I reported that to the Parliament one night in the adjournment debate. I spoke of all the intrigue and manipulation that went on at Kooyong.

Senator Wriedt:

– Knives in people ‘s backs.

Senator McLAREN:

– Knives and daggers in people’s backs. I bet the Speaker of the other House twitches in his bed at night every time he thinks about how he was knifed between the shoulder blades. I advise Senator Messner- I realise I am getting away from the Bill- that at least the Labor Party elects a Cabinet, unlike the way in which the Party on the other side elects its Cabinet. Government members elect their leader, who picks out for his Cabinet all of the people who will give him the least resistance. The Labor Party conducts its affairs on a democratic system. Senator Messner may make all the interjections he likes. I will debate this matter with him in this chamber; I will debate it with him on the public hustings at any time he likes. Perhaps I will issue a challenge to him now: During the election campaign we could appear together on the stage in the Adelaide Town Hall and debate the issues of leadership in his party and in mine. I know who will win.

I want to refer again to Harry M. Miller. A person who was held in very high esteem in parliamentary circles and in the Public Service for a number of years, Mr Howard Beale, saw fit to write a comment in the Sydney Morning Herald of 16 April last year in respect of the diplomatic passport that Mr Sinclair and the members of his Cabinet issued to one Harry M. Miller. As far as Mr Howard M. Beale knows, this was the only time a diplomatic passport was issued to someone who had been appointed to a board by a government. I will not quote all of the article because my time is fast running out.

Senator Maunsell:

– Hear, hear!

Senator McLAREN:

– Yes, hear, hear! I know Government senators do not like to hear these things, but I keep them on file and at every opportunity I bring them out as a reminder. We rattle the skeletons in the cupboard and honourable senators opposite do not like to hear it. Mr Beale, in this article which was published in the Sydney Morning Herald of 16 April last year, said:

In my time in Government and as an Ambassador, ministers from State Governments sometimes asked for diplomatic passports, but they were refused; instead they were issued with ‘official ‘ passports which conferred no special privileges.

So we have Ministers of State governments asking for diplomatic passports and being refused, yet we find that one Harry M. Miller, because of his great standing with the National Country Party and with Mr Sinclair, gets a diplomatic passport. Mr Beale went on to say:

The point is that the issue of diplomatic passports to holders other than those in the narrow range I have indicated is looked upon with suspicion in respectable countries, and this casts a reflection upon the country of issue.

I could cite many instances when suspicion has been cast upon the Government, and I have cited one of them tonight. Great suspicion is cast upon the way in which it came into office in the first place when that coup took place at Yarralumla.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Confine your remarks to the Bills, Senator.

Senator McLAREN:

– I will, Mr President. It is all tied in with the person about whom I first spoke, with the unsavoury commencement of these bicentennial celebrations by the appointment by this Government of Harry M. Miller and, as I said, with his involvement with the exGovernorGeneral in the writing of a book. It is all tied in. That is the point that ought to be explained to the people of this country. They ought to be told how much the taxpayers of this country have had to pay for services rendered by these two gentlemen. I should not call them gentlemen- not one of them, anyway. That is the son of thing which we have to put up with under the present government. I hope, as I said a while ago, that after the next election the Labor Party is returned to the Treasury benches because of the many broken promises made by this Government, we will be able to unearth the actual cost to the taxpayer, firstly, of the appointment of Mr Harry M. Miller and, secondly, of the writing over the telephone of that book by his partner. I hope I live to see the day when all of those costs are revealed.

The Opposition supports the Bill. As I said earlier, I am pleased that there are now safeguards in the Bill which mean that nobody- even a Minister of this Parliament or people like Harry M. Miller- can rob the system of hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayers’ money. The safeguards are in this legislation, and that is why the Opposition supports it.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for National Development and Energy · LP

– I inform the Senate, much to its surprise, that it has been debating in recent hours a Bill called the Australian Bicentennial Authority Bill 1 980. 1 also explain a phenomenon to the Senate and to the people of Australia. Whenever the Senate is informed by the Opposition that it is bipartisan in its support of a Bill, one hears for hours on end the greatest divisiveness that has ever been. So, today, what honourable senators have had is a repetition of this phenomenon. The Australian Labor Party in both Houses has said that it supports this Bill, that it has no opposition at all to this Bill, that it is a bipartisan Bill. Yet honourable senators have heard speech after speech, saving in your presence, Mr President, firstly, which bore no relationship at all to the legislation, if I may say so with due deference, by using the techniques of a first reading to take all sorts of liberties and, secondly, which evaded the very essence of this Bill.

It must be made clear to the people of Australia that the Labor Party is going to support the second reading of this Bill. Secondly, here is something that I think the Australian community regards as utterly wholesome. An occasion -

Senator Georges:

– That makes it sound like Weetbix. Why do you use the term continually?

Senator CARRICK:

– Apart from Senator Georges, I think the Australian people believe that this Bill is wholesome. I believe that they want an Australian Bicentennial Authority and that they want and are very proud of the fact that they have a great Australian, Mr John Reid, as its Chairman. He is a highly experienced and great Australian. I think that is bipartisan. The fact is that both sides of the Parliament are represented on the Authority so that it is utterly bipartisan. My understanding is that nominees of each of the State governments are represented on the Authority so that it is bipartisan.

This and this subject alone is being debated. But the spleen of the Labor Party from old wounds arises whenever the opportunity occurs, particularly when the phenomenon of the broadcast of parliamentary proceedings on Wednesdays occurs. This debate takes this form under those circumstances. I simply draw the attention of the Parliament to the fact that the Bill simply gives authority to the body concerned. It does not set up the body. It gives it certain powers and protections none of which, I understand, are objected to at all. I commend the Bill in a truely bipartisan way to the Senate and to the people of Australia.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I am compelled to speak at the Committee stage because of the remarks of the Minister for National Development and Energy (Senator Carrick). It is quite obvious that he did not listen to my remarks when I said that I appreciated the contents of the Australian Bicentennial Authority Bill because there is now no avenue for anybody to exploit the taxpayers’ money. Senator Carrick should have heard me say that. If he reads my speech tomorrow, he will see where I complimented the Minister on the second reading speech as it referred to safeguards necessary so that any expenditure incurred under the provisions of this Bill has to be accounted to the Parliament. It is no good the Minister saying that I was not bipartisan because I said that I supported the Bill. I congratulated the Government for ensuring that the unsavoury commencement of the whole of the bicentennial celebrations was now to be put to an end and could not occur again.

In the debate on the second reading I asked the Minister a question- I will ask it again now in the Committee stage- about the appointment of two Federal parliamentarians for three years. I would like the Minister to tell me whether the appointment of the same two paraliamentarians for three years- that is, Senator Lewis and my colleague, Mr Barry Cohen, the honourable member for Robertson- continues after the next election or do we need to have further ballots in our parties, under the provisions of this Bill which are to run until 1988, to appoint two new members. I would appreciate it if the Minister could answer that question.

Senator DAVIDSON:
South Australia

– I consider for a moment clause 12 of the Australian Bicentennial Authority Bill which relates to the application of moneys of the Australian Bicentennial Authority. The Committee will know that clause 1 2 of the Bill states:

Moneys of the Authority shall be applied only- in payment or discharge of the costs, expenses and other obligations incurred by the Authority in the promotion of the objects of the Authority or the exercise of the powers of the Authority;

I refer quite definitely to the wording of this clause and take the opportunity of the debate in the Committee stage of the Bill to make one or two pleas to the Government in relation to the allocation of funds, expenses and other obligations of the Authority in the promotion of the objects of the Authority or the exercise of the powers of the Authority.

When the Minister for National Development and Energy, Senator Carrick, was speaking on 1 May last year in relation to the Authority, he not only referred to the importance of the events in Australia but also said that it will be for the Authority to recommend what he called the ‘concrete programs by which the commemoration will find expression. ‘ The Minister went on to say on that occasion that: the Authority will be seeking to involve all sections and members of the community individually and collectively.

Further in his speech he said:

Within these programs there will no doubt be a strong emphasis on history. This must under-pin any such commemoration.

These remarks are related quite closely to clause 12 of the Bill to which I have referred. I wish to take a few moments of the Committee’s time to refer to a couple of items which come very much under the references which the Minister made in his earlier speech and which are covered in the wording of clause 12 of the Bill. I raise the subject not only to invite the Authority’s interest in the matter but also to invite the interest of the Parliament and the Australian public as it relates to the bicentennial situation.

Firstly, I refer to a unique project which will be in need of support from the provisions made in clause 12. I wish to refer to a unique project being carried out by the Australian National University in Canberra in relation to the compilation of a dictionary. This project is designed to assist, promote and take part in the bicentennial occasions. It is described as an Australian national dictionary based on historical principles. The aim of the dictionary is to provide as complete as possible a record of distinctively Australian changes in the vocabulary of English in use between 1 788 and 1 988. I think it is important to point out that by the time the dictionary is published the English language will have been used in Australia for over 200 years. The compilation of an historical dictionary of what I would call Australian English may not seem to be the most important event in a bicentenary occasion. But it will acknowledge the continuing and changing relationship with the parent British English as well as those with other descendants of the British English language in Canada, India, New Zealand, South Africa and the United States of America.

The project has two phases: The collection of citations and the establishment of an archive which will be a continuing resource. One of these phases is already fairly well under way. Indeed, the archive consists of some 50,000 cards which record distinctively Australian word usage up to 1 860. By the end of this year, it is expected that sources to 1900 will have been taken account of and that by 1983 and onwards the citations will have been totally recorded from a number of contemporary sources. This project has the support of the Australian Academy of the Humanities and the Australian Research Grants Committee. At the beginning of last year the Grants Committee funded the appointment of a number of assistants to look at material available not only in the Mitchell Library but also in a number of other places. The ARGC has continued to fund the research. The project has made further application for the appointment of assistants from Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth and Brisbane during this forthcoming year. Further funds will be required by the project. Next year when the editorial staff will be required, the processing of the collected material will begin and additional funds will be required. I relate this- I draw the Minister’s attention to it- to the matter of clause 12 within this Bill concerning what the Bill describes as the promotion of the objects of the Authority.

The second matter I wish to raise concerns the National Library of Australia. Its project for the bicentennial year is related very much to clause 12 of the Bill. The Library has taken the initiative of establishing a program which will coincide with the bicentennial celebrations. It has proposed that it present a retrospective national bibliography to cover a number of years. It covered the years of the first half of this century because there is no authoritative standard listing of Australian publications for this period. The focus and bibliography of Australia provide a certain service but the period after 1950 is covered by the Library’s own publication, ‘Australian National Bibliography’. As honourable senators know, I am involved with the National Library and it is of the view that the publication of this particular volume would fulfil its obligation to provide an up-to-date adequate information service and a guide to resource materials to the Australian public.

I will make the claim that it would be a substantial contribution to scholarship and learning both nationally and internationally and totally related to the bicentennial situation and the Bicentennial Authority which is the subject of this Bill; because it is a matter which will require some funding it is therefore related to clause 12. The National Library has many priceless materials in its collection as far as Australian development is concerned and it feels that it has an obligation to share them. One way that this can be achieved is through the Library’s publication of rare material and previously unpublished material, including the pictorial and oral history and the film collections. Some of them may be published in facsimile editions, but much of it is unique. At the moment it is little known to the Australian public at large and I think that the Committee would agree that these materials ought to be directly available to the people of Australia and that the program to get them available in time for the bicentenary should be undertaken at an early date. Indeed it should be undertaken now. It will be looking for the kind of support that is referred to in clause 12.

The National Library of Australia has shown in the past that it has the ability to carry out such a program. There is a definite need for a special program not only for the matter to which I have referred but also for publications of the future. The National Library also has plans to take up again publications of historical records of Australia. These were initiated in the past and they are still in print and available. Furthermore, they are important and heavily relied upon as a primary source of Australian history used by students now; they are also put together for students in the future. Under clause 12 the publication of these new volumes would include material from new collections from State archives and from other libraries as well as overseas repositories.

The final proposal that the National Library of Australia has for its bicentenial publications is to publish records relating to the Federation of Australia. This is of particular historical significance. The papers relating to Federation, which we have in the National Library, would embrace the records of several inter-colonial conferences, Federal conventions and Federal leagues as well as Federal debates. I think it is important to point out that the bicentenary is only 12 years before the Centenary of Australian Federation. In this program of proposals to be undertaken by the National Library, $3. 5m is involved as its total amount. I will not go into the details of the break-up of the various components, but the National Library council has agreed that it will be seeking funding in relation to bicentenial publications and its bicentenary program and it will be seeking some funding from what it called in the resolution ‘outside agencies ‘.

Therefore, I hope that the Minister will respond to my inquiry to indicate that the Authority will look not only at the works of the National Library as far as the bicentenary is concerned but also at the program of the Australian National University. These are different from some of the programs that have been outlined during the second reading stage of this debate but I place emphasis on both of them. I relate them to clause 12 of the Bill because they are a facet of Australian life that will be very important as we move towards the bicentenary. They will be of use and value not only to the community at large and to students, but also, as at the time of the bicentenary in 1988, there will be considerable emphasis on our history, culture, literature and on the whole realm of communication between the peoples of our country. Therefore financial and other encouragement and support, as outlined in clause 12 of the Bill, not only will be appreciated but also will be necessary.

I speak to this clause and invite the Minister to give some indication whether the clause as it is set out within the Bill will involve the Authority in taking an initiative to speak with the two bodies I have mentioned. I quote the words of the Bill which reflect the speech which the Minister made last yean

  1. . in the promotion of the objects of the Authority or the exercise of the powers of the Authority . . .

I hope that the Minister and the Government will give practical support to the points which I have made.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– I suggest to the Minister at present in charge of the Australian Bicentennial Authority Bill 1980- the Minister for National Development and Energy (Senator Carrick)- that having attacked the Opposition on a matter of irrelevance, he should now direct some of those remarks to his own side because we have just heard a speech which used a device in order to have a second reading debate during the Committee stage. I suggest to the Minister that if he wants his legislation passed he ought not to provoke the Opposition into entering the Committee stage and participating in what would virtually be another second reading debate. Nor should he encourage us to take up the debate at the third reading stage. Shall I get to the point of the Bill? I have an amendment to move which relates to clause 6. 1 move:

Page 2, clause 6, at end of clause, add the following new sub-clause:

) Where the Minister gives a direction under this section, he shall, within 1 S sitting days after giving that direction, lay before each House of the Parliament a copy of the direction together with his reasons for giving the direction. ‘.

I will read clause 6 of the Bill for the benefit of those who do not have it before them. It reads as follows:

The Authority shall promote its objects and exercise its powers in accordance with such directions (if any) with respect to the policies to be followed by the Authority as may, from time to time, be given to the Board by the Minister in writing.

I have moved this amendment to make certain that the Parliament is aware of the directions which the Minister has given to the Authority. It is not an amendment which in any way diminishes the Bill. We believe the amendment enhances the Bill. It is a simple amendment and I expect that the Government will accept it. In anticipation I would say that the Government would find great difficulty in opposing such an amendment.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I second the amendment. In doing so I want to point out again to Senator Carrick that this amendment proves conclusively that we are concerned about the wilful and woeful waste of taxpayers’ money by the Government’s appointment of the first special adviser for the bicentenary celebrations. The Minister went off at a tangent and said that every opportunity is taken by the Opposition to open old wounds. I know that it hurts him to be reminded of his actions and those of some of his colleagues in 1975. 1 remind him again that we will never forget. My wounds will never heal while I remain a member of the Parliament. I know that those of many of my colleagues will never heal. When the opportunity presents itself to members of the Opposition to remind the public at large of the malpractices carried out by the Government when it was in Opposition and all the devices it used to throw the then Government out of office, it is no good the Minister who is in charge of the Bill thinking that by slamming us the matter will be swept under the carpet. I assure him that it will not be.

I have much pleasure in seconding the amendment moved by my colleague Senator Georges. As I said, it gives conclusive proof that we are concerned that the Authority in this legislation should be responsible to the Parliament so that we can have an oversight of any money expended or any directions given by the Minister to put the Bill into operation when it becomes law.

Senator KNIGHT:
Australian Capital Territory

– I refer briefly to clause 3 of the Bill. It dennes the Australian Bicentennial Authority and it defines the Companies Ordinance 1962 as the Australian Capital Territory Companies Ordinance. I raise a matter that gave rise to considerable concern amongst a number of people in the Australian Capital Territory. The concern arose first of all because of a Press statement by the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr John McLeay) on 19 February in which he referred to seven Commonwealth appointees to the Authority and seven appointees from the States and the Northern Territory. That statement included the following sentence:

Mr McLeay said it was envisaged that each of the State appointees to the Authority would become the Chairman of a relevant State or Northern Territory Committee yet to be established.

I draw attention to the fact that there was no reference in that sentence to any such committee for the Australian Capital Territory. The result was that the matter was raised with the Minister, the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and also with the Chairman of the Australian Bicentennial Authority, Mr John Reid, who met with the honourable member for Canberra, John Haslem, and me. We expressed our concern to him. He was good enough on 3 March to provide us with a provisional draft statement on the philosophy of the board of the Authority. I am not sure what has happened to that philosophy or whether it has been substantially amended. I suspect that it has not been. It included the following sentence:

It will be recalled that the Authority, although established by the Commonwealth Government, is the creature of the Commonwealth, the States and the Territories and is answerable to all of them.

I emphasise the final words ‘is answerable to all of them’. That would, of course, include the Australian Capital Territory. However, concern remained about the statement in the Minister’s Press release of 19 February. I therefore wrote on 4 March to the Prime Minister. In that letter I included this statement:

While there is an A.C.T. nominee amongst the Commonwealth nominees on the Authority -

Those are the seven appointees referred to in the Minister ‘s statement of 1 9 February- it is most inappropriate that any agency to oversee arrangements for our Bicentennial should lack a specific appointee for this Territory -

That is the Australian Capital Territory- the national capital, with a population of 220,000 Australians.

There have been discussions since then. I have subsequently been able to obtain a copy of the memorandum and articles of association of the Authority. In article 31 (3) the following statement appears:

The Commonwealth may appoint seven directors of whom one shall be appointed as a representative of the Australian Capital Territory.

Article 31 (4) refers to the governments of the States and the Northern Territory, each of whom may appoint a director. The importance of that statement in the memorandum and articles of association is that one director shall be appointed as a representative of the Australian Capital Territory. That had not been made sufficiently clear to me to understand before I was able to read the memorandum and articles of association. Although it was not made clear and not stated in any form of which I am aware in the Minister’s statement of 19 February, the Commonwealth under the memorandum and articles of association of the Authority has a clear obligation to appoint a specific representative for the Australian Capital Territory.

That assuages my concern to a significant degree but my problem is that the Minister’s statement of 19 February and the uncertainty that followed it reflect a problem that often occurs for the Australian Capital Territory. I have had reason to mention that problem in the Senate before, most recently with respect to the Australian Capital Territory’s non-representation on the Australian Tourist Commission. The Authority is defined in clause 3 of the Bill. Therefore, I raise this matter in the Committee stage. I note that it has now been made clear that a specific director is appointed to the Bicentennial Authority by the Commonwealth to represent the Australian Capital Territory. In addition, a committee chaired by that Australian Capital Territory representative will deal with Bicentenary matters relevant to the Australian Capital Territory. As I recall that matter was not referred to in the Minister’s statement of 19 February. He mentioned the chairmen of relevant State or Northern Territory committees which were to be established. He made no reference to the Australian Capital Territory. My understanding is that there will be such a committee. I would, of course, appreciate the confirmation of the Minister for National Development and Energy (Senator Carrick) of that. I hope he will also confirm that the national capital’s role will be fully, properly and consistently recognised by the Government and the Authority in the course of arrangements for the celebration of Australia ‘s Bicentenary.

I recognise that with parliamentary representatives on the Authority, Mr Cohen and Senator Lewis, part of the burden of ensuring that that occurs falls on my shoulders. I will be making representations to them to ensure that matters of interest to the Australian Capital Territory are kept well in mind by the Authority. I also express my gratitude to the Chairman of the Authority for his readiness to meet with Mr Haslem and me to discuss this matter. I hope that my remarks are accurate in suggesting that the representation of the Australian Capital Territory on the Authority has been properly arranged.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

– I rise briefly to support the amendment which was moved by my colleague Senator Georges. I had the opportunity of hearing some of the remarks of the Minister for National Development and Energy, Senator Carrick, in the course of the debate earlier. I found it extraordinary in the context of what he described as a bipartisan exercise that he should embark on his usual divisive tactics in this place. Of course, Senator Carrick could pick a fight in an empty house without any trouble, but that is not what this legislation is about.

I turn to the provisions of the amendment which has been moved. The Minister will recall that during the period when he was in Opposition- ( Quorum formed). I was drawing attention to the specific terms of the amendment moved by the Opposition. I remind the Minister that on many occasions during his period in Opposition similar amendments were moved to Government legislation for a very sound parliamentary purpose. The point of the amendment is that it is totally consistent with the provisions of the legislation in the sense that, as far as Senator Carrick can recognise the term, it does seek a bipartisan approach to this legislation and to provide a bipartisan composition of the company limited by guarantee which becomes the Authority under the provisions of this legislation.

Its purposes can be illustrated quite simply by taking hypothetical situations and considering what the Authority in fact will do. Although the Authority is constituted by representatives of both parties in the Senate and parties representing the respective States, the fact is that the day to day work of the Australian Bicentennial Authority will be done by the Chairman and the administrative staff. Directions communicated by the Minister in fact will be carried out by the administrative functionaries of the Authority.

It is very difficult to see any objection to the Opposition amendment in terms of the suggestion that this Parliament should be entitled, in a matter of such importance, as this appears to be, to have the benefit of knowing what directions the Minister is giving. One can take extreme hypothetical cases to illustrate that point. Supposing the Minister for Administrative Services is of a mind to see that the functioning of the Authority is directed in a certain way and that he has particular views about the nature of the bicentennial celebrations which may be quite abhorrent. I refer to the example of Old Sydney Town, which is often cited in these debates. That has been talked about for a long time in this Parliament, and was a result of initiatives which were considered important at one time. If a Minister is quite obsessed about initiatives of that kind, what is the objection to the Parliament being informed about the nature of the directions which he gives, having regard to the overall context of the legislation which is, in a sense, designed to present a bipartisan approach, a bipartisan Authority and so on?

In the Opposition’s view the amendment is important because of that point alone. It is also important as a matter of general principle that the Parliament should be informed about any directions given by a member to an authority established in this way. If there is any objection to the amendment in terms of principle, I will be pleased to hear about it. Accordingly, the Opposition proposes the amendment in the terms which my colleague Senator Georges indicated.

Senator MASON:
New South Wales

– I do not wish to delay the Committee. Purely as a matter of form I indicate the approval of the Australian Democrats for the amendment, very much for the reasons Senator

Button mentioned. We feel that in this case the widest possible scope should be given to the people who are doing the work. I think it would be as well if the Parliament were to know just what is going on in the way of directions from the Minister for Administrative Services, not because it has any lack of faith in the Minister’s discretion but rather because in a matter of such broad scope perhaps no one person can exercise judgment to the extent that might be desired. The Australian Democrats supports the amendment.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for National Development and Energy · LP

– In the Committee stage consideration of the Australian Bicentennial Authority Bill 1980 a number of points have been raised. Senator McLaren asked what were the terms of the Government and Opposition appointees. I am advised that the terms are three years or the total remaining period of service in the Parliament of the person, whichever is the shorter. In other words, it might be a continuous term of three years but the term obviously would expire if the person ceased to be a member of the Parliament.

I am advised that the matters raised by Senator Davidson are quite appropriately subjects for consideration by the Australian Bicentennial Authority itself. He should appreciate that the Authority will receive many suggestions. I am advised that any such suggestions should be made directly to the Authority. No doubt the Authority will have available to it the Hansard report of tonight’s debate but if the honourable senator feels that his ideas merit full consideration, he should communicate them directly to the Authority, as that is the process. Senator Knight raised a question regarding the Australian Capital Territory. My understanding is that there will be a committee for the Australian Capital Territory and the rights and privileges of the Territory will be fully recognised.

I come now to the final matter, that of the amendment. The Government will not support the amendment. The fact is that the Authority is representative of both sides of the Parliament, and there are also nominees of the State governments. So there will be continuing knowledge by members of both sides of the Parliament and members of State governments of all matters and directives which are being given. If there is any disagreement it will be a simple matter for any of those members to make public their disagreement. It was suggested that this amendment would help to control spending. I remind the Senate of the statement on the bicentenary which was made in both Houses. It reads:

The Authority’s accounts will be subject to audit by the Auditor-General. Any appropriation by the Parliament for the purpose of the Authority will be subject to the normal parliamentary scrutiny. The Authority will also be required to submit an annual report to the Parliament. The memorandum and articles of association of the Authority and, as appropriate, the companion legislation will give effect to the Government’s wishes in this regard.

There are ample opportunities for the Parliament to know what is going on, whether by way of Auditor-General’s report, annual report or by the simple process of the parliamentary representatives raising the matter. The Government believes that the amendment is unnecessary, and opposes it.

Amendment negatived.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Senator Carrick) read a third time.

page 2235

PIPELINE AUTHORITY AMENDMENT BILL 1979

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 13 May.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for National Development and Energy · LP

– I indicated at the time when consideration of this matter was postponed that the Government was proposing to move the amendments as circulated. I seek leave to move the amendments together.

Leave granted.

Senator CARRICK:

-I move:

  1. 1 ) Page 2, clause 3, lines 1 3 to 15, omit paragraphs ( f) and (g), substitute the following paragraphs: “(f) omitting from sub-section (1) the definition of ‘Secretary’ and substituting the following definition: “securities” includes stocks, debentures, debenture stocks, notes, bonds, promissory notes, bills of exchange and similar instruments or documents; ‘; and

    1. by omitting sub-section (2 ) and substituting the following sub-section: “(2) In this Act, a reference to dealing with securities shall be read as including a reference to-
    2. creating, executing, entering into, drawing, making, accepting, indorsing, issuing, discounting, selling, purchasing or reselling securities;
    3. creating, selling, purchasing or reselling rights or options in respect of securities; and
    4. entering into agreements or other arrangements relating to securities. “.
  1. The Minister for Finance may, on behalf of the Commonwealth, out of moneys appropriated by the Parliament for the purpose, lend moneys to the Authority on such terms and conditions as the Minister for Finance determines.

Borrowing otherwise than from Commonwealth 25a. (1) The Authority may, with the approval of the Treasurer but not otherwise, from time to time, borrow moneys (otherwise than from the Commonwealth) on such terms and conditions as the Treasurer approves.

  1. Approvals for the purposes of sub-section ( 1 ) may be in respect of particular borrowings or in respect of borrowings included within specified classes of borrowings.
  2. The Treasurer may, on behalf of the Commonwealth, guarantee the repayment by the Authority of amounts borrowed under this section and the payment of interest on amounts so borrowed.

Dealings with securities 25b. (1) The Authority may, with the approval of the Treasurer but not otherwise, deal with securities.

  1. Where the Authority borrows or otherwise raises moneys by dealing with securities, the Treasurer may determine that the repayment by the Authority of the amount borrowed or raised, and the payment by the Authority of interest (if any) on those amounts, are, by force of this subsection, guaranteed by the Commonwealth.
  2. The power of the Treasurer to make a determination for the purposes of sub-section (2) extends to the making of a determination in respect of-

    1. securities included in a specified class, or specified classes, of securities; and
    2. transactions included in a specified class, or specified classes, of transactions.

Authority may give security 25c. The Authority may give security over the whole or any part of its assets-

  1. for the repayment of moneys borrowed under section 25a and the payment of any moneys that the Authority is otherwise liable to pay in respect of those borrowings; and
  2. for the payment of any moneys that the Authority is liable to pay in respect of dealings with securities in accordance with section 25b, including, but without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the payment of interest (if any) on moneys borrowed or otherwise raised by the Authority.

Borrowings not otherwise permitted 25d. The Authority shall not borrow, or otherwise raise, moneys except in accordance with sections 25, 25a and 25b.’.”.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for National Development and Energy · LP

– I am forced to correct completely the statement made by Senator Walsh. Yesterday I made it clear that through no fault of the Government at all the amendments were not in the hands of honourable senators. As soon as I knew that, I moved to postpone consideration so that honourable senators could have the benefit of considering them. To use such extravaganzas that ‘even Senator Carrick is shamed into it’ is typical of the inaccuracy and the nonsense of the melodrama of Senator Walsh. The truth of the matter is this: These amendments were not in the hands of honourable senators through no fault of the Government at all. Indeed, that ought to be acknowledged, instead of the total inaccuracies and the total misrepresentations that flow from Senator Walsh ‘s mouth all the time. In fact it was by the voluntary courtesy of myself that there was a postponement of consideration of this matter and that is why the amendments are before us tonight. I simply put the record straight and commend the amendments.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– In view of the statement made by Senator Carrick I think there needs to be a further correction. He is trying to take the blame right away from the Government. I do not know whom he blames for the fact that the amendments did not come in until yesterday but what Senator Carrick needs to be reminded of is that this Bill had its second reading in this chamber on 22 May last year- almost 12 months agoand then yesterday we were told of a whole series of amendments to be moved to the Bill. Senator Carrick now gets up and castigates Senator Walsh for his remarks, saying that they are typical of him. Why could not these amendments have been drawn up earlier? The Government has had 12 months in which to do it.

The Minister is blaming some unnamed person for the delay in the presentation of the amendments as the reason it could not have the amendments before this Committee. I do not think it is good enough for a Minister of the Crown to come into this place and lay the blame on some poor individual when the Government has had 12 months in which to prepare the amendments. Whose fault was it? It was the fault of none other than the Minister himself. He may not have been the Minister at the time. Perhaps because he replaced Mr Newman he saw fit to make some alterations to Mr Newman’s Bill which was passed through the other House and then came into this place just 12 months ago. Now we have to go through this tirade of abuse here tonight of Senator Walsh saying the delay is the fault of the Government and the Minister saying that it is not the Government’s fault.

Perhaps, Mr Minister, you might like to inform the Committee just whose fault it is. Surely you can handle the business of this Parliament better. Only yesterday you advised the Senate in respect of the legislative program for the House and said that if we on this side co-operated we would get through the business. You had plenty of time to bring this Bill in with these amendments when we had nothing to do at the beginning of the Autumn session. We sat here day after day with no business at all. You had no business to put before the Parliament. That Bill could have been debated then and could have been out of the way. It is now 10.35 at night and we are considering in the Committee stage a Bill which came into this chamber on 22 may last year. I noticed when I looked at the Notice Paper yesterday that it passed through the House of Representatives on 1 2 May last year so it is longer than 1 2 months since this Bill was passed in the other House. But we have to put up with this type of treatment here tonight. It is not good enough.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for National Development and Energy · LP

– I am forced to make the point on the question that has arisen tonight of why the amendments were not available when the consideration resumed yesterday. I place no blame on anyone. I simply make it clear that the Government provided the amendments in their appropriate form for circulation. That was not done. It was not the Government’s fault that it was not done. The amendments not having been circulated, the Government moved for the postponement so that they could be considered. That, I think, is the course of reason. I commend the amendments.

Amendments agreed to.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Senator Carrick) read a third time.

page 2237

DIPLOMATIC PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 28 April, on motion by Senator Carrick:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– This is a very simple straightforward Bill which the Opposition is not opposing. It provides for the European Communities Commission which is being established in Australia to co-ordinate the activities of the European Economic Community in Australia. This Commission is, I believe, the eleventh of such commissions which have been formed in various countries. Essentially the Bill provides to the personnel of that Commission the privileges and immunities which apply under the 1 967 Act.

There is, I believe, no concern on the part of the Opposition as to the intention of the Bill and consequently we are not opposing it.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I thank the Opposition for its support of this measure and hope that it will now have a speedy passage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2238

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 27 March, on motion by Senator Chaney:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-The Opposition has a number of qualifications about this legislation. I propose to move an amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Bill. Before doing so I want to make some general observations about the Bill. The first thing I should say is that the Bill amends Part VIIIAA of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act which was added by an amendment in 1977- an amendment in which the Government had such confidence that it has not yet been proclaimed. The main changes to the 1977 amendment are made to deal with a number of matters regarding the accounting of registered organisations. I should like to indicate the general nature of those changes which are incorporated in the legislation. The first change is to require both organisations and branches of registered organisations to comply with the financial accounting provisions of the Act. This means that branches of organisations will be required to prepare and file separate financial accounts and audit reports in addition to the returns filed by the federal organisation.

The second main provision is that accounts are to be prepared and certified as soon as practicable after the end of each financial year. That is in a sense to be provided for by regulation. The Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr Street, in his second reading speech in the House of Representatives indicated that the regulations would require, in addition to an auditors’ certificate, the committee of management of the organisation itself or the branch to certify the accounts. The third important provision provides that information shall be given to members of the organisation or the Industrial Registrar. The fourth provision provides for the appointment of auditors who are required, not surprisingly, to be ‘competent persons’. The fifth main provision relates to investigations by the Industrial Relations Bureau in relation to any deficiencies in accounts and the need to investigate the finance or administration of organisations and so on. That is, in essence, what the provisions of the Bill are about. In a sense, the Opposition does not oppose those sorts of provisions because they are important in terms of accountability of organisations.

I want to make some very general and, I hope, relevant observations about these provisions. First of all, the amendment which I will move to the motion for the second reading of the Bill relates to the question of consultation with the trade union movement about these provisions which are being inserted in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act relating to the keeping of accounts. It is true that some of the Government’s amendments were taken to the National Labour Consultative Council but other amendments were not. There was very little opportunity, I am instructed, to arrive at a consensus based on a common commitment to the notion of accountability. The Government has in fact relied heavily on accounting firms rather than on consultation with the trade union movement in drawing up these provisions in the regulations. The objection of the trade union movement, which I think is important and has to be stated, is a rather heavily excessive technicality. I do not know whether this is correct, but I think it might well be correct when one looks at the requirements of the legislation. It is true that the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association- a large registered organisation of employees- has estimated that it would cost that organisation about $30,000 a year to implement these proposals. That is an onerous burden for any organisation to have to bear. In relative terms- a much smaller sum would be involved- it would be a very big burden for a small union to have to bear.

In this context I remind the Senate of this Government’s repeated opposition to union amalgamations and to the fact that in five years of Fraser Government, while there has been all the noise under the sun about industrial relations, nothing has been done about the crucial question of union amalgamations which has resulted in any constructive solution to the problem of an excessive number of unions in Australia about which every industrial relations commentator talks and to which the Government turns a deaf ear. It is a problem unique to this country. I think the number of unions in Australia is exceeded only by the number in India where any five people in that enormous population can form a trade union. That seems to me to be taking democracy to excess. We have a very large number of unions in Australia, taking into account the population. Many of those unions are small. This legislation is a costly imposition on the trade union movement. I think that is a fact which has to be borne in mind.

The Opposition supports the notion of accountability. It draws attention to the fact that union executives, committees of management and so on are already financially accountable under the various existing reporting provisions of the Act. The union executives are accountable also to their members through regular elections. In our view, the Government’s position on the general question of accountability is very inconsistent. Trade unions are to be made accountable by this legislation in a very detailed way. I wish to make a point which is probably beyond the understanding of Government senators. Unions are voluntary associations and the committees of management of trade unions by and large serve in a voluntary capacity. Committees of management of branches are required under this legislation to certify the accounts. This is an onerous burden to impose on laymen working in a voluntary capacity. I would be grateful if Senator Walters who is following me in this debate could inform me whether any other organisations have this sort of burden imposed on them by legislation. In my view this does not happen to other organisations. I think this Government pays no regard to the voluntary nature of trade unions and the voluntary nature of participation in the management of trade unions and the fact that it is not a professional or full time commitment by the majority of people concerned.

I say again that one cannot object to the notion of accountability. One has to look at it in the broad context and in the circumstances in which it will prevail in any particular situation. I make the point that this Government is singularly inconsistent about the notion of accountability across the board. For example, the National Companies and Securities Commission Bill does not require any committee to investigate accounting standards to ensure that companies’ accounts give a true and fair reflection of their positions. There is no requirement in the National Companies and Securities Commission Bill to that effect. The small shareholders in companies like Associated Securities Ltd and the Gollin group of companies know to their cost that there is no provision in the legislation for supervision of the accounting of companies like that.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Look at the misfortune that flowed from some of those things.

Senator BUTTON:

-I thank Senator Mulvihill for reminding me. That is certainly so. A very great hardship and misfortune flowed to thousands of small shareholders in companies like that as a result of the absence of any requirement of accountability in terms of the accounts of those companies. The Government has very double standard on this matter. Of course, a double standard applies to a number of other matters relating to trade unions. There is no accountability or requirement at all by members of this Parliament to disclose their pecuniary interests. This issue has been debated on and off in the Parliament for five years. The Government is very shy about providing for accountability in those circumstances or in legislation concerning companies. There is no provision for accountability as to the pecuniary interests of judges in this country, including chief justices. That is something which perhaps the Parliament ought to consider if it is concerned to lay down evenhanded and fair guidelines on the general question of accountability.

This legislation imposes on the branches of trade unions particular responsibilities concerning certification of accounts and so on. This Government has done nothing in five years to implement the legislation which was recommended by Mr Justice Sweeney following the case of Moore and Doyle. It has been said that it is very difficult for the Commonwealth to legislate because it must obtain the concurrence of the States. Little has been done about obtaining that concurrence. In this matter the Government has strengthened the notion of the federal structure of trade unions with national councils and State committees of management and imposed additional burdens on the State committees of management without doing anything about that crucial question which is extremely important in the context of a trade union’s capacity to function and the burdens of cost which are imposed on trade unions by the Government’s failure to do anything about the consequences of that decision.

Let me make one other point about these amendments. I have said that they were basically prepared on the advice of accountants. I cannot think of a group in this society which would know less about the affairs of trade unions than a collection of chartered accountants. But the amendments are, in our view, excessively technical. I refer to the costs of the amendments as estimated by some industrial organisations. I remind the Senate that the amendments are essentially based on the report of the Sweeney Royal Commission into Alleged Payments to the Maritime Unions. The findings of the Sweeney Royal Commission cannot please any Australian. One recognises that governments properly had to examine very closely and do something about this matter. But there were no terms of reference or directions for looking into the affairs of trade unions across the board. For example, is it fair and reasonable to impose exactly the same conditions on all trade unions in relation to accountability irrespective of the industries and activities in which they are involved? It is an important question which, one suspects the Government has not adverted to.

The other important point about the Sweeney Royal Commission was that in dealing with that particularly difficult situation which it had to deal with in the maritime unions, the Royal Commission recommended training of union officials in accounting requirements so that they would be able to fulfil obligations which might properly be imposed on them in terms of accountability because they had relevant knowledge of the subject matter of accounts. That proposal has not been implemented by the legislation. So, the Government is imposing a set of burdens on trade unions which is highly technical and difficult for voluntary organisations and their members to understand. In a sense these burdens have been imposed at the whim and on the advice of accountants. They are very onerous obligations which are costly to administer. The Government imposes these obligations on trade unions but is completely unprepared to impose similar obligations on companies or members of this Parliament, for example, in relation to questions of accountability. There we see the so-called ‘even-handed’ nature of the treatment of the Fraser Government of these issues.

There are many matters of great concern about this legislation. Of course the real nub of what I have to say goes to the question of consultation. As I have said, we are not opposing the legislation because we recognise the importance of accountability in democratic organisations which are catered for by legislation such as the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. If the Government is to impose in this uneven way obligations on particular organisations in the way it has with this organisation there should be much fuller consultation about all these provisions and there should be provisions which provide assistance for trade union officials to be able to meet the requirements of this legislation by accounting training. The requirements, as I have said, are quite onerous.

This is another example of double standard legislation- legislation which in a sense can be compared with cracking a nut with a steamroller. It has not clearly been thought out. I have very strong qualifications about the legislation. The main one is the absence of consultation. Consultation may have resolved some of these problems to which I have referred. As an amendment to the motion that the Bill be now read a second time, I move:

In moving that amendment I draw attention to the fact that the Government moved amendments in 1977 which were adopted but never proclaimed so, on the basis of precedent there is no reason why some time should not elapse on this occasion, in order that consultations may be held between appropriate bodies of the trade union movement to try to iron out some of the very obvious difficulties which we see in this legislation. I repeat that the Government is imposing very technical requirements on persons who serve in a voluntary capacity, in most cases in voluntary associations, and who are trying to do a difficult job in complex and difficult industrial situations. The effect of this sort of legislation could well be to make people who wish to serve in that capacity on behalf of their trade unions say: ‘This is getting all too complex for me. I am only a layman and I really cannot serve on the committee of management of the union if I have to comply with all this stuff as well as doing my normal job on behalf of the members of the organisation’. I draw that very real danger to the attention of the Senate in order that some consideration might be given by the Government to the spirit of the second reading amendment.

Senator WALTERS:
Tasmania

– I believe that the Government has designed the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill along very similar lines to the National Companies and Securities Commission Bill which requires companies to account and audit their financial affairs. Let us ensure that organisations registered with the Conciliation and Arbitration Act abide by very similar legislation. Despite what Senator Button has said tonight, the legislation is very similar.

Senator Cavanagh:

- Senator Button just said they do not.

Senator WALTERS:

-Yes, I realise the point he made. Senator Button said that the companies were not accountable in the same fashion as the organisations. He implied that the organisations were solely unions. That is not so. The organisations also include employer groups. I do not think Senator Button at any stage referred to those particular organisations. We live in a democratic country. 1 believe it is essential that any organisation that is registered in a Commonwealth Act abides by the principles of a democracy. I believe that this Bill provides for just that. It encourages members of an organisation to participate fully in the running of their organisation. It enables them to do that effectively by having the ability to scrutinise the financial accounts of that organisation.

Debate interrupted.

page 2241

ADJOURNMENT

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! It being 1 1 p.m., under sessional order I put the question:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the negative.

page 2241

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Senator WALTERS:
Tasmania

-The Bill is a result of the 1976 Royal Commission into Alleged Payments to Maritime Unions. Senator Button may not be aware of this, but this was the time when consultation could have first commenced with the Australian Council of Trade Unions. The opportunity was never taken up by the unions. The Commissioner pointed out that he had advised the ACTU that the question of accounting procedures would be considered by the Commission, and it was invited to make submissions. No submission was made by the ACTU. Indeed, His Honour was moved to record in detail the successive attempts made on his behalf to obtain the participation of the ACTU in the proceedings before him. Had the ACTU wished to express a view at that early stage, it could have availed itself of the opportunity, but it failed to do so. So even as early as that, during the proceedings of the Royal Commission, the ACTU could have taken a part but it did not avail itself of the repeated requests to do so and it chose not to enter into any consultative process.

I come back to what the Commissioner said and the reason for this legislation. This legislation is the result of the Sweeney report. In that report the Commissioner said that there was gross abuse of the powers of unions’. When referring to money procured by the maritime unions from, for instance Bulk Shipping Pty Ltd, supposedly for payment to union members for work lost to them because of a ship’s crew doing their work, the Commissioner said:

The facts are that the major part of that money was distributed to non-members.

I believe that at that time the members had no knowledge that money had been procured, far less any knowledge of what had happened to that money. This legislation tries to overcome that and to give members of unions and other organisations the ability to scrutinise the accounts of their organisations and have some knowledge of what is happening to their finances, and have an effective input into that organisation.

Amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Art are being made on the recommendations contained in the report. Organisations are required to supply accounts and copies of those accounts to their members, to prepare them for adoption at their meetings and also to file them with the Industrial Registrar. I believe that that is a particularly important part of the legislation. Previously there has been no requirement to provide details of accounts, and this Bill fulfils the need for such detail.

A tripartite working committee of the National Labour Consultative Council was set up to consider these matters. Senator Button has said tonight that there was not enough consultation. That working party met on five occasions between January 1978 and February 1980. A most exhaustive analysis was made of the legislative proposals, and the tripartite working party reported to the Consultative Council. The consultative council then advised the Government. I believe that there is complete agreement between the National Labour Consultative Council and the Government on this issue. Where Senator Button gets the idea that there was lack of consultation I have no idea. I believe that it is entirely wrong.

Some unions may have objected. I can understand that some small unions would find the new accounting procedure a costly process. They perhaps would not have members who know enough about accounting procedures to be able to present accounts in the manner in which they should be presented. Nevertheless we agree, and Senator Button agrees, that there must be an accountability to the members of unions. If it costs them money, that is the lesser of two evils. At least the members of associations will have a knowledge of the finances of their organisations. As I said, the Government believes that the ACTU, because it is represented on the National Labour Consultative Council, is in agreement with this legislation. The Council certainly is, and as such we would have believed that the Opposition was also quite happy with it.

As Senator Button said, these requirements apply to both branches and Federal bodies. This is a very important point. It enables members of organisations at all levels to scrutinise ccounts in which they are vitally interested. It is no use the branches being able to scrutinise the accounts of the Federal body if they are not interested in them but in their own branch finances. This legislation enables them to scrutinise accounts at the level of their particular interest.

It has been agreed that a minimum content of accounts should be prescribed by regulation. The accounts must give details of such things as expenditure on salaries, affiliation fees, fines and penalties, professional fees and expenses, property expenses, and assets and liabilities. In addition information is to be made available on request to members of organisations on such things as the source, purpose and amount of donations and grants received, gross salaries and other remuneration, loans over $1,000 and so on. (Quorum formed).

As I was saying, there are the two lists. I have just explained the difference between them. One is the list which is required to give the minimum contents of accounts and the other list is the more detailed one. Because the more detailed list could be a bit touchy- perhaps one of the members would not like to go to the executive of either the unions or the employer organisations and say, ‘Well, come on, tell me how much you earn’- it must be lodged with the Industrial Registrar. (Quorum formed). I was saying when I was so rudely interrupted by Senator Cavanagh that the second list of more detailed information is lodged with the Industrial Registrar so that, if one of the members has some reason to keep his name confidential or has some problem about seeking information, he may go to the Industrial Registrar, and the Industrial Registrar will then be able to give him that information in a confidential manner.

Another amendment, which again is in line with a similar section in the companies legislation, relates to the appointment, remuneration and dismissal of auditors. It gives organisations a choice of either appointing individuals or firms as auditors, and makes provision for them to be appointed on an on-going basis. Yet another amendment makes a change to the allowable investigation-this is what Senator Button was objecting to- of the Industrial Relations Bureau. Previously, the Bureau was required by the Industrial Registrar to investigate the whole of the finances of an organisation should even a small discrepancy or deficiency be found. That requirement has been altered, and the IRB is permitted to investigate only that particular area which is meant to come under scrutiny and which has not been properly put forward -

Senator Button:

– That is only for public servants, though, Senator. It has nothing to do with-

Senator WALTERS:

– It has been altered under this Bill, as I said. It is suggested, of course, that if on that investigation further evidence turns up and there is something further to investigate, the director of the Bureau may make further investigations. As I said, I believe the National Labour Consultative Council is in full agreement with that. It has stated its full agreement. The ACTU had every opportunity early in the piece to enter into consultation with the Commission, but it refused to do so. It was appealed to several times and it still did not take the opportunity to do so.

Senator Button has proposed an amendment to the effect that the Bill not be proceeded with until further consultations take place between the Government and the trade union movement. The Government does not support it. Consultation has taken place. As a matter of fact, I believe that we have here a perfect example of the way in which consultation, over an extensive period, has worked superbly. The Government has, in full agreement with the National Labour Consultative Council, put forward this Bill. Indeed, the Government accepted a recommendation from that Council’s sub-committee that, in view of the complexity of the legislation, explanatory material on its requirements and on those of the regulations should be prepared by the Department of Industrial Relations, again in consultation with the sub-committee, for distribution to all registered organisations. So there has been over this period, absolutely clear consultation. The Bill is a perfect example of the consultative process that should be entered into. The Government has made it possible for members to take an intelligent and active part in their organisations, and the information and powers of scrutiny that will now be available will encourage members to do so.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– My assignment is relatively easy. In supporting the amendment proposed by Senator Button, I must dispose of this mythical rank and file trade unionist who is seen as a kind of industrial Diogenes seeking the truth in relation to the finances of his union. I can do no better than ask the Senate to agree to the incorporation in Hansard of page 2 of the Miners Federation of Australia journal Common Cause of 26 February 1980, which contains the Federation’s balance sheet. For the edification of Senator Walters, under the heading ‘Investments: General’ reference is made to investments in water board loans and the New South Wales Permanent Building Society. Another group is found under the heading ‘Investments: Long Service Leave’. On the other side of the balance sheet is shown the amounts of money spent on Australian Council of Trade Unions affiliation, office expenses and so on. I ask that that page, which shows the Miners Federation’s finances for the last 12 months, be incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

THE FEDERATION’S FINANCES

Auditors Report:

The above Balance Sheet has been compiled from the books, records and information supplied by the Federation. Subject to some assets at book values, the above Balance Sheet, in my opinion, presents a correct view of the Financial position of the Federation at 3 1 December 1 979.

  1. J. MAXWELL, Chartered Accountant, Registered under the Public Accountant Registration Act, 1945, as amended.

Sydney, 26 February 1980.

Senator MULVIHILL:

-If the rank and file member is still searching for the truth he would find in the 19 March 1980 edition of Common Cause the detailed minutes of the central council meeting of 3 to 7 March 1980, showing the various donations that had been made and the decisions reached. They are all there. I am not asking for that document to be incorporated in Hansard but I believe that it demonstrates the rights of Miners Federation members. The whole process is of a refining nature. The next level is that of the lodge officials at the various pits. An equivalent procedure could be followed by members of the Australian Railways Union which, in my own State of New South Wales, has a network of sub-branches. Mr Rank and File, to whom Senator Walters is referring as searching for the truth, could pester his sub-branch secretary as to what action the State council of the union had taken on a certain matter, for instance whether a union organiser had been accident prone with a car. He could, by resolution, demand information but I suspect since representation on the council would occur on a zone basis- three councillors being drawn from some regions and one from others- that a councillor who wished to be re-elected would obtain all necessary information during the year, much less a balance sheet presented at the end of a financial year. What I have mentioned about the Miners Federation is equally true of the Australian Railways Union and its journal Railroad, the Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union of Australia, the Federated Ironworkers Association of Australia and a host of other organisations. The same format applies throughout. So this mythical idea that someone has to rush to the Industrial Registrar frankly does not hold water.

However, one does encounter the vexatious litigant, the person who causes considerable expense to a union by pursuing some frivolous point. One finds that in some cases the court rebukes him or he leaves the industry altogether. Of course it is a fact of life, whether a union is left, right or centre, that people on their way to industrial stardom from the workshop floor and seeking to get a reputation must pursue the truth and find out all the answers. I have given the Senate four or five instances of that happening in the modern trade union movement today.

Senator Button in a most eloquent speech referred to the discouragement of people seeking elevation in official union positions. He could have gone a lot further. Take the example of a union in the manufacturing sector, such as the Federated Rubber and Allied Workers Union of Australia. I have told this story before. It relates to such matters as the protracted hearing of a log of claims, meetings and people working three shifts. It is only lately that the State has belatedly provided certain interpreter services. A union of that size has been slaughtered in many ways by the tampering with, and the lack of, protection on tyres and the rubber industry generally. On the one hand the number of its members is diminishing. On the other hand, it has a high ethnic content and it has added costs arising from that factor. Even in compensation cases today it is accepted that if one has to document a case and there are language difficulties with witnesses, that involves additional costs in union operations.

I think Senator Walters referred to the Industrial Relations Bureau. I would be very surprised if Mr Linehan ‘s files do not contain copies of the union journals published throughout the year. Some of them may be published every two or three months or perhaps twice yearly and others are published every month. All that I have said tonight is contained in the February issue of this year of Common Cause. My comments are duplicated throughout that issue. Senator Walters made indirect reference to Mr Justice Sweeney and a particular maritime situation. She should remember that it is just like black.marketeering. If there is a snide employer or a contractor who wants to make a swindle deal with a group of employees or something like that the truth ultimately comes out. There is no question about that. I would say without hesitation that one would find that management committees are fairly vigilant. Even if they are not, there are enough people in the rank and file who are always fairly vigilant. I resent the person who stays at home in front of his television and will not give up one night a month to go along to see what is happening in relation to the questions that can be elicited at a branch meeting.

I simply end on the note on which I started. A perusal of virtually every trade union journal will show that all the information of major significance is already listed in a union’s balance sheet. If it is not listed there, most unions carry the minutes of their Central Council, as happens in the case of the Miners Federation, or the State Council as occurs with in the case of the Australian Railways Union. Largely through legislation enacted by Clyde Cameron in relation to delegates to national conventions, the requirement is that all delegates have to be elected by the rank and file members. To continue to be elected, those people must transmit to rank and file members the major decisions that are taken. People should have no illusions about this matter. Some of the decisions even in relation to grants and donations are not carried unanimously. The majority decision is accepted but invariably these people, whether they are called State councillors or management committee members, are always relaying to the rank and file members what motivated such decisions. If they did not they would not last long in their positions. The existing custom and practice in virtually 99.5 per cent of the unions are as I have suggested. The other unions- the 0.5 per centare living on the breadline. Those unions are denied amalgamation, a matter to which Senator Button referred.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I am pleased that the Opposition supports accountability in principle and the legislation to provide for accountability. However, it is disappointing that it should resile somewhat from that acceptance with the amendment which has been proposed and which the Government is not prepared to accept. The fact is that the original legislation was passed three years ago. Senator Button made some reference to the delay in bringing in this amending legislation. The reason for that delay was that under the original legislation regulations were required to be made. A tripartite committee of the National Labour Consultative Council was established to consider those regulations. During that committee’s consideration of those matters proposals for further amendments to the legislation were made.

As I understand it, this Bill substantially incorporates the amendments which that committee indicated to be necessary or desirable. I do not know what further responsibilities the Government should be required to take in this area. Senator Walters indicated in her speech the consultations that took place and the opportunities there were for consultation with the Government parties’ back bench committee in relation to the legislation. As I have said, there was good reason for the delay. The Government does not believe that there should be any further delay.

As far as compliance with this legislation is concerned, there will be a period of six months after the Act is brought into force to enable trade unionists and union officials to learn about it and to set in train the necessary procedures to give effect to it. I think that also is another considerable recognition of the problems which may arise, some of which have been referred to by Senator Button. It is conceded that there are such practical difficulties, but the Government believes the legislation is fair and will give trade unions the opportunity to comply with it. We believe they ought to be able to achieve that. I do not want to prolong this debate. I hope that the Bill will be supported by the Senate and that the Opposition’s amendment will be defeated.

Amendment negatived.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2246

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 22 April, on motion by Senator Chaney:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-This little piece of legislation arises from a series of industrial disputes in relation to oil refineries in New South Wales. As a result of discussions between the New South Wales Government and the Commonwealth Government there has been an attempt to resolve jurisdiction to deal with many of these problems, which may just be a way of sweeping them under the carpet. However, it is a mechanism which has been arrived at. The effect of this legislation is really to complement legislation which has been passed in the New South Wales Parliament and which will essentially give jurisdiction over disputes in relation to refineries and the employees referred to in the Bill to the New South Wales Industrial Commission in joint sitting with a member of the Federal Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in most circumstances. I suppose it is hoped that that will provide a more successful method of reconciling some of the problems which have occurred and which have arisen from the perennial problem of State industrial jurisdictions and the Federal industrial jurisdiction and employees belonging to different organisations in the technical sense and being subject to different awards.

The Opposition does not oppose the Bill. We wonder whether it is not just avoiding a problem rather than grappling with it. There has been a lot of talk at the national level of the need to consider the whole nature and question of industrial powers in this country. The Prime Minister (Mr

Malcolm Fraser) suggested nearly a year ago that the States should cede industrial powers to the Commonwealth so that we might have a unified industrial relations system. Some 34 years ago more than 50 per cent of the people in Australia voted in favour of the Commonwealth’s taking industrial power in relation to all matters so that there would be a uniform system of industrial relations. I think the Prime Minister very wisely suggested that should happen. The Premier of New South Wales is on record as suggesting as wisely, that that should happen. Because of some of the more troglodytic forces in our community it looks as if it is unlikely to happen. These sorts of compromises which this legislation represents will continue to be made.

The Opposition hopes that this legislation provides a pragmatic compromise to a particular problem and will assist in the resolution of disputes in the oil industry in New South Wales. In terms of the overall principles involved, I must express the concern which we have over this very piecemeal and ad hoc way of resolving a particular industrial situation. The Opposition, as I have indicated, does not oppose the Bill.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I thank the Opposition for the support of this measure. It is important. In many ways it is an experiment, as Senator Button has recognised, but it is very important that some efforts be made to resolve what have been intractable issues of this kind. We are hopeful that it will be successful. I am pleased that the Bill will have a speedy passage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

Senate adjourned at 11.35 p.m.

page 2247

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Appeals Against Decisions of the Department of Social Security (Question No. 2443)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 26 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) How many appeals against decisions of the Department of Social Security were lodged in each State and Territory in: (a) the last quarter of 1978; and (b) each quarter of 1979.
  2. How many of these appeals were: (a) conceded by the Department without reference to the Tribunals; and (b) referred to Tribunals.
  3. How many of the appeals referred to Tribunals were: (a) disallowed by the Tribunals; (b) recommended for approval by State Directors; and (c) withdrawn or allowed to lapse by appellants.
  4. How many of the appeals recommended by Tribunals were: (a) approved by State Directors; and (b) disallowed by State Directors and referred to the Director-General.
  5. How many of the appeals referred to the DirectorGeneral were: (a) fully allowed by the Director-General; (b) allowed in part; or (c) disallowed by the Director-General.
  6. How many appeals were upheld, as a percentage of the total number of appeals finalised.
  7. How many appeals were undetermined as at 31 December 1979.
  8. How many of the undetermined appeals were: (a) with the Department prior to referral to the Tribunal; ( b ) with the Tribunal; (c) awaiting decision by State Directors; (d) awaiting decision by the Director-General; and (e) awaiting decision more than 3 months after the appeal had been lodged.
  9. What is the average time between the lodgment and settlement of an appeal in each State.
Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) to (8) See tables ( 1 ) to (8) below.
  2. Statistics relating to the average time between date of lodgment and date of settlement of an appeal are not available.

However, statistics are collected of the average period of time between date of registration of the appeal by the Tribunals and date of recommendation made by the Tribunal. Comparable statistics for individual States are only available for December Quarter 1979 and are shown in table 9.

  1. See note below Table 5(b).
  1. Separate figures not available.
  2. Not collected.

Department of Administrative Services: Leased Premises at Murray Bridge (Question No. 2448)

Senator McLaren:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 27 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) How many premises does the Department of Administrative Services lease at Murray Bridge, South Australia.
  2. For what purpose is each leased and what is the expiry date of each lease.
  3. What provision has the Department made to accommodate the occupiers of each of the leased premises at Murray Bridge in the event of any of the current leases not being renewed.
  4. Is it the intention of the Department to construct a Commonwealth Office Block at Murray Bridge; if so:

    1. when will the building be constructed;
    2. where will the building be situated; and
    3. is the proposed site owned by the Commonwealth.
Senator Scott:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Four.
  2. Office accommodation for yourself, the Department of Social Security, the Australian Electoral Office and the Department of Employment and Youth Affairs. The first two leases expire on 30 June 1980, the third on 31 October 1981 and the last is held on a monthly tenancy.
  3. The Department is not aware of any refusal or potential refusal by existing lessors to continue existing leases.
  4. Yes:

    1. the timing of the construction is dependent upon the availability of a site and funds for construction;
    2. b ) no final decision on location has yet been made; and
    3. No.

Government Information Unit (Question No. 2475)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 28 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) What has been the total cost of the Government Information Unit in the period May 1 978-February 1 980.
  2. How many people are employed by the Unit.
  3. What positions do they hold, and what are the annual salaries and allowances paid to each.
Senator Scott:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) The total expenditure brought to account for the Government Information Unit in the period May 1 978- February 1 980 is $ 1 80,083.
  2. Four.

Ministerial Staff Allowance of $5,040 per annum, in addition to salary, is payable to occupants of these positions. Overtime is not payable.

Electoral: Informal Votes (Question No. 2493)

Senator Mason:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 4 March 1 980:

Has the Minister asked the Chief Australian Electoral Officer to research the reasons or motivation for voters casting informal votes; if not, would the Minister consider doing so.

Senator Scott:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

No. The Chief Australian Electoral Officer has advised, however, that a survey aimed to try to analyse the causes of informal voting at the 1977 elections was undertaken.

The survey was carried out as pan of the normal research activity of the Australian Electoral Office. It is an internal working document.

Purchases of Oil and Refined Products from Kuwait (Question No. 2513)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 6 March 1980:

  1. 1 ) Which of the oil companies operating in Australia purchase oil or refined products from Kuwait and what is the total quantity purchased.
  2. Has the Government had discussions with the Kuwaiti Government about the proposed cutback by 50 per cent of oil to the two companies Shell and BP; if so: (a) when did those discussions take place; and (b) what was the result.
  3. Will there be any re-arrangements of Australia’s imports from Kuwait due to the Kuwait decision.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Data relating to individual company operations is confidential. The quantity of crude oil and petroleum products imported from Kuwait in 1978-79 were: 1394 megalitres of crude oil and 89 1 megalitres of products.
  2. No.
  3. Yes. The Australian affiliates of each of the two companies referred to in the question had ample warning of the reduced supply from Kuwait and have made arrangements, either within their world-wide system or independently, to secure replacement supplies.

Bunker Fuel (Question No. 2514)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 6 March 1980:

  1. 1 ) At what ports in Australia are supplies of bunker fuel held and what is the quantity held at each port.
  2. What is the estimated rate of use of the stocks of bunkers.
  3. Who are the main suppliers of bunkers and who owns the storages at each port in which the bunkers are held.
  4. Does the Department of Defence draw upon commercial bunkers for any of its supplies.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Bunker fuels are available on order at about eighty ports throughout Australia but stocks of distillate fuels are only actually held at about forty and heavy bunker fuels at about twenty of this total. Stockholdings of crude oil and petroleum products are confidential.
  2. The rate of usage of stocks is dependent on additions to and withdrawals from stocks and these movements may vary widely from time to time depending on stock replenishment schedules and demand. Information on supply of bunker fuels to the Australian market, from which average monthly consumption rates may be calculated, is included in Consumption of Petroleum Products Based on Oil Industry

Sales by State Marketing Area- Calendar Vear 1979’ released by the National Energy Office, Department of National Development and Energy.

  1. All oil companies supply bunker fuels in Australia. Individual company sales data are confidential. Bunkering facilities are owned by different companies at different ports and companies without facilities at a given port can usually be supplied by companies with facilities at that port.
  2. Yes. The Department of Defence maintains period contracts with oil companies at those ports where it does not have its own installations. Drawing of bunkers at these ports provides only a minor part of the total defence requirements.

Air Traffic Agreement between Malta and Australia (Question No. 2549)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 6 March 1 980:

  1. 1 ) Has any approach been made by the Government of Malta to the Australian Government for an air traffic agreement to be entered into on a Government to Government basis; if so, what was the date of the first approach.
  2. Are any negotiations proceeding to effect an agreement between the two Governments.
  3. What is the estimated annual passenger movement rate between the two countries.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes; 5 March 1980. Australia’s approach to the establishment of direct air services with another country was explained to the Maltese Government, namely that there should be sufficient traffic available to support commercially viable operations on the route by the designated carriers of both countries.
  2. No.
  3. Approximately 10,000 passengers per annum.

Supporting Parents Benefit (Question No. 2556)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 1 8 March 1980:

  1. What is the average period for which Supporting Parents Benefit is paid to: (a) male; and (b) female beneficiaries.
  2. How many persons, male and female, currently on Supporting Parents Benefits, have received benefits for (a) less than 3 months; (b) 3 to 6 months; (c) 6 to 12 months; (d) 1 to 2 years; (e) 2 to 3 years; and (0 over 3 years.
  3. What proportion of: (a) male; and (b) female, persons on Supporting Persons Benefit claim additional allowances for children born or taken into care by them after benefit was first granted.
  4. Since the introduction of Supporting Parents Benefit for each year: (a) how many benefits have been granted; (b) how many have been terminated; and (c) what was the major reason for termination.
Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. The average period for which supporting parent’s benefit is paid to males is not available. For females whose benefit was cancelled between July 1979 and December 1979 the average period on benefit was 2.2 years. Supporting mothers transferred to Class ‘A’ widows pension or other pension or benefit during the year were excluded from the calculations. A table showing the percentage distribution of supporting parent beneficiaries (females) by duration of benefit category, for benefits cancelled between July 1979 and December 1979 is shown below:
  1. and (3) Not available.
  2. (a) and (b) The information sought is contained in the following table:
  1. (c) The major reason for termination each year was marriage.

Tasmanian By-election in Denison (Question No. 2571)

Senator Mason:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 1 8 March 1 980:

  1. 1 ) How much time was made available to broadcast election speeches or political advertisements in respect of each political party on each Tasmanian radio broadcasting station in connection with the Tasmanian State by-election in Denison on 16 February 1980.
  2. What was the percentage distribution of time purchased by parties and candidates on all such commercial broadcasting and television stations.
  3. What were the costs charged for this time and what was the percentage distribution, by parties and candidates, of these costs.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1) to (3) Information in relation to the State by-election in Denison, Tasmania, held on 16 February 1980 was not required to be supplied to the Tribunal and, therefore, is not available.

Sydney Hilton Hotel Bombing: Personal Injury (Question No. 2572)

Senator Mason:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 19 March 1980:

  1. 1 ) What is the total amount the Federal Government has paid in compensation to individuals as a result of persona] injuries sustained in the Sydney Hilton Hotel bombing.
  2. What is the total amount the Federal Government has paid in compensation to individuals as a result of property damage sustained in the same incident.
  3. In respect of the compensation payments for property damage: (a) who were the recipients of such payments, (b) what were the amounts they received, and (c) what were the reasons for the payments.
Senator Scott:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Nil, the honourable senator’s attention is also drawn to answers to questions on notice Nos 1046 (Senate, 28 May 1979, page 221 1) and 82 (Senate, 4 April 1978, page 805) and a reply by the Prime Minister to a question without notice (House of Representatives, 16 March 1978, page 897).
  2. $6636.68.
  3. A taxi cab proprietor was paid $6357.00 for the loss of his taxi cab, and associated expenditure, which resulted from the bomb explosion. Amounts of $182.68 and $97.00 were paid to two owners of private cars, which were damaged by the explosion. These losses were not recoverable under insurance policies.

The above figures do not include amounts paid to businesses and individuals for expenses and losses of profits and earnings which resulted from the bomb explosion and the special security measures which were introduced as a consequence. These payments totalled some $209,000.

Estimate of Crude Oil Production (Question No. 2592)

Senator Gietzelt:

asked the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 25 March 1980:

What are the estimates of future production of crude oil from oil fields now classified as ‘old’, for each of the next fifteen years.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

My Department’s projections of future production of crude oil from oil fields now classified as ‘old’ is based in large measure on data provided confidentially and revised from time totime in the light of known developments. In the circumstances, release of these longer term projections is inappropriate. The projection of ‘old’ oil production in 1980-81 is 22,500 megalitres. However, the National Energy Advisory Committee’s report No. 9 dated December 1979 provided crude oil production projections at five yearly intervals. These projections, adjusted for projected new oil production, are as follows: 1985-21,000 megalitres 1990-14,000 megalitres 1995- 8,000 megalitres

All-weather airstrips at Coober Pedy and Marree (Question No. 2595)

Senator McLaren:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 20 March 1980:

  1. 1 ) Did the Minister for Transport, the Hon. P. J. Nixon, MP, when making statements indicating that grants would be available to the South Australian Outback Development Trust under the Local Ownership Scheme for the development of all-weather airstrips at Coober Pedy and Marree, South Australia. If so, when is it anticipated that finance will be made available by the Federal Government to enable the work to be carried out.
  2. ) Will urgent consideration be given to this matter to enable the work to be completed before the winter of 1 980.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The previous Minister for Transport, the Hon. P. J. Nixon, MP, did indicate that grants were to be made available for the development of all-weather airstrips at Coober Pedy and Marree through Aerodrome Local Ownership Plan (ALOP) development grants to the South Australian Outback Development Trust. The statement was made with the proviso that the approval of funds is subject to my Department’s administrative requirements being met, as the SAODT does not meet the usual requirements as a local authority eligible to receive grants. The ALOP is administered jointly by the Minister for Transport and Finance and negotiations for the acceptance of the SAODT as a local authority are currently taking place between their Departments and aerodrome development works must await the outcome of these negotiations.

Funds have been set aside in the 1 979/80 financial year for aerodrome works at Coober Pedy. Whilst every effort is being made for the earliest completion of work it is extremely unlikely that any works will be completed this financial year. However, it is proposed that works will be undertaken early in the 1980/81 financial year.

Works at Marree will not proceed in the 1980/81 financial year. In agreement with the SAODT, the Department of Transport considers Marree to be of lower priority than Coober Pedy. Works at Marree are therefore proposed to be deferred by at least twelve months.

  1. As indicated above, urgent consideration is being given to the matter. Works will be carried out to the timing also given above, certainly they will not be completed as soon as before winter this year.

Defence Force Helicopter: Assistance for Queensland Police (Question No. 2604)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 26 March 1980:

Did a Defence Force helicopter assist Queensland Police in an attempt to apprehend two men who were alleged to have committed a number of offences in the Rubyvale area of Queensland in March 1980; if so: (a) who requested the assistance of the Defence Force helicopter and crew: (b) what reasons were advanced for the need for assistance; (c) to whom was the request made: (d) who authorised the use of the helicopter and crew for the purpose: (e) on what dates did the helicopter and crew assist the police; (f) how many hours of flying were involved: (g) what was the cost to the Defence Force; and (h) was the Queensland Government, or any of its Departments, billed for the assistance provided.

Senator Durack:
LP

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

Yes.

A delegate of the Queensland Commissioner of Police.

The aircraft was requested to provide transport, surveillance and possible medical evacuation support to a party of Queensland police. The requesting authority indicated that this support was not then available from civil sources.

The Chairman of the Joint Services Local Planning Committee, South Queensland, in Brisbane.

The Chief of Joint Operations on behalf of the Chief of Defence Force Staff.

20 March to 23 March 1980.

20.9 hours. This involved 8 hours of transit from Amberley to Emerald and return.

Financial costs which would not otherwise have been incurred totalled $5, 106.70. The full costs of providing and operating the aircraft is assessed at $24,869.40; this includes salaries and other fixed charges.

No.

Great Barrier Reef : Oil Drilling Permits (Question No. 2624)

Senator Mason:

asked the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 27 March 1980:

Have any permits been sought for exploratory oil drilling in the Great Barrier Reef since 22 February 1979; if so, by whom, and when.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

The Queensland Department of Mines has advised that it has no record of any applications for petroleum exploration permits or exploratory oil drilling in the Great Barrier Reef region since 22 February 1979.

Low-level Helicopter Movements, Sydney (Question No. 2636)

Senator Puplick:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 31 March 1980:

Who operated, and what were the reasons for a series of low-level helicopter movements over the Roseville, Lindfield and Killara areas of Sydney between approximately 9.05 and 9.25 p.m. on Saturday, 22 March 1 980.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

The Sydney locations to which the honourable senator refers are contained within airspace where all aircraft movements are authorised by radio by Sydney Air Traffic Control. The only helicopter movements to take place in the Sydney Control Zone on the evening of 22 March 1980 were those conducted by the police helicopter which carried out a routine patrol over Sydney including North Sydney. The helicopter departed Sydney Airport at 8.42 p.m. Specific points to which the helicopter was directed were Manly Dam at 9.25 p.m. where it arrived at 9.26 p.m. and Wakehurst Park at 9.35 p.m. where it arrived at 9.36 p.m. The helicopter landed at Sydney Airport at 10.40 p.m. A check with the Police Department has confirmed that at no time during its patrol was the helicopter flown below 2,000 feet.

Rundle Oil Shale Project (Question No. 2657)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science and the Environment, upon notice, on 1 5 April 1 980:

Have representations been made to the Minister to direct an inquiry under the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 into the projected Rundle oil shale development; if so, what representations have been received and what decision has been made on these representations.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

Yes, representations have been made to me requesting that I direct an inquiry under the Environment Protection ( Impact of Proposals) Act 1 974 into the proposed Rundle oil shale development.

I have received four representations on this matter.

In relation to the Rundle oil shale development proposal I have directed the preparation and submission of an environmental impact statement under the terms of the Environment Protection Administrative Procedures. I consider that the preparation and public review of this impact statement will enable the identification of environmental issues arising from this project. Following the public review, I will consider the need for any additional information on the proposal and the manner in which such information should be sought.

De facto relationships (Question No. 2688)

Senator Chipp:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 17 April 1980:

Is there an inconsistency in the treatment of de facto relationships in that a man supporting a dependant de facto wife is eligible for pensions and benefits at the married rate, but is taxed as a single person; if so, will the Minister take action to remove any such inconsistency.

Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Eligibility for social security pensions and benefits and entitlement to income tax dependant rebates are distinct and separate matters controlled by separate policies and statutory provisions. The relevant provisions of the income tax law- the underlying policy of which has remained constant since 1936- apply to all de facto relationships, not only to those where the parties are in receipt of social security benefits.

Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport: Aircraft Movements (Question No. 2695)

KEEFFE, James:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 2 1 April 1 980:

  1. 1 ) How many: (a) unscheduled general aviation aircraft movements; (b) scheduled general aviation aircraft movements (i.e. commuter, etc.); and (c) airline movements, did Sydney’s Kingsford-Smith Airport handle during 1976, 1977, 1978 and 1979.
  2. How many of these movements involved flights to and from Bankstown Airport.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) For 1976 there were 27,994 unscheduled general aviation aircraft movements, 21,210 commuter aircraft movements and 103,771 airline movements at Sydney’s Kingsford-Smith Airport.

For 1977 there were 30,92 1 unscheduled general aviation, 23,842 commuter and 103,933 airline movements.

For 1978 there were 31,674 unscheduled general aviation, 28,334 commuter and 108,084 airline movements.

For 1979 there were 35,689 unscheduled general aviation, 3 1 ,630 commuter and 107,350 airline movements.

  1. It is not possible to provide an answer to the second part of the honourable senator’s question as no records are kept beyond 30 days of the origin and destination of individual aircraft. However, a study of recent aircraft movements at Kingsford-Smith Airport indicates that approximately 1 4 per cent of the unscheduled general aviation aircraft movements and approximately 0.6 per cent of commuter aircraft movements involve flights to or from Bankstown Airport. No airline aircraft operate between Kingsford-Smith and Bankstown Airport.

Search and Rescue Facilities (Question No. 2696)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 2 1 April 1980:

  1. 1 ) What type of search and rescue facilities (i.e. boats or aircraft) are available should an aircraft crash into the sea in the vicinity of each of the following locations: (a) Cairns; (b) Townsville; (c) Brisbane; (d) Sydney; (e) Melbourne; (f) Adelaide; (g) Perth; (h) Darwin; (i) Launceston; and (j) Hobart airports; and (k) Bass Strait.
  2. Under whose jurisdiction are the vessels and what is their availability.
  3. Who would crew the vessels in an emergency and are these vessels regularly tested for serviceability.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Overall co-ordination of search and rescue action in respect of civil aircraft rests with Rescue Co-ordination Centres (RCCs) established at major aerodromes which are responsible for a defined Search and Rescue Region (SRR)

In the event of an aircraft crash into the sea in the vicinity of an aerodrome the established Aerodrome Emergency Procedures (AEPs) or Search and Rescue (SAR) plan would be activated as appropriate, depending upon the distance of the crash scene from the airport.

With the exception of Sydney and Hobart Airports, which meet the ICAO requirement for dedicated SAR facilities, all other locations are serviced by locally available aircraft and marine craft alerted under standing arrangements coordinated by the RCC and directed by State Police authorities.

The motor launch Triton, supported by smaller launches, is maintained in the aircraft approach area over Botany Bay, Mascot.

At Hobart arrangements exist for a helicopter and fixed wing aircraft to be immediately available to deliver life rafts to survivors in the sea.

Stocks of droppable life rafts and marine stores are maintained for use at all other locations mentioned.

Normally, the nearest suitable aircraft in the vicinity would be diverted to the scene to observe and report while arrangements for air drop and rescue by marine craft are being made.

For example, at Townsville, the RAAF rescue launch is the primary surface vessel supported by craft nominated by State Police and Harbour Authorities. In Adelaide, Police, ably supported by the volunteer Sea Rescue Squadron, provide a well trained and dedicated service.

Similar plans are activated at all other seaboard locations.

  1. Under the overall co-ordination of the RCC vessels operating in in-shore waters are under the direction of State Police Authorities. Availability is based upon an immediate response by vessels meeting established criteria as to speed, range, navigation capability and seaworthiness.

Off-shore search plans are co-ordinated through the Australian Coastal Surveillance Centre (ACSC) in Canberra - off shore is defined as being beyond the capability of local resources.

  1. Vessels nominated in emergency plans for various locations are owned and operated by state or private rescue organisations and maintained by especially trained crews.

Animal Health (Question No. 2715)

Senator Neal:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 23 April 1980:

  1. 1 ) In what ways did the experience of the recent incidents involving bluetongue and the Tasmanian pig industry benefit the Department of Primary Industry.
  2. What monitoring of the animal health of Australia ‘s flocks and herds is currently being undertaken.
  3. What is the current state of preparedness of Australia’s investigatory field force and how many officers are available for use in the field at minimal notice.
  4. Is the Minister satisfied that adequate measures are being taken, both in Australia and overseas to keep exotic disease out of Australia.
  5. Is it possible to have the diagnostic section of the new Australian National Animal Health Laboratory facility working earlier than the anticipated date for the opening of the whole laboratory complex.
Senator Scott:
NCP/NP

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

  1. When a bluetongue vims was detected in Northern Australia many of our export markets reacted as though we had bluetongue disease- which in fact we have never had. Some of the restrictions placed on our exports were not logical on technical grounds and were lifted after representations from Australia. The overall effect on trade was more severe than we had envisaged.

Through the international animal health agencies such as FAO and OIE (Office of International Epizootics) Australia is attempting to modify international disease reporting procedures and has received considerable support from some of the major agricultural nations. The process of obtaining a meaningful change in this system is likely to be slow.

The Tasmanian pig experience demonstrated that even a minor incident has the potential to produce widespread effects in market countries but it provided a realistic opportunity to review and improve eradication plans.

  1. All State Departments of Agriculture have well equipped highly trained field staff who investigate any disease incident which has the potential to be something other than a regular animal health problem in each district.

In the more extensive areas monitoring is by necessity less intense but the spread of disease in these areas is also less likely to occur because of low stock densities.

Most livestock going to slaughter are inspected before and after slaughter and generally large movements of livestock are inspected at some stage before and during the journey.

Specific monitoring procedures have been established for some of the diseases considered most likely to get into Australia eg screw worm fly. These involve the placement of sentinel herds or flocks which are kept under constant surveillance to detect the appearance of any abnormality.

  1. State veterinarians receive continuing in-service training in diagnostic techniques and control procedures for the more important exotic diseases. Selected veterinarians are sent for special training overseas each year and others are sent to assist, and to gain experience, whenever a major exotic disease emergency occurs in overseas countries agriculturally akin to Australia.

Model plans for each of the major exotic diseases have been prepared and a manual of exotic disease diagnosis has been made available to all veterinarians. Each State has prepared operational procedure manuals based on the model plans and has undertaken to ‘test out’ procedures through field exercises simulating an exotic disease emergency.

The investigating field forces are backed up by 19 diagnostic laboratories throughout the Commonwealth. Contingency field plans and procedures will enable the preparation and transport of samples from suspect exotic diseases to any one of the overseas World Reference Laboratories which have available backup diagnosis and special typing procedures; these laboratories are sited in regions where considerable experience has been gained with the particular disease.

A large percentage of State Government veterinarians and their support staff could be diverted to an emergency centre at relatively short notice.

Additional technical support would be available from private and Commonwealth veterinarians in the State and from other States not involved but this would take longer to arrange.

State Department of Agriculture staff, other than animal health specialists, are trained to give logistic and administrative support and as an emergency escalates State Emergency Services would be involved according to plans already developed for providing such support services.

In the event of a State ‘s resources being exhausted, (or not readily available), in the face of an escalating exotic animal disease emergency Commonwealth resources to assist, would be co-ordinated by the Natural Disasters Organisation.

  1. Australia’s quarantine precautions are the most stringent in the world- they are our first line of defence against exotic animal diseases. Nevertheless, they are under constant review. The recent Report of the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources on ‘The Adequacy of Quarantine ‘ is the latest important review and contains many Recommendations to ensure the adequacy of quarantine. The Government is taking full account of these Recommendations as part of its commitment to keep out exotic diseases.
  2. The construction of ANAHL has already been brought forward on two separate occasions. The complexity of the building is such that the completion date cannot be further advanced by making additional finance available.

The diagnostic section will come on stream as soon as the security of support areas is assured. The laboratory is designed to act as a self-contained entity capable of investigating the more serious exotic diseases. There can be no relaxation of the high security status.

Rundle Oil Shale Project (Question No. 2725)

Senator Mason:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science and the Environment, upon notice, on 23 April 1 980:

  1. 1 ) What Government environmental inquiries have been conducted in relation to the Rundle Oil Shale project.
  2. 2 ) What have been the results of these inquiries.
  3. Will the Government extend these inquiries to include a full public inquiry under the provisions of section 1 1 of the Environmental Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act, 1974; if not, why not.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. None.
  2. None, see ( 1 ) above.
  3. I have directed the preparation and submission of an environmental impact statement under the terms of the Environmental Protection Administrative Procedures. I consider that the preparation and public review of this impact statement will enable the identification of environmental issues arising from this project. Following the public review, I will consider the need for any additional information on the proposal and the manner in which such information should be sought.

Plant Breeders’ Rights Legislation (Question No. 2741)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 28 April 1980:

Has the Minister for Primary Industry shown draft copies of the proposed Plant Breeders ‘ rights legislation to:

members of the Parliamentary National Country Party;

members of the Parliamentary Liberal Party;

other members of the Parliament; or

individuals and organisations outside the Parliament; if not, can the Minister explain why the Member for Eden-Monaro during a speech on the subject in the House of Representatives on 25 March 1980 interjected: ‘Haven’t you read the draft legislation?’; and if so, why has he refused to show the legislation to members of the Opposition.

Senator Scott:
NCP/NP

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

I have not provided copies of the draft legislation to introduce a Plant Variety Rights Scheme in Australia to any individual or to any of the organisations mentioned by Senator Walsh.

In May 1979 my predecessor authorised a meeting of Commonwealth and State Government representatives, and the three major industry organisations concerned with plant breeding, i.e. the Australian Nurserymen’s Association, the Australian Seed Producers Federation and the Australian Seed Industry Association, to discuss the proposed legislation. Prior to this meeting an early working paper which outlined the proposed form and content of the Bill was circulated for comment.

Valuable comments and suggestions to improve the efficiency and administration of the scheme arose out of this meeting and many, if not all, will be included in future drafts.

I would emphasise that drafting is still incomplete and no final draft is available.

Drug Labelling

Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

– On 5 March 1980 (Hansard, pages 548-9) Senator Messner asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Health, a question without notice concerning a colour coded labelling system for drugs which could react adversely when taken with alcohol. The Minister for Health has provided the following information:

The National Therapeutic Goods Committee makes recommendations to the Commonwealth and the States on controls on therapeutic goods, including the labelling of drugs. This Committee has considered various proposals relating to the labelling of drugs including colour coding and has rejected them.

However, at my request, the Committee recently reconsidered the feasibility and practicability of introducing a colour coded labelling system for those drugs which could react with alcohol, as advocated by the Australian Automobile Association ( A.A.A.)

The Committee has again rejected the proposal, basically because it considers that it is imperative that people rely on the written content of labels and not on symbols such as colours. I understand that A.A.A. has itself considerably modified its original proposal and has set up a working party to examine the matter further.

The honourable senator may be interested to know that there is in operation a voluntary labelling scheme whereby pharmacists apply a warning label to dispensed drugs which interact with alcohol. The warning reads-

This medicine may cause drowsiness and may increase the effects of alcohol. If affected do not drive a motor vehicle or operate machinery.

Australian Federation of Travel Agents

Senator Chaney:
LP

– On 6 March 1980 (Hansard, page 611) Senator Bonner asked me a question without notice concerning discussions held on 24 January between the Department of Transport and the Australian Federation of Travel Agents. The Minister for Transport has provided me with the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Discussions held on 24 January between the Department of Transport and the Australian Federation of Travel Agents were part of an on-going dialogue between both parties aimed at facilitating the development and implementation of Australia ‘s international civil aviation policy.

I regard these exchanges of views as being highly desirable and beneficial for both myself and the Department and for AFTA.

At the 24 January meeting the issues discussed concentrated on a number of general matters current between the Department and the Federation.

Meetings of this nature are generally held in confidence, unless the parties agree to release details at the time of the consultations.

I would be happy to provide the honourable senator with a briefing if he wishes.

Training Rules for Pilots

Senator Chaney:
LP

-On 18 March 1980 (Hansard, page 709) Senator Townley asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Transport, a question without notice concerning commuter aircraft pilot standards. The Minister for Transport has provided me with the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

My depanment is aware of the recent amendment to the United States Federal Aviation Regulations Part 135 introducing minimum on type operating experience requirements for pilots in command of passenger carrying commuter aircraft. These requirements are as described in the honourable senator’s question, but it should be pointed out that the minimum hours specified may, in most cases, be reduced by up to 50% where additional landings and take-offs are carried out.

My department has for some time now been conducting a review of commuter aircraft operational and flight crew standards. The standards specified for commuter aircraft operations in the United States and other overseas countries are being examined as part of that review. I am advised that in the very near future proposals arising from that review will be distributed to individual commuter operators and other interested aviation organisations for their consideration and comment. Included will be several proposals for upgrading the aeronautical experience and proficiency requirements for commuter pilots.

The type operating experience requirements which apply to Australian commuter pilots at the present time are-

for single-engined aircraft- 5 hours acting as pilotincommand, after endorsement on the type;

for multi-engined aircraft, other than aircraft for which a 1st Class endorsement is required- 10 hours acting as pilot-in-command, after endorsement on the type; and

for aircraft for which a 1st Class endorsement is required (e.g. turbo-jet aircraft)- 50 hours acting as pilot-in-command after endorsement on the type.

Finally, with regard to the recent crash in Sydney, the pilot of that aircraft had approximately 450 hours experience as pilot in command on the type.

Darwin Airport Rescue and Fire Fighting Service

Senator Chaney on 18 March 1980 (Hansard, page 709) Senator Robertson asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Transport, the following question without notice:

My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, refers to the proposed downgrading of Darwin Airport’s rescue and fire fighting service to category 7. 1 note the opposition to this move expressed by both major parties in the Northern Territory and by the union involved. I ask whether, given the increase in traffic last week occasioned by the industrial situation in New South Wales, the Minister will reconsider his decision He will be aware that the equipment and personnel provided under a category 7 rating could not handle an emergency such as might be associated with the use of Darwin as an alternative port for large aircraft.

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

Australia, as a member of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) endeavours, wherever practicable, to establish procedures and scales of facilities in accordance with the standards, recommended practices or guidelines laid down in the various ICAO Annexes. Accordingly, in respect of rescue and fire fighting services, my Department takes full cognisance of the guidelines set out in ICAO Annex 14 ‘Aerodromes’ which, in providing guidance regarding categorisation of fire services at international airports, suggest that the category appropriate to the longest aircraft using an airport can be reduced by two levels if there is a wide range of difference between the types of aircraft that have to be combined to reach a total of 700 or more in the busiest quarter (it should be noted that, in considering planning for a fire service appropriate to an airport, only known or reliably predicted future movements are taken into account. Consideration is not given to unexpected increases in traffic caused by industrial disputes, etc. ).

This is the situation currently pertaining at Darwin Airport where it is necessary to consider the combined totals of B747s (Category 9), B707s, DC8s and B727s (Category 7), DC9s (Category 6) and F28s (Category 5) to achieve or better the guideline figure of 700.

Therefore, my Department’s proposal to vary the categorisation of the rescue and fire fighting service at Darwin Airport, which I intend to proceed with, is completely in accordance with the ICAO guidelines and is adequate to meet any airport emergency at Darwin, given the numbers and types of aircraft currently using the airport.

Health Standards on Cruise Ships

Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

– On 18 March 1 980 (Hansard, page 711). Senator Baume asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Health, a question without notice concerning obligations on travel agents to advise prospective passengers of the health standards on cruise ships.

The Minister for Health has provided the following information:

Inquiries made by my Department confirm that there is no requirement for travel agents to advise prospective passengers on the state of health on the passenger ships on which their clients will travel.

Penalty Rates for Repatriation Hospital Staff

Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

– On 26 March 1980 (Hansard, page 1020) Senator McLaren asked me, in my capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, the following question without notice:

Is the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs aware that theatre staff employed at the Daw Road Repatriation Hospital in South Australia have imposed a work ban because they are being paid less than one-sixth of the penalty rates paid to other staff who are required to be on stand-by duties while they, the theatre staff, are classified as being on call, which classification receives a lower rate of pay, although stand-by and on-call duties mean much the same? Will the Minister take steps to bring the payment of the South Australian theatre staff into line with the payments made to their counterparts in repatriation hospitals in the States of New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia so that the impasse can quickly be resolved in the interests of both patients and theatre staff?

The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question.

Theatre staff at Repatriation General Hospital, Daw Park applied work bans for the period 9 p.m. on 10 March to 7.00 a.m. on 25 March, connected with a dispute with the Department of Veterans’ Affairs over the type of staff coverage to apply following the conclusion of normal shift duty on weeknights and week-ends.

Following a review of the level of after normal hours theatre coverage at Repatriation General Hospital Daw Park and discussions with the Federal Executive of the Hospital Employees Federation of Australia, new rostering arrangements were introduced with effect from 3 1 March 1980. These arrangements were accepted by the Federation and the theatre staff at Daw Park.

Postal Votes: Western Australian Election

Senator Durack:
LP

-On 27 March 1980 (Hansard, page 1078) Senator Mcintosh asked the Attorney-General without notice:

Will the Attorney-General determine whether any whites who received postal votes in the east Kimberley area have been questioned by the Western Australian police? If none have been interrogated, and in view of the fact that all Aboriginal postal voters have been questioned, will he guarantee that the Racial Discrimination Act will be enforced in Western Australia and that nobody, including Police Commissioner Leetch will be exempt?

I undertook then to give the honourable senator a considered reply to that question.

As the honourable senator would appreciate this is a matter that arises under the electoral laws of that State.

I am not aware of the number of persons questioned by the Western Australian police in connection with the voting for the Kimberley region nor have I been informed of any complaints made under the Racial Discrimination Act concerning the questioning of Aboriginals in connection with postal voting in the recent elections. Should any such complaints be made, they would be dealt with in accordance with the procedure of that Act.

Liquefied Petroleum Gas

Senator Carrick:
LP

-On 27 March 1980 (Hansard, page 1075) Senator Wriedt asked the Minister for National Development and Energy the following question without notice:

The Minister said that no instructions were given to the Prices Justification Tribunal in respect of pricing of LPG. Will he also confirm that no guidelines or communications were issued to the Prices Justification Tribunal by the Government in respect of pricing of LPG?

I confirm that at the time of my comment no guidelines or communications were issued to the Prices Justification Tribunal by the Government in respect of pricing of liquefied petroleum gas. However, the new arrangements set out in my press statement of 8 April 1 980 now provide for a standard maximum wholesale price of $205 per tonne and an appropriate policy directive has been given to the Prices Justification Tribunal.

Qantas Airways Ltd: Fares

Senator Chaney:
LP

-On 1 April 1980 (Hansard, page 1249) Senator Townley asked me a question without notice concerning air fare increases and the financial position of Qantas.

The Minister for Transport has provided me with the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

A number of factors have in recent months contributed to rises in the price of international air fares. The honourable senator will be aware of the effects on all airlines of rapidly escalating fuel prices. Since early 1979 Qantas’ fuel costs have increased by 184 per cent on its Australia /UK service. Given this situation, it has been inevitable that some increases have had to be passed on to consumers.

It is correct that the fare increases to which the honourable senator refers were approved on the basis of cost increases other than those associated with fuel. In the last financial year, for example, increases in manpower costs have been in the order of 20 per cent. The cost of all non-fuel related items have increased by about 1 7 per cent for Qantas, while other airlines have experienced similar, if not greater increases.

The restructuring of fares announced by the Minister for Transport on 28 March reflects the Government’s policy that air fares are cost-related, and that airlines serving Australia remain economically viable. These conditions are essential in order that low fares and an acceptable frequency of scheduled services to and from Australian gateways are maintained.

Honourable senators will appreciate that it is not appropriate for me to speculate on the financial position of Qantas at a time when the Company’s financial report has not yet been published.

Farid Fares’

Senator Chaney:
LP

-On 1 April 1980 (Hansard, page 1252) Senator Rae asked me a question without notice concerning the loss of the vessel Farid Fares and the associated search and rescue operation.

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

The distress call of the Farid Fares was sent out at 12.15 a.m. E.S.T. on Friday 28 March 1980. Adelaide Coast Radio Station advised the Australian Coastal Surveillance Centre, Canberra of the distress call at 12. 19 a.m.

A Category One airsearch was requested at 12.30 a.m. The first Orion aircraft was airborne at 2.49 a.m., 2 hours and 19 minutes after the request for an airsearch was made. This was a very satisfactory achievement in view of the fact that RAAF Standing Orders require that, outside of normal working hours, aircraft are to be at 3 hours notice for take off.

The inquiry that is being undertaken by officers of my Department is to investigate all aspects of the casualty that have a bearing on marine safety. This includes matters such as the abandonment of the ship, the search for and subsequent rescue of the crew and the communications aspects including the measures adopted in attempts to communicate with persons on the Iron Somersby.

The investigation has developed into quite a complex one and has not yet been completed. Consequently I do not expect any detailed report for a few days. When I have examined the report the necessity for further action will be considered in the light of the findings of the investigation.

Health Warning

Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle- On 27

March 1980 (Hansard, page 1082), Senator Gietzelt asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Health, a question without notice concerning health warnings on packages of tobacco products and provision by the Government of temporary financial support to sporting clubs which reject sponsorship by tobacco companies.

The Minister for Health has provided the following information:

I am aware that in the United Kingdom all packets of cigarettes and hand rolling tobacco produced for the United Kingdom trade are required to carry a Government health warning and that all press and poster advertising for cigarettes is required to incorporate a warning notice.

A similar requirement exists in Australia in terms of Clause 5 of the Voluntary Advertising Code for Cigarettes in Australia, which states:

Where a cigarette packet is included in advertising it will bear the health warning. ‘

A major reason for requiring a health warning on cigarette packets is because cigarettes represent the largest component of total tobacco consumption in Australia and cigarettes are the most actively promoted tobacco product in this country.

I am not aware of any moves by Governments in Australia to require a health warning to be printed on packages of tobacco products other than cigarettes or to require that such a warning be included in advertisements for those products in the print media. However, my Department has these matters under continuing review as pan of its role in monitoring the levels and patterns of usage of tobacco products in Australia. A recommendation that the Commonwealth provide temporary financial support for sporting clubs which reject sponsorship by tobacco companies was made in the Report of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare ‘Drug Problems in Australia- an Intoxicated Society?’ (Recommendation 47). The Government’s response to illicit drugs aspects of the Senate Committee’s Report was announced in a Ministerial Statement in the Senate on 19 March 1980. (Senate Hansard 19 March 1980, pages 795 and following).

Behaviour of Qantas Passengers

Senator Chaney:
LP

-On 29 April 1980 (Hansard, page 1879) Senator Peter Baume asked a question without notice concerning behaviour of Qantas passengers. The Minister for Transport has provided me with the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Minister has obtained a report from Qantas on the newspaper articles concerning passenger violence on Qantas aircraft. Qantas indicate that the newspaper reports appear to be based on incidents notified to the Company by the cabin crew on the flights in question. The incidents, however, as reported in the newspapers, have been subject to certain interpretations and embellishments.

Qantas indicate that there are no accurate figures available on how many incidents are related to alcohol abuse. In the 12 months to the end of March 1980, there were 127 reports by the Qantas cabin crew relating to the handling of difficult passengers onboard nights. This represents one incident for every 15,800 passengers carried. This can be compared with the Qantas experience for the 12 months to March 1979 of 167 incidents reported, which represents one report for every 1 1,300 passengers carried. This is not a unique situation to Qantas as similar experiences are being faced by other international carriers.

Qantas does also have some strategies to minimise the reported abuse to passengers and crew. These are to be discussed and developed with the Flight Stewards Association on May 1, and will also involve participation of the Qantas technical crew and Flight Hostesses Association.

Aboriginal Unemployment (Question No. 2433)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 2 1 February 1 980:

  1. 1 ) How many and what proportion of unemployed Aboriginals in each office of the Commonwealth Employment Service (CES) were receiving unemployment benefits when the survey of Aboriginals registered as unemployed with the CES was carried out on 29 September 1 978.
  2. Was any evidence produced of problems of handling the C.E.S. procedures.
  3. 3 ) What other information was produced by the survey.
  4. What changes in Government policy resulted from the findings of the survey.
  5. Is it intended to carry out another survey in the near future.
  6. Is the survey report available on request.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The report of the survey does not give data for each office of the Commonwealth Employment Service. The number of unemployed Aboriginals receiving unemployment benefit in each State or Territory is given, classified by sex and by metropolitan/country distribution.
  2. No.
  3. Several client characteristics including age, sex, location of domicile, occupation, marital status, number of dependent children, number of dependent adults, and the level of education.
  4. None.
  5. Yes, September 1980.
  6. Yes.

Television: Ultra-high Frequency Band (Question No. 2474)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 27 February 1980:

What research has been carried out into the feasibility of: (a) the ultra-high frequency band in Sydney and Melbourne, allowing for the comparatively restricted nature of the signal; (b) cable television for possible use as community and ethnic channels; and (c) the ability or desirability of the existing channels’ carrying more ethnic content, in the same way as they now carry ‘C classification programmes for children.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. Tests in relation to the use of the UHF band for television were conducted by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board many years ago to confirm the general validity of the use of the band.

Extensive surveys have been conducted in the Sydney area, the topography of which presents considerable difficulty in regard to both VHF and UHF television transmission. These surveys have established a number of areas where translator stations are desirable and the first two sets of translator stations are currently under construction. Other stations will be established in due course. Survey work to identify deficient reception areas where translator stations would be desirable is continuing. A similiar survey is being conducted in Melbourne and several areas have been identified where translators may be required.

Considerable research has also been conducted by my Department into the use of the UHF band. The result of this research is now evident in the successful recent introduction of UHF translators in the Adelaide area. The principles involved in this research have also been applied to the design of the Sydney translator stations and the stations for the Independent and Multicultural Broadcasting Corporation in Sydney and Melbourne which are currently under construction.

  1. I have already indicated that I consider that the whole question of possible introduction of cable services into Australia should be the subject of full and detailed investigation. Cable services would of course, have the potential to cater for community and ethnic programming. I expect to be in a position to make a further announcement on the approach to be adopted in relation to cable services in a matter of weeks.
  2. The programming arrangements in respect of existing television channels are a matter for:

    1. individual commercial licensees to determine, with overall responsibility for the adequacy of program services resting with the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal which conducts periodic research into this question;
    2. the Australian Broadcasting Commission which has full autonomy in programming matters. 1980 Olympic Games: Commemorative Stamps (Question No. 2609)
Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 26 March 1 980:

What costs were incurred by Australia Post in preparatory work carried out for the proposed issue of a series of stamps to commemorate the 1 980 Olympic Games.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

The cost of preparatory work for a series of stamps to commemorate the 1980 Olympic Games, including printing preparation costs and stamp design development costs, was $20,295.

Trade with Soviet Union: Export Market Development Grants (Question No. 2611)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 26 March 1 980:

  1. How many applications were: (a) made; and (b) granted, for Export Market Development Grants by companies or other organisations for trade expansion with the Soviet Union in 1978-79 and in each month, to 26 March, this financial year.
  2. What was the name of each applicant, the nature of the goods involved and the amount of grant sought, received or rejected in each case.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

The Export Market Development Grants Act entitles firms to claim grants based on eligible market development expenditure irrespective of the country in which the expenditure is incurred. Accordingly the information requested is not available and could only be obtained by examining individual claim forms to extract information regarding market development expenditure in particular markets. However in view of the importance of getting claims assessed as soon as possible and the present workload of the Export Development Grants Board I am not prepared to ask the Chairman to divert the resources of the Board to extracting such information.

Ministerial Pensions (Question No. 2682)

Senator Sim:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 16 April 1980:

  1. 1 ) Will the Minister take early action to give some adjustment in Ministerial pensions to those Ministers whose pensions are paid under legislation repealed by the Whitlam Government.
  2. Is there any other contributory pension or retiring allowance for which the Commonwealth Government is responsible for which no adjustment has been made since pension accrued to take some account of inflation.
  3. What is the respective Ministerial retiring allowance payable in the event of retirement at the end of the current year of each of: (a) the Hon. D. J. Killen; (b) the Hon. Andrew Peacock; and (c) the Hon. P. R. Lynch.
  4. What was the Ministerial pension payable under the then existing scheme to a Minister retiring in 1970 with 9 or more years service as a Minister.
Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) This is a matter of policy that will be considered by the Government at an appropriate time.
  2. Except for Ministerial retiring allowances and annuities and Prime Ministerial retiring allowances and annuities authorised by the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1948, legislation governing Commonwealth superannuation pension schemes provides for the adjustment of pensions to take some account of inflation.
  3. None of the Honourable Members mentioned has an entitlement under the Ministerial Retiring Allowances scheme that existed before 1973. Each is entitled to an increased Parliamentary retiring allowance, by reason of his service as a Minister, as a result of the amendments made to the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act in 1978. It is not the practice to make public the entitlements of individual Senators or Members.
  4. The Ministerial retiring allowance payable to a Minister who retired in 1970 with 9 years service as a Minister is $1,875 per annum; for 10 years service the annual amount is $2,175; 11 years, $2,475; 12 years, $2,850; 13 years, $3,300; 1 4 years or more, $3,750.

Soviet Union: International Labour Organisation Dues

Senator Durack:
LP

-On 2 April 1980 (Hansard, page 1330) Senator Lajovic asked me as the Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations, without notice:

Can the Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations inform the Senate whether it is a fact that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, together with two other members of the United Nations- the Ukraine and Byelorussia- failed to honour their dues to the International Labour Organisation for 1979. Is it also a fact that the USSR’s unpaid dues total about $US14m and those of Byelorussia total about $US500,000. Finally, is the Soviet’s failure to pay its dues an attempt to force the ILO to stop investigating complaints of the repression of independent trade unions in the USSR.

The Minister for Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

I am advised that the [acts in respect of the payment of assessed contributions to the International Labour Organisation by the Byelorussian SSR, the Ukrainian SSR and the USSR in 1 979 were as follows:

The facts are, therefore, that each of these 3 member States had only a small proportion of their assessed contributions outstanding at the end of 1 979.

I am further advised that these 3 member States were not the only ILO members in financial arrears at the end of 1 979, but this situation has not affected the long-standing objectivity and integrity of established ILO supervisory procedures and those relating to freedom of association.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 14 May 1980, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1980/19800514_senate_31_s85/>.