Senate
16 May 1980

31st Parliament · 1st Session



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

page 2367

PETITIONS

Lead Concentrates in Motor Spirit

Senator MASON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present two petitions from 50 and 46 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 proven 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.

Social Security Benefits

Senator ELSTOB:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 1 55 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:

1 ) 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 and read.

Social Security Benefits

Senator COLSTON:
QUEENSLAND

-I present the following petition from 2 1 citizens of Australia:

To the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled the petition of the undersigned citzens 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 ) Adjust all pensions and benefits quarterly to the Consumer Price Index, including the ‘ fixed ‘ 70 ‘s rate.

) Raise ali 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 by $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 MELZER:
VICTORIA

– I present two petitions from 35 and 305 citizens of Australia, respectively, as follows:

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 ) 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.

Petitions received.

Social Security Benefits

Senator SIBRAA:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present two petitions from 70 and 100 citizens of Australia, respectively, as follows:

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 ) Ad just 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.

Petitions received.

Social Security Benefits

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 258 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:

1 ) 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 LAJOVIC:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 90 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:

1 ) 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 285 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:

1 ) 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 SIBRAA:

– I present the following petition from 65 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 action be taken to protect the living standards of the aged and request that provision be made in the forthcoming budget for the- payment of the full age pension for all citizens over 65 years of age restoration of all indexation to all pensions for those citizens 70 years and over application of quarterly consumer price indexation to all age pensions granting fringe benefits to all pensioners.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Anti-discrimination Legislation

Senator BUTTON:

-I present the following petition from 15 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 and read.

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

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 $ 100 per week.
    2. A substantial reduction in indirect taxation on consumer goods.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Archer, Peter Baume (4 petitions), Cavanagh, Hamer, Lewis, Maunsell, Missen (3 petitions), O’Byrne, Puplick, Rae and Wriedt (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, Lewis (2 petitions) and Melzer.

Petitions received.

Life Insurance and Superannuation Contributions: Tax Deductibility

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

The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth-

Employees and self-employed contributions to approved superannuation fund.

Your petitioners humbly pray 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 Peter Baume.

Petition received.

page 2369

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2369

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING TRIBUNAL

Senator BUTTON:

– My question is addressed to the Attorney-General, and I refer him to a judgment given in the High Court yesterday in relation to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, in the course of which Their Honours commented on the Broadcasting Tribunal appearing in the High Court, and expressed disapproval of the Tribunal’s conduct in defending itself in those proceedings. The court took the view that this was detrimental to the impartiality of a tribunal of that kind. Is it a fact that advice from the Attorney-General ‘s Department initially was given that the Tribunal should not appear in the High Court case to put substantive arguments? Was the Tribunal’s inclination to accept this advice, given to it by the Attorney-General’s Department? Why was the decision reversed? Why did the Tribunal in fact appear?

Senator DURACK:
Attorney-General · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

-I have noted the comments of the judges of the High Court in relation to the Tribunal’s appearance in the High Court to defend its decision. I agree that it is a rather unusual course for a tribunal or a lower court to take. Normal practice is for it to submit. I do not propose to indicate what advice is given by my Department or by me in relation to matters of this kind. That is not the procedure which the Government follows. I am asked whether I will indicate why that decision for the Tribunal to appear was made. As I am not in a position to answer that question at this stage, I will make some inquiries and endeavour to obtain an early answer.

Senator BUTTON:

-I ask a supplementary question. Will the Attorney reconsider his answer in light of the fact that on numerous occasions the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, in conducting its proceedings in a manner which has been disapproved of by the High Court, has informed the parties to those proceedings that it was acting on advice from the AttorneyGeneral’s Department?

Senator DURACK:

-That is also a matter that I take on notice and will include in my answer.

page 2370

QUESTION

UNITED NATIONS FORCES IN NAMIBIA

Senator PUPLICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-Does the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs recall that a United Nations mission, under the leadership of General Prem Chand, the Commander-Designate of the United Nations Transitional Assistance Group, visited South Africa, Namibia and the front line states of southern Africa in February 1980? Did the United Nations mission set 15 June 1980 as the deadline for the implementation of the United Nations plans to bring Namibia to independence? Is it clear that this 15 June deadline is quite unrealistic, and that South Africa has retreated on its support for the United Nations plan following the success of Robert Mugabe in the elections in Zimbabwe? In the light of this impending deadline, can the Minister say what hopes the Australian Government has for the achievement of a satisfactory and peaceful settlement of the Namibian issue? Is the Australian Government still prepared to provide troops to serve in a United Nations peace-keeping force in Namibia? Given the importance of the peaceful resolution of such matters in southern Africa, will the Minister endeavour to allow the Senate to debate, at an early date during the Budget session, the Foreign Minister’s statement on Namibia, which was made in this Parliament on 20 February 1979?

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

– I have information on the matter from the Department of Foreign Affairs.

Senator Georges:

– That is not surprising.

Senator CARRICK:

– No, it is not a bit surprising. One would hope that any government would be fully briefed on such matters. That advice is that in February 1980 General Chand, the Commander-Designate of the United Nations Transitional Assistance Group for Namibia, visited South Africa, Namibia, Angola, Botswana and Zambia to conduct a technical examination of the proposals to establish the demilitarised zones along the Namibian borders with Angola, Zambia and Botswana. The DMZ proposals were designed to facilitate the implementation of the UN settlement plan for Namibia.

On 29 February General Chand ‘s group was joined by other United Nations officials, including the Under-Secretary General for Special Political Affairs, Mr Urquhart. Following talks between the UN mission and South African officials, Mr Urquhart stated the desirability of setting a target date for the implementation of the UN settlement plan and pointed out that a date not later than 15 June would avoid further delays due to climatic factors in Namibia.

The South West African People’s Organisation and the front line states concerned have indicated their agreement in principle to the UN plan and to its implementation as soon as possible. South Africa, for its part, has given a highly qualified endorsement of the DMZ proposals but has sought clarification from the UN SecretaryGeneral on two occasions, most recently on 12 May.

Senator Puplick ‘s question is a lengthy one to answer. I have considerably more information. Perhaps, with the indulgence of the Senate, I might incorporate the rest of the brief in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted?

Senator Georges:

- Mr President, I raise a point of order. That action of the Minister really discloses the situation now- that Senator Puplick drafted the question which was given to the Minister who gave it to the Department of Foreign Affairs which prepared a brief. That very important brief is now being read out to the Senate at Question Time, which is for the asking of questions without notice. I believe I have the substance for my point of order in my folder. I have in the past asked the Minister to table a document from which he has read. Mr President, I am suggesting that you should consider my point of order and come back to the Senate with a ruling as to whether this procedure being followed by the Minister is an abuse of Question Time. Earlier in this session I asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate to table a paper. That paper not only had written at the top of it Answer to Senator’s Question’ but also the signature of the person who had prepared the brief was at the bottom.

Senator Missen:

– What is wrong with that?

Senator Georges:

– It is an abuse of Question Time. All I am suggesting is that this is the time for the asking of questions without notice.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Do not debate the matter. The honourable senator is raising a point of order. He should indicate the point of order and leave it at that.

Senator Georges:

– All I am suggesting is that the procedure which is being used is in order for questions which are placed upon the Notice Paper. What Ministers are doing at present and what senators on the other side of the chamber are becoming party to is a device which puts the Opposition at a considerable disadvantage during Question Time. I have made my point. I have the evidence from the tabled papers that that is what the Government senators are doing and the Minister has allowed himself to be a party to that. For that reason I again put to you, Mr President, that this is in contradiction of the Standing Orders relating to Question Time.

Senator Carrick:

– May I speak to the point of order? Every Minister in the Senate who represents other Ministers comes in traditionally with a prepared brief. At the foot of that prepared brief is the origin of the preparation. Quite frequently, the brief is prepared in a form which states ‘in answer to honourable senator’ because the brief is designed as a response. We can have a situation in which all questions asked of representative Ministers are placed on notice or we can have the briefs prepared in detail and referred to, because in no other way could we give expert advice. I sought to use a brief which the Department of Foreign Affairs had given to me and, because honourable senators have complained about the length of answers to questions, to provide the information by having it incorporated. The procedures are such that I can use the device, which I did not want to do, of reading this answer to the Senate at the end of Question Time. I am invited to seek leave again to have the remainder incorporated in Hansard. I so do.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

These requests for clarification have led to accusations on the pan of the Council for Namibia and others that the South Africans arc prevaricating in order to strengthen further the position of the so-called ‘internal’ parties in Namibia.

The Government agrees that a 15 June deadline for implementation of the United Nations settlement plan would be unrealistic, but at the same time considers that the momentum of negotiations will have to be speeded up in order to avoid further bloodshed and suffering in Namibia.

Prime Minister Mugabe’s electoral victory in Zimbabwe has undoubtedly had an effect on South Africa ‘s thinking on

Namibia. But this need not necessarily be negative. Indeed, I would suggest that the direction in which Mr Mugabe’s Government is proceeding should offer certain reassurances to South Africa. I hope the South African Government is seeing the situation in that light.

Without wishing to take the analogy too far, the successful transition from a bitter war to democratic elections in Zimbabwe gives rise to the hope that a persistent, patient and determined effort can bring about the same situation in Namibia. But as I have stated, the momentum must be maintained.

If, as I hope, the United Nations plan can be implemented the Government will, in light of the situation prevailing at the time, reactivate its offer to contribute to the United Nations peacekeeping force in Namibia.

I share the Honourable Senator’s hope that the Foreign Minister’s statement on Namibia can be debated and this will certainly be done if the pressure of other parliamentary business permits.

Senator Mason:

– I wish to speak briefly to the point of order. I want to indicate my support of Senator Georges in this matter. It appears to me that it is stated quite clearly in the Standing Orders that, if honourable senators opposite wish to obtain information which the relevant Minister would require time to obtain, the usual way of doing it is through questions on notice. These are questions without notice. It seems to me that the procedure has been abused in several ways. If one looks at the time spent on Question Time one will see that a considerable period is devoted to answers to questions from Government senators, whereas questions asked by the Opposition and the Australian Democrats quite often get a very short answer or no answer at all. Those points are relevant to the point of order.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Do not debate the matter.

Senator Carrick:

– Quite often you ask us beforehand to get the answers for you.

Senator Mason:

– Do I have the floor, Mr President?

Senator Carrick:

– Do not forget that. Quite often you come to us and ask us before Question Time -

Senator Grimes:

– I raise a point of order, Mr President. I note that every time I interject I am called to order. I wonder whether, for a change, the Standing Orders could be applied to the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! I have heard sufficient on this matter. I refer honourable senators to the fifth report of the Standing Orders Committee, which was submitted in March of this year and which is in respect of Question Time. I advise all honourable senators who are not aware of this report from the Committee to study it closely. The answers to the matters which have been raised this morning are in the report.

page 2372

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICES ACT

Senator GRIMES:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. As she and the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs are now using a section of the Social Services Act to prevent superannuitants refusing increases in their superannuation payments from retaining a pensioner health card and therefore other fringe benefits, will she be using the same section of the Act to prevent those with large cash assets or those with large assets of other kinds from putting those assets in non-interest bearing deposits and thereby obtaining full pensions and full fringe benefits? If not, why is there this distinction between those who are asset rich and those who have small, fixed incomes?

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE:

There has been some comment in recent days with regard to this section of the Social Services Act and the Repatriation Act. There have been no new policy arrangements as far as my Department is concerned. A memorandum was sent to the Director for New South Wales on 23 November last year re-stating the policy and this was followed by a directive to all State officers in December of last year. It has been a long standing policy, in accordance with the requirements of the Social Services Act, that a person who directly or indirectly divests himself of income in order to obtain a pension, or a pension at a higher rate, should be placed in no better position as far as that pension is concerned than if he had retained the income for his own use.

Similar principles are applied to eligibility for Commonwealth fringe benefits. When superannuation boards withhold an increase in superannuation and the relevant legislation or the rules of the fund give the board a discretion to do so, the Department of Social Security considers that the pensioner has no entitlement to that increase and consequently pension and fringe benefit entitlements are not affected by any superannuation increase so withheld. I understand that there is a different view from that held by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. I understand that my Department and that Department have had some discussions with regard to this matter.

As to whether we would use the same provision when people use other methods to arrange their affairs to obtain a pension, I again draw attention to the relevant section of the Act. I expect that the Department would apply that section in instances where it was applicable. I restate that there has been no change in policy on the matter which was raised and which was the origin of the discussions of recent days.

page 2372

QUESTION

DONATIONS TO CHARITIES

Senator MISSEN:

– I address my question absolutely without notice to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. It relates to the apparent discrimination which at present exists against overseas aid agencies. Will the Minister inform the Senate why tax deductibility is granted for gifts to local charities but not to donations made through agencies such as Community Aid Abroad and World Vision? Does the Minister agree that Australia’s economic difficulties are small compared with the dehumanising daily struggle faced by hundreds of millions of people in other countries to secure decent food, housing, health and work? Does he also agree that the Australian Government has both a moral and an intellectual responsibility to stand with those Australians who choose to give to overseas aid? If so, will he assure the Senate that consideration will be given by the Government to allowing tax deductibility to those overseas aid agencies which have demonstrated the ability to deliver overseas aid effectively at a grass-roots level?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-From my observations I have noted that there appear to be disparities between those agencies that attract tax deductibility and those that do not. I am not aware of the basic policy reasons underlying these apparent disparities. The matter is of course one for the Treasurer. It is also a policy matter as it affects budgetary information. I think the question is a good one. I will refer it to the Treasurer and ask him to give it consideration.

page 2372

QUESTION

QUEENSLAND POLICE ACT AMENDMENT ACT

Senator EVANS:
VICTORIA

-I refer the AttorneyGeneral to the Queensland Police Act Amendment Act which was passed in circumstances of some controversy early in April. Was the Commonwealth Government consulted on any aspect of that legislation before it was passed? Does the Commonwealth Government approve those provisions of the Act which allow Commonwealth employees to be made special State constables with full police powers? To whom does the Commonwealth Government regard such employees as accountable when they are exercising such powers? Does the Commonwealth accept with equanimity or approval those provisions of the Queensland Act which allow police files violating individual privacy to be handed over not only to any State authority or instrumentality but also to the Commonwealth at the whim of the Queensland Police Commissioner? Will the Commonwealth Government request the Queensland Government to review and. it is to be hoped, repeal those offensive provisions?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– Before I went overseas I was asked a question on this matter by Senator Missen. I took the question on notice and undertook to obtain an answer for him. I have not had any advice on the matter this week. I do not know whether Senator Missen has received any. I will certainly take the matter into consideration. I thank Senator Evans for reminding me of it.

Senator Wriedt:

– You should not have gone overseas.

Senator DURACK:

-Senator Wriedt says that I should not have gone overseas. I suppose that Senator Wriedt did not go overseas when he was a Minister; he stayed at home all the time. Actually I had a very valuable visit overseas. I would be happy to tell the Senate about it at some stage. I will activate an answer for both Senator Evans and Senator Missen. Perhaps a joint answer would be a suitable way of handling the matter.

page 2373

QUESTION

AVGAS

Senator COLLARD:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister for National Development and Energy. During 1979 the supply situation for avgas, particularly in Queensland, was critical. We were told then that a second refinery was contemplating making capacity available to refine avgas. Will the Minister advise whether the Government has been able to achieve any improvement in the situation and thus ensure that avgas will be continually available, particularly in rural areas?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– Avgas is one of the petroleum products that have caused concern in Australia in recent years. Australia was only about 45 per cent self-sufficient and all the export supplies east of Suez came from one refinery, namely, that at Abadan in Iran. The situation which occurred in Iran created considerable disabilities. Two refineries in Australia have set out to do something to overcome this problem. Fortuitously, the Shell refinery for avgas in Geelong will come on stream, I think today. It was thought that that would simply raise the Australian capacity by about 60 per cent but both Shell and Mobil have been able to increase their capacities. I am happy to say that the Australian capacity for avgas now exceeds the demand. I will be putting out a statement which will indicate that we will be producing about 140,000 tonnes but will have a consumption of only 100,000 tonnes. It is a very gratifying situation for Australia and the refineries concerned are to be complimented on taking steps which will provide added insurance to our petroleum capacity.

page 2373

QUESTION

PENSION BENEFITS

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Has the attention of the Minister for Social Security been drawn to a statement by her colleague the Treasurer that inflation in Australia is now running at a level of 10.8 per cent? Does she recall also the Prime Minister’s undertaking in the Government’s 1975 election policy speech that the real value of pensions would be preserved? Is it a fact that the weekly benefit for single unemployed people under 18 years of age has remained the same for the last five years, that a pensioner’s allowance for a dependant has remained the same for the last five years and that a pensioner’s allowance for a dependent child under six years of age has remained the same for the last five years? In view of continuing inflation, when does the Government intend honouring its five-year-old election undertaking in respect of all pensions?

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLEIt will be understood that a number of policy decisions have been taken by the Government with regard to income security matters. As to some of the matters referred to by Senator McClelland, certainly it has not been possible to effect increases in them in recent Budgets. The real value of pensions has been attended to by the Government with twice-yearly indexation. Unemployment benefits to clients under 18 years of age, which were frozen by the former Government at a particular level, have not been changed. Payments for children and others have not been able to be increased. Despite the fact that it has not been possible to achieve some of these things, a great deal of additional expenditure has been incurred by the Government in its last four Budgets.

I am not able to give advice as to when other changes may be able to be made to the income security system. It should be understood that these are policy matters and that we are in a preBudget discussion time. I am not able to give any assurances or to add to any speculation that might occur. I state simply that the levels of pensions and benefits and the numbers of people who are receiving them have been continually increasing throughout the period of this Government, to the extent that something like $9,000m will be spent through my Department and others on welfare matters during this year. The magnitude of that expenditure needs to be taken into account in recognising that we have not been able to increase some individual payments.

page 2374

QUESTION

TRANS-AUSTRALIA AIRLINES

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Transport: Is it a fact that considerable concern has been expressed by the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations, the Joint Publications Committee and senators generally regarding the delays in the presentation of statutory annual reports? Is it a further fact that the report of TransAustralia Airlines for the year ended 30 June 1979 has not, nearly 1 1 months after the close of that year, been presented to Parliament? Is it a further fact that TAA submitted a draft report to the Minister late last year? When may we anticipate receiving the report from this significant statutory authority which, if it had been a public company, could by now have been delisted and its directors prosecuted for failing to publish the required annual report?

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

– I am, of course, aware of the fact that considerable concern has been expressed both by Senate committees and by individual senators about the late lodgment of reports from statutory corporations. Senator Rae, who asked the question, has been in the forefront of those critics. In respect of TAA, it is a fact, as was indicated in the question, that the report for 1978-79 has not yet been put before the Parliament. Knowing of the interest of Senator Rae and other honourable senators, I had my office check the position in respect of that report. My advice from the Minister for Transport is that it is anticipated that the report will be lodged before Parliament rises next week. I am not able to confirm that a draft report was put to the Minister last year but I understand that the delay in tabling the report has been occasioned by the necessity to finalise what the Minister described as complex matters which required consideration. All outstanding matters relating to content, form and so on have now been settled and the report should be available soon. I understand that at the moment it awaits the final certificate of the Auditor-General. In saying that I do not suggest that any delay has been occasioned by that requirement; I have no knowledge of that. But the final report, with the necessary signatures from TAA, is in the hands of the Auditor-General.

page 2374

QUESTION

ENERGY RESOURCES

Senator SIBRAA:

-The Minister for National Development and Energy will be aware of the Japanese interest in the development of coal liquefaction plants utilising Victoria’s brown coal deposits. Does he see a conflict of interest to the detriment of Australia’s national interest when Japanese consumers of Australia’s resources are participants in the production of these resources? Can he say what steps are being taken to ensure that the prices of our resources are not fixed by the foreign end users of our resources? Can he explain why the Japanese Government is prepared to subsidise the investment of Japanese firms such as Kobe Steel and Mitsubishi Chemical Industries in the development of Australia’s national resources when his Government is not prepared to invest in Australia’s resources to ensure that Australia’s national interests are safeguarded?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The Commonwealth Government has a very keen interest in ensuring that the price Australians receive for their exports is a true world price so that the resources which have no value in the ground will get their full value when they are paid for and so that the Australian people will benefit from the value of the resources through wages and through taxation at the various levels of government. It is true that the Japanese are interested- I think some Japanese people are in Australia at the moment- in looking at Victorian brown coal. I think discussions are taking place with the Victorian Government. Continuous discussions take place with the Commonwealth Government.

The real questions to be answered, first of all, are those which apply to our financial guidelines which, through the Foreign Investment Review Board, ensure that the ratio of foreign investment in any undertaking shall not exceed 50 per cent. There is a great need in Australia for Australian investment to be in co-partnership. With the FIRB guidelines and the fact that the Commonwealth Government has, as a final resort, export powers to make sure that prices are correct, there is no reason for fear at all. Our aim is for Australian equity in this development which ensures that Australia’s interests are looked after, and this is covered by the guidelines and by other matters.

page 2374

QUESTION

URANIUM MINING

Senator HAMER:
VICTORIA

– Is the Minister for National Development and Energy aware of the opposing views of union leaders over the issue of uranium mining, ranging from approval by the President of the Australian Council of Trade

Unions to the extreme opposition of the Federal Secretary of the Electrical Trades Union of Australia as stated publicly on Monday night on the Nationwide program? Was the latter seeking to destroy the jobs of his union members and, incidentally, to turn a thriving country community into a ghost town? Did he threaten his union members in Mary Kathleen with expulsion from the union if they did not abandon their jobs and consequently their homes? In the light of Australia’s commitment to uranium mining and export, what difficulties will the uranium mining industry encounter when certain unions forbid members to work in uranium mining while other unions actively support uranium mining?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I think many honourable senators will have seen the Nationwide program. I have had the opportunity to study the transcript of it. I think what Senator Hamer says is absolutely correct. There is a major conflict on this matter between union leaders, and even within the same union, particularly the Electrical Trades Union. Those working at the uranium site and belonging to the union are asserting the right and the need to mine uranium and others are opposing it. Perhaps the best story I can tell about this is to quote some graffiti I saw recently. Somebody had written on the wall: ‘Ban uranium mining’. Somebody else had come along and added: ‘And let all the illegitimates freeze to death in the dark’. The fact is that the story of what is happening today could not be told more graphically.

Opposition senators interjecting-

Senator CARRICK:

– Let Opposition senators scream. They can join the ranks of those referred to in the first and second messages in that graffiti. The fact is that the world today is energy hungry. It will not be able to solve all its problems with coal. It must use uranium. Those in Australia who oppose the export of yellowcake to the world are moving towards the destabilisation of the countries of the world and a lowering of living standards in the world. Let them take that responsibility.

page 2375

QUESTION

KAMPUCHEA: POL POT REGIME

Senator GEORGES:

– I ask a question of Comrade Carrick.

The PRESIDENT:

– The title is incorrect. It is Senator Carrick.

Senator GEORGES:

-Is it a fact that the Government does not support the oppressive regime of Pol Pot which many sources state is the most reprehensible of this century, including the

Hitler Third Reich regime? Is the Government’s recognition merely an appeasement of China? By taking that line, is the Government taking a Marxist-Leninist pro-Peking line and, therefore, by its own definition is it a fellow traveller with Norm Gallagher?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-Unlike Senator Georges, in future I shall refrain from calling Senator Ryan ‘Madam Ryan’ when I respond at Question Time. The fact is that the Government has made it abundantly clear that it regards the behaviour of the Pol Pot Government as reprehensible. It has said that that regime and the current Vietnamese regime in Kampuchea are both reprehensible. Yesterday in this place there was a debate on the recognition of particular regimes. Senator Sim, in his very experienced way, made it abundantly clear that one does not recognise regimes purely because one believes in their philosophies. Senator Sim indicated that, if one did, there would be very few countries that would receive reciprocal recognition. Let me make it abundantly clear that what has happened in Kampuchea is a tragedy not only committed by the two regimes- the present and the former regimes- but also greatly exacerbated by the military invasion of the Vietnamese Army. The Vietnamese Army is imposing its will in Kampuchea today. The Government has spoken strongly against it. It does not believe that a government that is in power simply by the use of military force should be recognised. The principles which this Government has outlined are supported widely throughout the world, specifically by democratic countries in the Asian region.

Senator GEORGES:

– I wish to ask a supplementary question. Accepting all that the Minister has said about the position of the Government, surely he must accept that the Government is appeasing Communist China.

Senator CARRICK:

-I am aware that this question has added to the 108 supplementary questions that the Opposition has directed, in comparison with the 10 supplementary questions asked by Government senators. Of course we are not appeasing Communist China. The question is a non sequitur. There are many aspects of the Chinese regime that we ourselves might criticise strongly. We recognise China but we do not necessarily support all of its methods. I find it extremely hard to reconcile that the Opposition spends its time concentrating on regimes in Kampuchea but fails to use the same standard about Russia or any of the main communist countries. If one applied the Labor Party’s tests on Kampuchea to Russia, technically the Labor

Party could not recognise the present Russian regime.

page 2376

QUESTION

FEDERAL FUNDING OF VOLUNTARY AGENCIES

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question which is directed to the Minister for Social Security refers to the matter of Federal funding of voluntary agencies and the problems of emergency relief. Has the Minister seen the claim made by the Executive Officer of the South Australian Council of Social Service that, while South Australia had 12 per cent of the people on pensions and benefits, it received only 6.5 per cent of the Federal funding for voluntary agencies? If this claim is correct, will the Minister say whether there are any plans for a review of the situation or a possible increase in the allocation?

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE:

In March, I announced that some agencies would be given assistance and that further approvals would be given later. I am not aware of what proportion the South Australian agencies received in that first allocation of funds. But, when the final allocations are made, the amount for South Australia will not be disproportionate to those for other States on a population basis in determining what the arrangements ought to be. I think that three agencies in South Australia received some funds. Remaining funds are under consideration and an equitable distribution will be made.

page 2376

QUESTION

ANSETT TRANSPORT INDUSTRIES LTD

Senator WRIEDT:

-Does the AttorneyGeneral recall the question addressed to him yesterday by Senator Button concerning a letter dated 5 December 1979 written by Sir Reginald Ansett to the Attorney-General? He indicated in reply that he would refresh his memory about the contents of that letter and whether he had replied to it. Has the Attorney-General had that opportunity? Can he tell us exactly what the circumstances are?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– Yes, I have refreshed my mind on the matter. I received a letter from Sir Reginald Ansett dated 5 December last year. The letter did not deal with policy matters as such but raised a question which was primarily for the consideration of the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. In my answer yesterday I think I said that the matter dealt with policy. On reflection, that is not, I think, strictly correct. The matter raised was primarily for consideration by the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. I replied to Sir Reginald Ansett on 22 January this year, pointing out that fact. I am now giving consideration to whether it is proper to table the letter. I certainly will- probably together with the Minister for Post and Telecommunications- be making a further statement.

Senator WRIEDT:

-I wish to ask a supplementary question to seek some clarification. Is the Minister declining at least at this stage to table the letter of Sir Reginald Ansett and his reply?

Senator DURACK:

-Yes, I am, at this stage. I think it would not be proper to table private correspondence without at least raising the matter with the writer. That is the only reason why I am not prepared to table it at this stage.

page 2376

QUESTION

CAPITAL INFLOW

Senator WATSON:
TASMANIA

-As the Minister representing the Treasurer is aware, Australia had an overall balance of payments surplus for the March quarter for the first time in two years. This surplus was contributed to largely by a net capital inflow of $674m. Will the Minister table details of the source and nature of this capital inflow? Will he comment on the significance of these figures? Does the Minister concede that Australian investors may be at a disadvantage compared with their counterparts overseas by virtue of the double taxation of dividends in Australia?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-It is true that in recent times the Australian balance of payments picture has strengthened, and I think it is likely to continue to do so. There have been a number of reasons over the years. One reason has been good seasons and yields from primary production. Other reasons have been the increase in our exports, both mineral and manufactured. It is true that one of the other factors is the inflow of investment capital. I think that, in itself, is likely to increase in the years ahead. The world is certainly looking to Australia as a source of useful investment simply because of the stability of the economy and our resources of minerals and energy in combination. From time to time an analy-. sis in broad terms is made of the qualitative nature of the investment. I will ask the Treasurer whether that can be done. I am not able to say whether Australian investors are in any way prejudiced by double taxation. I will invite the Treasurer to have a look at that aspect and to comment on it.

page 2377

QUESTION

ROAD FUNDS

Senator PRIMMER:

-Has the Minister representing the Minister for Transport seen reports from the Royal Automobile Club of Victoria and municipal councils in Victoria pointing out that road funds from the Federal Government for next year are not keeping abreast of inflation and increased road construction and maintenance costs? How does the Government explain this paucity of funds for roads alongside the massive petrol tax it has now imposed on all Australian motorists?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– The actual figures which were recently announced by Mr Hunt show that $628m is being provided by the Commonwealth for the construction and maintenance of roads. This is an increase of 1 1 per cent over the amount provided for 1979-80, and that represents a very reasonable contribution. I am aware, of course, of the sort of campaign which was conducted by motoring organisations and others and which was referred to by Senator Primmer in his question. That campaign extended beyond Victoria.

It is never easy for government to take all these various claims and to put together a package which meets its economic responsibility overall. The Government is satisfied that the very prudent policies it has followed over the last few years in this area, as in other areas, are in the best interests of Australia and of the Australian economy. I think I can assure the Senate that we will continue to tread the same path over the remaining years of this Government, which I am confident will be long.

page 2377

QUESTION

PLANT DEPRECIATION: TAXATION DEDUCTIONS

Senator MESSNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Has the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce noted the recent excellent report by the Australian Industries Development Association on the inadequacy of rates of depreciation for plant for taxation deduction purposes? Are the reasons for this inadequacy related to the rapidity of technological change in industry rendering old plant obsolete, consequently causing a loss of real value faster than in previous times? In view of the importance of the maintenance of uptodate plant and methods in Australian industry to keep it competitive against overseas trends, thereby creating jobs for Australians, will the Minister bring this report to the attention of his colleague with a view to the application of more relevant and realistic taxation deductions in this area?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

-The point made by Senator Messner is obviously an important one. In a period of rapid technological change one will get early obsolesence, and traditional depreciation rates are likely to prove inadequate. I will refer the matter to my colleague for examination, as the honourable senator has requested.

page 2377

QUESTION

MARALINGA NUCLEAR TESTS

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. It refers to his statement yesterday about the atomic tests at Maralinga, and follows questions raised by Senator Cavanagh and Senator Melzer. The Minister said that the Government is satisfied, on the basis of reports submitted at the time. I ask: Did the Government, before making up its mind about the matter, have before it the Atomic Veterans Association’s representations or meet with its representatives? Did it consider the very public reports of effects on certain servicemen? If it did, what was the result of those representations and has that organisation been advised? Does the Minister’s statement mean that the Government has shut the door to representations from that and other ex-service organisations and will consider applications for compensation only from individual ex-servicemen?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I think that to understand the statement delivered yesterday, and I appreciate Senator Bishop’s interest in it, one has to look at the content of it. First of all, I indicated that the Government was keen that any person who had served in the area and had any concern or knowledge at all should come forward. That would be a way of getting immediately a fair sample of any health problems people may have or feel they have. The Government has also said that in any examination of these things it would use two completely objective expert bodies, the Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council and the National Health and Medical Research Council, which have a continuing knowledge of what has happened. They have and will have access to all the data and records of what has happened and can look not only at the individual but also at the individual in a pattern to see whether the incidence of, shall we say, neoplasms or malignancies is typical or atypical.

It should be kept clearly in mind that we are not simply rejecting any situation. We are looking with practical sympathy and with a scientific approach to the problem as it now exists. The Government has said that it is satisfied on the evidence now before it and on its knowledge of the measures taken and the advice it has had from scientists as to the safety of those measures. However, it is seeking more evidence.

I come now to the specific situation. I do not know whether the Government had before it the information referred to by Senator Bishop. This matter involved a group of departments, and it could be that other departments had that information. If it did not, I will invite my Department, as the chairing Department, to obtain it and examine it. Let me make it perfectly clear. If, as evidence comes forward, there is need to do something further the Government will not shut its mind to the situation. It simply wants to get information from persons and bodies to see, if it can, the nature of the problem.

page 2378

QUESTION

OLYMPIC BOYCOTT

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

-Has the attention of the Leader of the Government in the Senate been drawn to the decision of the West German Olympic Committee to boycott the Olympic Games in Moscow? Does the Minister consider the boycott is now classed as an effective boycott? Can he give the Senate a list of countries now committed to the Olympic boycott?

Senator O’Byrne:

– This is another Dorothy Dixer.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-Despite the eternal chagrin of the Australian Labor Party, the question is not a Dorothy Dixer. The Labor Party is always wrong in these things. Largely when Dorothy Dixers are asked they come from members of either the Australian Democrats or the Labor Party, including office bearers of the front bench of the Labor Party. This is not a Dorothy Dixer at all, but I thank the honourable senator for the suggestion. The West German boycott is viewed by this Government, and no doubt by the world at large, as being perhapsapart from the American attitudes- the most significant decision taken in terms of establishing an effective boycott. It is believed that it will influence a substantial number of countries to follow the West German line. In any case the number of countries that have now said that their teams will not go to the Games is sufficient to indicate two things. Firstly, quite apart from any politics, a significant number of countries are so repelled by the Afghanistan situation that they will make this demonstration and convey the message to Russia. Secondly, there are sufficient countries to make an effective boycott virtually certain. I do not have the list but I will get it and let the honourable senator have it.

page 2378

QUESTION

WOOL SALES TO SOVIET UNION

Senator WRIEDT:

-Does the Leader of the Government in the Senate recall that a fortnight ago I asked him to refer to the Prime Minister my suggestion that he, the Prime Minister, should place a personal boycott on the sale of his wool to the Soviet Union- the wool, produced on his property, that he allows to go to the Soviet Union? Has the Minister referred that question to Mr Fraser? Is Mr Fraser prepared to show his genuineness and support his rhetoric by placing a ban on the sale of his wool to that country?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I recall the question. My understanding is that the matter has been referred to the Prime Minister.

Senator Georges:

– Where is your smile now?

Senator CARRICK:

-I smile happily in the knowledge that the Federal Leader of the Opposition, Mr Hayden, indicated that the Australian Labor Party believed that an effective boycott would be significant in bringing home a message to the Russian people. Opposition senators are now squirming in their seats because they know there is an effective boycott, even though they have spent the last few months trying to destroy any chance of its coming about. The ambivalent stance of the Labor Party on the Olympic boycott is on record for the world to see. On the one hand it has admitted that the policy of supporting an effective boycott would be a very significant one and on the other hand it has done and is doing everything it can in an attempt to destroy it. Having said that, I will again draw the Prime Minister’s attention-

Senator Wriedt:

– But you said that three weeks ago to me.

Senator CARRICK:

– The first question was whether I recall the question of a fortnight ago. The answer is yes. The second question was whether I had referred the question to him. The answer is that I believe that was done. My third answer is that I will bring today’s question to the attention of the Prime Minister.

Senator WRIEDT:

-I wish to ask a supplementary question. Are we to understand that Senator Carrick referred the matter that I raised here two or three weeks ago to the Prime Minister? The Prime Minister obviously has had time to consider the proposal that I put. Are we to believe now that the Prime Minister and this Government are saying to the athletes of this country, ‘you are to place a personal boycott on going to the Moscow Games’, but the Prime Minister is not prepared to place any boycott on the sale of the wool that he sends to the Soviet

Union, from which he is making thousands of dollars out of his own personal trade with that country? I ask you, Mr President: Have we ever had a better example of utter hypocrisy than we are getting from the Prime Minister?

Senator CARRICK:

– Once again this is not a supplementary question. What Senator Wriedt may understand passes all understanding in this world. The fact of the matter is that the countries that are working towards an effective boycott have a very significant principle as to the question of trade with Soviet Russia. They believe that the principles of the Co-ordinating Committee on Exports of Technology to Communist Countries- COCOM- the principles of trade of strategic materials with Russia, should be observed. Australia, in common with America, is observing the COCOM rules as are those other countries which in the main are supporting boycotts. So we are utterly consistent with other countries. The only one who is in step in the regiment is the Australian Labor Party, which now finds its ambivalence very embarrassing indeed.

page 2379

QUESTION

FAMILY IMPACT ASSESSMENTS

Senator TEAGUE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Leader of the Government whether he is aware that the South Australian Government this week, in keeping with the long South Australian tradition as world pioneer of social reforms, introduced a system of family impact assessments of all Cabinet decisions. Does the Commonwealth Government recognise the high public concern for safeguarding Australian families through reforms in tax and through health, social security and other policies? Will the Commonwealth Government give consideration also to introducing a system of family impact assessments of government decisions?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-One of the stimulating things that has occurred in Australia has been the revival of social and economic activity in South Australia in the months in which the Tonkin Government has been in office. Great activities and great job creation activities are emerging at present. The Senate will be aware that the South Australian election was fought on the basis that the previous incumbents had in fact brought South Australia to a stop.

Senator Keeffe:

– I raise a point of order. This seems to be an unfortunate happening every Thursday and on the Fridays that we sit. I draw your attention, Mr President, to your previous and numerous rulings on honourable senators asking questions and Ministers replying in which you have said that Ministers are to confine their remarks to the actual reply to the question. We now find the Minister once again, as he does every Thursday and Friday, extending a reply to a question to a second reading speech. I ask you to remind him of your previous rulings.

The PRESIDENT:

– I do not uphold the point of order, but it is true that honourable senators should avoid debate in replies to questions, and that we get the answers forthrightly.

Senator CARRICK:

– I saw the announcement of the South Australian Government. I think it is an exciting concept in social reform. I believe it is another instance of the Tonkin Government’s progressive policies. I will refer it to the Treasurer and to the Prime Minister.

Senator McLaren:

– I raise a point of order. What the Minister is doing is completely misleading the Senate because he knows full well that under the Tonkin Government South Australia has the highest unemployment it has ever had in its history. That is well known.

The PRESIDENT:

– There is no point of order.

page 2379

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING TRIBUNAL

Senator RYAN:
ACT

– I ask the Attorney-General whether he is aware of the terms of the judgment which was handed down by the High Court of Australia yesterday in which it made an order in the following terms:

Order absolute for a writ of mandamus commanding the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, Bruce Gyngell (Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal) and Keith Moremon (member of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal) to conduct in accordance with the law the presently adjourned inquiry under section 92F of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 . . . into the matters relating to the transaction involving the acquisition by Control Investments Pty Ltd of shareholding interests in Ansett Transport Industries Ltd specified in the notice of inquiry given on 24th of March 1980.

I ask the Attorney-General: In view of the fact that the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, Mr Bruce Gyngell, who is named specifically in this order, is on leave, in view of the fact that Mr David Jones, who has been appointed by the Government to replace Mr Bruce Gyngell, will not take up his appointment until 1 July, and in view of the fact that the investigations under this order must be completed three months from the commencing date, which was 24 March, how does this Government intend that the order handed down by the High Court of Australia yesterday will be implemented?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-I am aware of the judgment of the High Court of Australia, the major portion of which I have read, and the terms of the order which has been quoted by Senator

Ryan. The question she asks me is one that she should address to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications because he has ministerial responsibility for this Tribunal. I have, I think, read in newspapers some of the facts relating to Mr Gyngell ‘s being overseas and other problems. I am aware of them; I am sure the Minister is aware of them. I certainly will make sure that Senator Ryan’s question is addressed to him as soon as possible. I appreciate that there must be some degree of urgency in relation to these matters.

page 2380

QUESTION

UNIVERSITY FUNDING

Senator MacGIBBON:
QUEENSLAND

-Is the Minister representing the Minister for Education aware that there has been a consistent pattern of underfunding by the Commonwealth ever since the original Murray Commission report to the University of Queensland? Is he aware that the University of Melbourne, which most closely copies the University of Queensland, both in terms of faculty mix and student load, receives on average between 6 per cent and 7 per cent more for each effective full time student than does the University of Queensland? Will the Minister take immediate steps to correct this untenable position through the next financial year?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The question of the allocation of funds to the various universities is, firstly, a matter for the council of the individual universities as statutory bodies and, secondly, for the Tertiary Education Commission by way of recommendation. Then, of course, it is the ultimate responsibility of the Minister for Education and the Government. The present relativities of funding between universities will be the result of the recommendations of the Tertiary Education Commission. If there is some asserted disparity, perhaps Senator MacGibbon can give me more details of this matter. I will be happy to pass them to the Minister and to make a suggestion to him that he invite the Tertiary Education Commission to study the matter. I think that is the best way to deal with this matter because it is probably a complex one. I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.

Senator Mulvihill:

– I raise a point of order. Mr President, when the Minister asks that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper, if somebody is already in play, as it were, you should not blow your whistle immediately. It would be different if no honourable senator was on his feet. I ask you, Mr President, to consider that in future in relation to the Standing Orders. After all, in football play is allowed into injury time. If it is good enough to have injury time in football, it is good enough to have it in this place.

Senator Carrick:

– It has been my invariable practice over a period to endeavour to ensure that the Opposition gets at least one more question a day than the Government. Indeed, I watch very carefully for an indication from the President whether he feels that there should be an extra call. If he does, that latitude is made. I invite the President to make an analysis of the nature of questions- the timing of questions, the numbers of questions- and let the Senate have the results of that analysis.

If honourable senators want to look at the equity of the situation, I repeat that in the period from the beginning of this autumn session to the beginning of May 108 supplementary questions were asked by the Opposition, compared with 10 supplementary questions asked by the Government. The Government does not oppose that. The fact of the matter is that Question Time is quite heavily weighted in a generous way in favour of the Opposition, and I am very happy that that should be so.

Senator Cavanagh:

- Mr President, I wish to speak to the point of order. I think that Senator Carrick has misunderstood the main point. Senator Mulvihill ‘s concern is that those honourable senators who want to ask questions are deprived of the opportunity. An hour is sufficient time in which to ask all necessary questions if the provisions of the Standing Orders are observed.

Mr President, I ask you to look at the Standing Orders. I suggest that you ask your assistants to work out how many lines of Hansard Senator Carrick has taken up in the same period in replying to questions and assess from that who is taking up the time during Question Time. Senator Carrick, by answering Dorothy Dix questions prepared for the supporters of the Government, is preventing the Opposition from asking more questions. When Senator Carrick says that one more question has been asked from the Opposition than from the Government side, he forgets the fact that it is deliberate policy to see that, although we might be able to ask one more question, the number of questions asked is reduced to about half of what it should be. There should be some investigation of the matter. I have often advocated that supplementary questions should be ruled out of order. I think we should examine a severe implementation of the Standing Orders because the best of Standing Orders are not of value if they are not enforced.

Senator Peter Baume:

- Mr President, I wish to speak to the same point of order. If the allocation of questions is to be analysed, I ask that you also take into account the number of times that the leadership of the Opposition exercises its right for precedence in the asking of questions. For example, I draw to your attention that during February and up to and including 6 March in the autumn period of sittings this year 115 questions were asked by the Opposition. Of that number, Senator Wriedt asked 17 questions and eight supplementary questions. Senator Button asked nine questions and four supplementary questions. I would like to have put on the record that the inability of back bench members of the Opposition to gain the call to ask questions is due to their own front bench members taking precedence and asking more than one question a day.

The PRESIDENT:

– I have heard enough in regard to the point of order. I know that Senator McLaren has a case to put today. He has not asked a question for-

Senator McLaren:

– I have been able to ask one question in four days.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Elstob also has not asked a question. The facts are that today 22 questions were asked. Of those 22 questions, 13 were asked by honourable senators who did not ask questions yesterday. A few honourable senators sought to ask questions today and did not receive the call. I must reiterate that at Question Time questions should be put briefly and replied to briefly in accordance with information sought, without debating questions. The 22 questions asked today in an hour is by far below the number which has been asked in recent weeks and months. Normally over 30 questions are asked and I think that is very good. However, I reiterate that with goodwill and endeavour amongst all honourable senators, we can cover more questions.

page 2381

QUESTION

AIR NIUGINI

Senator CHANEY:
LP

-On 14 May Senator Sibraa asked me a question without notice concerning the possible purchase of Air Niugini. The Minister for Transport has confirmed what I said in response to Senator Sibraa ‘s question, that is, that no information has been made available to him to suggest that there may be moves by any Australian domestic airline to purchase Air Niugini.

page 2381

QUESTION

ETHNIC RADIO AND TELEVISION

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– A couple of days ago, Senator Neal asked me a question about the possible effect on the commercial ethnic Press of a Government funded and quasi-commercial ethnic television and radio network. The question contained four parts and the response, therefore, contains four parts. I seek leave to incorporate the question and the response in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

Question

Will the Government further examine the possible effect on the commercial ethnic press of a Government funded and quasi-commercial ethnic TV and radio network?

Will the Minister concede the possibility that the Government funded media is likely to cream off advertising revenue which, at present, allows many ethnic newspapers to survive?

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 TV and radio network at great expense to the Australian taxpayer?

And contrary to the feeling expressed by the ethnic newspaper management, the Government is not seeking the establishment of ethnic TV as a political propaganda medium during an election year?

Response

The Government has indicated that the Independent and Multicultural Broadcasting Corporation (IMBC) will be empowered to raise revenues in appropriate areas of its television operations. I stress that while it will, therefore, seek to recover some of its costs, the efforts of the IMBC in this regard will always be subject to its primary responsibilities to bring multicultural television programs to the widest range of ethnic communities- indeed to all Australians.

The effects of the operations of the IMBC on the activities of the ethnic press will have to be carefully monitored. The Minister for Post and Telecommunications has discussed the importance of the relationship between the IMBC and the ethnic press with senior officials who are involved in preparatory work for the IMBC. This will also be specifically raised with the Chairman and all Board members of the Corporation when they are appointed.

The Minister recently met with representatives of the ethnic press and advised them of the Government’s strong support for ethnic press and its continued role in the Australian community. Mr Staley undertook to ensure the continued close co-operation of the IMBC with the specialist ethnic press and to consider recommendations for a representative member of the ethnic press to be appointed to the Board of the IMBC.

The Government completely refutes any suggestion that the establishment of the IMBC is in any way an attempt to destroy the ethnic press or to establish a propaganda outlet. The IMBC is to be an independent statutory authority removed from daily Government direction which will seek to fulfil the Government’s firm commitment to providing an entertainment and information medium which will meet the diverse cultural needs of the Australian community.

page 2381

LIVING COSTS: LOW INCOME FAMILIES

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

The PRESIDENT:

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

The urgent need to protect low income families from the increased cost of living.

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 GRIMES:
Tasmania

-Once again I, on behalf of the Opposition, raise the matter of low income families and their deteriorating position with the increasing cost of living within this country because it remains an urgent problem and it is something which this country has to do something about. The people to whom I refer have a deteriorating economic condition. They are having difficulty gaining access to our health services and they are increasingly joining the ranks of the unemployed. They are being asked to carry far too much of the burden of our economic difficulties. As well as this, they and this country are being subjected to a campaign by the Government and its supporters to denigrate this group of people, and any measures which should be taken in this country to protect them. They basically need protection from this sort of attack and they also need protection from the policies of the present Government.

Only this week in the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission hearing of the national wage case, the Commonwealth Government advocate proposed that there be no compensation for wage earners in this country for the increase in the consumer price index in the last six months. He used the argument so frequently used on the Government side, that is, that wages are the main cause of our inflation and economic difficulties, and must be held down. If the Arbitration Commission took note of this argument the low income earners in the community in particular will suffer the most.

On Tuesday the Australian- that fine journal belonging to Rupert Murdoch- in an editorial headed ‘Welfare’s golden eggs going bad’ continued its attack on welfare expenditure in this country and on the levels of taxation. It did so with its usual disregard of facts. It attempted to perpetuate the myth that we are a high taxed country in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development when in fact the figures put down by the Treasurer (Mr Howard), and on one occasion by the Leader of the Government in this place (Senator Carrick), demonstrated that we are no such thing and there are only four countries in the OECD with lower tax levels. The Government endeavours to perpetuate the myth that we spend a comparatively high amount on welfare in this country when there is ample evidence most recently produced by Hugh Stretton at the summer school held in Canberra, and eminently reproducible in every other regard, that we are one of the meanest of the democracies as far as welfare expenditure is concerned.

Added to this, in a pamphlet received this week by all members of Parliament, that organisation representing conservative business in this country, the Institute of Public Affairs assured us, without producing any figures, that in fact, again, we are a high tax country, and that we spend too much on welfare. It even descended to the tactic of using the old furphy, again without any evidence, because all the evidence is to the contrary, that welfare expenditure and the suicide rate rise hand in hand; that they are related. The Opposition and those members of the Council of Social Services and others in the community who are concerned about the welfare of the disadvantaged must counter these consistently misleading arguments used by reactionary and conservative elements to denigrate any attempt to help the disadvantaged, the unemployed, the aged, et cetera. While this campaign has been conducted continuously over many areas to protect those who have vested interests, those who are interested in maintaining the status quo, such as the low income group wage earner, the families, the pensioner, the beneficiary, the single parent and the families with handicapped persons, fall further and further behind. We must do something about them. We cannot allow their relative condition to worsen as it has.

I have spoken about this matter on many occasions in this place. We have had debates in both chambers about it. We have had seminars, discussions and conferences, but still nothing is done. I merely quote from examples which can be used of what will happen after 1 July when the present Government’s tax changes come into effect. What will happen to some of these families and the position they are in in the community? For instance, a one-income family, with three children, earning $160 weekly in that period will have an income below the poverty line as calculated by the method used by the Commission of Inquiry into Poverty. The one income family earning $180 a week with four or more children will be below the poverty line after 1 July, after it has allegedly been assisted by the income tax changes of the present Government. Any pensioner family with two or more children will be below the poverty line. People receiving unemployment benefit- there are many of them- with two or more children will be below the poverty line. All single parent pensioners in this country will be below the poverty line. They are all below the poverty line now and they will remain below the poverty line. They will be from $5 to $30 below the poverty line after 1 July when the Government’s taxation changes will come into force. The time has come to do something about these families. Of course, in the long term the solving of our unemployment and economic problems will be of most benefit, but these people are in trouble now. They are in great difficulties. We must do something. We cannot let them go on in the same way.

Families in the community that are affected are not only those which have financial difficulties. Unemployed children under the age of 18 years still get only $36 a week as they did in 1975. They remain part of the family whether they are living within the family unit or not. They are frequently members of families with more than one person unemployed. The condition of those families is aggravated by the fact that the unemployment benefit has not been increased. Aged parents who live in the family unit and are cared for by the family are part of family units which frequently fall below the poverty line. The family’s ability to earn and to survive is frequently affected by having an aged person living within it.

Almost all the families about which I am talking have at least three problems which are brought about by the restrictive nature of the present Government’s economic and fiscal policies. I refer first of all to families with children. The family allowances which were introduced in 1976 have not been increased since then. In that time the cost of living has risen by 40 per cent. What was a reasonable social reform- it was accepted as such on this side of the House- which assisted low income families when it was initially introduced, has been neglected. The value of these allowances has been allowed to deteriorate to the extent of 40 per cent in real terms since 1976. For those unfortunate enough to be pensioners or beneficiaries, the allowances for children in their families have remained at $7.50 since 1975. The cost of living since that time has increased by about 45 per cent. These obviously disadvantaged people in the community have had the payments for their children neglected to the extent that their real value has deteriorated by 45 per cent since 1975.

Equally, single parents who receive the mother’s or guardian’s allowance have not had an increase in that time. They have not been compensated for the increase in the cost of living.

Added to that, those who are the poorest of the poor, who live in rented accommodation while receiving pensions or benefits and who receive very little excess income, have not had their $5 rent allowance increased since the early 1970s. This sort of situation is a disgrace. No matter what our economic difficulties are, in an affluent country such as this we cannot afford to allow people to be in this situation and still call ourselves civilised. This is why the Opposition recommends that the Government take urgent action and pay a family income supplement to the low income people who are demonstrably in great difficulty.

As I mentioned before, many of these low income families, suffer because of the increasing unemployment brought about by the Government’s deliberate policy of creating a pool of high unemployment and its deliberate policy of discriminating against many of the unemployed. Unemployment has gone up by 25 per cent in the past four and a half years and shows no sign of decreasing, despite the comforting words of the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, Mr Viner, every time the unemployment figures come out.

Added to this increased number of unemployed is the problem of the Government’s discrimination against them. From the latest figures produced, 119,050 of those on unemployment benefit had been on that benefit for more than six months, 44,000 had been on the benefit for more than 12 months and less than two years and 23,300 had been on the benefit for over two years. Of all beneficiaries, 47.6 per cent of males and 8 1.9 per cent of females were under 25 years of age. We know that there is hidden in the community a large core of unemployed. We know from innumerable surveys that many women in the home would prefer to get jobs. Only 19.1 per cent of women over 25 years of age receive unemployment benefit; therefore, there is another 30 per cent or 40 per cent who would normally be a part of the work force and who are living in homes of one income instead of two, so forming a part of this group of hidden unemployed.

Despite these startling figures we find that the Government has continuously made life difficult for these people by failing to index the benefit for the single unemployed since 1978, by failing to increase the benefit for those under 1 8 years of age since 1975, by making the work test more and more restrictive, by doing nothing about the harsh income test on unemployment beneficiaries and by doing nothing to raise the allowable income that can be earned by an unemployment beneficiary beyond the ludicrous level of $6 that exists. Recent changes to the Social Services Act which make it more difficult for people in certain industrial dispute situations to get unemployment benefit will add to the difficulties of these low income people, who are having to bring up children in very difficult circumstances.

The dismantling of the system of universal health care also aggravates the problem for these low income earners, particularly the unemployed. We have a situation in which people on unemployment benefit, the average period being more than six months, are not eligible for pensioner health benefit cards or to receive assistance in getting access to health services and have to find a doctor who is willing to declare them disadvantaged patients- a demeaning thing for many people- or have to live near public health facilities at which they can get access to those services. If they are not in this position- an extraordinary number are not- they may pay anything up to $7 to $9 a week to be covered under the voluntary health insurance scheme. All this has resulted from the progressive dismantling of the universal health insurance system, which was done quite contrary to the promises given by the Government. So, we have people who have inadequate income, people who have inadequate access to our health insurance system, and people whose allowances for the number of children they have had, whether they are pensioners or not, have been allowed to deteriorate in value in the last five years.

The Government has further aggravated the problem with its taxation policies. In 1978 the Government gave tax cuts, of which 36 per cent went to the top 10 per cent of salary earners while the lower income earners received very little. The taxation policies to be introduced on 1 July again favour the rich rather than the poor in this community. It is not only members of the Opposition who realise this.

Mr Moore, the honourable member for Ryan, on 23 April in the House of Representatives advocated reform of the taxation system. He stated:

The Budget Papers show that the total income paid by wage and salary earners and profit makers in 1966-67 was 67 per cent of the total income tax paid by individuals. For the years 1976, 1978, and 1979 the figure was 81 per cent. Therein lies the crunch. Household incomes of people in that category have not risen. The conclusion that one can draw from that is that the pay-as-you-earn taxpayer in Australia certainly is carrying the full load in terms of tax payments.

It is the low income pay-as-you-earn taxpayer who is paying more than his fair share of the burden. My colleague Mr Willis, the Opposition spokesman on economic affairs, has taken out figures that demonstrate not only that the payasyouearn taxpayers carry the load that Mr Moore referred to but also that the lower wage and salary earners in that group have taken a standard of living drop far in excess of the high income taxpayers. Mr Willis compared the incomes of taxpayers in 1975 and 1979 and demonstrated that over that period a taxpayer with a dependent spouse and two children earning $9,136 had a fall in disposable income of $22.60 a week. A taxpayer with dependent spouse and two children earning $13,705, close to the average weekly earnings, had a fall in income of $2 1 a week. But a taxpayer with dependent spouse and two children earning $27,409 had a drop of only $4.35 a week. He demonstrated this with a table that was reproduced in the House of Representatives Hansard of 17 April 1980. I suggest that this table be reproduced in the Senate Hansard, and I seek leave to have it incorporated.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows-

Senator GRIMES:

– We have the very real difficulty of income being neglected, health services being neglected and the taxation system being slanted against the low income earners and low wage earners. The policy of import parity pricing for oil with the increase in the oil levy hits all low income earners, and hits them more than most. Although many of them may not have a car and may not be affected by the increased costs of fuel for that car they are all affected by rising transport costs which are automatically passed on through all domestic goods- the essential items of food and clothing. These people do not have the choice or the power to vary their expenditure in the way that high income earners have in order to avoid increased costs like these. They spend all their income out of necessity because they have none to spare. Their income is eroded very severely by the increase in transport costs flowing through to the cost of essential goods.

What the Opposition is asking and what it repeatedly asks in discussions such as this is that the Government look seriously at the plight of low income earners whether they be pensioners, beneficiaries or low wage earners and particularly those with children, whose position has deteriorated for the reasons I have put forward. We must assist them and protect them from the increasing costs of living. I am aware that this would mean reversing the direction of many of the present Government’s policies in the economic field. This country is affluent. It is not overburdened by taxation, as is claimed by those in the community who would retain the status quo. What is more important is that economically this country performs much worse than the great social democracies of Western Europe, which in fact spend more of their tax revenue on social security and have done better than we have in recent years.

Senator LEWIS:
Victoria

-The Senate is debating a matter of public importance submitted by Senator Grimes in these terms:

The urgent need to protect low income families from the increased cost of living.

Of course, the Government and members of the Government parties support that belief. It is a basic tenet of the philosophy of the Liberal Party to support the needy. There was much in what Senator Grimes said today with which we would agree, but when one analyses what Senator Grimes and members of his party said about the implementation of programs to protect those families, one must realise that frankly they are just not fair dinkum. Senator Grimes talked about aiding those people in ways which involved the Government’s raising additional income and giving them money from that additional income; in other words, some means of transferring moneys from the high earners to the low earners. The Austraiian Labor Party tried that from 1972 to 1975 and it failed miserably.

Senator Grimes said that no matter what our economic difficulties are, certain steps must be taken. The first step on the road to assisting people on low incomes is to recover from our inflationary problems. It is not a question of trying to step over our economic difficulties; it is a matter of trying to resolve our economic difficulties. Senator Grimes talks about the needy while he and his colleagues support the trade union movement in its desperate claims for wage rises and shorter hours which are causing the crisis in our economy.

I turn to the proposal put forward by Senator Grimes and his leader for family income supplement. Clearly the ALP has acknowledged the merit of this Government’s proposal in relation to family welfare schemes. That is implicit in the family income supplement proposal because it adopts the family welfare proposal but, as usual, the Labor Party simply says that the Government should spend more money on the scheme. It has proposed that the Government spend an additional $250m, on its own estimate, on the scheme. This has been put forward by Senator Grimes, and by his leader who on 23 May 1974, when he had something to do with the economy of the country, said:

The truth is, of course, that the Government’s purse is not bottomless. Spending has to stop somewhere.

In any event, apparently this is one of the areas in which spending would not stop under a Labor government. When we look at the proposal we see that because it is an ALP proposal, as usual it is full of holes. For example, the proposal adopts a scheme whereby the weekly allowance for each child is reduced at a certain level of income. So, under Labor’s scheme if the family income increases by $1 from $8,000 to $8,001, the allowance per week per child reduces by $1. In other words, if the family income manages to go up $ 1 , the allowance under the scheme drops by $52. That is exactly what one would expect from the Labor Party which goes into these schemes halfheartedly and says many things in anticipation that it will not be in government and will not have to worry about them. If we look at the family income supplement proposals of the Labor Party we will see that a family with a large number of children will ultimately end up getting less, on a pro rata basis, than a smaller family with fewer children. This is because family income under Labor’s scheme will include the payment of the family allowance. Therefore, if there are seven or eight children in a family the payments would be less than if there were only two or three children. But then again, that is what we would expect from a Labor Party proposal.

We are entitled to ask the Labor Party about its other proposals in relation to families and the needy. It has picked on this aspect of families. One wonders why the Opposition does not have an overall family policy. It seems to me that the Labor Party constantly puts forward proposals with limitations along those lines, probably because, as I said earlier, it realises that it will not be in government. It fails constantly to turn to the economy which is the key to the answer to this problem. The economy will solve the difficulties for the low income family because when the economy recovers benefits can be paid to low income earners. Senator Grimes talked about the difficulties experienced by people on low incomes in getting health assistance. Let there be no doubt that anyone who needs hospital treatment and pharmaceutical supplies can obtain them under the current health policy of this Government. In relation to the economy I should like to refer to an article written in 1975 by Paul Johnson who was the editor of the New Statesman. It is generally acknowledged that Paul Johnson is one of the great socialists of the world. When referring to inflation he said:

Rapid inflation inflicts the greatest possible suffering on the very poor, the old, the very young, the sick, the helpless, the physical and mentally handicapped . . . Collectively, they number millions. Collectively- from a trade union point of view- they are powerless. They cannot, like miners, power workers, railwaymen, busmen and so forth, make the life of society miserable, damage its wealth and so force authority to surrender. They cannot batter the public with their fists. Old people open their newspapers with dread, knowing they will read of 30-, 40-, even 60-per cent wage increases, leading inevitably to monstrous rises in the cost of essentials, like electricity and gas, transport and food, and to compulsory charges like rates.

That article which was written in 1975 and published in England refers to Great Britain. It is a lesson that the Labor Party in Australia has not been able to understand. Mr Johnson further stated:

Just as the underprivileged suffer from wage inflation, so they are nearly always the most exposed victims of the strikes inflicted on the community to enforce inflationary settlements. The rich always have ways of escaping the worst consequences of strike action . . . they can pay over the odds, and bribe or bully their way out of strike situations. They do not have to struggle to work, or suffer in angry, impotent silence. If they choose, they can just take a holiday. It is the poorer groups who are utterly dependent on public transport and public services, who have no store- cupboards or reserves, and who are the first to feel the deprivations which strikes are deliberately intended to inflict.

Yet Senator Grimes came into this Senate today and talked a lot of platitudes about what my Government ought to be doing for the poor. He made no criticism of his party and its relationship with the trade union movement and the effect which the activities of the trade union movement are having on the poor in the community. Let us look at some of those effects. What is happening to the consumer price index which this Government has been fighting desperately to keep down? It has been running at the rate of about 10 per cent for 12 months. One of the main reasons for that is the wage claims which are being made by the trade union movement. We have done considerably well with our balance of trade position, but we keep running into the problem of cost rises in the community because of wage claims and strikes. Let us have a look at some of the strikes. In 1979 there were 2,040 industrial disputes in Australia which caused a total loss of 3,964,000 working days and an estimated loss of wages of $148,614,000. No country which wants to develop more welfare services can afford to suffer that effect on its economy. It is essential that these matters be brought under control if we are to be able to protect low income families from increased cost of living.

Senator Georges:

– Are you running out of material, Senator? Don’t be so irrelevant.

Senator LEWIS:

-Not at all. Inevitably the first step in any economic recovery will be a rise in profits. As soon as profits rise, as has happened, the Australian Labor Party and the trade union movement want to knock off those profits. They fail to understand that until business in Australia recovers and is profitable our economy will continue to stumble along. As business recovers and the economy picks up inevitably more and more work will be provided.

Let us have a look at events in the work force. In the last 12 months to March 1980 the total number of employed people in Australia increased by 1 8 1 ,600. The Government’s actions in relation to the recovery of the economy created 180,000 new jobs.

Senator Georges:

- Mr President -

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Georges, do you wish to raise a point of order?

Senator Georges:

– I want to -

The PRESIDENT:

– Honourable senators can interrupt speakers in debate only by taking a point of order.

Senator Georges:

– Perhaps I could create a precedent which might be of advantage to the Senate.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order !

Senator Georges:

– I ask Senator Lewis: What is the Government doing with the $3,500m it has taken in the petrol tax?

The PRESIDENT:

– The honourable senator is out of order. I call Senator Lewis.

Senator LEWIS:

-Thank you, Mr President. We can always rely on Senator Georges to bring some humour into this chamber. As I say, my Government’s policies led last year to a direct increase of 1 80,000 in the work force in Australia. The ALP proposes some sort of variation of the Regional Employment and Development Scheme whereby it is talking about creating 150,000 new jobs. If the Labor Party allowed the economy to continue to expand and if it tried in some way to restrict the activities of its brethren in the trade union movement, it would find that far more than 150,000 new jobs would be created. As business increases the jobs will be created.

Let us talk about one of the new variations to trade union wage claims. Mr Hawke, that great moderate, has told the trade union movement that it should abandon its claim for wage rises and should now concentrate on reducing the number of hours worked. The argument in favour of that is that in some way this will enable the work force to increase. Those of us who have done any investigation of this aspect will realise that ultimately the reduction in the number of hours officially worked for the same wage inevitably leads to a rise in excess wages because people keep working overtime to make up their hours. The net result will be an increase in wages by a reduction of official hours worked.

But let us look further. If the number of hours worked was reduced from 40 to 39, the result would be the equivalent of every employee taking one week’s additional annual leave. We can recall the problems created in this community when annual leave was increased from three weeks to four weeks. If it were increased to five weeks by reducing the hours worked to 39, because that would be the equivalent, imagine the problems to the economy of the nation. The proposal that hours worked be reduced from 40 hours to 35 hours a week would be the equivalent of granting the work force of Australia an additional six weeks annual leave.

Senator Georges:

- Mr President, I take a point of order. I am not quite certain whether the

Standing Order pertaining to relevance can be applied.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Georges, no honourable senator can interrupt another who is speaking unless a point of order is raised. When the honourable senator is finished speaking, a matter can be raised.

Senator Georges:

– I am raising a point of order on the matter of relevance. I seek your ruling whether relevance can be applied to a matter of public importance. If the Standing Order on relevance can be applied at the present time the Senate is engaging in a debate on a matter that is not related to the matter before the House. That is the point I am making. The honourable senator is discussing an industrial matter. If he wishes to do so, he can raise a matter of public importance on his own initiative on the subject he is now debating. Why does he not get back to the subject before the House?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Relevance is necessary in discussion such as this or in debate on a Bill. However, this debate covers a wide area, and I find that Senator Lewis is not transgressing.

Senator LEWIS:

-Thank you, Mr President. It is clear that Senator Georges is trying to take my time away. He has put me in a position where all I can say is that it is clear that the answer to the problem raised by low income families is to increase the economic activity in Australia. The way to do that is to carry out the Government’s policies, not the Opposition’s policies. In those circumstances, I move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2388

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Motion (by Senator Carrick) agreed to:

That, unless otherwise ordered, after consideration of Government Business Orders of the Day Nos. 1 and 2, Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1979-80 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1979-80, intervening business be postponed until after consideration of General Business Order of the Day No. 283, Wireless Telegraphy Amendment Bill 1980, standing in the name of Senator Rae.

page 2388

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– Following the notice I gave on Wednesday, I move:

On 6 June last year, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) said in a debate on Aborigines in Western Australia that the Government is absolutely committed to the idea that it is of great importance to Aboriginal people that they should be able to exercise their vote. He continued:

These people, being in greater need of assistance, have a particular interest in who forms the Government of the country. For that reason, it is important that they have some say in who should govern the country, or indeed their State.

The purpose of this motion is to give Government senators the opportunity to express their support for the idea which Senator Chaney said the Government is absolutely committed to. They can do that by voting for the Western Australian Aboriginals (Right to Electoral Enrolment) Bill. On the last day of sitting in 1979 Senator Mcintosh introduced the Bill and delivered the second reading speech. The basic purpose of the Bill is to ensure that Aborigines, who enrol on the Commonwealth electoral roll in Western Australia, will be automatically placed on the State electoral roll. In every State but Western Australia and Queensland that applies automatically. Because of the particularly vicious, reactionary nature of the regimes which have governed Western Australia and Queensland, it does not apply in those States. The Bill is necessary in Western Australia due to the long-standing Western Australian Government conspiracy to deprive Aborigines of their voting rights.

Senator Chaney:

– I raise a point of order. We have before us a motion for the suspension of so much of the Standing Orders as would prevent Senator Walsh moving a motion for the postponement of intervening business. I suggest that he must make his remarks relevant to the need to consider this item of business now and not indulge in a general abusive attack on the Western Australian Government.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! This is not a debate on the Bill. Senator Walsh should state the reasons why the Bill should be considered now.

Senator Walsh:

- Mr President, on the point of order, the Bill was submitted six months ago. At any time the Government, had it chosen to do so, could have put the Bill up for debate and for decision by the Senate. The Government has chosen not to do so. I am now explaining to the Senate why it is necessary that this Bill be brought forward. The reason this Bill must be brought forward in the Senate is that it is necessary to protect the political rights of Western Australian Aborigines from the long-standing conspiracy of the Western Australian Liberal

Government to deprive them of those voting rights. I do not use the word ‘conspiracy’ lightly. The Court of Disputed Returns set up in relation to the division of Kimberley following the 1977 elections, found that such a conspiracy existed. The exposure of the conspiracy relied very heavily on the production, under court order, of correspondence from the then member for Kimberley, Mr Alan Ridge, and Liberal Party workers who had supported him in that election. I will cite two instances.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Walsh, you must not debate the matter. You must adhere to the reasons for the suspension of Standing Orders. You must not debate the matter which will be debated in due course if the suspension of Standing Orders is agreed to.

Senator Walsh:

– With respect Mr President, on the point of order, it is not possible to explain why it is necessary for this Bill to be brought on for debate without giving the reasons for the Bill. Unless a Bill such as this is passed- obviously it cannot be passed unless it is debated and it cannot be debated unless Standing Orders are suspended- Western Australian Aborigines will continue to suffer from the actions of the Western Australian State Government. After’ the 1 977 election Mr Ridge wrote to John Fletcher. He said:

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

Mr Ridge could scarcely have been more explicit. The purpose of the subsequent amendments to the Electoral Act in Western Australia was explicitly, which could not have been made clearer by Mr Ridge, to stop Aborigines from voting because of the belief prevalent in the Liberal Party, justified or otherwise, that Aborigines would not vote for the Liberal Party. I do not know whether that was true at the time it was first expounded by the Liberal Party in Western Australia. I have little doubt that it is true now. A substantial reason for its now being true is, of course, the continuing efforts by the Western Australian Liberal Government to deprive Aborigines of their right to enrol and, if they manage to get past that hurdle, their right to vote.

The first attempt to amend the State Electoral Act was so outrageous that it was defeated on the floor of the Legislative Assembly by the Australian Labor Party, by half of the members of the then National Country Party, by one member of the Liberal Party and, finally, by the casting vote of the Liberal Party Speaker. In 1979 the Premier succeeded in getting the Act amended. The significantly objectionable feature -

Senator Chaney:

– I rise to a point of order. We are now having what is effectively a speech on the Bill itself, the sort of speech which would be made at the second reading stage. It does not relate to the need to suspend Standing Orders now and debate the Bill now. No argument has been addressed to that point. Mr President, I suggest that the honourable senator should be asked to adhere to your ruling.

Senator Georges:

- Mr President, I thought your ruling was to the point. You also expressed the difficulty of moving for the suspension of Standing Orders without actually revealing in considerable detail the rather serious position which exists in Western Australia. It is a very difficult matter. I think we ought to proceed without points of order to a vote on the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders. But we ought not to deny to Senator Walsh the opportunity of putting before us the seriousness of” the situation in Western Australia, which affects this Parliament and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. We have a responsibility to the Aborigines. We cannot deny that. I think the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs will accept that. I do not wish to say any more. I think we ought to allow Senator Walsh to determine the importance of the matter which he has raised so that we can decide whether to support the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Walsh, you will adhere to the use of supportive material in relation to the reasons why you seek suspension of the Standing Orders and avoid debating what will ensue later.

Senator WALSH:

-With respect, Mr President, I think that I am putting forward valid reasons and demonstrating the necessity to have this Bill processed by the Australian Parliament. If there were some indication from the Government that it was willing at this stage to allow Standing Orders to be suspended to allow the Bill itself to be debated in the Senate and finalised, there would be no need for me to give further reasons as to why it is necessary to have this Bill processed now by the Senate.

Senator Chaney:

– Now?

Senator WALSH:

– As quickly as possible. I think the six months it has been on the Notice Paper is a reasonable length of time to enable the Government to consider its attitude towards the

Bill. If members of the Government are not prepared to process the Bill now and to stand up and be counted in relation to whether they are in favour of expediting the exercise of the franchise by the Western Australian Aborigines, it seems to me that they will never be ready to do it. They have had six months to consider both the policy and the legal implications of the Bill. It has been suggested in the past that there may be some small area of doubt about whether the legislation is effective. The Government has had six months to seek the best legal advice in this country on that matter, if it wishes to do so. It has access to the Attorney-General ‘s Department, the Crown Solicitor and the Solicitor-General, which the Australian Labor Party does not have. We have had the benefit of the legal advice which is available to us. That legal advice was that this Bill would effectively achieve its basic purpose, that is, to ensure that if Aborigines are on the Commonwealth electoral roll they are automatically placed on the State electoral roll.

It is extremely difficult for Aborigines in Western Australia to become enrolled on the State electoral roll. Following the amendments of last year, the applications for enrolment have to be witnessed by an electoral official, a justice of the peace, a clerk of courts or a policeman. Justices of the peace are rarely seen in the outback parts of the State where a substantial proportion of the Aboriginal population lives. Clerks of courts are even rarer. Policemen may be somewhat more numerous, but, given that so many of the contacts with the police force that Aborigines have are unfortunate for the Aborigines, one can understand them being reluctant, to say the least, to approach a policemen or indeed any authority figure on a matter such as this.

The absurdity of restricting qualified witnesses in this way with respect to electoral officers was very clearly demonstrated a couple of months ago. In the last State election, at the Turkey Creek polling booth in the Kimberleys, about 40 Aboriginals filled in application cards for enrolment on polling day. Having presented themselves at the booth and found that they were not enrolled- or in most cases that is what happened- they then filled in applications for enrolment, under the supervision of the electoral officials manning the booth, and their applications were witnessed by those electoral officials. About half of those applications have subsequently been rejected by the Western Australian Electoral Officer on, I think, the technically correct ground that there was no indication on the enrolment cards of the age of the applicants. Of course, the Act requires that people must be 18 years of age before they can be enrolled, and some of these Aboriginal people are not certain of their birth dates. Not knowing precisely what their date of birth was, they left the date of birth section blank.

An enrolment is acceptable, I understand, to the Chief Electoral Officer, provided there is some statement on the card which verifies that the applicant is in fact at least 18 years of age. If, in the space which states ‘date of birth’, the applicant writes ‘around 1940’ or even ‘more than 18 years ago’- anything that testifies to the applicant ‘s being at least 1 8 years of age- that is acceptable. But the electoral officers on polling day at Turkey Creek, as in many other places, were not really electoral officials at all; they were staff recruited for the day only. People who are electoral officials on polling day are school teachers or some other public servants on Friday; they are electoral officers on Saturday; they are private citizens on Sunday; and they are school teachers or public servants again on Monday. They do not know in detail what the requirements are.

Party workers, on the other hand, whether they be of the Labor Party or of the Liberal Party, who from time to time quite legitimately conduct enrolment drives, might make such a mistake once; but they are unlikely to make such an error of omission twice. Party workers are adequately briefed. If the Party is to organise an electoral enrolment drive, it will adequately brief the Party workers in order to make sure that the drive is effective. This demonstrates the farcical position which the Western Australian Government has created by insisting that only people who come within one of those four limited categories are qualified under the law to witness an application for enrolment, when the record clearly shows that, though they may be legally qualified, their knowledge of the subject does not adequately equip them to do so.

There has been no indication from the Government as to whether it is willing to agree to this motion and allow the matter to be brought on for debate. I assume, because there has been no response, that the Government will vote against this motion. I guess that when he replies Senator Chaney ‘s excuse will be that we do not have time as only one week of the sitting is left. My reply to that is that for at least the last decade the Senate has not risen as early as the Government plans to lift the Senate this session in the autumn session except for 1974 when there was the double dissolution. The Government plans that the Senate will get up next Friday and I gather it is determined to proceed with that intention. There is no reason in the world for that.

Indeed, I suggest that it is improper for the Government to proceed with lifting the Senate so early when there is so much other business on the Notice Paper and when this matter clearly ought to be debated as well.

If the Government is going to claim that there is no time to debate this matter, the Senate should sit for another week. We want this Bill finalised. We also want to give the supporters of the Government who agree with what Senator Chaney stated on 6 June last year as Government policy the opportunity to back their beliefs with their votes. On 6 June last year Senator Chaney said:

But the Government is absolutely committed to the idea that it is of great importance to Aboriginal people that they should be able to exercise their vote.

If any honourable senators on the Government side do not support Government policy as defined by Senator Chaney, I think equally they are entitled to state their anti-Aboriginal position by voting against the Bill which we have proposed. Those who lack the moral courage to take a stand one way or the other will vote against the motion to suspend Standing Orders in order to avoid the necessity of having to vote on the substantive features in the Bill.

Senator ROBERTSON:
Northern Territory

- Mr President, I second the motion. I wish to make a few comments about this matter. I think it is important that we debate the issue now. The first point that has been so eloquently put by the mover of the motion is that Aboriginals are being denied a right at present and they will continue to be denied this right unless we do something about it. It is understandable that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) is sensitive about this area. He is sensitive because he is a member of the Liberal Party of Australia and because the Western Australian Liberal Party took the shameful action against the people of the north-west. He is sensitive because his own brother was involved in this matter. I do not like to raise these personal matters but it has to be mentioned that this is the situation. The lawyers from Western Australia used every shameful device to try to stop the Aboriginal people of the north-west firstly from being enrolled and secondly from having a vote. If we do not give the Senate the opportunity to debate this matter now it is fair to say that the Senate is using every one of the procedures available to it to avoid bringing the matter on for debate.

There is also another reason why we should debate this matter- I think this was hinted at by my colleague- and that is, that those whom we call the small ‘1’ liberals and others must be given the chance to put their rhetoric into practice. We have heard many speeches in this place about the rights of Aboriginal people. We have heard speeches by Senator Bonner, in particular, we have heard speeches by Senator Missen and, before Senator Chaney became a Minister, we heard speeches by him on the rights of Aboriginal people, the place which they should have in Australia, the roles which they have to play and their need to express themselves. One of the ways in which they can express themselves quite clearly is by their having a vote in elections to decide who will represent them at the State level in the Western Australian Legislative Assembly and who will represent them at the federal level in this Parliament. We have to make sure that the Aboriginal people of Western Australia, and it is to be hoped, of Queensland, will be given the right to make this sort of decision. They will not have this right unless we take some action in this Parliament.

I come to the next point. If we are not allowed to debate the matter this morning, when will we be able to do so? As Senator Walsh has said, the Bill was introduced six months ago and nothing has happened. If the Minister will stand up and say to us now, ‘You can debate this matter next week’ I am sure that Senator Walsh will say, This is a good thing and we are quite happy’. If the Minister assures us ‘The business of the day is so pressing that we cannot do it, but I will give you the opportunity to do it next week’, we will be quite happy. We would not have the same belief in other members on the Government side of the House. In the last couple of weeks we have been given a clear indication that assurances that are given are not always followed. Nevertheless, I am sure- Senator Walsh will agree with methat if Senator Chaney says, ‘Yes, you can debate this matter next week’, we will be quite happy to let it go. But if it is not debated next week, when will it be debated? Next week is the last week of the session. We will move into the Budget session after that and we will have a busy time. We will move into 1981 without having debated it. That is the same sort of thing that happens in relation to other major issues that have come before this place. If we are not to debate it now, how long will we have to wait?

The next reason I put as being vitally important for us to debate it this week or next week is the fact that we as a nation, are criticised overseas for our actions. Two disparate groups- the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States of America- have gone on public record in the international forums as criticising

Australia for its activities. When I was in Zimbabwe earlier this year to watch the elections in that country I had the embarassing situation of white people saying to me, ‘How dare you come to Rhodesia and tell us about the elections when you have the situation existing in Australia of Aboriginal people being denied rights?’

Senator Mulvihill:

– They said that to you, Senator?

Senator ROBERTSON:

-They certainly said that to me, and it was very embarrassing. If this debate were to take place today and we were to come to a decision, at least we would be able to say, ‘The Government is not prepared to accept this proposition and we find that untenable’. I am sure a number of people like Senator Missen, Senator Chaney, Senator Bonner and others opposite would have no alternative but to walk across the floor and vote with us on this issue. I put it very strongly to honourable senators that we have to remove from the world scene this opportunity for people to criticise us for out treatment of our Aboriginal people.

When the Government was in opposition it spoke of the need to remove bad legislation. It made much of this. It talked about the bad legislation brought forward by the Whitlam Government and the need to remove that legislation. I suggest very strongly that the legislation which exists in Western Australia is bad, and we have a responsibility to remove it. It might be said: What can you do on the Federal scene? It seems to me that the 1967 referendum gave us the right and the responsibility to look after the Aboriginal people of Australia. The referendum said to us in the Federal scene: ‘You have this responsibility’. I suppose that one could imply the outstanding result of that referendum was that the people of Australia were saying: ‘We are not all that sure about State governments handling this sensitive issue. We want you to be the watchdog. We want you to look after the Aboriginal people. ‘

In seconding this motion moved by Senator Walsh I say that we have clear guidelines. We have been given this responsibility and we should not dodge it because it might happen to be politically uncomfortable for members of the Liberal Party. The Minister’s predecessor lost a good deal of his credibility because he was not prepared to stand up to State governments of his own colour. The present Minister is in the same situation. If he is not prepared to take a stand on this vital and basic issue, he will lose credibility in the same way that his predecessor did. I have much pleasure in seconding the motion.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– I make it quite clear that the Government does not intend to agree to the motion moved by Senator Walsh. One of the fundamental points which should be made early is that the Western Australian Aboriginals (Right to Electoral Enrolment) Bill deals solely with the Western Australian situation and the enrolment of Aboriginals in that State. The Bill is therefore not relevant to those other elections which were referred to me in a private conversation with Senator Mason a little while ago when he talked about pending elections of the Commonwealth, the Northern Territory and Queensland. I stress that this Bill relates only to Western Australia. There was a election in Western Australia a few months ago. There will not be another election for three years. To suggest that this is a matter of some urgency is, in my view, putting rather a gloss on the truth.

It is interesting that this is the first attempt that has been made by the Opposition to bring on this Bill. It has left it to the end of the session. Senator Walsh attempted to deal in advance with the criticism he knew would be made. He left it until a period in the session when General Business had been suspended and it had been indicated that there was a very tight program of Government business for the remainder of the session. We had no request from the Opposition to bring on this Bill until a Notice of Motion was given. As far as I am aware there was no prior discussion with the Government or any suggestion that the Opposition wanted the Bill dealt with. The Bill deals solely with the question of entitlement to enrol. Senator Walsh addressed himself to that aspect of the Bill. He said that the West Australian legislation contains limitations in respect of who may witness enrolments. I put on record in this debate that I have not received a single complaint nor have I seen any publication of a complaint that any Aboriginal has been unable to get enrolment. At the time this Bill was introduced into Parliament by the Opposition I indicated- this was published in the media in Western Australia if nowhere else- that I would be interested in hearing whether any Aboriginal was disadvantaged by not getting access to witnesses. I said that prior to the State election. I suggested that something could be done to ensure that they had access to witnesses as required.

For various reasons- because of the Senate’s program, and because of the way in which this matter has been approached and its timing- the Government does not intend to accede to this motion. The Bill itself is not to be debated during the debate on this motion. I would be prepared to debate at a later time why the Bill is a totally unsatisfactory approach to the very serious problem which I agree exists, namely, ensuring that Aboriginals freely and fairly exercise their right to vote. I say seriously to Opposition senators who are very good at moralising and lecturing on this matter that I hope they will be as moralistic within their party organisations as they are in this chamber and in the processes in which they indulge during election campaigns. I say that very sincerely. I believe that the political parties have an obligation to treat the Aboriginal vote with care and respect. I do not believe that that is always done by both sides of the political spectrum. Time is moving on. We would like to dispose of this matter before lunch. I move:

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

AYES: 28

NOES: 20

Majority…… 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put-

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

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

AYES: 20

NOES: 29

Majority……. 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Sitting suspended from 1.7 to 2.15 p.m. ( Quorum formed)

page 2394

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Senator MASON:
New South Wales

-by leave- This morning the Senate discussed and voted on whether a debate should be held now on certain matters concerning voting rights of the Aboriginal people in Western Australia. I voted against the Government and with the Australian Labor Party, both on the closure of that debate and on the question itself, because I believe this question of Aboriginal voting to be an important matter due for early discussion. Both votes were, of course, in divisions and honourable senators’ votes are listed in Hansard. I asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) during the seconding of the motion by Senator Robertson whether I could speak for a minute or two. My reasons for this were that a year or so ago the Government Whip, Senator Peter Baume, went on record in the Sydney Sun and elsewhere as saying that Australian Democrats should always vote in divisions.

Senator Peter Baume:

– Did I say that?

Senator MASON:

– Indeed so. I can show the honourable senator the clipping from the Sydney Sun. I will show it to him afterwards. It was on a matter concerning the Human Rights Bill, if I can recall it to the honourable senator’s attention. I will give the honourable senator a photostat of the clipping if he wishes to have it this afternoon. Senator Chipp and I of the Australian Democrats felt that it was not unreasonable, when we vote in divisions and our names are listed in Hansard, that the reasons which inform our vote should go on the record. We think that is only fair. That can happen only if we can speak, however briefly, in debates and have our comments recorded in Hansard. However, when it came to the point the Minister, for his own reasons, felt that it was not proper or reasonable that I should speak, as a matter of timing was involved. I am not taking that particularly seriously, although I feel I should make the point about our right to speak when we are listed as having voted in divisions.

The other point was that the Minister, when summing up and closing the debate, mentioned a private conversation I had had with him in which he had said that the matters on which we voted earlier were related only to Western Australia and not outside and, therefore, he could not see that they were matters of importance. His having made that point, it seems reasonable that my account of the conversation should also go on the record, because it was not quite so simple as that. I said to the Minister that I would like to speak for a minute or two to put my point of view that there had been so many irregularities in Aboriginal voting in Australia and so much public concern with it that I thought any matter concerning it should be open for debate soon. My reason was that elections are due to be held in the Northern Territory, where there is a very large Aboriginal community, next month and in Queensland later this year; and indeed a Federal election is also due to be held. Because of that I disagreed with him on his point that the matter was relevant only to Western Australia.

page 2395

FLAMMABLE LIQUIDS (AMENDMENT) ORDINANCE 1980

Withdrawal of Notice of Motion

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

-by leave-Mr President, I am sorry I was not present when this matter was called on earlier due to the speed at which matters occurred. As I indicated when Notice of Motion No. 1 standing in my name on the Notice Paper was given, it is concerned with a section inserted in the Australian Capital Territory Flammable Liquids Ordinance whereby a person responsible for a contravention of the Ordinance and the occupier of the premises concerned are each guilty of an offence punishable by a heavy fine and defences are provided for the occupier of the premises, including the defence that the contravention occurred without his knowledge. The Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances has long objected to provisions which provide absolute offences and then specify defences which have the effect of placing the onus of proof upon the defendant. As the Committee observed in its 66th report, the only satisfactory solution to these statutory reversals of the onus of proof would seem to be a special statutory provision to the effect that the onus placed upon the defendant in all criminal cases is evidential only.

The Committee does, however, scrutinise legislation to ensure that this type of provision is not used where it is possible to avoid it by a different form of drafting. The Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Ellicott) has considered the Committee’s submission in relation to this particular provision, and has given an undertaking that he will amend the Ordinance to accord with the Committee’s view. Accordingly, and pursuant to notice of intention given yesterday, I withdraw Business of the Senate Notice of Motion No. 1 standing in my name.

page 2395

AUSTRALIAN FILM COMMISSION AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows-

The purpose of the Bill is to amend the Australian Film Commission Act so as to enable the Commission to operate with more flexibility and on a more commercial basis, which will better fit the Commission for supporting the Australian film industry in the 1980s. The opportunity is also being taken to make minor amendments to the Act. The Government has reviewed the structure of the Australian Film Commission to ensure that it is an appropriate body to assist the Australian film industry as we move into the 1980s. For this review the Government had the benefit of the Peat, Marwick, Mitchell Services report ‘Towards a more effective Commissionthe AFC, in the 1980s’ which was tabled in the Parliament on 13 November 1979.

The existing structure of a full time chairman and at least five other members of which at least two shall be full time members, was appropriate during the development stage of the Commission. This structure was effective, enabling the chairman to control directly all areas within the Commission. The Commission ‘s needs have now changed and the amendments I am proposing reflect this situation. Essentially the Government believes that it should have greater flexibility in appointments to the Commission so that it can move effectively to make appointments to fit a given situation. Accordingly, it is proposed that the chairman may be appointed on either a full time or a part time basis. Also the requirement that there shall be at least two full time members is also proposed to be removed from the Act. Although under the amending Bill it will still be possible to appoint full time members to the Commission, the Commission is expected to move within the next two years to a position where all its members including the chairman are appointed on a part time basis.

The Peat, Marwick, report identified the need for a general manager to be responsible for the day-to-day operations of the Commission. The Commission supports the creation of such a position and a proposal for such an appointment is currently with the Public Service Board. The amending Bill has been drafted in order that it will be possible for the general manager to be appointed to the Commission if this is considered desirable. It is envisaged that with a part time chairman of the Commission the appointment of the general manager to the Commission could be most advantageous.

The staff of the Commission are currently employed under the Public Service Act. The Peat, Marwick, report proposed that the staff be removed from the provisions of that Act. This was also one of the conclusions of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations in its report ‘Statutory Authorities of the Commonwealth’ of January 1980, if, as the report put it, ‘the Commission is to become a fully commercial organisation’. The Government has decided to go part of the way towards the conclusions in these reports by proposing in the amending Bill that the staff shall be employed by the Commission but with the terms and conditions of appointment being subject to the approval of the Public Service Board.

The amending Bill removes the need for ministerial approval for programs made by the Film Australia branch of the Commission as special activities. There are two types of program made by Film Australia, one is what is known as the departmental program and the other the national program. The departmental programs are only made with the approval and funds of the commissioning department or authority. Ministerial approval under the Act, therefore, serves little purpose and has never been refused in practice.

The Government believes that the Commission should also be entrusted with complete discretion to determine how the funds under the national program are expended. Honourable senators will recall that only one program has not received approval under these provisions. This was the Unknown Industrial Prisoner. The decision not to support this program received support from various sections of the community, but there was also a deal of criticism. The existence of the power can, of course, lead to allegations of political interference. We believe that any question of there being political interference with the types of programs produced by Film Australia is undesirable and the provisions in the amending Bill will, hopefully, overcome this possibility.

In keeping with the general thrust of the Government’s attitude to the Commission it has also been decided to propose that the Act be amended to remove ministerial approval for transactions involving more than $250,000 under section 35 of the Act, when the transactions to be undertaken are in relation to the making, promotion, distribution or broadcasting of programs. The amending Bill also provides for the Act to be amended to extend the special activities function of the Commission. Under the present Act the special activities function precludes the Film Australia branch from promoting and distributing the programs that it has produced. The proposed amendment will give promotion and distribution to the special activities function.

Section 36 of the Act, which it is proposed be repealed, provides for the making of superannuation payments by the Commission in respect of its staff. The section excludes payment in respect of special activities staff. With the repeal of this section the Commission will be required to make superannuation payments of all its staff under section 1 59 of the Superannuation Act. It is not considered appropriate that no payments should be made in respect of special activities staff.

The amendments that the Government is proposing in the Bill will, it is envisaged, provide the Commission with a greater degree of flexibility and freedom as we enter the 1 980s. The Bill will provide part of its needs to meet the challenge of supporting the Australian film industry in the years ahead. It is safe to say that without the Film Commission the Australian film industry would not be at its present stage of development. The Government looks forward over the next five years to the Commission assisting in, to quote the Peat Marwick report, ‘a stable industry, a flow of product and a maintenance of standards’. In conclusion, I would like to remind honourable senators of the achievements of the film industry since the Gorton Government established the Australian Film Development Corporation. Since that time the industry has produced about 80 feature films and has been involved in the financing of major television series. In most of these projects the Commission has been financially involved. The Commission has also been involved in building an Australian and international awareness of the industry. This has succeeded to the point where there is possibly more written about the Australian film industry in international film publications than about the industry in any other country outside the United States.

In Cannes last year members of the international film industry indicated that the Australian film industry was one of the most exciting things that had happened to the international film community in recent years. I mention films like Mad Max which had record sales figures, the Last Wave which ran for three months in one cinema in Los Angeles, Patrick which achieved the No. 10 position in the United States gross box office which is a figure few foreign films have achieved in that country. Such success in such a short time for an industry in a country the size of

Australia creates an atmosphere of great confidence for the future of the Australian film industry. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Button) adjourned.

page 2397

TRADE PRACTICES (BOYCOTTS) AMENDMENT BILL 1980

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 Durack) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I move:

I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows-

The purpose of this Bill is to strengthen the boycott provisions of the Trade Practices Act 1974 in the light of present conditions. It is the Government’s view that section 45 D has had beneficial results and that now the provision should be taken further. The provisions of this Bill, and the Conciliation and Arbitration (Boycotts) Amendment Bill, which my colleague the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) who represents the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Street) will shortly introduce are designed to assist in the resolution of the serious problems caused by certain conduct of trade unions and companies which interferes with competition and threatens persons’ freedom to trade.

The Trade Practices Act embodies the Government’s firm commitment to the promotion of free and fair competition in Australia. The Act is the legislative expression of the Government’s strong belief that effective competition is fundamental to the proper working of our enterprise system. Effective competition laws provide considerable benefits for the whole community. By ensuring the dynamic operation of the market place, an effective competition law promotes the most efficient allocation of resources to meet the needs and aspirations of the community and to satisfy consumer demand. Further, an effective competition law frees the system from unwarranted restrictions on freedom to trade imposed by those in the market with greater economic power, whether business or unions. This law also helps to ensure that the rewards offered by the enterprise system accrue to consumers and to those firms whose entrepreneurial qualities and efficiency best satisfy consumer’s demands rather than to those who would use their economic power to deny others an opportunity to compete. Australia has, in the Trade Practices Act, a most comprehensive and effective competition law. It has already resulted in considerable benefits both to consumers and to business and offers the prospect of continuing benefits as the process of competition continues. The Government strongly believes that effective competition law of universal application is to the benefit of the whole community. Consistent with this the Government considers it totally inappropriate that trade unions, which possess in some cases formidable economic power and bargaining strength, should be able to interfere with the competitive process and the individual ‘s freedom to trade.

The Swanson Committee, in its consideration of secondary boycotts, recommended that the law provide an effective avenue of recourse for the trader directly affected by allowing him access to an independent deliberative body. The Government decided that the most appropriate way to implement that recommendation was to give the affected trader rights of action in the Federal Court by the enactment of section 45 D. Unfortunately, events have shown that the effectiveness of the Act’s prohibition of secondary boycott activity may be threatened by collusion between companies and unions. The Government was not only highly dissatisfied with the conduct of the union concerned in those events but also with that of the companies involved and made that clear on a number of occasions. The amendments the Government is putting forward in the Trade Practices Bill are designed to provide a remedy for persons who are victims of such conduct, and thus strengthen the Act.

In the first place the proposed amendments to the Trade Practices Act extend the operation of section 45D to prohibit secondary boycotts of non-corporate persons. The major amendment proposed is the insertion of a new section, 45E, which prohibits a person from agreeing with a union to cease to continue to deal with an individual or an individual company, or to continue to deal with an individual or individual company only on new conditions restricting that person ‘s freedom of trade. Existing provisions of the Act already prohibit agreements between competitors to boycott particular persons and to impose restrictions on freedom to trade. Events have demonstrated that trade unions also possess sufficient economic power to engage in this type of undesirable conduct. The Government believes, and it must be accepted by reasonable people, that it would be clearly inappropriate for the Trade Practices Act, which restricts abuses of power by companies, to allow the possibility of similar abuses by unions.

The package of proposals recognises however that disputes which give rise to 45d or 45E situations may escalate and require the processes of conciliation to effect a settlement. We have seen recently, however, that such a settlement, at least in its initial stages, paid scant regard to the rights of the company which had been the victim of the collusive conduct. Thus the package proposes that where there is a dispute which gives rise to a possible section 45d or 45e action then that dispute may be transferred to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission or to a court, tribunal or authority of a State or Territory.

The Bill provides that where proceedings are pending before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and the court has issued an injunction under sections 45d or 45e, a Minister or a party to the proceedings before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission may apply to the court for a stay of the operation of the injunction. The Federal Court is empowered, on the making of such an application to make such an order if it considers that to do so would be likely to facilitate a settlement of the dispute by conciliation and that under all the circumstances it would be just to do so. This provision is designed to enable the Federal Court to take into account the fact that proceedings are before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and thus to give the Commission the opportunity to resolve the dispute which has given rise to the injunction through the processes of conciliation. The proposed amendments therefore provide the opportunity for civil proceedings to be taken where an individual or a company’s business is being damaged while allowing for a cooling off process so that any dispute may be settled having regard to the rights of all the parties involved.

There is one further aspect of the legislation to which I would draw the attention of honourable senators. That is, that the Bill envisages that conciliation jurisdiction may be exercised by a court, tribunal or authority of a State or Territory. The Bill provides that where such a court, tribunal or authority has, under the provisions of State or Territory law, equivalent powers to those of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission under the proposed new Division 5a of the Conciliation and Arbitration (Boycotts) Amendment Bill, that law may be prescribed by regulation as a law to which the relevant provisions of the Trade Practices Act apply. Upon such prescription State and Territorial courts, tribunals or authorities would be able to exercise their powers of conciliation.

Clause 5 of the Bill deals with the new prohibited conduct. The clause also provides that the prohibition does not apply where the affected person has consented in writing to the agreement between the union and the supplier or acquirer. Clause 6 permits the Court to stay the operation of an injunction under section 45d or 45e to facilitate conciliation proceedings. Clause 8 provides that no individual can be subjected to a pecuniary penalty for contravention of section 45e. Clause 9 permits the Trade Practices Commission to grant authorization of the prohibited conduct. Clause 10 provides for the same test on authorization as for conduct prohibited by section 45d.

In summary, the objectives are these. First, the prevention of the abuse of power by both business and unions. Second, the provision of possible conciliation, so that escalation of disputes can be avoided. Third, the continued promotion of competition and the protection of each person’s freedom of trade. The Government will be closely monitoring the application of this legislation, as it does in relation to the Trade Practices Act generally, to ensure that it has no unintended effect in the market place, particularly in relation to contractual relationships. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Button) adjourned.

page 2398

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION (BOYCOTTS) AMENDMENT BILL 1980

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 Durack) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I move:

I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard.

Leave not granted.

Senator DURACK:

-The purpose of this Bill and that of its companion Bill, the Trade Practices Bill, is better to integrate the jurisdictions of the Federal Court of Australia and of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in disputes which involve contraventions or alleged contraventions of section 45D and of the proposed new section 45E of the Trade Practices Act which have industrial relations implications. As my colleague the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Garland ) has made clear in introducing the Trade Practices (Boycotts) Amendment Bill, these two pieces of legislation constitute an integrated package. The proposals reflect the Government’s concern over recent disputes involving the Trade Practices Act and which, in addition to having been the subject of proceedings before the Federal Court, have been before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Honourable senators will be aware of the circumstances of the recent case involving Leon Laidely Pty Ltd which was the subject of a series of conferences before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission after Leon Laidely Pty Ltd had obtained an interim injunction from the Federal Court as a result of conduct engaged in by the New South Wales registered Transport Workers Union. The matter came before the Commission following industrial action involving workers employed under a Federal award.

Honourable senators will recall statements made at the time indicating the Government’s concern at the outcome of the initial proceedings before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in which Leon Laidely Pty Ltd did not have the opportunity to express its views. It will also be recalled, that following a request which the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Street) made to the President of the Commission, Sir John Moore, a subsequent hearing was held at which Mr Laidely and the business association of which he is a member, the Australian Petroleum Agents and Distributors Association, were represented. As a result of that hearing, discussions took place between the Transport Workers Union and the Australian Petroleum Agents and Distributors Association which resolved a number of issues associated with the distribution of fuel in New South Wales and, in particular in an outcome which resulted in Leon Laidely Pty Ltd again being supplied by its previous suppliers. This arrangement was satisfactory to Leon Laidely Pty Ltd which indicated that action would be taken to withdraw the injunction and that no other proceedings would be pursued in the Federal Court.

This final outcome was also to the satisfaction of the Government, which had been concerned that, in the earlier proceedings before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, an agreement had been reached, or had apparently been reached, to deny supply of petroleum product to a party who, as I have mentioned, was not represented at those proceedings. The Bill before the Senate is designed to ensure that the deficiencies of the earlier proceedings before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission cannot occur again.

Accordingly the Bill provides that under a new Division 5a of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act the President or a presidential member of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission shall have jurisdiction in relation to a dispute relating to a contravention or a threatened, impending or probable contravention of section 45d or of the new Section 45e of the Trade Practices Act that relates or may relate to work to be done under an award or in which an organisation of employees registered under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, or a member or officer of such an organisation is involved. In this way, the Commission will have jurisdiction without the need for an interstate industrial dispute or a threatened, impending or probable industrial dispute, because the jurisdiction will be based upon action under the Trade Practices Act which is in turn derived from the constitutional power of the Parliament to legislate with respect to corporations under section 51 (xx) of the Constitution.

The Bill provides that the President of the Commission or the Registrar may be notified by the person who has applied for an injunction under the Trade Practices Act restraining another person from engaging in conduct that constitutes a contravention of sections 45d or 45 e of that Act or of conduct associated with such contraventions. Equally the person against whom the injunction has been sought may also notify the Commission, as may a Minister. Upon such notification, or if the President otherwise becomes aware of the existence of a dispute, the Commission will have power to settle that dispute by conciliation. When seized with its jurisdiction under the proposed new Division 5a, the Commission is required to exercise only the powers available to it under that division.

The Bill specifies the parties to such a dispute who are entitled to participate in any proceedings before the Commission under the new Division. These will include any Federal unions involved, the employers of workers who are members of these unions, the organisations to which the employers belong, the persons seeking an injunction under the Trade Practices Act, and those sought to be restrained by the injunction. In addition, a Minister who notifies the Commission that he wishes to do so becomes a party. Provision has also been made for the Commission to include other persons as parties and to grant leave to intervene to other persons or organisations. As I have already indicated, the jurisdiction of the Commission, based as it is on the corporations power, will be comprehensive as to cases arising under sections 45D and 45E of the Trade Practices Act. In this way, any limitations which affect the Commission’s normal jurisdiction in relation to industrial disputes under Division 1 of the Act are put aside.

The power of the Commission to deal with such disputes by conciliation reflects the Government ‘s acceptance that disputes of this kind are best dealt with by seeking to bring about agreement between the parties directly involved. Thus, the Trade Practices (Boycotts) Amendment Bill provides that any contract, arrangement or understanding which is reached and to which a person who is prevented or hindered from supplying goods or acquiring goods is a party, shall not be in breach of the provisions of the proposed new section 45e, which makes such contracts, arrangements or understanding otherwise a contravention of the Act. Accordingly, the Commission’s role will be to seek to resolve the disputes by conciliating in such a way as to bring about agreement involving all the parties, including the party who has sought or is entitled to seek a remedy under the Trade Practices Act. In this way, the Government believes actions under the Trade Practices Act which have industrial relations implications can be dealt with by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission with a view to their resolution and in a way which the Government believes should minimise industrial action affecting the community at large. The concept behind the Bills is to provide a cooling off process in relation to such disputes. As my colleague, the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs has indicated, the Government remains committed to the principles underlying the provisions of the Trade Practices Act regarding boycotts and arrangements to deny the supply to or acquisition of goods or services, and the Trade Practices (Boycotts) Amendment Bill he has introduced strengthens the rights of individuals in that connection.

Of particular relevance to the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill are the proposed provisions of the Trade Practices (Boycotts) Amendment Bill dealing with a stay of injunction. That Bill provides that where proceedings are pending before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and the court has issued an injunction under sections 45d or 45e, a Minister or a party to the proceedings before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission may apply to the court for a stay of the operation of the injunction. The Federal Court is empowered, on the making of such an application, to make such an order if it considers that to do so would be likely to facilitate a settlement of the dispute by conciliation and that under all the circumstances it would be just to do so. This provision is designed to enable the Federal Court to take into account the fact that proceedings are before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and thus to give the Commission the opportunity to resolve the dispute which has given rise to the injunction through the processes of conciliation.

In these circumstances, if such a dispute is settled in the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission by agreement of all the parties, further substantive injunctive proceedings before the Federal Court would become unnecessary. If, however, the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission is not able to resolve the dispute by conciliation, the injunctive rights of the parties under the Trade Practices Act will remain in effect and may thereafter proceed. The Bills do not affect in any way the rights of a person to seek damages in relation to contravention of sections 45D or 45e.

My colleague the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs has already drawn attention to the provisions of the legislation which would provide for conciliation functions to be exercised by a State court or tribunal or that of a Territory. I would emphasise that this course of action has been pursued by the Government because it recognises that not all disputes arising under section 45 D or the proposed section 45E of the Trade Practices Act would fall within the jurisdiction of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. As I have already indicated, this is predicated upon action under the Trade Practices Act that relates to or may relate to work to be done under a Federal award or in which federally registered organisations are involved. Thus, the Bills recognise that where disputes arise which involve matters relevant to work covered by State awards or determinations or State registered unions, the conciliation process in relation to that matter ought properly be dealt with by the industrial relations tribunal directly involved. In this connection, the Government will be approaching State and Territory Governments to seek their agreement to relevant tribunals exercising jurisdiction under the proposed new legislation. Action will not be taken to prescribe any such State or Territory legislation in the meantime.

The Bills before the Senate provide a means by which rights under the Trade Practices Act are strengthened while, at the same time, providing for appropriate conciliation processes to facilitate the resolution of disputes having industrial relations implications before a tribunal having a responsibility for industrial relations matters generally. The Government believes that these proposals will remedy jurisdictional and other deficiencies to which I have already referred. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Button) adjourned.

page 2401

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS

The PRESIDENT:

– I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in my Gallery of Mr G. Warrena, M.P., chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts in the National Parliament of Papua New Guinea, and his colleague Mr K. Swokin, M.P., chairman of the Plans and Estimates Committee of that Parliament. Honourable gentlemen, we tender a warm welcome to you and we trust that your stay in Canberra is both pleasurable and profitable.

Honourable senators- Hear, hear!

page 2401

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1980

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 Carrick) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a first time.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– Could somebody explain to me- my remarks apply also to the two subsequent Billswhy the Senate may not have a first reading debate on these Bills. I understand that that is the ruling. Mr President, I draw your attention to Standing Order 1 90. It states:

In Bills which the Senate may not amend, the Question That this Bill be now read a First time’ may be debated, and in such debate matters both relevant and not relevant to the subject-matter of the Bill may be discussed.

The second paragraph of section 53 of the Constitution states:

The Senate may not amend proposed laws imposing taxation, or proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual services of the Government.

From that paragraph of the Constitution, I would have thought the Senate was not entitled to amend at least one if not all of these three taxation Bills which are about to come before us. If that is so, the Bills should qualify for debate at the first reading stage in accordance with Standing Order 190. Could I have that point cleared up?

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

– The Bill now before the Senate is the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1980 an assessment Bill. The other two BillsIncome Tax (Rates) Amendment Bill and Income Tax Amendment Bill- do not alter the rates. They are not designated as money Bills in the true sense because they do not alter the rates and do not impose taxation in the sense that a money Bill does; so they are not classified as such and therefore do not qualify for a first reading debate.

The PRESIDENT:

– I concur with that, Senator Walsh.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move:

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows-

The major purpose of this Bill is to give effect to four important taxation proposals announced in the 1979-80 Budget Speech. Important for the tourist industry is a scheme of tax deductions for depreciation of new buildings for the accommodation of travellers. Important in the context of the need to conserve scarce energy resources are measures to ease the cost of converting or replacing oil-fired equipment. The imposition of a maximum of $ 18,000 as the basis of depreciation allowances for cars and station wagons costing more than that is also to be provided by the Bill. The remaining Budget measure will provide a means of taxing lessees of cars and station wagons on profits made on disposal of these vehicles. The personal tax reliefs announced on 6 March 1 980 are also contained in this Bill and in the related Income Tax (Rates) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1980 that I will introduce shortly. Other amendments in the Bill will give effect to the statement of the Treasurer (Mr Howard) of 19 August 1979 that a disposal of plant during the first 12 months of its use- when made within public company groups- will not, in defined circumstances, cause the vendor company to lose its entitlement to the investment allowance. As foreshadowed, some technical deficiencies in the relevant provisions are also being remedied. There are also one or two other items in the Bill. I will speak about these later but first I will give the Senate an account of the major subjects of the Bill.

Buildings for Traveller Accommodation

Following the announcement of this initiative in the 1979-80 Budget Speech, the Treasurer issued a very detailed statement about it on 23 December 1979. Except for some variations of the scheme to meet representations that have been made, the amendments proposed by the Bill are in accordance with the Treasurer’s statement. I therefore think that 1 can now confine myself to key points. The new allowance will authorise fixed annual deductions of 2W per cent of the construction cost of new buildings used in Australia to produce income by providing shortterm accommodation for travellers. Eligible buildings will comprise hotels, motels, guest houses and apartment buildings, the construction of which started after 2 1 August 1979. To be eligible, a hotel, motel or guest house must contain at least 10 bedrooms wholly or principally to accommodate travellers. An apartment building must contain at least 10 apartments, flats or units available wholly or principally for short-term accommodation. The allowance will also apply to some extensions or alterations to buildings if the extensions or alterations are started after 21 August 1979. For this work to be eligible the building, as extended or altered, must be a hotel, motel or guest house that contains at least 10 bedrooms for travellers or an apartment building that comprises at least 10 apartments, flats or units for short-term use by travellers.

It is desirable to note two changes that, as a result of representations received since then, have been made to the plan the Treasurer announced on 23 December. The Treasurer indicated then that apartments, units or flats would be eligible for the new allowance only if the whole building consists of traveller accommodation units and associated facilities. On the other hand, he stated that if a building comprises a hotel and, say, a major shopping centre, so much of the cost of the building as is referable to the hotel would qualify for the new allowance. The Government has now decided that this should apply also to buildings that include apartments, units or flats. Accordingly, where such a building consists of apartments, units or flats as well as shops, provision is to be made for the cost of the accommodation part of the building to be eligible for the proposed deductions.

The second change in the announced plan concerns the ownership of buildings that include apartments, units or flats. It had been indicated that buildings in this category would qualify only if the entire building is owned or leased by the taxpayer claiming the allowance. It has been decided to ease this requirement. This is being done in recognition of the fact that, in order to facilitate financing, such buildings may be owned by more than one person, for example, through separate strata titles. At the same time, the Government considers that it ought not to depart from the basic ‘ 10 unit’ test for the allowance. Accordingly, where there is more than one owner of a building containing apartments, units or flats for traveller accommodation, the allowance will be limited to taxpayers who own or lease at least 10 such suites in the building. While the Government accepts that this extension can be fitted within the scope of the scheme, I must say that it has added significantly to the complexity and length of the legislation.

In general, entitlement to the allowance will first vest in the owner of a building who uses it for purposes of producing assessable income and who incurs the cost of constructing or extending the building. The deduction will continue to be available in subsequent years, as long as the building continues to be used wholly or principally for the accommodation of travellers. Entitlement to the allowance will generally follow the ownership of the building over the 40 year period and balancing adjustments will not * be made where a building is sold for an amount greater or less than its written down value for tax purposes at the time of the sale. Where a person constructs a building on leasehold land, or otherwise incurs building costs as a lessee, that person will, subject to other requirements being met, qualify for the allowance while remaining the lessee. If the lease is assigned, entitlement to the deduction will pass to the assignee. If the lease terminates, any residual entitlement will pass to the owner to whom the building reverts.

Although there are to be no balancing adjustments on sale of an eligible building, such adjustments will be available when a building is destroyed. In this case, the owner or lessee will be allowed a deduction where the written down value or undeducted cost of the building exceeds the amount of any salvage or insurance recoveries accruing as a result of the destruction. Deductions are, of course, to be available only where an eligible building is used for the production of assessable income. It follows that, if a tax-exempt body incurs construction costs on a building that it owns, a deduction will not be available to the body. Moreover, there is to be a safeguard against tax exempt bodies attempting to benefit from the allowance under arrangements, made after 1 May 1980, that seek to confer entitlement to deductions on a taxable entity on terms ensuring that a substantial part of the resulting tax benefit is to be enjoyed by the exempt body. I turn now to another subject.

Converting or Replacing Oil-fired Plant

The Bill implements the proposal to provide special concessions to encourage the conversion or replacement of certain oil-fired business plant so that alternative energy sources will be used. The Treasurer gave comprehensive details of these concessions in a statement issued on 12 December 1 979 and I think that, in this introductory speech, I can be relatively brief. The amendments to give effect to this proposal also take into account the Liquefied Petroleum Gas taxation initiative announced by the Minister for National Development (Senator Carrick) on 8 April 1980. That announcement varied the earlier statement by the Treasurer insofar as conversions or replacements involve LPG-powered plant.

The incentives take two forms. Where existing plant is converted, the cost of the conversion will be fully deductible in the year in which it is incurred. Where existing plant is replaced, the cost of the replacement plant is to qualify for a 40 per cent conversion allowance in addition to normal depreciation allowances. The conversion allowance which, I think, all will acknowledge is a generous incentive, will be available in the year in which the replacement plant is first used or installed ready for use and held in reserve. It will take the place of any 20 per cent investment allowance that might otherwise have applied. To qualify for either concession, the converted or replacement plant must be for use by an end userwho might be the owner or a lessee- wholly and exclusively in Australia and wholly and exclusively for the purpose of producing assessable income. Oil-fired plant being replaced or converted to other appropriate energy sources must have been in use- in Australia and in the production of assessable income- on the particular premises as at 21 August 1979, or be equipment for such use that an owner had by that date contracted to acquire or started to construct.

The concessions will be available in respect of both new and second-hand plant and there will be no qualifying monetary limit as there is for the investment allowance. It will not be relevant that the converted or replacement plant is of greater capacity than the plant that is being replaced or convened. Nor will the concessions be forfeited if the replaced plant is retained in an operational condition as back-up or booster plant, or where it would be uneconomic to remove it. The concessions will also be available in respect of the cost of converting or replacing ancillary plant that is used primarily and directly in association with the main plant. The concessions will not be available in respect of mobile plant or installations associated with such plant. Thus, road vehicles, ships, earthmoving equipment and forklift trucks will not be within the scope of the new concessions.

Like the investment allowance, the 40 per cent conversion allowance will be available in respect of leased plant. The primary entitlement to the allowance will rest with the owner- the leasing company- which will be able to transfer all or part of the allowance to the lessee-user. Conversion costs that are deductible to a leasing company will, however, not be transferable to a lessee. I will not detain the Senate with a lengthy account of the various tests of a timing character. They are fully explained in the explanatory memorandum and it is enough to observe here that the concessions will apply to conversion or replacement, after Budget day but before 1 July 1 984, or plant held or contracted for at Budget day. Expressed very broadly, conversions or replacements from oil-fired plant to LPG-fired plant made after Budget day and on or before 8 April 1980-but not after- will qualify. Correspondingly, conversions or replacements from LPG use after 8 April 1980 will be eligible. $18,000 Depreciation Limit

Under this 1979-80 Budget proposal there is to be a limit on the cost base for calculating depreciation allowances on new and second-hand cars and station wagons, including those that have four wheel drive. Such vehicles leased out by the owners or used to provide general services to the public will be included in the limitation. A limit of $18,000 is to apply in respect of the 1979-80 income year while the limit for future years will be indexed by movements in the motor vehicle purchase sub-group of the consumer price index. The movement to the end of the March 1980 quarter will, for example, provide the basis for the 1 980-8 1 limit. The limit fixed for a particular year will be applicable to a vehicle for the whole of the period of its ownership by a person. On its sale to another person, the then ruling limit will become applicable, again for all of the years that the new owner uses it and seeks depreciation allowances.

Honourable senators will recall that there have been some transitional modifications of the original proposal that the $18,000 limit was to apply to vehicles acquired under contracts entered into after 21 August 1979. These modifications were announced by the Treasurer on 16 October 1979, and mean that vehicles that dealers and importers had on hand at, or had ordered by, 21 August 1979 may be excluded from the depreciation limit. I should stress that these transitional arrangements will apply only in respect of the first owner-user of a vehicle covered by the transitional arrangements. Any subsequent owner-user of that vehicle will be subject to the limit that applies for the year in which he or she acquires and first uses the vehicle.

As reflected in the terms of the Bill, this will mean that the $18,000 limit will apply to a vehicle ordered by a taxpayer after 2 1 August 1 979 unless the vehicle was on hand as trading stock of a dealer or importer at that date or was part of a firm order placed by such a person as at that date. For cars and station wagons that are leased the limit will apply to the owner-lessor of the vehicle and will, of course, affect lessors regardless of the particular method they use to draw up their accounts. Because of this adjustment to a lessor’s depreciation allowances, there will be no restriction on a lessee’s deduction for lease rentals. Before leaving this proposal, I should mention that the Government has received further representations seeking either its complete withdrawal or its further modification. However, the Government remains convinced that there is sound justification for the limit.

Assessability of Profits on Sale of Leased Vehicles

The remaining 1 979-80 Budget announcement dealt with in the Bill is the proposed amendment to ensure that, where a car or station wagon has been held under a lease agreement and the charges payable under the agreement have been allowable as income tax deductions, any profit made by the lessee through an acquisition and subsequent sale of the vehicle will bear tax to an appropriate extent. Provisions incorporated in the Bill for this purpose will apply to any profits on disposals of cars or station wagons, including four wheel drive vehicles, acquired from lessors after 21 August 1979. So that the intended effects of the provisions may not be circumvented, they are not to be limited to profits made by lessees only. They will necessarily extend also to a profit made on disposal of a vehicle by a relative or other associate of its lessee. Other safeguards against attempts to avoid the intended effects have also been included. Under the new provisions, profit arising from the purchase and later disposal of a vehicle by a lessee or an associate is to be included in the assessable income of the person deriving the profit, to the extent to which it is not otherwise taxable in the hands of that person. The amount to be so assessed is, however, not to exceed an amount calculated to represent depreciation of the vehicle during the period it was under lease. There are also, I might add, provisions of an anti-avoidance nature dealing with a series of disposals of a vehicle.

Concessional Rebates

I turn now to non-budget measures contained in the Bill. It seems appropriate that I speak first about the substantial increases in concessional rebates that were announced by the Treasurer on 6 March 1980 and which will have effect from the commencement of the 1 980-8 1 income year. The maximum rebate for a dependent spouse, a daughter housekeeper, and a housekeeper will be increased from $597 to $800. The rebate for a parent will rise from $539 to $722. Maintenance of an invalid relative will attract a maximum rebate of $362 rather than $270 and the sole parent rebate will be enlarged from $417 to $559. Notional rebates for children under the zone allowance provisions will be increased by an equivalent percentage. The level of separate net income that a dependant may earn before the relevant maximum rebate is reduced will also be increased- from $203 to $272.

As indicated by the Treasurer when he announced them, these increases are greater than would have resulted from indexation and are a response to what the Government believes to be a relative disadvantage of single income families- particularly those on low incomesunder present taxation arrangements. The increased rebates will be reflected, together with the tax reductions resulting from indexation of the rates scale, in reduced PA YE deductions made from salaries and wages from 1 July 1 980.

Investment Allowance

On 19 August 1979 the Treasurer foreshadowed amendments to the investment allowance provisions. Under the present law, the investment allowance is automatically forfeited if, within 12 months of the first use of plant, the plant is disposed of or another person is granted a right to use it. The Government considers that, although this rule is necessary as a safeguarding measure, it should not operate to inhibit the reorganisation of public company groups for genuine business reasons. Accordingly, the Bill modifies the ‘ 12 months’ rule in the way outlined in the Treasurer’s statement.

The Treasurer’s statement also foreshadowed amendments to remedy some technical deficiencies in the rules for withdrawal of the investment allowance where the plant is disposed of after being leased or where the lessee permits another person to use it. The Bill contains these amendments.

Gifts

An amendment to the gift provisions will authorise deductions for donations of $2 or more to the Australian College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. This body has been set up in Australia to take over the functions of the Australian Regional Council of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, donations to which have been tax deductible since 1 956.

Royalties

Finally, the Bill deals briefly with the matter of royalties derived from sources in Australia by residents of other countries. The recent Income Tax Assessment Amendment Act 1980 contained measures arising from a court decision and, in part, amended the definition of ‘royalty’ so that it will include not only designated payments but also amounts credited but not actually paid over. Those amendments should have correspondingly changed the provisions that set out when royalties have a source in Australia but they omitted to take that further step. This purely technical deficiency is now being overcome, with effect from 1 May 1980. 1 have spoken at some length about a number of matters that are of considerable complexity. Honourable senators who want to do so will be able to find a more extensive explanation of the various measures in the explanatory memorandum that is being circulated. I therefore commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Button) adjourned.

page 2405

INCOME TAX (RATES) AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1980

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

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

-I move:

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows-

This Bill, which amends the Income Tax (Rates) Act 1976, will provide for the indexation of the personal tax rate scale that is to apply for 1980-81. As already announced, there will be half, rather than full, indexation. The resulting reduction in tax, in addition to any reduction that a taxpayer will enjoy from the associated increases in rebates for dependants, will be reflected in pay-as-you-earn deductions from 1 July next. As also foreshadowed by the Treasurer (Mr Howard), the Bill will add to the matters to which the Governor-General is to have regard in making regulations prescribing an indexation factor for 1980-81, or a later year. The further matters are the effects on the consumer price index of the health insurance changes that were announced on 24 May 1979 and of Government decisions for import parity pricing of crude oil. The indexation factor for 1980-81 will be available shortly.

An effect of the indexation proposed by the Bill will be that the marginal rates of tax in the standard scale will become payable at higher income levels than at present. Indexation does not change the tax rates themselves. These will remain at 32 per cent on income above the minimum taxable amount, 46 per cent on the next step, and 60 per cent as the top marginal rate. What indexation does mean is that a part of taxable income that otherwise would have been taxed at 32 per cent will from 1 July fall into the zero rated step, that is, the minimum taxable income will be increased. Similarly, parts of taxable income that would have been taxed at the 46 per cent or the 60 per cent rate will instead be taxed at the 32 per cent or the 46 per cent rate respectively. The important thing is that all individual taxpayers will benefit from the tax reductions proposed by these amendments. Details of the provisions of the Bill are contained in an explanatory memorandum being circulated to honourable senators. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Button) adjourned.

page 2406

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT BILL (No. 3) 1980

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows-

This Bill follows the announcement of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) of 14 April 1 980 of measures to assist primary producers in improvement of water supplies. It will amend the income tax law to provide immediate deductibility for capital expenditures incurred by primary producers on plant or structural improvements in order to conserve or convey water for use in a business of primary production. Under the present law, these expenditures, when made on plant on which depreciation allowances are available, are deductible as depreciation allowances over the estimated life of the plant; otherwise, they are deductible over a period of 10 years. By providing for a much more rapid write-off for tax purposes, the Government is seeking to encourage primary producers to increase their capacity to withstand drought.

Under the terms of the Bill, full deductibility in the year of incurrence will be available in respect of capital expenditure incurred by a primary producer on plant or structural improvements, for conserving or conveying water for use in carrying on the business of primary production. This includes expenditure on dams, earth tanks, underground tanks, aboveground tanks, tank stands, bores, wells, irrigation channels, pipes, pumps and windmills. If any item is also for use for domestic purposes, only the part of the cost that relates to business use will be deductible. This, of course, is also the case with depreciation allowances. Capital expenditures will qualify for immediate deductibility where they are incurred on or after 14 April 1980 under a contract entered into on or after that date or, if incurred on an item constructed by the taxpayer, construction started on or after that date.

Expenditure on plant or structural improvements for conserving or conveying water that, under the present law, attracts the 20 per cent investment allowance will continue to do so. Also, the measures proposed by the Bill will not affect any entitlement that a primary producer has to the 40 per cent allowance for energy conversion, for example, where a petrol-fuelled pump is replaced by an electric pump. In these circumstances, of course, the conversion allowance takes the place of the investment allowance that would otherwise be available. Full details of technical aspects of the Bill, including measures of a familiar kind against any unintended exploitation of the new deduction, are contained in an explanatory memorandum that is being circulated to honourable senators. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Button) adjourned.

page 2406

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 3) 1979-80

Second Reading

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

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator ROBERTSON:
Northern Territory

– A good deal of concern is being expressed in the community over the adequacy of our schools to provide appropriate education for our students. Honourable senators will be aware of this from their own experience in the communities and from the pressure that is brought upon them by parent groups and others who have often expressed this view to them. It has been recognised by this Senate in the fact that a reference has been given to the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts to investigate:

The effectiveness of Australian schools in preparing young people for the work force with particular emphasis on literacy and numeracy.

That is the reference which this Senate has given to its Standing Committee on Education and the Arts. If we are looking for other evidence, we find it in a number of areas. Professor Karmel, who I think would be accepted in this place and others as a recognised authority on education in Australia, indicated to our Committee that 40 per cent of our children are not well served by Australian schools. I will not elaborate on what he meant by that, but the statement was made that 40 per cent of our students are not well served by Australian schools.

Dr Ray Wunderlich, an American pediatrician who visited Australia last year, had this to say:

One in four of children in modern society have learning difficulties.

As Australia obviously falls into the category of a modern society, one in four of our children would have those problems. Keeves and Bourke, in a study which was done for the Educational Research and Development Council, said this:

Twenty-five to 30 per cent of Australian children fail to reach a satisfactory standard in reading and comprehension.

Without providing the evidence that has been given to our Committee, or pre-empting recommendations which we might make, certainly I think that my colleagues on that Committee would agree with the general evidence presented to them from a wide range of people- that is, employers, members of staffs of colleges of advanced education, universities, and others- that 20 to 25 per cent of students in Australian schools are under-achievers. Similar evidence was given to the House of Representatives Select Committee on Specific Learning Difficulties. It was looking at something a little different. The Committee, in its report, which is a statement issued as a Press release early in its inquiry, had this to say:

At its inaugural meeting last week, the Committee agreed that its Inquiry should be concerned with those children who, while having adequate intelligence, fail to achieve literacy in its broadest sense in the present education system. An accepted definition of specific learning difficulties considered by the Committee is a disorder of one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language spoken or written, which may manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell or do mathematical calculations.

The Committee added this extra rider:

The Committee takes the view . . . that its Inquiry also encompasses other specific physical, psychological, emotional, social and environmental difficulties such as poverty, cultural dislocation, unfamiliarity with the English language and inappropriate and inadequate teaching methods.

Evidence brought before any committee usually shows the child ‘s achievements in relation to its peer group. There is little empirical evidence available which shows how a child achieves in respect of its potential. The obvious reason for this is, of course, that it is very difficult to identify potential. So the incidence of these problems that I have expressed may be greater than I have indicated. A child who is ‘keeping up’ at school could be working well below potential- in other words, achieving well below potential- and would fall into the category of an underachiever.

It is often said that much is being done for the handicapped child with obvious problems but much less is being done for those who underachieve, those who do not achieve their potential. The House of Representatives Committee recommended far more investigation than is being done at the present time. I think the Senate Standing Committee and certainly all senators would accept that point, but I do not intend to canvass it now. There are a number of reasons why a child might not achieve; in other words, he or she is underachieving in relation to his or her peer group.

Without going into a full discussion of these, which would take two or three hours, let us look at a few of the more obvious reasons. The first- I do not think there is any doubt- is a lack of identification of the problem, particularly if this problem is neurological or physiological. The reason for this is that doctors are not trained to identify, either at birth or in early childhood, the problems that the child may have. This leads to them giving wrong advice to parents. One of the greatest problems that face the early educators is that doctors will say ‘Let us wait and see. He might grow out of it’, ‘It is unfortunate that the child cannot co-ordinate’, or has this or that problem, or ‘Either you must learn to live with it or let us wait and see when he gets to be six or seven or reaches puberty’, or whatever. Unfortunately, the problem is exacerbated because teachers at pre-school and at early primary school are also not trained really to identify the problem or to counsel the parents. Parents hear comments such as ‘the child is dull’, ‘the child is stupid’ or ‘the child has behavioural problems; he is naughty’ and then the child is rejected normally within the class room. Both groups, the doctors and the teachers, who could really identify the problems that the child has and look back to see the reasons for these problems, are not trained to do this and do not do it in most cases.

The second obvious area is that of the parent influence or the environmental background- the home influence on the child. I refer to the child who is the product of a home in which the parent does not encourage development, does not read to the child, does not encourage discussion, does not play with the child or take the child out and develop those skills which will be needed later on. In the worst cases- this matter was highlighted in the inquiry by the Senate Committee into television and the effect of television on the learning behaviour of children- the parents dump the child at an early age in front of the television set and allow him or her to be entertained or occupied by the set, with absolutely disastrous results for that child. I suggest that the problem of the lack of a proper environment is probably the most common problem. When the child goes to pre-school or to infants school he or she presents as deprived or what is popularly known as culturally disadvantaged.

The third area I would like to consider is the stage of the school system- not necessarily in pre-school or early primary school stage- where the teachers are not trained to provide alternative methods of education. There is a good deal of talk in the education field about individual instruction. Obviously individual instruction is of little use unless it is appropriate for the child to whom it is being supplied. We have to make the point to teachers- so many of them do not appreciate this point- that not all children learn the same way. For a graphic demonstration of this fact we have only to go back 20 years to the days when I was a young teacher to see the success of the Fernald system, the Kinaesthetic method of teaching reading. I saw children of eight or nine years of age gain three years of reading ability in a matter of eight or nine weeks because they were using a method which was more appropriate to them.

The fourth area to look at is the lack of motivation on the part of the child. This lack of motivation is, in the early stages, usually a result of poor parental attitudes and, in the later stages, probably the result of the lack of a goal. Children realise that at the end of their schooling no job will be available for them and that unemployment is facing them. So they have no motivation to put their noses down and do some work. The last area I want to look at- it is relevant to what I will say in this regard- is the low esteem on the part of the child. Again, unfortunately this is usually the result of parental attitudes and psychological problems which the child may have, which have not been recognised by either the parent or the school and which have not been catered for. Low esteem also could be caused by teachers not being able to establish rapport with the child and meet the needs of that child.

Much more could be said about this area but, obviously, I can not canvass it now. I think that what I have said is enough for present purposes. It is sufficient to say that a significant percentage of our children- roughly 25 per cent- are underachievers for a number of reasons. I do not have to go into them all. I have indicated a few of them. The broad problem is basically twofold: Firstly, the lack of skills on the part of the doctors and teachers to identify fully the problem and give reasons for it; secondly, the lack of technique on the part of teachers and parents to meet the needs of the individual child. The House of Representatives Select Committee made some recommendations and I think these ought to be followed. Its report is an excellent document and one which has not received the support that it should. The Senate Committee, without preempting what it might find, will no doubt come down with some more recommendations.

The point I am coming to is that there is an organisation which is doing a wonderful job in this field of identifying the cause of the problem and providing appropriate techniques to deal with it. Because an appropriation Bill is being debated, I point out at this time that this organisation is not receiving financial support from the Government. In fact, when I asked the former Minister for Education, Senator Carrick, who is now the Leader of the Government in the Senate, a question about this organisation during Question Time he gave no indication that he even knew that the organisation existed. I refer to the organisation known as ANSUA- A New Start for the Under Achiever Association. This organisation was formed in 1972 by parents and professionals involved in child development and education who were concerned about the unsatisfactory results obtained by traditional approaches to the areas of learning difficulties and/or delayed development. In ANSUA ‘s search for improved methods of assistance for these children, new techniques pioneered overseas and designed to improve a child’s nervous system function were taught to parents and interested teachers. The success of these pilot endeavours both in the home situation and in schools resulted in many inquiries for help from parents for their children. The first ANSUA centre was consequently formed in September 1 972 and staffed by professionals conversant with the techniques involved.

By early 1973 ANSUA had outgrown its Saturday morning operations and it is now operating a full five days a week. As the success stories of ANSUA became known amongst parents and teachers, requests for assistance came from many parts of Australia. This resulted in the expansion of ANSUA ‘s services to children interstate. Subsequently, centres run by local parent groups, with professional staff trained at the Melbourne Centre, were established. ANSUA centres have operated at Coffs Harbour since 1973, Brisbane since 1975 and Sydney since 1977. Parent community groups came into existence in Papua New Guinea in 1978 and Darwin in 1979.

The objectives of this organisation are threefold and I would like to read them into Hansard. They are:

  1. To provide positive help through specific therapy for children with learning difficulties and/or delayed development due to minor nervous system dysfunctions.
  2. To inform the professional community on the techniques of diagnosis and treatment of minor nervous system dysfunctions associated with learning difficulties and/or delayed development.
  3. To promote general awareness and understanding of the problems of these children and of the programs designed to improve their neurological function, and to help achieve their maximum genetic potential.

How effective is this method? Groups have been set up all over Australia, as I have indicated in my reading of that short history. The techniques which have been developed overseas and adopted and developed by ANSUA in Australia have been adopted by parents and teachers. Outstanding results have been achieved. I have here a few case histories. I seek leave to have these incorporated in Hansard. I have shown them to the Minister.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

SOME CASE HISTORIES

MITCHELL, age 61/2 years: Coffs Harbour-

Already suffering at home and at school because he couldn’t read. He was lazy- or so it had been thought. The more this attitude became apparent, the more frustrated and unpleasant a member of the class he had become. He was a very restless and inattentive child. He had the most annoying habit of continually sniffing and snorting. Attention, advice, and treatment had been sought continually to no avail. After eight weeks of programming, Mitchell presented himself for a checkback a very proud and happy boy with a reading age of 7 years and 6 months.

LINDA, age 3 years 10 months: Melbourne-

Linda’s development was delayed. Her parents had been told she would not be able to attend normal school. After 21/2 years on ANSUA Therapy, Linda adored learning and entered normal school. Several years later she is still achieving well and is a happy, normal youngster.

GRAHAM, age 1 1 years: Melbourne-

First came to ANSUA in April 1977. His age was then 8 years 7 months; he had a severe learning problem and was slow to complete any school work. Reading age 6.8. Graham was put on an ANSUA programme which neither he nor his parents found easy, but they persevered. In December 1978 this is an extract from his school report: “Graham has completed a really excellent year’s work and shown a remarkable improvement in all areas. This is no small measure due to the improvement in his co-ordination achieved through ANSUA. He is a child for whom it has worked wonders! His Maths is now excellent, his writing is outstanding, his spelling greatly improved and his general knowledge and language very good indeed . . . Excellent work Graham.”

HELEN, age 1 3 years 5 months: Brisbane-

Initial Assessment in March, 1976. Reading age: 10 years 5 months. Spelling problem. Handwriting virtually illegible. Social adjustment poor. Mother reported that problems had been evident since pre-school. Pregnancy, birth and childhood history straightforward and uneventful, except for severe reaction to smallpox vaccination at 1 8 months. Right sided, except for reading, for which left eye used as the dominant eye. Eye tracking poor. Hand and foot undeveloped. Diet lacking in nutritional value. Half hour programme to be done twice daily.

First check back was at 13 years 1 1 months. Reading age: 1 1 years5 months. Improved in all areas. Eye tracking better. Handwriting neat and well formed.

Second check back was at 14 years 2 months. Reading age; 14 years. School report very pleasing. Marks in the 80 ‘s and 90 ‘s. Academic level recommended by school. Laterality completely established as right. Happy, well adjusted and with plenty of friends at home and school. Helen: “I can do anything at school when I want to. I understand things now.” Mother “Helen has an aura of success and confidence and being able to cope’. Discharged from program.

JEREMY, age 1 1 years: Brisbane-

Initial Assessment in September 1978. Grade 6. Case history revealed that mother had lost a lot of weight during pregnancy after moving from a very cold climate to the tropics. Birth was very quick. Tests indicated mixed laterality, problems of visual and auditory perception. Walked early, never crawled, and had always been poorly co-ordinated, his knees always skinned. He had a fixation with fire and torches and craved sweet foods. Reading age: 9 years 1 1 months. Concentration poor and always in trouble in class. Jeremy was set a program of 70 minutes daily. Feingold diet and high protein intake recommended. First check back was 8 weeks later. Mother: ‘He’s a changed boy’. Much happier and easier to live with, now smiles in the morning. Stopped squinting, stopped stumbling, no longer lighting fires or interested in his seven torches. Not eating compulsively or craving sweet foods. ‘Fanatical’ about his diet, jogs to school daily. Visual function improved. Reading age 10 years 3 months. Reading with confidence. Concentration markedly improved. Program continuing.

NATHAN, age 2 years 1 1 months: Sydney-

Delayed development. No speech. After 3 months on an ANSUA program Nathan was learning 6-8 new words of speech daily, became affectionate for the first time (would give cuddles), could blow and throw. Three months later Nathan knew 1 00 words by sight and could read 50.

ANDREW, age 1 4.0 years: Sydney-

Reading age 10.8 years. Learning difficulty. Word sight recognition of 9.0 years. Eldest of 7 children. Hyperactive. Two other children in the family are on ANSUA programs. After 12 months on an ANSUA program Andrew joined a library as he enjoys reading for pleasure and is attending a speed reading class! Andrew was referred to an Allergist who found many food allergies and once these were eliminated from his diet he improved a great deal. His teacher says he is an open and confident, mature teenager. He hopes to become an Electrician. ANSUA has discharged Andrew but he will continue with a basic physical education program at home, e.g. cycling and jogging.

Senator ROBERTSON:

– I thank the Senate. ANSUA is financed by parents and interested persons. They have applied for Government assistance but to this stage to no avail. That is why I raise the matter during the debate on the Appropriation Bill. I would like to read sections of a letter from the executive director of the organisation, which reads as follows:

We have to date applied for financial assistance from the Federal Government through the-

Schools Commission-Special Projects (Innovations) Program 1974, 1975, 1977, 1978, 1979.

Social Security- Handicapped Persons Welfare Section, August 1978.

The letter continues:

In view of the multiple grants handed out by the Schools Commission, without any redress to supportive research, one is forced to the conclusion that denial of assistance to ANSUA is purely political (educational/medical) in nature and not based on any justifiable reason. When ANSUA pioneered this technique in Australia in 1 972 we were perhaps too innovatory for the Innovations Grant (as we were told ! ). However, since then many of the techniques we used in 1972 are now being used by occupational therapists, physiotherapists and Early Childhood Development Centres, physical educators and school teachers and in particular remedial gymnasiums- all Government financed without research.

I go further down in the letter to this one comment:

Our parents whose children have been ‘ failed ‘ by the ‘system’ surely have as much right to financial assistance through a Government grant to ANSUA Centres, as for instance, girls in Winlayton who need their tatoos removed.

The purpose of raising this matter now in the Appropriation debate is to ask the Government to look again at the possibility of some assistance. Let me remind honourable senators of the problem. Twenty-five per cent of our children are not achieving their potential. Twenty-five per cent of children not achieving potential is a waste we cannot afford, and it is a situation which is morally indefensible. Let us remind ourselves that the children of today are the Australia of tomorrow. Do not let either them or ourselves down. As we debate the Bills, I call on the Government to give some financial support to those who have established techniques which are more effective than our government school techniques in meeting the needs of this significant group of young people.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I want to raise a matter- which I do not intend to speak to at great length- which I had hoped I would not have had to raise in this place. It concerns the dismissal of a senior pathologist who worked in the Commonwealth Department of Health at Townsville. The person concerned is Dr Elizabeth Thomas, who as recently as a few day ago received a certificate of Australian citizenship after living for a number of years in Australia. I believe the penalty that was inflicted on Dr Thomas to be extreme in the circumstances. I hope that the Government will take some note of the papers that I now have in my possession and that there will be an opportunity for the Minister for Health (Mr MacKellar) and the Department of Health to reconsider the whole situation. Dr Thomas was born in India. She is a highly trained lady with a curriculum vitae of which most people would be extremely proud. She has always worked in this country in a senior situation. The details relating to the charge- I will refer to the formal parts onlywere lodged on 9 November 1979. She was charged under section 55 of the Public Service Act as amended. The official document stated:

In relation to charge B within the meaning of Section 55 ( 1 ) (e) of the Public Service Act, as amended and having regard to your response of the 8 November 1 979 it is decided to withdraw Charge B, however this will not alter the suspension notice delivered at 1 535 hours on 5 November 1 979.

I will say more about this document later. The doctor was suspended at that time without pay, subject to the hearing of the charges and to her appeal to the Public Service Board. She waited until April 1980 when the matter was finalised with a dismissal notice. The next official document I have is signed by Dr Ulrich who is the Chief Officer of the Department of Health in Brisbane. It states: 1 hereby charge Elizabeth Thomas, Pathologist (position No. 3076) Townsville Pathology Laboratory, in the State of Queensland, with the commission of an offence within the meaning of section 55 ( 1 ) (a) of the Public Service Act 1 922 as amended in that she, being an officer under the said Act, did wilfully disobey a lawful order given by the Chief Officer in writing on 1 1 July 1979 (copy is attached) namely: That after the 1 1th July 1979 and on or about the 8th November 1979 Elizabeth Thomas communicated matters of the nature set out in that order to Doctor R. Sutton who was a person whom the instruction applied.

That document is dated 15 November. Numerous other documents are associated with the matter. It was only as a last resort that Dr Thomas sought aid in what I believe to be most unfair circumstances. I do not propose to go into the ethics of the case. I know that she made accusations that certain practices were not being properly carried out and that certain matters had taken place which were not strictly honest. Nevertheless, she was charged. She then appealed. The appeal stated:

I hereby appeal, under sub-section (2) of Section 82aa of the Commonwealth Public Service Act 1922-1948, on the following grounds, against your decision to dispense with my services, namely: (a) I am not guilty of the conduct specified in the notice given to me; or, alternatively: (b) the conduct does not justify the decision to dispense with my services.

Dr Thomas duly attached her signature to that appeal. Notice was given to the appellant by Mr R. T. Matthews, chairman of the Appeal Board, in the following terms:

In the matter of the appeal lodged by you under Section 55 of the Public Service Act against the punishment recommended under section 55 of the Public Service Act by the Director. Department of Health on the sixth day of November 1979.

You are hereby to take notice that your appeal will be heard in the Training Room, Second Floor, Department of Employment and Youth Affairs, Townsville Permanent Building, Flinders Street, Townsville on Wednesday the twelfth day of December 1979 at 9 o’clock in the forenoon when you are required to attend.

Under the provisions of regulation 147 (5) copies of documents intended by the Chief Officer to be used at this appeal are attached for your information.

Please acknowledge receipt of this notice.

That document was dated at Brisbane on 27 December 1979. The case took considerable time. She was advised by both a barrister and a solicitor. We are unhappy about the transcript of the case and the way in which evidence was taken. I do not want to make the accusation that alterations have been made to the transcript, but the doctor and other people feel that there is a great deal of inconsistency in it. In the first place, Dr Thomas was worried about having the decision taken after the appeal was heard but she was advised that the appeal could not be heard until the transcript of the case had become available. A further explanation for the delay was that the transcript was not required and the appeal would be heard on the evidence taken.

I pose a number of questions, supported by relevant documents to which I will refer in a few moments. There are time limits on us; without them I would take almost an hour in a debate of this nature. I believe this is a matter of great urgency and should be raised in order that justice may be done. There is a threat floating around that the doctor may be deregistered. I hope that the Minister will re-examine the whole case in the closest way possible.

Senator Sheil:

– Was she fired for divulging information?

Senator KEEFFE:

-She was fired on the charge that I read.

Senator Sheil:

– I read it; it was divulging information, wasn’t it?

Senator KEEFFE:

– Not particularly. She was unhappy about the way in which some things were happening within the organisation. I would have thought that if one were unhappy about things one would have the democratic right to try to correct them. Maybe there are methods within the established form which is set down whereby this could have been done another way. I am totally convinced that the doctor is a person of very high competence and that she is a woman of great integrity and honesty.

The point I set out to make before that useful interjection was that I believe when this case was first heard the decision by the Public Service Board should have been handed down much more quickly. There are also some problems in relation to the telegrams that were sent. One is a correction of another telegram. I will not introduce all of these documents now but I hope that, in the wisdom of the Minister for Health and the senior people of his Department, the case can be re-examined. The main thing is for Dr Thomas to have her name cleared professionally. Dismissal under these circumstances appears to be an extremely high penalty. If this is followed by deregistration- it would be on what I think would be very flimsy grounds- her whole life will be ruined. If I have to bring the matter to the attention of the Senate again I will do so, and I will have her curriculum vitae and many other documents incorporated in Hansard, with the permission of the Senate. I hope that that does not have to be done on this occasion.

Without referring to the whole message, a telegram dated 28 April was sent advising that the lady concerned had been dismissed as from 18 April. There was a great delay in the sending of the telegrams, and also a corrective telegram was sent. Those telegrams indicate that there were delays of some sort- delays that should not have been necessary. If there was a reason for a delay Dr Thomas should have been told much earlier why such a delay was taking place. Possibly that information should have come to her direct from the Public Service Board. It baffles me why it should take many months for a deliberation of this nature to take place before a final dismissal notice can be handed down. I respectfully suggest that the lady is entitled at least to payment for the period that she was under suspension. But there is no suggestion that this will be done. An official telephone which was connected to the lady’s house came under scrutiny and it was decided to cut off the service. I understand that the service has now been restored.

Another point I want to raise is the problem of discrepancies in the transcript of the Public Service Board appeal proceedings. Line 7 on page 2 of the transcript reads: . . presented to Mr Holling- a number of documents

The Government’s documents had been numbered exhibit 21, et cetera. Why were the appellant’s documents not similarly numbered? One has grave doubts as to whether all the documents were taken into consideration by the board of inquiry. The transcript has alterations that are not consistent with what happened at the hearing. There are alterations on pages 3, 4 and 5. Without going into all the details I think it is necessary in the limited time available in this debate to highlight the fact that those sorts of things did in fact take place. The lawyers associated with the case on 12 May, a few days ago, signed this document which reads:

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN DR. ELIZABETH THOMAS

We have perused the transcript of the proceedings of the Appeal Board in this matter and there appear to be some mistakes in the transcript.

That is signed by Mr P. R. H. Elliott, a solicitor with Giudes and Elliott, of 72 Denham Street, Townsville and Mr R. D. Pack, a barrister, of Alexandra House, 263 Flinders Street, Townsville, both highly competent and reputable members of the legal profession in the city of Townsville. The wording of the document is phrased obviously in low key legal terms. The lawyers feel unhappy in some way about the transcript of proceedings before the Appeal Board. They have referred to mistakes. I personally would put the word ‘mistakes’ in inverted commas because it appears to me that this should not have happened. The doctor has been tried on some charges. I am not saying that the transcript has been altered but if there were genuine mistakes in it how could the Board come to a fair decision in deciding to go ahead with the sacking of this highly competent professional lady?

I refer to one other case which was published in an issue of our local newspaper in February 1980. It reads:

Scientists at Melbourne ‘s Commonwealth Serum Laboratories are considering industrial action over the suspension of one of Australia ‘s leading research scientists.

I go so far as to say that Dr Thomas is one of Australia’s leading people in her own field. This newspaper report continues:

The secretary of the Professional Officers Association, Mr J. McAuliffe, said scientists at CSL were upset about the suspension of a venom expert, Dr Sutherland.

An Australian Medical Association spokesman said it was absolutely ludicrous’ that one of Australia’s leading research scientists should be prevented from giving advice to doctors or students no matter what he was suspended for.

Dr Sutherland, 43, who has been at CSL since its Immunology Department was formed in 1967, confirmed yesterday that he had been suspended, with pay, last Thursday by the CSL director, Dr Greville McCarthy.

He could not say more than that.

Mr McAuliffe said Dr Sutherland’s colleagues are concerned that a conflict over research funds should have resulted in the suspension.

I make a final point. The newspaper article reads:

Dr Sutherland spent 12 years finding an antidote for the deadly funnel-web, and helped develop the new bandage splint method of treating snake and spider bites at the scene.

Dr McCarthy denied yesterday that cutbacks were taking place at the laboratories.

There was a deliberate policy at the CSL in recent years to maintain research and development funding and staff strengths.

But the overall direction of research had to ‘change with the times’. He refused to comment on Dr Sutherland’s suspension.

The Laboratories employ 1,000 workers, with 100 of them scientists.

I raise that matter to point out that in that case a senior man was not suspended without pay. There are many precedents of people who are suspended being paid either during the period of suspension or at the end of the suspension, even if they are dismissed. Such a decision takes many weeks or sometimes a few months to make, but at the end of that period such people frequently get their accumulated pay. I respectfully suggest that the Minister examine this whole case closely. I have a number of documents which I could make available. I hope that I do not have to raise this matter here again in a few days time. I hope that my contribution today will be sufficient to enable the Minister to carry out a comprehensive investigation in the next few days.

I suggest that the doctor concerned, if it was felt that there was some guilt, would be happy to take even a demotion or a transfer so that she would not necessarily continue to operate in the position she held. In my view there should be neither a demotion nor a transfer. I believe the punishment of being suspended for this lengthy period is sufficient. It has an effect in a community such as Townsville, which is not the biggest city in Australia, where a person of this nature is well known and well respected. People have a tendency to ask why she was suspended and why a decision has not been made. That person ‘s integrity, honesty and professional position in the community come under a scrutiny which it should not have to come under. I suggest that course of action. I hope that the end result will be full restoration to her position but that, if the Minister and the Department feel that there ought still to be some punishment, it will be less grievous than that meted out to her and that at the very least she will receive payment of all salary due over the period of suspension up to at least the date of dismissal.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– In speaking to Appropriation Bills (Nos. 3 and 4) I wish to refer to quite a few items. I hope that Senator Carrick will listen to what I have to say so that when we come to the Committee stage he will be able to give me an answer to a question which I was hoping I could have asked him earlier today but which because of circumstances did not get the opportunity to ask. I refer the Minister to his answer to Question on

Notice No. 5808 from Mr Hayden in which the Minister said that information as to which companies had interest in petroleum titles in Australia is listed in a publication of the Bureau of Mineral Resources. I ask the Minister whether he is aware that his predecessor Mr Newman has previously advised, in answer to Question on Notice No. 3587, that this information was supplied to the Bureau of Mineral Resources on a confidential basis. I further ask the Minister whether he can explain the reason for the discrepancy between the answer on this matter given by his predecessor, Mr Newman, and that given by him; and whether his answer to Question No. 5808 now means that the information sought by Mr Hayden is no longer classified and will be provided.

A problem which occurred in this chamber prior to the Parliament rising for the Christmas recess in 1 979 has now been resurrected. On that occasion we heard conflicting answers given in the House of Representatives by Mr Newman and in this place by ex-Senator Webster. Both ex-Senator Webster and Mr Newman were asked whether the non-declaration of Capricornia Marine Park was due to the issuing of oil exploration licences. Ex-Senator Webster said no. Senator Durack backed ex-Senator Webster on that occasion. Mr Newman said yes. That was at about 11.15 a.m. that day. My colleague Senator Walsh moved to suspend Standing Orders to enable the Government to give an explanation of the contradiction. The Government suspended the sitting of the Senate for lunch. Then Senator Carrick said that he would make a statement at 3 p.m. Just before 3 p.m. Mr Sinclair stood over Senator Carrick. We all recall Mr Sinclair standing in the Senate lobby for some time with a glowering look on his face. Senator Carrick then made the statement that Mr Newman had not heard the question. We all know that Mr Newman pleaded some deafness or disability due to war service which everyone accepted. I would like to know whether it took four hours to find that out. The question was asked at 11.45 a.m. and at 3 p.m. Senator Carrick came in to give that explanation.

That is the problem with which we are faced now. It is being resurrected. I am referring to the answer given by Mr Newman in the other place and the contradictory answer which was given by the former Senator Webster. Senator Carrick is now involved because he replaced Mr Newman who, no doubt, was removed from that ministerial post because of his contradictory action. Of course, we all know that arising out of that incident Senator Webster was transferred to a government post- another job for the boys- in Wellington. He was appointed Australian High Commissioner to New Zealand. I should like to get back to the point I first mentioned- the contradictory answers which were given to two questions from Mr Hayden. I hope that Senator Carrick or a member of his staff is listening to my comments and that the Minister will turn up the answer to Mr Hayden ‘s Questions on Notice No. 5808 and No. 3587. During the Committee stage of this Bill we will be dealing with the Department of National Development and Energy for which Senator Carrick is responsible. He may be able to come up with an answer. He may be able to tell us that the information sought by Mr Hayden is no longer classified. Of course, if he cannot, we will want to know whether the Minister can assure the Senate unequivocally that the Government is not trying to prevent Parliament, and the public from gaining access to important information on the exploration for and development of Australian petroleum.

We have heard a lot about this matter in this chamber since Senator Carrick became Minister for National Development and Energy. At Question Time he gets right away from the points raised in questions directed to him. On many occasions he does not answer the thrust of the questions but gives us a lecture of the benefits to the Australian community of the very high petrol tax that has been levied. He also indicates that the Government is supporting great exploration programs. Mr Hayden tried to find out some details about this matter. In the first instance we were told that the information is confidential, but then we were told by Senator Carrick that the information is available in the Parliamentary Library. I hope Senator Carrick will be able to come into the chamber during the Committee stage of this Bill.

The other matter to which I wish to refer briefly was raised by Senator Teague this morning when he put words into Senator Carrick ‘s mouth as to how well South Australia is doing under its new Premier, Mr Tonkin. Of course, people can be misled. I raised a point of order and said that Senator Carrick was misleading the Senate and everyone who was listening because South Australia is not doing too well under the Tonkin Government. When I raised that point of order I pointed out that South Australia now has the highest rate of unemployment in Australia. That has come about since the election in last December. South Australia is faced not only with a high rate of unemployment; in the Adelaide Advertiser on 17 April an article headed ‘Housing approvals tumble’ written by the economic editor, Edward Nash, stated:

Building approvals Tor private houses in South Australia in February were the lowest for 1 3 years, and the second lowest since the 1 96 1 credit squeeze.

We all recall that. The credit squeeze was imposed by a Liberal-Country Party government in Canberra. The present Government at this point of time is probably not as vicious as that previous Government but it is rapidly reaching that point. Edward Nash further stated:

Figures issued by the the Australian Bureau of Statistics yesterday put February approvals at 434.

In the past 20 years, the only months when fewer approvals were granted were January, 1967 (392) and May, 1961 (363).

The February figure represents a fall of 50 on January and a fall of 61 on February, 1979.

That shows the state of the situation in South Australia under the Liberal Government led by Tonkin. Housing approvals are tumbling rapidly. I have spoken before about the advertising campaign conducted by the Master Builders Association of South Australia. It inserted full page advertisements in support of the Tonkin election campaign in September, pointing out that the housing industry was in a deplorable state because of the Corcoran-led Government. Figures released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics a week after the election proved that the reverse was the case. They showed that there had been an upturn in the previous 12 months under the Corcoran-led Government. The latest ABS statistics, which were published and commented on by Edward Nash in the Advertiser of 1 7 April this year, show a dramatic tumble in housing construction in South Australia.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Those people were hoist with their own petard.

Senator McLAREN:

– Of course, and they will not be allowed to forget it. When we raise these matters in the Parliament we are often chided by honourable senators opposite, who say: ‘That is all in the past. Why do you raise these things?’. Who raises the past more often in this chamber than Senator Carrick? In nearly all his answers at Question Time he refers to what happened between 1972 and 1975, during the term of office of the Whitlam Labor Government. He always tags that point on somewhere. He is on record in Hansard in many places as accusing the Whitlam Labor Government between 1972 and 1975 of having created the highest inflation on record in this country. We all know that inflation is rapidly rising again. No matter how often I point out the situation to him, he takes no notice of me. He still gives misleading figures.

Today I went through my files and resurrected a graph which was provided to me by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Library on 1 7 March 1976. The graph shows who was responsible for the highest rate of inflation ever in this country. It was none other than the late Bob Menzies. In 1951 inflation was 25.5 per cent. The country at that time was led by a Liberal-Country Party Prime Minister. Ministers say repeatedly in this chamber, in the other place and on the public hustings that the Labor Government was in power when we had record inflation. That is absolute rubbish! At every opportunity, members of the Opposition have to deny that inflation was at its highest under the Labor Government. The people who are now in government are quite willing to handle the truth very carelessly to suit their own ends. The graph shows that in 1974, under the Labor Government, inflation was 14.6 per cent and that in 1975, when that Government went out of office, it was 17.7 per cent. Government members say on many occasions that inflation was 20 per cent under the Labor Government; it never was. Of course, when members of the Labor Party used to say repeatedly that the high inflation rate was caused by overseas phenomena we were told that that was absolute rubbish. Now, every time a Minister speaks either in the Parliament or in public, he says that inflation is going up because of overseas phenomena. We were accused of telling lies and untruths when we stated that that was the cause. Of course, that argument is said to be correct when the Government uses it.

Every time the Government goes before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to oppose applications by the trade union movement for increases in wages for the work force it says that the Commission cannot take into account the increased petrol prices. It says that the Commission must disregard them. We all know that increases in petrol prices affect every individual in the community, despite what the Government says. That is one of the things rocketing up the rate of inflation in this country, which now stands at about 10.5 per cent.

Let me refer to some of the promises that were made by Mr Fraser in 1 975 and again in 1 977 when he hoodwinked the general public into believing that he was the man who could solve all of the so-called problems of the nation. Mr Viner is a past master at making excuses about unemployment figures. The figures from the ABS are always much lower than the figures from the Commonwealth Employment Service. Perhaps later I will say a few words about why they are lower- and on every occasion they are released the Government puts a spurious argument that the figures show that unemployment is falling under this Government. In fact, no matter what sets of figures are analysed, we can see that unemployment is increasing rapidly- and it will continue to increase while this Government is in office.

Let us consider one of the reasons why the ABS can always come up with a lower unemployment figure than can the CES. The CES bases its unemployment figures on records of people who register for a job. The ABS bases its figures on independent surveys. It has been said to me on many occasions, and it was said again during the Estimates Committee debate, that the surveys are done mainly by middle-aged married women who go from door to door asking people whether they had a job this week. If the answer is yes, they ask for how long the person was employed. If the person says that he was employed for one hour he is put down as being an employed person. I would like to see any member on the Government side existing on an hour’s pay for one week. Yet such people have been put into the statistics as being employed. Senator Walters is looking a little askance at me, but it is on record in Hansard that that is the way the ABS conducts its surveys. I am not blaming the ABS. It has to carry out the instructions of the Government that is now in office, and it uses those spurious figures. Only recently there was a disparity of about 100,000 between the CES and ABS figures. Whereas CES figures showed that about 434,000 people in Australia were unemployed, the ABS figures showed that the number was about 334,000. The people who do not have a job know the true figures, but the people who have a job do not know. More and more people are rapidly becoming unemployed.

Senator Baume is making gestures from the benches opposite. Of course, Senator Baume, who has a dual income, is not concerned about the unemployed. Many members of the Government parties have a dual income and they do not know what it is to be short of money each week to buy the groceries for their kids or to pay the rent or to buy new sheets or towels or whatever is required in the home. They would not have any idea about it. When somebody on this side of the House talks about these things, Government senators say that we are going ‘Yap, yap, yap’. They will not deter me. I was elected to the Parliament by the very people I am now defending and trying to get a fair go for. They are the people to whom I am responsible. I am not responsible to the wealthy mining companies and the wealthy shareholders. Every time we look at the financial pages of the daily Press we see that they are making record profits.

Only today I heard on the midday news about the case before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission for an increase in wages. The Government uses the argument that it is the outlandish claims from the trade union movement that are forcing up prices. Of course, any sensible thinking person knows that trade unions cannot launch overnight a case for an increase in wages. They have to base their case on costs applying before the day they put their case to the court. They can base their arguments only on those increases, and they are asking for some compensation to cope with the increased consumer price index. The Government’s advocates in the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission say that it is wages that force up the CPI when in fact the reverse is the case. Every time the Government’s advocates go into the Commission, the Government is asking for a much lesser increase than the actual increase in the CPI. The wage earners of this country are suffering all the time.

It is an unfortunate fact of life that many wage earners are misled into voting for the Government that is now in office. The Minister provides us with documents setting out the number of pensioners. It is very difficult to do an exercise covering a multitude of people, but it can be done for many country towns. In many places the number of people receiving pensionssupporting mothers, unemployed, and all the rest far exceeds the Labor vote. It must be that many pensioners are not voting for the Labor Party. When they come to me with their problems and tell me how hard it is to make a living, to eke out an existence, I promptly remind them that they ought to take stock of who gave them the best deal- the Whitlam Labor Government or the Fraser Government, which made so many false promises. I want to refer to some of those promises now. I am indebted to the April issue of Nation Review. It has Mr Fraser’s photo on the front and written up on the blackboard behind him are the words, ‘I promise, I promise, I promise’. He is just like a parrot. He is always doing that. I make a plea to every person listening to Parliament today to buy a copy of that issue and see all the promises that were made by Fraser and how many of them have been honoured and how many have been broken.

Senator Mulvihill:

– What is the name of that publication?

Senator McLAREN:

– It is the April issue of Nation Review and it is well worth reading. I think we ought to give credit to Alan Austin who compiled these figures. I refer to some of the statements he had made in that article. He refers to Mr Fraser, who in November 1975 said:

I can promise you honesty and integrity in Government. I ‘d like to have a Government which people can trust.

How many people trust this Government? He goes on to say:

With another Federal election due before the end of the year, Mr Fraser and his writers will soon have to think about a policy speech.

As a favour I have collected the following list of promises- a top forty sure fire hits, all tried and true and perfectly reusable. It is not a complete list. Unfulfilled promises made less than 18 months ago have been omitted as these may arguably still be under implementation. I do not have the time in the 10 minutes that is left to me to quote them all, but I will use that time to quote some of them because a lot of people need reminding of these broken promises. What is the first promise? I have just read that out. Mr Fraser said:

I can promise you honesty and integrity in Government. I ‘d like to have a Government which people can trust.

He said that on 15 November 1975.

Senator Wheeldon:

– Who said that?

Senator McLAREN:

- Mr Fraser and all the people who sit behind him said that. Every day they back him up- that great man of honesty and integrity. I will look at some of the promises he made. In November 1975 he said:

We will maintain Medibank.

That was a clear commitment to maintain the universal health insurance scheme. This commitment was not honoured. We all know that. If a poor person or a person on a fairly low income wants to go to a doctor today he has to pay the first $20 of a doctor’s consultation fee. At least the Government has not had the courage yet- if it is re-elected it will, of course- to abolish the system where we still have the use of a public ward in a public hospital. But rumours are flying around viciously that if Fraser is elected we will have to pay to go into the public ward of a public hospital. This will force people back into the private health funds. That is what this Government is all about. How many people would like to have Medibank operating now as it was operating under the Labor Government? Mr Fraser said that the Australian Assistance Plan will be maintained. Of course, we know that that was abolished 12 months after he came to office. He further said:

Under a Liberal-National Country Party Government there will be jobs for all who want to work.

What a false statement. Mr Austin, in his comment, says:

Rather than improving, unemployment has steadily worsened. It rose from 4.8 per cent of the work force at the end of 1 975 to 7. 1 per cent at the end of 1 978. While the published figures since then have shown a slight improvement, these do not take into account the hidden unemployed. In the last Budget, funding for one of the few effective training schemes, the Special Youth Employment Training Program, was slashed by $50m.

Wherever we look this Government is expert in slashing funds in social welfare or wherever else money is needed. Mr Austin went on to quote:

We will be generous to those who can’t get a job . . .

Mr Fraser is not very generous to those who cannot get a job. He went on to say:

We will reduce the tax burden.

Senator Wheeldon:

– Who said that?

Senator McLAREN:

- Mr Fraser said that. Mr Austin continued the quotation:

We will put an end to Labor’s tax rip-off.

I think we all recall the full-page ads in all the city and country Press prior to the 1977 election of a person clutching a handful of $5 notes with the caption, ‘This is how much you are going to be better off if you elect me in 1977’. What happened as soon as Mr Fraser came back into this Parliament early in February? What did he do? He brought in a Bill to introduce a 1 V4 per cent surcharge on income tax. The taxpayers are no better off; in fact, they are much worse off than they were under the Labor Government. Of course, I am talking about those people who have a job and earn a wage on which to pay tax. So many people do not have a job. The Prime Minister then went on to say:

Our reforms will give back to people money they earn by their own hard work and which Labor has taken away from them.

I will bet that there are many people today who wish they were back under a Labor Government. The Prime Minister said:

There will be no international safaris by members of Parliament. Australia does not need a tourist as Prime Minister.

When we have a look at the figures, we find that this fellow is the greatest tourist Prime Minister we have ever had. I do not have time to read out the latest answer given to a question on notice asked by Senator Cavanagh, but I advise the people who are listening to the broadcast of the debate and who receive Hansard to look at page 1704 of the Senate Hansard of 23 April. They will see there a full list of the trips taken by members of the Labor Government and those taken by members of this Government.

Senator Wheeldon:

– What date is that?

Senator McLAREN:

– That information appears in the Hansard of 23 April this year, just a few weeks ago, in answer to a question by Senator Cavanagh who is very concerned, as are many of us, about these broken promises and these accusations that Whitlam was a tourist Prime Minister. No Prime Minister has had more overseas trips than the present occupant of the office. The Prime Minister goes on to say:

Our reforms will maintain the purchasing power of wages and ease the pressure for excessive wage demands.

We all know that that is just not so. There will be a few words said about that when we consider the Bill at the Committee stage. Another thing he said on 27 November 1975 is this:

There will be no more jobs for the boys.

But let us have a look at some of those people listed here by Mr Austin. He says:

Performance of the Fraser Government in this area has been par for the course. Comfortable jobs have gone to Henry Bland, Nigel Bowen, Stephen Alley, Harry M. Miller -

Of course I have spoken about him quite often, and again just the other day-

David Fairbairn, Peter Coleman, Petreo Georgio and Robert Cotton, to name a few.

Of course the latest person to be added to that list is Mac Holten. If people want further information about that, I suggest that they read the speech made by Senator Walsh in the Senate yesterday. It is very illuminating. They will see from that just what type of people this Prime Minister is prepared to put into jobs where we should have the best expertise we can obtain. Senator Walsh was referring to the latest addition to those who have received jobs for the boys- the Administrator of Christmas Island, Mac Holten. The Prime Minister continues:

There will be an end to Government extravagances and excesses.

Mr Austin goes on to refer to some of those excesses, and says:

Since then, the Prime Minister has spent well over $2 million on overseas trips, over $250,000 on renovations to the Lodge, $160,000 on a custom built car for his personal use . . .

So he goes on. In an answer to a question given in the other place one day this week, we find that another $250,000 was spent on the latest overseas trip by the Prime Minister. So he just spends money and throws it away as though it is going out of fashion. That is the person who, with his supporters, between 1972 and 1975 repeatedly in this Parliament accused the Labor Government of being a spendthrift. When the Labor Government spent money it was spent in areas of need. It makes no apologies for that. The Labor Government spent money on pensioners, hospitals, and homes for the aged. That matter concerns a burning question: When the Labor Party was in government it was prepared to make a subsidy of $4 to $ 1 for people who wanted to build homes for elderly citizens, clubs, and so on. As soon as this Government came into office it cut that subsidy to a $1 for $1 basis. Now we have people crying out for these facilities.

We must all realise that the population in Australia year by year is getting older. We will soon have more older people than we have young people. Of course, our young people cannot afford to have kids. What are they going to do with them when they have them? How are they going to feed and clothe them? They cannot do it under the policies of this Government. That is why our population is decreasing. This Government is not prepared to make any provision to educate our young people in the technical skills. The intake of apprentices has dropped rapidly, and now the Government is advertising overseas for skilled personnel to come to this country to do the jobs that ought to be done by our young people; our true-blue Australians. What is Australia doing under the policies of this Government? We are searching the world for skilled tradesmen to come here when we should have been training our own. The Government should have kept up the program of the Labor Government, which was of great benefit.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Clyde Cameron’s program.

Senator McLAREN:

-That is right- the policies which were implemented by Clyde Cameron. In the short time I have left, I wish to mention one or two other things. I refer firstly to what is a burning question now. He said:

Interest rates have begun to fall and they will keep on falling.

This is what he said on 1 November, 1 977.

Senator Wheeldon:

– Who said that?

Senator McLAREN:

– It was Mr Fraser, again. It was this real old promiser. He will promise anything to get the votes of the people and after he gets them, they can go to Hades because he could not care less about them. They can go away, sweat their lives out and do without because he has plenty.

In the 30 seconds I have remaining to me, I want to refer to the selective foreign policy of this Government. Again, we heard a tirade from Senator Carrick on the Olympic Games, yet we still find that this Government, under its leader, Mr Fraser, who is a grower of some good wool at

Nareen, is quite happy to see his wool shipped off to the Soviet Union. I have no objection to trading with the Soviet Union; Australia should continue its trade, but we cannot be selective. We cannot make the athletes of this country be the scapegoats for a fictitious foreign policy that this Government implements. The sooner Australia can have a federal election, the sooner this nation will be in a position where the average Australian will be given a fair go.

Senator RYAN:
Australian Capital Territory

– I take the opportunity presented by the debate on Appropriation Bills (No. 3) and (No. 4) to express my concern and the concern of the Federal Opposition about the failure of the Government to take steps to implement undertakings which it made with respect to regulating the television industry. It is a matter of great concern to the general public. There is great disquiet throughout the community about certain aspects of the television industry. That disquiet has been expressed time and time again by community groups that have come forward to tribunals and inquiries to ask the Government to take positive steps to act in the public interest with regard to regulation of the television industry. The Minister for Post and Telecommunications, Mr Tony Staley, has given a series of undertakings which appear to assent to the demands of the community in this respect, but he has taken no action to implement those undertakings.

I remind the Senate of a media release issued from the office of the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, Mr Staley, on 15 September 1978. That release is headed: ‘Government Supports Tribunal “Self-Regulation” Inquiry Recommendations’. The body of that release goes on to accept the report made by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal on this subject and to undertake a series of actions so that those recommendations could be implemented. Nearly two years ago, Mr Staley said:

Minimum standards will be set by the Tribunal in the areas of Australian content, children’s television programs and advertising.

He also said:

There is a need to balance the needs and interests of broadcasters with those of the communities they are licensed to serve. The Government believes in maximum freedom of expression and enterprise for both stations and their audiences. It also endorses the Tribunal view that the desirable balance of interests between the two can best be achieved by setting minimum specific requirements in those areas over which strong opinions were voiced during and as a result of, the Tribunal ‘s ‘Self-Regulation ‘ Inquiry.

It is nearly two years since the Minister, in his own statement, undertook to implement the Tri.bunal’s report on regulation of the television industry, and yet nothing has happened. The matter has not slipped away from the attention of the public. Community groups which have interested themselves in this area have lobbied the Government week in and week out- and so has the Opposition, I might add- asking for steps to be taken for the Broadcasting and Television Act to be amended so that the Tribunal would have clear and unambiguous powers to bring about improvements in broadcasting in the three areas of concern.

Despite the fact that the Minister has avoided taking any positive action at all and because of the criticism of the Minister for this avoidance of his public duty, he has again, in this last week, written a letter to the Age newspaper in which he defends himself and makes two very serious false claims in his defence. He states that he has in fact carried out the Tribunal’s recommendation on self-regulation. I shall quote from his letter which appeared in the Age Green Guide on 15 May. The Minister defends himself against criticisms published in a letter in last week’s Age Green Guide from Ms Cheryl Clark of the Australian Children’s Television Action Committee. The Minister stated:

I believe that the letter . . . deserves a formal response.

The inference that all Government regulation of the broadcasting industry is to be scrapped is entirely misleading. The Government ‘s policy in these matters, as announced by me within the past few months, is clear and reflects the recommendations of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal contained in its report on the concept of self-regulation for broadcasters.

That claim by the Minister that the Government’s policy has implemented the selfregulation report’s recommendations is wrong. I think it is a serious matter when a Minister of the Crown writes to a newspaper claiming to have done something which he has clearly not done.

To remind the Senate of how far the current situation diverges from what was recommended, I quote from the self-regulation report of July 1977. The main recommendation was:

The majority-

That is, the majority of the Tribunal: do not consider, however, that a system of total selfregulation is appropriate at this time. Accordingly, we have set out some requirements and regulations concerning Australian content, advertising and children’s programs and we have recommended the establishment of certain procedures and machinery as safeguards in a system of participatory self-regulation.

That is what the Tribunal’s report recommended. That has not happened. There is no such regulation. There is no statutory basis for the machinery and procedures which will guarantee minimum standards. The Minister has not implemented the recommendations of the self-regulation report. Yet he has the effrontery to write to a newspaper and claim he has done so.

That is not the only misleading aspect of Mr Staley ‘s letter to the Age of 15 May. In the third paragraph of his letter the Minister stated:

In a nutshell this envisages a system whereby the industry is responsible for its own regulation except in three very important areas- advertising, Australian content and children ‘s programs. This is the clear Government position and there has been no change suggested, or agreed to.

Firstly, the Government’s position is not at all clear. There has been a number of reports in the media that the Government will, in fact, capitulate to the industry in this election year and that it will allow complete self-regulation of the industry against the recommendations of the Tribunal’s report. The Minister has not clearly denied these reports and certainly he has taken no action that would repudiate these reports. When the Minister says ‘there has been no change suggested, or agreed to’ he is seriously misleading members of the public who might read this letter. A very significant change has been suggested by the industry. Whether it is agreed to we do not know because we are still awaiting the long awaited amendments to the Broadcasting and Television Act- they have been awaited for nearly two years now- which are to deal with the question of regulation of the broadcasting industry. So we do not know whether changes have been agreed to. Contrary to what the Minister said in his letter, changes have been suggested by the industry which are totally unacceptable, I believe, to the general public.

Directly contradicting the Tribunal’s recommendation that there ought to be Government regulation in the three important areas, the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations has proposed a code of self-regulation. This code, if it were to be accepted by the Government- and we have many reasons now to fear that it will be accepted by the Governmentwould allow complete self-regulation, would be totally contrary to the Tribunal’s report and, I might add, to the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts which reported on the matter of children’s television some time ago. I wish to bring to the Senate’s attention some aspects of the code proposed by FACTS, the commercial television lobby. The industry proposes a code which will be voluntary- no broadcaster will be obliged to be a member of it- and which will develop its own standards. In the code that FACTS has suggested to the Government, it states:

In the event that the ABT indicates a proposed code is unacceptable to it, and no possibility of a consensus appears likely, a 60 day ‘cooling off’ period will apply during which both parties will consider their attitudes.

If at the end of the 60 day ‘cooling off’ period there seems still to be no likelihood of agreement, the matter will be referred to an independent conciliator, mutually agreed upon by FACTS and the ABT. The conciliator will be required to present his or her comments within 14 days and both parties will be expected to consider the conciliator’s comments.

After that procedure is gone through, which is still a process of self-regulation- the Tribunal has only a consultative role in it- what do we find? If a member of the code refuses to carry out the instructions of the conciliator, the ultimate action by the code board following continued breaches of a code or codes by a station will be the cancellation of that station’s membership of the code accompanied by a Press release to that effect. The code board’s files and records will remain confidential and will not be available to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. What a travesty of a document this code document from the commercial television industry is. All it proposes is a tokenistic exercise in which broadcasters may or may not join a code. If they wish to broadcast something in contravention of that code the ultimate way of dealing with them will be that they will no longer be a member of the code.

The whole thing is quite ridiculous. It is simply self-regulation in a slightly tokenistic guise and there is no power for the Tribunal to ensure that basic standards of broadcasting are met. This is the document which the Minister has had available to him, to which he is giving serious consideration, which in our view is probably the reason why we have not seen the amendments to the Broadcasting and Television Act from the Minister. He is considering this code. This is a change about which the people in the community are very worried. Despite the fact that it is publicly known that this change has been suggested to the Minister and that the Minister is considering it, he wrote to the Age a letter published on 1 5 May, in a way which is seriously misleading. It stated:

There has been no change suggested or agreed to.

I believe it is quite disgraceful that the Minister has been so misleading as far as the general public is concerned. As I said, we do not know whether he is going to agree ultimately to the code. It seems to me very likely that in this year, an election year, Mr Staley will do his best to keep the television industry on side with his Government so that his Government may benefit from the sympathetic treatment of its performance when in government during the election campaign, which of course the Government usually manages to achieve with the commercial television industry. I think it is quite cynical of the Government to engage in this sort of exercise in an election year, after having made those very serious commitments to introducing regulation and implementing the regulation report of the Broadcasting Tribunal.

When we pass to the area of children’s television- which of course is one of the three main areas of concern both in the Tribunal’s report and as far as the general public is concerned- we find similarly that there has been no action. When the Minister introduced the current amendments to the Broadcasting and Television Act, which were to set up the Independent and Multicultural Broadcasting Corporation, he said in his second reading speech that he still had not introduced the selfregulation amendments but he would introduce them before the end of this parliamentary session, and allow them to lie on the table during the parliamentary recess so that there could be public comment and discussion. Normally the Opposition welcomes measures which allow public discussion and debate about legislation before it is proceeded with. But in this instance the Minister is using this device in order to procrastinate and to put off action in what is a controversial area for his Government. There has been ample opportunity for members of the public to express their views. They have done so to the Tribunal and the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts. Their views come down strongly in favour of government regulation of children’s television.

Why is the Minister engaging in the dubious exercise of consulting public opinion when he already has vast evidence of what the public opinion is. He knows what the public wants. It wants regulation of children’s television. But he is not prepared to take the step of amending the Broadcasting and Television Act to empower the Tribunal with the responsibility of achieving better children ‘s television programs. As I have said, this is an exercise in cynicism to which we are accustomed from the Fraser Government. It is particularly disgraceful at a time when so much concern has been expressed about children’s television.

It is not only the Federal Opposition, the Australian Labor Party, which believes that the Minister will capitulate to the industry, sell out completely and accept the industry’s self-regulation codes. I will read out for the Senate’s information the views expressed on this matter by some very energetic and well informed community organisations. I received a letter from the Australian Council for Children’s Films and Television on 24 March 1980. It states:

On 15/2/80, the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, Hon. A. Staley, issued a press release indicating that he intended to introduce in the autumn session amendments to the Act which were designed to implement the recommendations of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal’s Inquiry into Self Regulation … He stated that the amendments would include authorisation for the ABT to set minimum requirements relating to Australian content, children ‘s programs, and advertising … It appears from recent press statements . . . and from a personal interview with Mr Staley . . . that the Minister is now entertaining the idea of allowing the industry the privilege of setting codes in the areas of children’s TV, Australian content, and advertising, while retaining ‘a base line power’ for the Tribunal. We -

That is, the Australian Council for Children’s Films and Television- have opposed this alternative proposal both personally and by letter to the Minister on the grounds that the umpire’s . . decision was that the industry’s past record did not justify allowing them such a large measure of self-regulation, and that the FACTS proposed Code Board procedures do not leave the Tribunal with the ability to initiate positive change and necessary regulation in the public interest . . .

We believe that much informed and concerned public opinion is strongly against allowing the industry further selfregulatory concessions in areas where its record speaks against it. Moreover, many groups and individuals including ourselves, would see such a move as a sellout to media pressures in an election year . . .

Another organisation which has expressed similar fears and concerns with regard to the Government’s selling out to the industry in an election year is Justice in Broadcasting. That organisation issued a Press release on 23 March of this year in which it expressed similar fears. It said: we are astounded that the Minister is even taking a second look at the FACTS’ proposals. They do not present a plan for self-regulation but for no regulation at all. They would strip the Broadcasting Tribunal of all power to enforce program standards, make a farce of the proposed Broadcasting Information Office and involve the public only on the industry’s own terms, leaving the commercial television industry free to do as it pleases with a valuable, and powerful, public resource.

A major public inquiry in 1977 recommended a carefully balanced system of regulation in which the commercial TV industry would have substantial powers to set its own codes balanced by a significant role for the Tribunal and public It would be an outrage to every principle of democratic government if the findings of such a public inquiry were to be set aside as a result of private, ‘confidential’ discussions between the industry and the Minister.

Mr Fowler went on to say that the FACTS’ proposals would leave the television industry accountable to no one.

The group known as the Rupert Public Interest Movement expressed similar fears on 1 7 March 1 980. That organisation stated:

While advocating freedom of expression, we do not believe that total self-regulation by the commercial television industry is the best way to achieve this . . . We believe that such an action -

That is, complete self-regulation- would be an abrogation of Government responsibility. Such a retreat into the lions den laissez-faire policy in this major area of public interest smacks too clearly of a wish to placate the media barons in an election year.

There we have three major public interest groups all expressing the same fear- that the Government will capitulate to the industry’s demand for self-regulation, and all attributing to the Government the very cynical, despicable motive of trying to maintain the sympathetic treatment of the commercial television industry in an election year. These are very distressing matters.

Associated with the distress that I wish to express about these matters is the way the Government has treated the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts in respect of children’s television. That report has been available to the Government for 18 months. Two weeks ago the Government finally got around to making a statement to the Parliament to indicate its response to that report. The report made 17 major recommendations as to how the Government could act to bring about better children’s programming in this country. Virtually none of the recommendations has been properly implemented. The regulation required has not come before the Parliament, the funding programs suggested have not been carried out and the liaison with State governments and education bodies has not been carried through to any satisfactory conclusion. The Government says that it has accepted the spirit of the report, and yet it has taken no action. Again we must ask why it is that the Government has refused to act on the Senate’s own report on children’s television, and again we must come up with the answer that the Government is unwilling to displease the commercial television industry in this election year.

It may be said by a Minister in response that the Tribunal indeed has ample powers to improve children’s programming and to improve television in the other areas I have mentioned without further amendments to the Broadcasting and Television Act. It may be an argument that the Government could have put forward with some force a couple of years ago. Particularly since the High Court judgment yesterday which condemned the Tribunal on almost every point of its conduct of its inquiries, it is no longer possible to say it is up to the Tribunal to implement the report. Clearly the Tribunal, as currently constituted, has not been competent or willing to restrain the industry in any way. It has not been competent or willing to investigate the public interest and it has not even been competent or willing to carry out its statutory functions. Such are the condemnations made by the High Court of the Tribunal in its performance with regard to the licensing of television stations.

Senator Walsh:

– It sounds about as hopeless as the Government.

Senator RYAN:

- Senator Walsh interjects that there is a relationship between the Tribunal and the Government. Indeed, the Government must ultimately bear the responsibility for the condemnation made of the Tribunal by the High Court. After all, the members and the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal were appointed by the Government. The Government failed to take the opportunity to appoint a more appropriate member when one member, Mrs Janet Strickland, resigned out of disgust with the way the Tribunal was refusing to carry out its responsibilities. The Government allowed Mr Bruce Gyngell, the incompetent Chairman of the Tribunal, to stay on through all the very important, significant licensing procedures. The Government has rewarded Mr Gyngell for his incompetence in these matters by giving him a new statutory appointment to the new ethnic television corporation, a move which has been properly and very angrily condemned by ethnic communities and by the Australian Labor Party. So, it is no excuse or justification for the Government’s failure to act in the area of regulating television to say: ‘Well, the Tribunal really has the powers to do it’. It may be that there are powers or the possibility of powers in the Broadcasting and Television Act but those powers have not been used and the Tribunal has not even used the powers which it clearly and unambiguously has. So the Government cannot hide behind the Tribunal any longer.

The Fraser Government, and Mr Tony Staley in particular, are responsible for misleading the public, are responsible for failing to carry out a policy which they undertook to carry out, and are responsible for failing to observe the public interest in respect of the regulation of the television industry. This is a very serious matter. It may be that we will see amendments to the Broadcasting and Television Act next week but it will not be the position, I predict, that those amendments will come anywhere near to implementing the recommendations in regard to regulating the television industry. And of course they will be produced at a time when we will have no opportunity to debate them.

In my concluding remarks I would like to cross to another matter still in the area of the media and still in an area in which the Government deserves condemnation. Currently in Australia there is a major strike by Press journalists. I wish to place on record at this stage my disapproval of the way in which the Fraser Government is exploiting the journalists’ strike- exploiting it in its own interest against the Government’s often stated policy of the independence of the Press. The situation is that in opposition to the journalists ‘ action the proprietors of several of our newspapers have joined together to form a proprietors’ body operating from the Canberra Press Gallery. This is a situation of which I strongly disapprove and I wish to have my disapproval recorded. What has happened in defiance of the journalists’ wishes, in defiance of the Australian Journalists Association action that is taking place at this time, is that the proprietors have reacted in a way which has meant that normal competition- the much lauded principle of competition- between newspapers has been completely exposed as a sham. The major organisations are now co-operating to produce news. They are now working collectively. All news from Parliament House is being channelled from the Australian Associated Press office.

The Federal Opposition, of course, has cooperated with the Press journalists who are on strike. We are not issuing Press releases to Press journalists. We have placed a ban on the boxes in the Press Gallery which are used by the Press journalists. We have done this in co-operation with the journalists’ action because we believe their action is significant and raises a whole lot of important questions about the future of a free Press in this country. By way of contrast, of course, the Government is having a field day. Mr David Barnett, the Press Secretary to the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and a member of the AJA has been directed by his union not to cooperate in the dissemination of Press releases. But at a special general meeting of the union yesterday Mr Barnett declared publicly that he took his orders from the Prime Minister and nobody else. That is, he has refused to obey the directive of his union. Of course he does not refuse to accept the terms and conditions, very generous these days, which his union has achieved for him.

Senator Walsh:

– He doesn’t knock back the $ 1 4,000 overtime he picked up one year either.

Senator RYAN:

– That is right. Because no information is going to the Press journalists from the Opposition, newspapers have abandoned all competition among themselves. They are now virtually functioning as propaganda channels of the Government. They are getting the utmost cooperation from the Government in the dissemination of news and information. The joint proprietors’ body is offering no critical analysis, background comment, news analysis and so on of the news of the day. I think it is a deplorable situation when the independence of the Press is being perverted in this fashion. I am very serious in my criticism both of the proprietors in acting in this way and in particular of the Government in exploiting the situation as I said, in its own interest, in blatant defiance of the sort of liberal sentiments it likes to utter that we have maintained and always should maintain a free and independent Press in this country.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– The reference by Senator Ryan to the Australian Journalists Association and cooperation between various newspapers in producing newspapers during a strike reminds me of what happened at the union meeting in Canberra yesterday. One of the newspapers which is not being produced is the Australian. It was mentioned at the AJA meeting yesterday that Mr Murdoch had sent out instructions to newsagents that subscribers to the Australian were to receive a copy of the Daily Telegraph in lieu of the Australian. That prompted from one of the oldest and most respected members of the Canberra Press Gallery the comment ‘serves them right’; that is, they deserve the Daily Telegraph. That is a fair comment on the way in which Rupert Murdoch has debased and prostituted every newspaper and other media outlet on which he has got his grubby hands over the last couple of decades.

When Senator Chaney was paving the way for Government senators to welch on voting on the Western Australian Aboriginals (Right to Electoral Enrolment) Bill this morning he made several assertions which must be corrected. He claimed that the Bill was not urgent because an election was not about to be held in Western Australia. The Bill does not deal with electoral procedures. The Bill deals with enrolment procedures, and enrolment is important, no matter how close or how far away we may be from an election. Anyway, as my colleague Senator Ryan pointed out at the time, there could be a byelection at any time. He declined to give an assurance that the matter would be brought on for debate during the first week of the Budget session or at any time during the Budget session, even though he claimed, as an excuse for not allowing it to be debated this week or next week, that the pressure of time did not allow.

The real reason that the Government will not allow that Bill to come to a vote today, next week, next session or next year is that the Government is afraid there just might be enough Liberals with sufficient moral courage to put their votes where they claim their beliefs are, to cross the floor and to vote with the Australian Labor Party for that Bill. If there were enough Liberals with that degree of moral courage to carry the Bill with the Labor Party, that would immediately lead to a confrontation with Charles Court, the Western Australian Premier. As we know very well and as everything in the record of the last 4Vi years shows every time the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) is put in a confrontation situation with the Premier of Western Australia or the Premier of Queensland, he backs down. On behalf of the Opposition I move as an amendment to the motion for the second reading of Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1979-80:

At end of motion, add ‘, but the Senate:

Notes the failure, and rejects the inherent implausibility of the Government ‘s policies of-

fighting inflation by raising prices,

encouraging employment by increasing unemployment, and

improving living standards by reducing wages;

deplores the accelerating increases in the rate of inflation and interest rates;

opposes the continuing suppression of Australian economic activity which has caused 4 years of depressed economic growth rates, declining living standards and rising unemployment;

rejects the growing burden of income tax and petrol tax and their increasingly inequitable incidence;

) expresses alarm at the continuing deterioration of the social infrastructure and essential community services resulting from 4 years of falling real expenditure; and (0 deplores the effects of these policies which have been to make Australia an increasingly unjust, economically insecure and fragmented society’.

In support of that amendment I point out that when Mr Fraser became Prime Minister 4’A years ago the retail price of super grade petrol was 1 3c per litre. It is now 32c to 34c, which represents an increase of 1 50 per cent in 4 1/2 years. Almost all that massive increase is due to the oil taxing policies of the Fraser Government. Every barrel of crude oil produced from Australian fields is sold to Australian refineries at the arbitrary price determined by the Government of $24.70. Of that $24.70 about $2 is actually spent in producing the oil. That includes the cost of amortising the capital. These are average figures.

There are significant variabilities between individual fields. On average a barrel sells for $24.70 to the refiner; it costs $2 to produce. The producers receive, on average, just over $6. The balance, almost $ 1 9 a barrel, is government taxes.

Almost all of that is taken up by the Fraser Government’s crude oil levy which currently is producing revenue at the rate of $3 billion a year- $3,000m a year or $8m a day. This is revenue derived from the crude oil levy, the Fraser petrol tax rip-off. All this has emanated from the man, who, in his own words, said: ‘We will end the great tax rip-off’. He now presides not only over the highest levels of personal income tax ever imposed on Australia in peacetime but also presides over this new $3 billion petrol tax rip-off which is equivalent, on average, to a 16 per cent increase in personal income tax. The Prime Minister presides over the highest levels of income tax ever imposed by an Australian government plus an extra 16 per cent tax, on average. That is a great way to end the great tax rip-off.

For the majority of Australians, the tax burden is even heavier than those average figures suggest. Indeed, for people on average weekly earnings who drive a Holden, Falcon or a Chryslertype car and buy a tank of petrol a week the crude oil tax- the Fraser petrol tax- is equal to a 28 per cent increase in personal income tax. The Government’s petrol taxing policies are the direct cause of inflation being back in double figures and it continuing to go up. It is the cause of the record interest rates. Interest rates on government securities are the highest they have ever been. The fuel taxing policy- the petrol tax rip-off- is the indirect cause of that as well. Interest rates are still going up. I ask honourable senators to juxtapose that fact with the Prime Ministerial promise of November 1977 when Mr Fraser said:

Interest rates will fall by 2 per cent within the coming year. It is a target that can and will be met.

Interest rates are now 2 1/2 per cent higher than they were when Malcolm Fraser promised they would fall by 2 per cent. They are still going up. The Government’s whole monetary and interest rate policy is a shambles despite the glib assurances given by Senator Carrick in the Senate on Wednesday, 14 May. I wish to refer to two extracts from an answer given by Senator Carrick. He said:

The Government is aware of the role played by interest rates in the allocation of funds amongst institutions and between sectors of the economy.

Senator Carrick can assert that but the facts do not support his assertion. I will mention just one vital fact. The long term interest rate for semigovernment securities was lifted a fortnight ago from 12.2 per cent to 12.3 per cent. The Loan Council, in the middle of last year, fixed a maximum interest rate for local government at 12 per cent and that still stands. If the Government is aware of the role of interest rates in allocating funds among institutions and between sectors of the economy perhaps Senator Carrick or Senator Guilfoyle may care to explain how the Government imagines local government will attract loan funds when it is prevented by law from offering more than 12 per cent on long term deposits but when semi-government authorities, such as the State electricity commissions and the housing commissions, are paying 12.2 per cent and 12.3 per cent in interest.

In the same answer on Wednesday, Senator Carrick said that one of the Government’s objectives is to see that its monetary policy does not unjustifiably impinge upon the supply of finance for housing. Ironically on the same day it was reported in the Press that the Australian Bankers Association Research Directorate said:

  1. . they could cut back on home loans unless they were allowed to increase interest rates.

If the Government is really going to stand by its assurance to see that there is no impingement on interest rates for housing loans it follows inevitably from the Bankers Association’s assessment of the situation that interest rates for home loans will be going up. We have double figure and rising inflation, record and rising interest rates and unemployment which is remaining at record post-war levels.

The rationale for all this vandalism rests on two propositions. One is that the policy will encourage exploration. That assertion falls to the ground firstly because a bipartisan policy has been adopted on new oil discoveries ever since September 1975 when it was introduced by the Labor Government. New oil discoveries will attract import parity prices. The price paid for Bass Strait oil from currently producing fields has absolutely no relevance to the price which would have been paid for oil discoveries under the policy of either the present Government or the previous Labor Government. Also, if that is beyond the grasp of some members of the Government, as it appears to be, let us look at the record. The estimate of the Australian Petroleum Exploration Association Ltd is that $190m will be spent on oil exploration this financial year. Some $2 40m was spent on oil exploration last financial year. Even without allowing for declining money values, it is clear that there has been a decline in excess of 20 per cent in the level of oil exploration. This policy, which is supposed to be leading to an exploration boom is, in fact, co-existing with a significant exploration decline in the current year.

The second rationale for all this economic vandalism is conservation. Of course there is an inverse relationship between price and quantity used at least in the long term. The point, however, which is well documented in Australia and overseas is that the demand for petroleum products at least in high income countries is highly inelastic. That means that a doubling or tripling of the price does not make much difference to the quantity consumed. Some recent indications have shown that there may have been a slowing down in the growth rate of consumption of petrol in Australia. The Government has claimed that there has been a 2 per cent slowdown in the rate of increase. I think it is a bit early to deliver definitive judgment on that claim. Even if it were true- there are good reasons which I do not have the time to go into for questioning whether it is true- the minuscule gains in terms of conservation which would accrue to further price increases are far more than offset by the enormous damage which the Government’s policies are doing to other sectors in the economy. If the Government were serious about conservation, there are far more effective ways of reducing the consumption of petroleum products than by massive increases in prices. We could consider, among other things, smaller cars with smaller engines and better public transport in urban centres.

The Government continues to insist that import parity pricing is the cornerstone of any rational energy policy. In spite of that insistence and repeated questioning Senator Carrick is unable to tell us not only what the price of crude oil will be on 1 July but also whether the $4 a barrel retroactive Saudi increases announced last Monday and back in February will be passed on on 1 July. Senator Carrick has been directly questioned on that matter at least six times in the last two months and he refuses to answer. Despite the assertion that import parity pricing is the cornerstone of any rational energy policy, the Government refuses to say whether it will revert to import parity pricing on 1 July. Senator Carrick does not know what is happening, and that is patently clear to anyone who is familiar with the way in which this Government operates. A political decision has been made that there will be no increases in oil prices this side of polling day. If this Government is re-elected- a prospect which looks progressively more dim- on 1

January we will revert to import parity pricing. Let there be no mistake about that. The price of Australian crude oil will increase by between $8 and $10 a barrel, and the price of petrol at the pumps will go up by another 6c a litre if the Fraser Government should be returned.

Senator Carrick gave the game away yesterday in answer to a question when he said: the Government will continue to implement its world parity pricing policy.

The only thing he did not admit was when the Government will continue to implement it. It will continue to implement that policy on 1 January, if it is still the Government. Let it be made very clear to the public that that is the Government’s intention. It has not abandoned import parity pricing. It has temporarily suspended import parity pricing for reasons of political expediency and for no other reasons.

Senator Carrick has constantly demonstrated that he has neither memorised the detail nor grasped the concepts which are relevant to his policy area. He is adept at providing misinformation or no information. He cannot tell us whether the $4 a barrel Saudi price rise already in the pipeline will be passed on on 1 July. For two months he could not tell us what the Government ‘s policy was on liquefied petroleum gas pricing. Then, when the National Country Party finally told him what it was, he said that it was the Prices Justification Tribunal’s fault and had nothing to do with the Government. He added that the Government’s policy was to reserve liquefied petroleum gas for its premium end uses as a petrochemical feedstock and as automotive fuel. In conformity with that policy, we are expected to believe that LPG for chemical feedstock should be priced at $250 a tonne and made available for crude space heating at half that price. To believe that, we would have to stand all market theory on its head.

Senator Carrick is a fertile source of misinformation on the relativity of petrol prices between Australia and other countries. He has said on numerous occasions that Australia has the third cheapest petrol in the world. When asked where he got his information from, he said that he got it from his Department and that his Department collected it from all round the world. He said that we have the third cheapest petrol. Incidentally, he made that statement at the end of February or the beginning of March, and the most recent figures available converted into Australian dollars at the exchange rate prevailing on 1 March, refer to that period. I will list some of the countries that had cheaper petrol at that stage. The price of Australian petrol was around 34c a litre, or a little cheaper in some discount service stations. In the United States of America the price was 30c; in Syria it was 20c; in Singapore- a massive oil importer- it was 32c; in Saudi Arabia it was 3 ‘/te; in the Philippinesanother major importer- it was 22c; in Mexico it was 1 6c; in Kuwait it was 8c; in Indonesia it was 13c; in Canada it was 21c, and so on. I think I have read out so far about eight countries where in most instances prices were 10c a litre or more below the price in Australia. Senator Carrick said that we have the third cheapest petrol in the world, and keeps on saying it.

Senator Georges:

– Fraser is saying it now.

Senator WALSH:

– Yes. It is hard to see who is leading whom, I suppose. Senator Carrick told us a couple of months ago that there would be no decline in production in Bass Strait in the last quarter of this financial year. The next day he had to come back into the Senate and retract that statement. The day after that he had to correct it again. He has demonstrated that he has no comprehension of the meaning of import and export parity. That is manifest in his statement in reply to a motion of public importance on 27 February 1980 that they- that is Hayden and Keatingadvocate export parity pricing, which of course would make petroleum much dearer. If we have export parity pricing, says Senator Carrick, petroleum would be dearer than if we have import parity pricing. A couple of days later it was explained to Senator Carrick in a slow and monosyllabic fashion -

Senator Button:

– That is necessary.

Senator WALSH:

– Yes, it is necessary. It was explained that import parity meant prevailing world prices plus freight and export parity meant prevailing world prices minus freight, so that the difference between import parity and export parity is freight multiplied by two. It ought to be obvious to anyone who understands fairly elementary primary school arithmetic that there is no way in which export parity could be higher than import parity. That was explained slowly and almost monosyllabically to Senator Carrick. He was asked to explain why he had said it. Some ingenious officer in Senator Carrick ‘s Department who ought to be promoted to the Second Division, if he or she is not already there, concocted an imaginative alibi to get Senator Carrick off the hook. It was said that Australian oil is now sold in Australia for $24.70 a barrel, which is true, but if it was exported we could get $29 a barrel minus whatever the freight was and the freight would be something less than $4 a barrel. Therefore, export parity pricing was above import parity pricing. Given the figures used, the conclusion was correct. It was a very ingenious alibi. The trouble was that it put Senator Carrick in a catch-22 situation in that the only way in which he could get himself ofT the hook of misdescribing what import and export parity meant was by catching himself on the other hook of admitting that the Government did not in fact have an import parity pricing scheme, that in fact import parity was $29 a barrel and the notional so-called import parity pricing imposed by this Government, was less than $25 a barrel. That is the way in which it will continue right up to the polling day when there will be another massive increase in Australian crude oil prices and another 6c a litre will be being paid at the pumps for petrol if the Fraser Government is returned.

Perhaps most alarmingly of all is that Senator Carrick has demonstrated repeatedly that he has no comprehension of a resource rent tax. Those of us who have watched him over recent months and years will have seen that he has great difficulty in mastering arithmetic or economic concepts. I will explain again as slowly and simply as possible- I hope he is listening to this debate or that he reads my remarks- what a resource rent tax is and why it is technically superior- I stress the words ‘technically superior’; no value judgments, no moral judgment, just plain technically superior- to his Government’s levy policy. That applies irrespective of the absolute level of tax. For Senator Carrick ‘s benefit, I will deliver a short and simple tutorial on the subject, a tutorial which -

Senator Button:

– Give him the cane as he is not in the class.

Senator WALSH:

-He might be listening. The essential difference, expressed as simply as possible, between a quantum levy- that is, the Government’s levy- and a resource rent tax is that the levy is a tax on production and the resource rent tax is a progressive tax on profits. I use the word ‘progressive’ not in any emotive sense and not implying any value judgment. It is just a neutral technical word which means the higher the level of profit, the higher the proportion which will be paid in tax. One is a tax on production; the other is a tax on profit. Any tax on production, on output, will close marginal oil fields and marginal mines which, were it not for the tax, could still be operated profitably. The greater the absolute level of tax, the greater the distortions which flow from it. That principle is applicable to all extractive industries, but it is most apparent when applied to oil.

I will give an example which approximates reality in Australia. Consider a declining field, a field from which the flow is tapering off, or in which the original pool was quite small and the capital development cost therefore high and spread over a smaller total volume of output. Assume the current cost of production is $10 a barrel- and it is approaching that now for some Australian fields. Assume the levy is $ 18, as it is on average for Australian oil now. To whoever is producing the oil the cost then is $28. That is the levy plus the current cost of production. When the price is $25, as it is now, what does the producer do? Unless he is a philanthropist he closes down the field, because he loses $3 on every barrel that he produces. He closes down the field. Yet the field, for a current cost of $10, can produce oil which has a market value of $25. Can anything more absurd than that be imagined? Yet that is the direction in which this Government’s policy is leading us.

By contrast, with a resource rent tax, production will continue until current cost is equal to market price; in other words, in this hypothetical example, until the actual cost of production reaches $25 a barrel. There is no doubt that despite all Senator’s Carrick ‘s windy rhetoric, if this Government remains in office, it will have to change that policy. A levy, or a resource rent tax- either of them- can determine optionally the degree to which revenue will be shared between the public and a producing company; but a resource rent tax is necessarily and always more efficient. It will not lead to misallocation of resources or socially irrational management decisions.

I know that there is a fair bit of self-interested bleating from the Australian Mining Industry Council about a resource rent tax. It does not want it. I do not know of any group which volunteers to pay more tax, and in some instances some mining companies clearly would be paying more tax. But against the self-interested bleatings of the Australian Mining Industry Council, I do not know of any academic economist in Australia who, if he has spoken on the subject at all, has not stated unequivocally that a resource rent tax is technically superior to any form of quantum levy. Whether Senator Carrick has the intellectual capacity to understand the concept of a resource rent tax or not, even he ought to know that the price of Australian crude oil is arbitrarily set by government. The price is whatever the Government says it will be. Even he must understand that. Therefore, when he says that a resource rent tax means higher prices, he must know that he is misleading the Senate and the public.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– May I speak briefly to this legislation. Firstly I congratulate Senator Walsh for another of his lucid expositions on the whole question of petrol taxing in Australia. 1 notice that during his contribution there was not one word of interjection from the Government side, and I appreciate that.

Senator Walters:

– Nobody would bother to answer his arguments.

Senator WRIEDT:

-Senator Walters is now saying something. I suppose I have provoked her and I should not do that. I invite her to rise during this debate, or some subsequent debate, and I challenge her or anybody else on the Government side to refute the arguments of Senator Walsh. The reason why the Senator Walters of this world squirm in their seats when Senator Walsh speaks on this subject is that they know that everything he is saying is correct, and that he is exposing, in the clearest possible form, the rip-off, the racket and the fraud of Malcolm Fraser ‘s policies in respect of petrol pricing. This is the sort of thing that we have witnessed in this chamber over the past few weeks when Opposition senators have questioned Senator Carrick on this matter. Of course, he will not give a commitment about increasing petrol prices on 1 July of this year, in accordance with what he claims is the only logical policy for petrol pricing in Australia. The reason he will not do it is because he knows that, with an election forthcoming, the Australian people will not take it. Therefore, it will be after that, if the Fraser Government is reelected, and we will see all these increases that have been gradually building up and which the Fraser Government has not passed on. These increases will all be put in one great lump on 1 January 1981. Let the Australian people be wary of it and be aware now. Senator Carrick yesterday said:

Let me reiterate that the Government will continue to implement its world parity pricing policy.

That is a firm commitment given by Senator Carrick but the question, as was posed by Senator Walsh, is: When? The answer to that question is: 1 January 1981, if Mr Fraser is reelected. The Australian motorist, when he is idling his motor car in traffic, trying to get home through the peak hour, burning up petrol, should bear in mind that at this time next year, if we have the misfortune to have Mr Fraser as the Prime Minister, he will not be paying 35c a litre for his petrol; he will be paying 45c a litre. Let honourable senators be quite clear on that matter. Senator Missen is another one who always shakes his head every time Senator Walsh speaks on this subject, but I have never heard Senator Missen refute the arguments because he would not have one argument which he could advance to destroy what Senator Walsh has said.

I refer basically to the Commonwealth’s attitude towards the States and the State financing arrangements, which I believe are of critical importance to what is happening in the economy. In the 1977 campaign, the Prime Minister, Mr Malcolm Fraser, made a series of promises. We all remember them. I do not wish to take up the time of the Senate going through them again, but we all know they were made, and we know that without exception those promises have been broken. There are some which have hurt the public more than others; the Medibank issue was one, and the increasing of interest rates as referred to earlier is another. One of the things that has happened almost unnoticed is the rise in the level of the borrowings which this Government has undertaken since it has been in office. Honourable senators will recall that during the period of the previous Government it had a program of borrowing overseas an amount of $4,000m for the purpose of developing Australia’s resources. That Government was berated for even suggesting that an Australian Government would borrow $4,000m overseas and was accused of being out of its mind.

What has happened in the four years of this Government? The borrowings by the Fraser Government are already in excess of $5, 500m- not done in one lump sum- and we find that the total overseas borrowing commitment of this Government is now in excess of S6V2 billion. That is what Australia has to repay in one year alone. In three years time, 1983-84, the Australian taxpayer will be required to pay $ 1,000m in one year to repay Mr Fraser’s overseas loan borrowings. None of this money, of course, is being used for the development of Australia’s resources, but simply to shore-up the Australian dollar which has been so badly wrecked by the policies of the Government. The basic thrust, of course, of what Mr Fraser has been trying to do during the four years that he has been in office is to make it almost impossible for the States to operate in the manner in which they have been able to operate in the past. We all know that so much of what State governments spend has a direct impact on the economy.

If honourable senators look at the Budget Papers for this year they will find that the States have been given an unbelievably bad deal by this Government in respect of capital payments to the States. If they look at the Budget of 1975, the last year of the previous Government, they will see that a total in round figures of $1.8 billion was paid to the States for capital purposes; that is, for specific purpose payments. These are the payments that are made to the States for building such things as schools, hospitals, nursing homes, senior citizens centres, preschools, child care centres, housing, pensioner housing, sewerage programs, roads, and for public transport and so on.

In that last year of the previous Government a total of $1.8 billion was paid to the States for those construction programs. Every year since then the amount has gone down progressively and this year it is down to $1.3 billion. That is a decline in money terms of $500m. But in real terms, of course, the decline is vastly in excess of that. The States now receive about $ 1,500m less for their capital works programs than they were receiving in 1975. Is it any wonder that the economy stays flat? Is it any wonder that the States’ public works programs have been squeezed back to almost a zero position as a result of the depletion of these financial resources from the Commonwealth?

What is the objective of all these decreases? It is alleged by Mr Fraser that he wants to transfer funds from the public sector to the private sector. That is, he is saying that if the economy is to get back on its feet, if we are to get the rate of inflation, unemployment and interest rates down and if we are to do all the other things that he promised in 1977 and in 1975, it is up to the private sector to get the economy working again. Honourable senators will remember that in 1 976 we had the investment-led recovery; the private sector was going to make Australia a land of plenty again. Of course, that recovery has not worked. I am not being critical of the fact that the private sector could not do it. Of course the private sector could not do it on its own. We have a mixed economy in which there must be a proper balance between the private allocation of resources and the public allocation. It is ludicrous to suggest that if we depress one sector of the economy we will not depress the other. Of course that is what will happen. Mr Fraser has an obsession with depressing the public sector. Therefore, he is depressing the private sector at the same time. Until such time as he can get over that phobia about the public sector, obviously the economy will stay where it is. His objective is for the States to increase their public works programs by increasing their revenue.

This brings me to the essence of the Fraser federalism policy. Mr Fraser’s objective is to introduce a State income tax, that is, to get every State into a position where, if it wants to maintain its programs of roads, hospitals, schools and so on, it will have to introduce a State income tax. Let it be clearly understood that this Government is not a tax reducing government. It claims that it is but if we look at the taxation collections since it came to office we find that in 1975-76 the total income tax contribution by individualsthis is shown in the Budget Papers- amounted to $9.2 billion. This year total income tax paid by individuals has increased to $15.1 billion. That represents an increase in taxation collections of about 60 percent.

Of course, the objective is to give these alleged tax handouts which Mr Fraser has been promising for the past four years. His intention is to reduce taxation- this is what he would like to do; I do not deny this at the federal level. His purpose is to transfer that income tax burden from the Federal Government to the State governments. The whole purpose of the legislation that went through this Parliament two yean ago was to enable the State governments to introduce State personal income tax. For example, if the Fraser Government reduces by $100 the amount paid by the taxpayer in personal income tax, say in the next Budget, the States will take that $100 from the taxpayer so that he will still be paying the same amount of income tax except he will be paying part of it to a State government and not to the Federal Government.

That is what Fraser federalism is about. That is the key issue. Every State Premier knows it. Every State Premier does not want it but every State Premier, Labor and Liberal, knows that that is where he is heading. If the Fraser Government is re-elected for another term after the next election, that is what every State government will have to do before 1983. All the State governments will be introducing State income taxes over and above the personal income tax we pay to the Federal Government. So do not let us be deceived as to what Mr Fraser’s intentions are. They are quite clear. He does not intend to lower the tax burden on the individual at all. He wants to lower the tax burden on himself and pass it over to the State Premiers.

Finally, I would reiterate the earlier remarks of Senator Walsh without going through all those details again. Despite the fact that Senator Walters and so many of her colleagues on that side of the chamber hate Senator Walsh standing up in this place and so clearly stating the true position in respect of the petrol pricing policy of the Fraser Government, let it be clearly understood that the Government intends to pursue that policy. It will do so at the misfortune of the Australian people. If it is still able to exercise that policy in 12 months’ time, honourable senators can rest assured that the price of petrol will con-, tinue to increase to a point where at least 45c a litre will be the order of the day for all motorists this time next year.

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

(4.56)- There have been a number of speakers in this second reading debate on the Appropriation Bills. Where matters have been raised for the attention of the responsible Ministers, I will see that their attention is drawn to those matters and I will undertake that any advice that has been requested, will be given to them. Senator Robertson made requests with regard to education. I believe that Senator Keeffe made a request with regard to a matter for the Minister for Health (Mr MacKellar). We have had other issues raised by Senators Ryan, Walsh and Wriedt. I suggest that the attention of the various Ministers be drawn to the comments that were made by them to see what information can be provided.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Motion (by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle)- by leave- agreed to:

  1. 1 ) That clauses 1 to 7 be postponed till after the consideration of the Schedule.
  2. That, unless otherwise ordered, the votes i.-. the Schedule be considered in the same groupings and order as the departmental estimates referred to Estimates committees A, B, C, D, E and F, respectively, as follows:
  1. That leave be given to senators to move motions expressing opinions or making recommendations based on the reports of the Estimates committees; that such motions be moved when the appropriate vote is under consideration; that where more than one motion is proposed in relation to a particular vote the motions may be debated together, but in all cases a motion or motions shall be disposed of before the question is put on the vote before the Chair; and that any resolutions be reported when the Chairman makes his report to the President at the conclusion of proceedings in Committee of the Whole.

page 2430

QUESTION

GROUP A

Parliament

Proposed expenditure, $777,000.

Department of National Development and Energy

Proposed expenditure, $6,875,000.

Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet

Proposed expenditure, $2,466,000.

Department of the Treasury

Proposed expenditure, $5,099,000.

Department of Education

Proposed expenditure, $11,1 32,000.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I wish to raise a matter which relates to division 500.3.04 of the estimates for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. I want to know whether the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) is holding a birthday party in the parliamentary dining room on Monday next week. Is there in excess of 200 guests invited? Is the Prime Minister flying in pheasant, crayfish and prawns from interstate for that party? Will there be increased parliamentary staff employed to cater for the party? Who is paying for this entertainment? Is the expenditure included in the estimates of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet? Is it covered by official hospitality? If not, is it to be paid for privately? If it is paid for out of public funds, is it justified and where do I find the expenditure?

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

(5.0)- I am not fully informed on the matter but I am aware that it is not the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) who is holding a party. Members and senators are holding a party to which they have invited the Prime Minister. My assumption and understanding are that the members and senators who are holding the party will be responsible for all the costs related to it.

Senator DAVIDSON:
South Australia

– I speak at this point in the Committee stage on behalf of Senator Martin who is the Chairman of Estimates Committee A. Some recommendations in the report of that Committee need to be dealt with in the Committee of the Whole. A resolution of the Committee also is to be presented during the discussion of the Committee of the Whole. When Senator Martin spoke to the report of Estimates Committee A, she drew attention to the fact that the Committee wanted to present some material relating to the item described as the Advance to the Minister for Finance.

Members of Senate Estimates Committee A considered the estimates for the Parliament. During that examination they were concerned at the use of funds from the Advance to the Minister for Finance to meet certain expenses which might have involved programs of the Parliamentary Library. If funds were used from the Advance to the Minister for Finance, Estimates Committee A would have no opportunity to scrutinise the expenditure.

When Senator Martin spoke to the report earlier, she said that the matter was central to the very operation of Estimates committees and placed serious limits on them. I take a moment of the Committee ‘s time to refer to some further observations which Senator Martin made. She said:

The second issue raised in our consideration of the estimates for the Library was that of expenditure spread, which has caused great frustration to Estimates committees. It is possible, when looking at expenditure on a particular project, that the actual total expenditure may be spread either over a number of departments or between sections of a department. The mechanical functioning of Estimates committees does not enable the committee concerned properly to scrutinise expenditure on a specific project, even when the estimates are available. That process becomes particularly difficult when the expenditure is spread over departments.

Other matters in the report of Estimates Committee A have been summarised in a resolution which I will present to the Committee of the Whole in a few minutes. Quite clearly, in the view of the Committee the processes to which I have referred are inappropriate. The Committee has supported the recommendation of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations that a statement of expenditure from the Advance to the Minister for Finance should be tabled each month. That Committee has suggested that there be some modification to the present operation of the Estimates committees. It feels that such modification is necessary. We are looking to the Senate Standing Orders Committee to examine and to report to the Senate on the details of any change that might be necessary to require the former procedure to be followed.

Matters relating to the identification of expenditure on specific programs and projects were also worked out during the hearing of Estimates Committee A. These matters related in part to what I have just said about certain areas within the division relating to the Parliament. We recommend that adequate cross-reference information be provided by the initiating department and the client service department in their explanatory notes. We suggest, therefore, that it is desirable that Estimates committees, during their examinations, should call witnesses from departments other than those whose estimates are referred to the committee to enable information which is necessary for a proper examination of the total Estimates to be given. Estimates Committee A also recommended that the Senate Standing Orders Committee examine this matter and, in due course, report to the Senate on what changes might be necessary to enable a Senate Estimates committee to seek information from departments other than those for which it had specific responsibility.

Senate Estimates Committee A expressed the view that the current operation of Estimates committees within the fixed framework regulated by Standing Order 36AB placed quite severe limitations on the role of Estimates committees. The committees are further restricted by not having any continuing function through the year. We maintain that a change is necessary to permit an Estimates committee to have an ongoing monitoring function. So, we are looking at the matter of changing the Estimates committees resolution of appointment, inquiry and report, and are looking at the limitations imposed by the Standing Order. We restress and reiterate the need, in association with this, the fact that there would be a requirement for additional staff- if 1 may put it this way, for more permanent staffing arrangements- so that the work we are envisaging should be done, can be done.

Members of Estimates Committee A recommend that in future consideration of the appropriation for Parliament, which is the appropriation which initiated this discussion, should take place separately and before the sittings of other Estimates committees. Every senator in this place is interested in the estimates of a range of departments but is particularly interested in the estimates for Parliament itself- the functioning of Parliament and the departments within the Parliament. Therefore it would provide the opportunity for all senators to take their place adjacent to the Estimates committee that is involved, to share in the scrutiny of the expenditure for Parliament and to ask questions relating to that expenditure, because Parliament is an area of public expenditure in which we are all not only interested but also extremely involved.

There is also a recommendation in relation to information sought from the Auditor-General by the Committee. In the report, the Committee expressed concern that in future the AuditorGeneral would be reporting twice yearly to Parliament and the reports would not be available prior to the sitting of the Estimates committees.

We consider that such a change would be a retrograde step, and we recommend to the Senate that the Auditor-General be asked to investigate this matter further to ensure that the reports are tabled before the Estimates committees meet. There are other details mentioned in the report of Estimates Committee A. To summarise and to regularise that report, I move:

These are the matters which I bring forward on behalf of Senator Martin, the Chairman of Senate Estimates Committee A, relating to the Committee’s report and in particular those areas of the report which are summarised and put forward in a motion which is to be dealt with during the Committee of the Whole.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– During the second reading debate on this Bill I raised the matter of conflicting answers given by the Minister for National Development and Energy (Senator Carrick). I said that I hoped that either he or his staff was listening and that he would be in the chamber for the Committee stage involving the Department so that he could give an answer to the matters I raised. I do not know where the Minister is but I can see that the Minister for Social Security, Senator Guilfoyle, is in charge of the chamber. I do not know whether there is a particular reason for his absence, such as not wanting to come in and be cross-examined on the conflicting answers that have been given, or whether he has given an answer to the Minister at the table to give to the Committee. Before I say any more about the matter, I ask the Minister whether she has that answer for me.

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE (Victoria- Minister for Social Security) (5.10) - Senator McLaren raised a matter in the second reading debate in regard to answers that had been given by Mr Newman and former Senator Webster. I have nothing further to add to those answers, nor I imagine has any other Minister any other statement to make on this matter at this time.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I am astounded at the answer of the Minister for Social Security, Senator Guilfoyle. She said that she has no information. Perhaps there is some reason for that. But then she said that she imagined that no other Minister would have any information. What sort of government do we have when we have a Minister who gives an answer which is in direct conflict with that of another Minister in answer to a question placed on the Notice Paper by Mr Hayden seeking information as to exploration for petroleum in Australia? As I said in my speech in the second reading debate, every day Senator Carrick tells us in this Parliament that much of the money that is being derived from the users of petrol through the use of the petrol pumps as a tax office is going into exploration. We are not being told where it is going. I will have to repeat the question in the 15 minutes available to me. We have to get an answer. The Parliament should not be treated like it is.

I will read the question asked by Mr Hayden of the then Minister for National Development on 28 March of last year. It was question No. 3587. I will have to repeat the whole of it. I thought the Minister’s staff would have had a look at it when I mentioned it in my speech in the second reading debate. That is why I did not read all of it then. The question reads:

  1. 1 ) Which companies invested in (a) off-shore and (b) onshore petroleum, (i) exploration, (ii) development or (iii) production in Australia in 1977.
  2. ) What investment was made in each case.
  3. In each case what funds originated from (a) new Australian capital, (b) re-investment of petroleum revenue, (c) North America and (d) other overseas sources.
  4. Which companies supplied the Commonwealth with full details of results of their (a) off-shore and (b) on-shore exploration activities.

The answer reads:

Mr John McLeay; The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) Individual company information is supplied to the Bureau of Mineral Resources and the Australian Bureau of Statistics on a confidential basis. However, aggregate information on expenditure and the source of funds for 1977 is available in The Petroleum Newsletter (No. 74) published by the Bureau of Mineral Resources.

(a) In accordance with the 1967 Joint Offshore Petroleum arrangements with the States the Commonwealth receives full details of the results of offshore exploration activities from all title holders.

Companies operating onshore in the States and the Northern Territory are subject to State or Territory laws and are under no obligation to supply results to the Commonwealth.

Mr Hayden had to put another question on notice and he did this on 2 April this year. He asked a question of the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy. The answer was given to Mr Anthony by Senator Carrick. The question and answer read:

  1. 1 ) Which companies invested in (a) off-shore and (b) onshore petroleum (i) exploration, (ii) development or (iii) productions in Australia in 1978.
  2. Is this information confidential; if so, (a) why and (b) is it withheld at the (i) request of companies concerned or (ii) initiative of the Government.

Mr Anthony; The Minister for National Development and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. and (2) The companies which had interests in offshore and on-shore petroleum titles in Australia in 1978 are listed in the Key accompanying the Petroleum Exploration and Development Titles Map (showing petroleum titles in force at 1 January 1979) published by the Bureau of Mineral Resources. A copy of the Key and map is available in the Parliamentary Library.

That information which we sought is clearly not available in the Parliamentary Library because the answer given to Mr Hayden ‘s question last year was that it was confidential. Today in the Senate I asked a direct question of the Minister for National Development and Energy (Senator Carrick), who is not in the chamber now. It can only be assumed that he does not want to be here for good reasons.

As I said in my speech at the second reading stage, we are back in the same situation that existed with Mr Newman and Senator Webster last year. Mr Newman lost his National Development portfolio because of a misleading answer and Senator Webster has been transferred out of the Parliament to the job of High Commissioner to New Zealand. The Minister now directly responsible for energy is not prepared to come into this chamber and give us an answer. The Minister for Social Security, in answer to a question from me a moment ago, said that she does not think any Minister can give us the answer. What sort of Parliament are we operating in? Surely we are entitled to hear the Minister for National Development and Energy say either that he has given a misleading answer to Mr Hayden ‘s question of 28 March 1979 or that he will supply us with the information which Mr Hayden sought and which we now seek.

I again ask the Minister. Why can we not get this information? Is it because the Government is not able to prove that there is any increased exploration because of the savage petrol tax which it has imposed, despite the fact that it keeps telling everybody that further exploration is being carried out? We want to know whether any extra exploration is being carried out and, if so, where it has been off-shore and on-shore. We want to know what beneficial results are coming from exploration as a result of the increased petrol tax. The Government keeps telling us that there are one or two reasons for increasing the tax on petrol, the first being to increase exploration and the other being to encourage conservation of our petrol supplies. We know full well that the second one is not operating too well because the Treasurer (Mr Howard) announced recently that petrol consumption is down about 1.5 per cent. That is nothing in view of the fact that so many people are unemployed that they cannot afford to buy petrol to run their motor cars. One of the slogans we see around the place is: ‘I paid cash for the car but I have to buy my petrol on hire purchase’.

We want to know why the Government cannot tell us where exploration is being carried out, by whom and what beneficial results are coming from it. That is what we want to know. We will just have to keep pursuing that question until we get an answer. As I said, we are back in the same situation we were in last year when we had conflicting answers in the Parliament from two Ministers. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) saw fit to transfer the energy portfolio from Mr Newman to Senator Carrick and to side-swipe Senator Webster over to New Zealand. We are back in the same situation. Will Senator Carrick evade the issue again or will we see a side-swiping of Senator Carrick too? Of course, that might well take place. We know that Senator Puplick, being No. 3 on the ticket, is in a very ticklish situation and that the only way he can get back to the Parliament is for Senator Carrick to be sent off somewhere so that he can be elevated to No. 2. 1 ask the Minister: Why can we not have the answer?

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE (Victoria- Minister for Social Security) (5.1 8) - Senator McLaren has restated the matter on which he requires information. I have noted his reference to the question on notice from Mr Hayden on 2 April. I said earlier that I had no information to add to the answers he referred to earlier, including the matters raised in relation to Mr Newman and former Senator Webster. I now note the requests that he makes. I will refer them to the Minister concerned to see what information can be given to the honourable senator.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– I would like to say a few words on this matter. For the past four and a half years Australia has been progressing towards banana republicanism, but I do not think it has been quite so clearly demonstrated as it was just now. We have had two answers to questions on notice from two Ministers responsible for minerals and energy. The former Minister responsible for minerals and energy said that information was not available because it was confidential. The present Minister for National Development and Energy (Senator Carrick) said: ‘It is available in the Library any time that you like to go and look at it’. They were answers to questions on notice given after they had as much time as they chose to take to contemplate them and to check their facts. We have a flat contradiction between the present and the past Ministers responsible for minerals and energy. Not only does the Government think it is under no obligation to explain the contradiction. One of the Ministers responsible, who is a member of the Senate, does not even have the courtesy to be present here when the matter is being discussed. I move:

That the Senate defer consideration of the appropriation for the Department of National Development and Energy until such time as the responsible Minister can satisfactorily explain the contradiction between the two answers to the questions on notice cited by Senator McLaren.

Question resolved in the negative.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– The Government has voted against the motion moved by Senator Walsh. Therefore, only one conclusion can now be drawn; that is, that the Government is not prepared to divulge the information and it is not prepared to put the Minister for National Development and Energy (Senator Carrick) on the line by answering those questions. There is now conclusive proof that the Government is adopting a complete cover-up. The Government has misled the Senate in the way that it has answered those questions. No other conclusion can be drawn. As Senator Walsh and I have pointed out, the answers are conflicting. It is quite obvious that Government supporters are aware of that but are not prepared to adjourn this line item so that the Opposition’s questions can be answered. This is another nail in the Government’s coffin.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The Minister for Social Security has said that she will get that information for you.

Senator Robertson:

– What information?

The CHAIRMAN:

– The information that Senator McLaren is seeking.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– Yesterday I described Government senators who mindlessly toed the prime ministerial line as ‘toadies’. Senator Missen objected to that expression and therefore I withdrew it. I think that every one of the Government senator’s here now has just justified the use of that expression. These people who have the audacity to claim that this is a House of review which supervises the actions of the Executive and the House of Representatives, all these toadies who sit across the aisle, are quite happy to accept the situation where it has been clearly demonstrated that Ministers have given contradictory answers, irreconcilable answers. Honourable senators opposite are quite happy to proceed to the next business and to allow the appropriations to be made for the Department of National Development and Energy not only without having that contadiction between Ministers reconciled and explained but also without the responsible Minister being present in the chamber.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! That matter has been dealt with. The motion now before the Chair deals with the votes for group A.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

-You have just said, Mr Chairman, that the matter I raised -

The CHAIRMAN:

-I was referring to the matter raised by Senator Walsh.

Senator McLAREN:

– You said, Mr Chairman, that the matter raised by Senator Walsh had been dealt with. I want to ask you when we are going to get the answer. When I spoke earlier you said, Mr Chairman, that the Minister has said that the Opposition will get an answer. I want to know when we are going to get that answer. Are we going to get it before we finish dealing with group A? A lot of other things have to be discussed. Are we going to get an answer before we pass all the other groups in this Bill and it becomes law? If that happens next week we might find that we are given conflicting answers such as those given to Mr Hayden. That is what I want to know before we move on.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The Minister for Social Security has said that she will get the answer for Senator McLaren. The matter is not in my hands, it is in the Minister’s hands.

Senator McLAREN:

– I am asking now: When can we have the answer to those questions? Early this afternoon I forewarned the Minister for National Development and Energy (Senator Carrick) of my intention to raise this matter. I gave the Minister the courtesy of advising him and his staff of the type of answer I wanted. I wanted some clarification of the conflicting answers that were given. Some hours have gone by since I informed the Minister of my intention to raise this matter. More than two hours have gone by and we still have not got the answer. I want to know whether we will get the answer before we pass the vote for group A today.

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE (Victoria- Minister for Social Security) (5.24)- Matters have been raised time and again by Senator McLaren with regard to a particular matter in which he has an interest. I have said that I will refer his request to the Minister for National Development and Energy (Senator Carrick) to seek the information for him. As is the case with all questions relayed to Ministers answers will be given as soon as possible. The matter that was first raised related to a question placed on notice by Mr Hayden. I took note of the question. I will refer to the Minister concerned the matters now raised by Senator McLaren and see that consideration is given to his request.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The Committee of the Whole is considering the report of Senate Estimates Committee A which covers appropriations for the Parliament, the Department of National Development and Energy, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Education. I think that with the exception of Treasury, Senator Carrick, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, represents all Ministers responsible for those departments. Frankly, I think it is a pretty contemptible exercise that the Government should have the Senate sit on a Friday so that the Appropriation Bills can be passed in order that the Government can ensure that the Parliament rises next week. The Minister who is responsible to the Parliament for the appropriations that are being considered and debated by the Committee and which run into millions and millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money is not present to answer the questions put to him by people on all sides of the Parliament. The reports of the various committees show the cavalier attitude that is being adopted by the Government and particularly by the Leader of the Government. This in turn shows the complete contempt that the Government has for the people of Australia and the Parliament of Australia.

Senator Withers:

– Get a glass of water.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– If the Leader of the Government were here he might get a glass of water. The whole business of Estimates committees and the way in which they are being handled by the Government seems to me to be becoming a pretty futile exercise. If we are to continue with Estimates committees and have the reports dealt with effectively surely the Minister responsible for the particular estimates should be in the chamber at the time they are being discussed.

I, for instance, wish to raise with the Minister- I had saved it up for now rather than speak in the adjournment debate one evening- a question that arose from an answer that he recently gave me. I note that Senator Puplick laughs. I may now have to speak every night next week in the adjournment debate. If Senator Puplick reads the reports of the Estimates committees he will realise that it is not a laughing matter at all. The Parliament is getting into a catch-22 situation. I am disturbed that the report for Estimates Committee A expresses concern that the Auditor-General in future will be reporting twice-yearly to the Parliament and that the reports will not be available prior to the sittings of the Estimates committees. I think it is a pretty serious matter that the report of the AuditorGeneral will not be available to the Parliament or to the Estimates committees when they meet.

As a member of parliament it concerns me that that report is being made to the Committee of the Whole by one of its sub-committees. I would like to know the reason why the reports of the Auditor-General will not be made available prior to the sittings of Estimates committees in the future. At page 2 of the report, under the heading ‘Limitations on the Role of Estimates Committees’. Senate Estimates Committee A reports that the current operation of Senate Estimates committees within the fixed framework regulated by Standing Order 36AB places severe limitations in respect of certain procedures. I know that Senator Davidson has moved in that respect today.

To show the concern of the Estimates Committee about the appropriation for the Parliament, it recommends that, in future, consideration of the appropriation for Parliament should take place separately and prior to the sitting of the other Estimates committees in order to enable all interested senators to attend. I said earlier that it appears that we are getting into a catch-22 situation so far as the Parliament is concerned. The President of the Senate, who has just come into the chamber, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, have been pressing for a parliamentary appropriation to be determined by the Parliament so that Parliament can be master of its own business.

I see in these reports that there is a request for Estimates committees to sit on a full-time basis.

There is also a request for additional staff to be made available to the Senate Estimates committees so that they can further scrutinise expenditure, and a request that the staff ceilings now imposed be lifted. That matter is not determined by the Parliament. Staff ceilings are determined by the Public Service Board or by the Government. Whilst we as a Parliament want further scrutiny over the activities of the bureaucracy and the Executive, it is the bureaucracy and the Executive, not this Parliament, that are determining the amount of finance and the number of staff that will be made available to the Parliament. As I have said, whilst we want to involve ourselves further in consideration of the Estimates, it is obvious that until we get a parliamentary appropriation in our own right, with the Parliament determining how that money can best be spent, we are in and will remain in a catch-22 situation.

I express particular concern that Estimates Committee A has reported a matter concerning the Auditor-General. Indeed, the Committee said that in its opinion such a change would be a retrograde step, and it recommended to the Senate that the Auditor-General be asked to investigate the matter further to ensure that reports are tabled before the Estimates committees meet. I go further and ask that the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick) be requested to investigate the matter to ensure that the Auditor-General’s reports are tabled before the Estimate committees meet.

One matter I did wish to ask the Minister about relates to the document headed ‘Statement of Savings expected in Annual Appropriations’ under division 430.3.04, Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Program; of the Department of National Development and Energy. There was an appropriation of $9,057,000, and the estimated saving for 1979-80- this financial year- is $4.1m. So far as the National Energy Conservation Publicity Campaign is concerned, there was an appropriation of $1,070,000, and the estimated saving is $967,000. On 28 April I raised the matter in this Parliament with the Minister for National Development and Energy, Senator Carrick. In his response to me, at page 8 1 1 of Hansard he said:

The National Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Council which advises the Government on research projects has a rolling program. It receives requests and makes recommendations. It is not possible simply to look at the statement of the Department of Finance and say that because the money has not been spent at a particular time it will not be spent. I think the total amount which has been spent on research and development projects is just under $39m in the years that the program has been running. It is not to be thought that because the money has not been expended it will not, in the longer term, be expended. I have no doubt at all that when bills for conservation advertising come in the money will be spent.

The Government cannot have it both ways. If the money is to be spent, why is it shown in this document as a saving? Is it a saving this financial year, or is it to be transferred to another financial year? If it is to be transferred to another financial year, it cannot be regarded as a saving. I want to know, if the Government is so keen on developing an energy research program, why only about SO per cent of the total money allocated for that purpose has been expended. If the Government is so keen on seeing a publicity campaign launched to persuade people to conserve the nation’s energy why, of the $ 1.07m appropriated, is only $967,000 shown in the document published by the Department of Finance as a statement of savings expected in the annual appropriation? As I have said, the Government cannot have it both ways. If the money is to be spent next year, it should not be shown as a saving this year. If it is not to be spent, I want to know why it is not to be spent because the Government says that the nation’s energy resources are of prime and paramount importance to it.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– I put this argument to the Committee. Estimates committees were never intended to take the place of the Committee of the Whole. I think that was clear at the time when they were introduced because it was realised that Estimates committee members or senators could not attend all committee meetings, but they still had the right to come into the Committee of the Whole and to ask questions. It was expected that the Minister in charge of the estimate under consideration would be present. It was expected also that the public servants of the Department under scrutiny would be available to assist the Minister at the table to answer questions that were asked by honourable senators in the Committee of the Whole.

What has happened now is that we have a practice of receiving and debating an estimates committee report and of being limited to discussing that report. That was not the intention when we set up the Estimates committees. Estimates committees were set up to facilitate the investigation of expenditure. Nevertheless, it was intended that when we came into the Committee of the Whole we could ask questions directly of the Minister. If the Minister could not answer those questions, he referred them to the public servant who was available to give us an immediate answer. Now what is happening is that we have a Minister in charge of the chamber who is not the Minister responsible for the expenditure. Not only that but also we have fallen into a rather peculiar exercise. I decided that I wanted to ask a couple of questions concerning the expenditure of parliamentary departments. I took it that the estimates for the Parliament would be the first that we would deal with. After looking at the Estimates Committee A report, I noted that the first questions that were referred to early in the index concerned the Parliament. I then went to the paper before us which showed the departments under group A. I see that included in the first group is the Department of National Development and Energy. There does not seem to be any rhyme or reason to our procedures at the moment. What should be happening is that we should be dealing with Group A. The first section that we should be dealing with is the Department of National Development and Energy. The Minister responsible for that Department should be present, and there should be present the public servant from the Department. That is not the case. What we are doing is ranging right across the whole group. It is impossible for all advisers to the Minister to be present at the one time. Suppose I asked a question of the Minister in relation to education. How could she possibly get the information that is necessary to answer the question if the public servants concerned with education happen to be sitting up in the Gallery? It seems to me that we have to correct our procedures and in future deal with a group in departmental order as they stand on the paper. My first question should be a question concerning the Department of National Development and Energy.

Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:

– The officers are here.

Senator GEORGES:

– The officers are there, but we have been ranging across quite a number of other subjects, have we not?

Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:

– That is in the hands of the senators opposite, Senator.

Senator GEORGES:

– What we should do in future is make it clear that in Committee we are dealing with Group A or Group B, and that we are dealing with the departments in order.

Senator Cavanagh:

– By departments.

Senator GEORGES:

-So that it is possible for the Minister to change advisers around when we move from department to department.

The CHAIRMAN:

– It is a matter for the Committee to decide whether it wants to deal with departments together or separately. The Committee agreed to deal with them as a whole.

Senator GEORGES:

- Mr Chairman, you can see the difficulties that we are in now. If I ask a question about the Parliament, the Minister does not have the advisers alongside her to advise her.

Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:

– I suggest you ask the question, Senator. There are advisers here. If you ask the question I will have it referred to the adviser.

Senator GEORGES:

– If I ask a question on the Parliament, the Minister does not have the advisers from that department here.

Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:

– They are sitting here.

Senator Walsh:

– Which one is telling lies?

Senator Peter Baume:

– I take a point of order, Mr Chairman. By way of interjection, Senator Walsh just said something about which Ministers are telling lies. Whether it is by way of interjection or not, I believe that to suggest that any Minister is telling lies is quite contrary to Standing Orders.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I did not hear the interjection.

Senator Walsh:

– I said it, Mr Chairman. The fact is that answers to questions on notice which Senator McLaren has put down show that one Minister said ‘I will not supply that information to you. It is not available, because it is confidential’ and another Minister said ‘Go and read it in the Library’. It is quite clear that one of those answers is not true. We want to know which one.

Senator Peter Baume:

– That brings me back to my point of order. Senator Walsh’s interjection clearly referred to Ministers telling lies. That is contrary to Standing Orders.

Senator Walsh:

– I said one of them did. I did not name that one. We want to find out which one of them it is.

Senator Peter Baume:

– It could be only one of two. That, I take it, is contrary to the Standing Orders.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I raise a point of order. The senator asked which Minister was telling lies, which indicated that he exonerated one. One was telling the truth, or could have been telling the truth. I will support Senator Baume when he asks for a withdrawal, if he will tell us which Minister finds the remark is offensive.

Senator Walsh:

– I will withdraw the remark, Mr Chairman. I have long recognised that the test of acceptability in the Senate is not truth, but the Standing Orders. The Standing Orders say that we cannot use language like that. I will withdraw the reference to which Minister is telling lies and put the question: Which of the two Ministers is telling the truth?

The CHAIRMAN:

– You will not qualify it. You will withdraw that statement.

Senator Walsh:

-Which one?

The CHAIRMAN:

-That one of the Ministers was telling lies.

Senator Walsh:

– I will withdraw.

Senator GEORGES:

– I will get to ask the question. The next group we get to will make it clear as to how we proceed. I will move the next time we sit on estimates hearings that we proceed department by department. I wish to ask a question which refers to the Department of National Development and Energy. I have been concerned at the statements which have been made by the Minister about the conservation of fuel. He has stated that there has been some achievement in the area, that in fact 1.5 per cent less petrol is being used in Australia at present and that that shows that there has been some achievement in that direction. I could qualify that by saying that the reason consumption has gone down is the tremendous price of petrol and not any deliberate plan or organisation on the part of the Government.

What concerns me is that, in spite of the Government’s attempt to conserve fuel, the refineries are still putting through as much oil as they have put through in the past. The Minister in charge of the Department should be at the table, but is not. I ask: Why were the refining companies not advised of the anticipated reduction in the use of fuel, which was the purpose of the Government’s campaign? Why was it not possible for those refineries to put less oil through? Is it not possible to control the flow of oil at the well-head? If it is possible to do that, why has the Government not done so? Why has the Government allowed the situation to develop in which there is now in the major cities, and in particular Brisbane, a glut of petrol which has led companies to enter aggressively the market place to rid themselves of the surplus? Does this not indicate that the Government’s plan of conservation was not properly thought out and has not been properly applied, and that the money which has been spent on this rather elaborate campaign to conserve fuel, which is revealed in these estimates, has been wasted? The questions, I think, are simple questions; they can be answered. Why are the refineries putting through as much oil as they were putting through in the past? Why is it not possible to control the flow of oil from the well-head? Why is it not possible to prevent a glut of petrol, which leads to heavy discounting and which leads to an over use of petrol at a time when we are desiring to conserve petrol?

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE (Victoria- Minister for Social Security) (5.48)- Senator Davidson raised some matters that had been decided by Estimates Committee A and conveyed some requests from the Committee. I have the response to many of those matters and, as they have been raised again by other honourable senators, I think at this stage it would be appropriate if I were to give the response relating to the matters which were noted by the Committee. The Committee noted that the Government has not yet responded to the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations on the Advance to the Minister for Finance. The comment that I have relating to that is that the Minister for Finance (Mr Eric Robinson) has completed his examination of the recommendations contained in the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations concerning the Advance to the Minister for Finance. As soon as the Government party room consultative processes have been completed, the Minister will bring forward for consideration by the Government a proposed reponse to the Senate Committee ‘s recommendations. It is, however, unlikely that a formal Government response to the Committee ‘s report will be announced before the end of the current sittings. As has been indicated, this matter is in hand and, in the normal course of events, will soon be before the Senate.

The Committee was of the opinion that it would be inappropriate to use moneys from the Advance to the Minister for Finance for expenditure on the relocation of the Parliamentary Library staff to the Hotel Kurrajong, as the circumstances would clearly not be urgent and unforeseen. The comment relating to that is that the question of the relocation of Parliamentary Library staff, including the timing of any such relocation, is primarily a matter for decision by the Presiding Officers, subject to the availability of funds. At this stage, no request for funds has been put to the Minister or to the Department of Finance for consideration.

It would seem however that the deferral by the Presiding Officers of any request for an additional appropriation at this point of time is consistent with the normal rules of estimating as reflected in Finance direction 16/21. That direction states that estimates shall not include amounts in respect of proposals which are so far from firm that it is not possible to form any real estimate of what payments, if any, will be made.

As Finance understands the situation, the Presiding Officers have not at this stage decided which parliamentary officials will be relocated in the Hotel Kurrajong and thus from which parliamentary departments’ votes any transfer costs would need to be met nor have they decided upon the timing of any relocation. It would seem that there is considerable doubt, particularly at the time the estimates were finalised as to whether any expenditure will take place this financial year on the relocation of staff. But in the event that relocation did proceed and expenditure was required before the end of the financial year, Finance believes that the ‘unforeseen’ criterion for the AMF would have been satisfied. The Senate Standing Committee agrees that the term ‘unforeseen’ should include ‘unforeseen as to amount’. The report reference for that is paragraph 2.29.

The Committee recommended that the Senate Standing Orders Committee examine and report to the Senate on necessary procedural changes to enable Estimates committees to examine any monthly statements produced by the Minister for Finance in pursuance of recommendation 5 of the report of the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations on the Advance to the Minister for Finance. The comment relating to that recommendation is that assuming the Government agrees to the proposed monthly statements on issues of funds from the Advance, the question of procedures to enable Estimates committees to examine them is a matter for consideration by the Senate.

Another matter raised related to the identification of expenditure on specific programs and projects. The Committee recommended to the Senate that in future the originating or initiating department and the client service department provide adequate cross-reference material in their explanatory notes to enable total expenditure associated with a particular program or project to be ascertained. Similar remarks were made by Estimates Committees B and F about the difficulty of identifying proposed expenditures in relation to programs and projects but different solutions were suggested. Instructions will be included in appropriate Finance memoranda issued to departments advising them of the need for adequate cross-referencing in accordance with Committee A’s recommendation. It would, however, be helpful if the Senate committees were to notify the Department of Finance of any specific programs or projects on which information was desired.

Similar remarks about the difficulty of identifying the costs of, or proposed expenditures in relation to, programs or projects were also made by Committee B in respect of identification of expenditure on the High Court and by Committee F in respect of the difficulty it had in identifying from the Appropriation Bills the costs of running the Royal Australian Air Force ‘s Boeing 707 aircraft for VIP purposes. Both committees proposed different solutions. Committee B proposed that the staff ceiling for the Department of the Senate be raised to permit the appointment of permanent staff to Estimates committees to enable them to undertake effective program evaluation. It is pertinent to note in this regard that the Department’s operations are presently the subject of a joint management review. The operations of the three joint parliamentary departments are subject to a separate review. The findings of these reviews should be available in time for the post-Budget examination of staff ceilings in August. The Government has endorsed this approach.

Committee F proposed that proposed expenditure on the RAAF’s Boeing 707 aircraft be consolidated into one appropriation item. The Department of Finance has written to the Committee on this matter. However, briefly, what the Committee proposes is not considered an appropriate solution to the problem. In the first place, the Boeing 707s are used largely for RAAF purposes in addition to their use for VIP and nonVIP civilian purposes- for example, the transport of refugees. To single out two aircraft from a squadron for separate treatment in the Appropriation Bills would not be appropriate; to single out part of the functions- the VIP function- of part of a squadron would seem even less tenable.

Secondly, the Appropriation Bills and Acts serve the primary purpose of providing the legal basis for the drawing of moneys from the Treasury of the Commonwealth for the purposes of the Commonwealth pursuant to sections 8 1 and 83 of the Constitution. It has been the longstanding practice for the Parliament to appropriate moneys under these Acts to departments of State and of the Parliament according to the responsibilities accorded the relevant Ministers of State or Presiding Officers. Individual items of appropriation reflect the kinds of services or inputs for which provision is required. They are classified in standard appropriation format designed to provide a legal appropriation for inputs of a particular kind as well as to provide adequate disclosure to Parliament of the inputs and services for which Commonwealth moneys are sought. Ad hoc departures from the standard format, by bringing together disparate types of expenditure under a single item would tend to distort the existing appropriations which group together inputs, for example, salaries and travel, of a like nature. In so distorting the Bills the result could be misleading to the Parliament rather than facilitating its deliberations.

The appropriate documentation for providing supplementary information on proposed expenditures, including where appropriate program or project information is the departmental explanatory notes together with the Budget statements. This documentation is subject to continual refinement and expansion to meet the requirements of the Parliament. Accordingly, as an alternative solution to the specific problems of the Boeing 707 aircraft, the departments of Finance and Defence have had initial discussions on the possibility of providing additional information in the Department of Defence explanatory notes which bring together the major provisions in the Defence budget for the Boeing 707 aircraft. It is the Department’s intention to endeavour to provide such information in its explanatory notes supporting the proposed appropriations for 1980-81. In view of the considerable interest expressed by a number of Estimates Committees in having consolidated expenditure information on projects and programs generally, the Department of Finance will also be considering what revised instructions to departments may be necessary, in relation to the preparation of explanatory notes, to achieve that objective.

The Committee also recommended that the Senate Standing Orders Committee examine necessary changes to the Standing Orders to enable a Senate Estimates committee to seek information from departments other than those for which the Committee has responsibility. The comment with regard to that is that this is a matter for consideration by the Senate. Another matter raised was limitations on the role of Estimates committees which again is a matter for consideration by the Senate. Another matter raised was Parliament’s appropriation. The Committee recommended that future consideration of the appropriation for Parliament should take place separately and prior to the sitting of other Estimates committees to enable all interested senators to participate. The comment on that recommendation is that the timing of consideration by Estimates committees of the appropriations for the Parliament is a matter for review by the Senate.

A further matter raised was the basis of estimating and expected savings. The Committee expressed the view that procedures should be introduced to ensure that departments do not spend for the sake of spending prior to the close of the financial year. Any underspending of this type should be disregarded in the preparation of the next annual appropriations. The response to that expression is that the Department of Finance has no evidence of unnecessary spending by departments in the latter part of a financial year designed to ensure that appropriations are fully exhausted. Such action would be contrary to specific Government directives. As recently as 21 February 1980 departments were informed of Cabinet’s direction that, where existing available appropriations are more than adequate to meet essential expenditure, departments- and authorities- are not to step up the rate of expenditure with a view to reducing the amount underspent under those appropriations.

Government policy demands that departments make every effort throughout the year to realise savings from any expenditure shortfalls and increased efficiency. Consistent with this approach forward commitment procedures operate which enable departments to obtain approval to enter into commitments in a financial year which will mature in whole or in part after the end of that year. As a consequence, there are no longer the same pressures on departments to complete programs within a financial year to ensure that funds provided for those programs are fully expended. Indeed expected savings on individual appropriations are now tabled in Parliament at the time of introduction of the Additional Estimates Bills.

Another matter raised related to the AuditorGeneral ‘s report. The Committee considered that a change in arrangements relating to the presentation of the Auditor-General’s report would be a retrograde step and recommended that the Auditor-General be asked to investigate this matter further to ensure that reports are tabled before the Estimates committees meet. The response of the Auditor-General’s Office to the Committee is as set out in a letter dated 9 May 1980 to the Chairman of the Committee. Briefly, the Auditor-General stated that due to the uncertainty and variability each year in the dates of Senate Estimates committee sittings, it is not possible to program the tabling of a report in time for the sittings; the practice of tabling a report as early as possible in each session of the Parliament provides, in the circumstances, the best possible service to Senate Estimates committees. The matter is also referred to in the preface to the Auditor-General’s report tabled on 29 April 1980 in the Parliament. Those were the comments. I thought it better to give them at this stage. We can deal with the other matters after the suspension of the sitting.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE:

-Mr Chairman- (Quorum formed). Prior to the suspension of the sitting I was responding to matters that had been raised by honourable senators. I had detailed the response to the recommendations and notes from Estimates Committee A. Senator McLaren and Senator Walsh raised matters relating to parliamentary questions. I have information in response to their questions. I am advised that parliamentary question No. 3587 sought information on what companies invested in petroleum exploration, development and production together with details of where these companies obtained their investment funds. Parliamentary question No. 5808 simply asked which companies invested in petroleum exploration, development and production in Australia in 1978. It did not ask where these individual companies obtained their investment funds. Information relating to the sources of investment funds of individual companies is confidential, as was indicated in the response to parliamentary question No. 3587. To summarise, different answers were provided to different questions. I believe that is the response that was required by Senator McLaren and Senator Walsh.

Senator Douglas McClelland also raised some matters. He referred to the reporting of the Auditor-General. I gave a response to the matters raised in the Senate Estimates Committee A on that subject. Senator Douglas McClelland also referred to the declared underexpenditure on energy research and development and on the energy conservation publicity campaign. During the current financial year trust accounts have been established for the operation for each of these programs. It is necessary to seek new appropriations which are specifically designated for payment to those trust accounts. By way of explanation I record that equivalent funds are appropriated to new items in Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1979-80. Under division 430.3.10 an amount of $967,200 is appropriated. This equates the declared underexpenditure in division 430.3.05. Under division 430.3.11 the sum of $4.1m is appropriated. This equates the declared underexpenditure in division 430.3.04. It is expected that all funds will be expended in this financial year. Perhaps I should draw attention to the fact that this explanation is already included in the Hansard record of that Committee’s consideration.

I have responded to the matters that were raised. In addition, Senator Georges raised again a matter that I am aware he has raised in Question Time with regard to refining companies, the glut of petrol which he maintains this country has and petrol production. The Minister for National Development and Energy (Senator Carrick) has responded to these questions when they have been raised previously. I have no further information to add to those responses.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– Questions have been asked and there have not been satisfactory answers. Questions have been asked not only in this place but also in other places concerning the distortions in the fuel market and the distribution of petrol. I appreciate that we cannot engage in any worthwhile analysis of the problem because the Minister for National Development and Energy (Senator Carrick) is not in the chamber. I have complained about that before. Answers have not been received; it is obvious that the Government has not properly anticipated the problem. It is obvious also that the Government has not had the necessary consultations with or given the necessary directions to petrol companies to regulate the flow of petrol through to the refineries. Until the Government does so, we will find that great hardship will continue to exist in the market place.

I do not think it is the intention of the Government to beat independent small dealers into the ground, but that is what is happening at present. Because of the glut of petrol that existed, and because of the need for big companies to sell that petrol, there has developed a practice, to the disadvantage of the small operator, which ought not to be tolerated. I merely suggest to the Government that it ought to take time off to have a closer look at the problem that has been highlighted by several of its members. It ought to look at the great disadvantages being faced by these people, caused by the lack of planning of petrol distribution in this country. It is absolutely ridiculous to spend money in the way explained in the report by Senate Estimates Committee A. We are endeavouring to achieve a conservation of fuel in this country but we are still allowing wasteful practices to continue. I will say no more tonight because I know that I cannot get an answer to the questions that have been raised. The Minister for Social Security (Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle), who is at the table, is not in a position to answer those matters directly. It is for the Minister for National Development and Energy, who is a Minister of this place, to answer the questions that will be raised constantly.

Finally, I appeal to the Government to take a look at the situation that small operators are facing in this country. If the Government does not do so, it will be to its electoral disadvantage. I do not want to say that too often, but as we approach election times governments become more sensitive to the effect that any of their actions have upon the electorate. This Government’s inaction in this area is having a considerable effect and will lead to a reaction which will be to the Opposition’s advantage. I ought not to complain about it because it will be to our advantage and to the disadvantage of the Government. However, it should be pointed out that thousands of small operators across the country are facing bankruptcy because of the inability of the Government to rationalise the distribution of petrol.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– The Minister for Social Security (Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle), who is in charge of Appropriation Bill (No. 1), gave what she said was an answer to the questions which were raised by me and by Senator Walsh. It was very difficult to listen to and comprehend that answer because she said that they were answers to two different questions. It is quite obvious that we will not get the Minister for National Development and Energy (Senator Carrick) in here to answer them. The whole purpose of railing a quorum tonight was to find out whether the Minister was in Parliament House. When the quorum was called he came into the chamber. He has now left the chamber, and has left this very vital matter of national development and energy to the Minister for Social Security to handle. It is quite obvious that that Minister knows nothing about national development and energy. We would not expect her to; she has enough on her plate looking after social security matters.

The matter cannot be pursued much further; we will have to wait until we get the Hansard and then pursue the matter next week. In my view, the questions that we asked in the Estimates Committee and the answers we have been seeking to those questions now are very similar, yet the Minister comes into this place- no doubt

Senator Carrick has given her a brief; with a response to the effect that the questions that we asked were not similar, but in fact they are very similar. That is the matter we have been pursuing. Of course, as Senator Georges has said, we cannot take the matter any further at this stage because we are not going to get anywhere. But it is now on the record that the Minister responsible for this Department is in the Parliament tonight; he has refused to come in here to answer the questions which we have put to him on his own Department. People can draw their own conclusions as to the reason why.

The other matter I wish to pursue a little further is the matter raised by Senator Georges, that is, the grave problem faced by petrol resellers. Senator Carrick knows full well this problem. Senator Georges has put a case tonight on behalf of Queensland resellers.

Senator Lewis:

– We have just had that.

Senator McLAREN:

– We might have. Senator Georges is a Queenslander. We have always been told that this is a States House, so I want to put a case on behalf of South Australian resellers who are in desperate trouble.

Senator Walters:

– You never go there.

Senator McLAREN:

-We hear Senator Walters saying that I never go there. I am in South Australia more often than she is in Tasmania. When I am in South Australia I do not go around making false accusations against members of the Liberal Party, as she does against members of the Labor Party. She was caught out here the other night by Senator Grimes; he caught her out no end. So she ought not to say anything more about that matter. I am a member of the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources and, unlike some of the Government senators on that Committee, Senator Robertson from the Northern Territory and I religiously attend to our duties when that Committee is sitting. That cannot be said for some Liberal Party members of the Committee who very seldom attend, unless the meetings are held within their own States. If honourable senators look at the record of attendance in recent weeks they will see that that is so. It is all very well for Senator Walters to make accusations that I am not in South Australia. I am carrying out my parliamentary duties wherever the Senate Committee takes me.

Let me get back to the point I was talking about. Probably more will be said by other senators in response to what Senator Walters had to say. I put a case on behalf of the South Australian petrol resellers who are in desperate trouble and who in fact are conducting mass meetings throughout the States in opposition to the Government policy in kowtowing to the fuel companies in allowing them to sell in direct competition to resellers. As I pointed out to the Parliament the other night, some of the resellers in Murray Bridge, where I live, have come to me and said that they can go to Adelaide and buy petrol out of the retail pumps cheaper than they can have petrol delivered wholesale by petrol companies to retailing outlets in Murray Bridge. Of course we only have to look at the advertisements placed in the Press throughout South Australia; and, as Senator Walters has provoked me, I will refer to some of them now. This is what the South Australian Automobile Chamber of Commerce says:

Is this how Liberal Governments represent small businessmen?

That is, the Federal Government. The SAACC says:

In our view it is essential to preserve the viability of small business owned or operated retail outlets in the industry.

The Government ‘s prime objectives in the industry are the maintenance of effective competition and of a continuing and viable small business sector’.

That statement was attributed to Wal Fife on 30 October 1978. What do the petrol resellers say? This is listed in the advertisement: 529 conventional service stations closed in Australia from January 1979 to December 1979 and 205 oil company selfserve stations opened.

In examining the elements of this possible package-

Mr Fife is talking about what is commonly known as the Fife package:

The Government has been mindful of the fact that they would complement each other. If the Government decides to adopt these measures, following completion of its examination, they will be effective from today ‘.

That statement was made on 30 October 1978. According to the advertisement, this is the result:

No complete package, just a useless franchise bill with no divorcement and retrospectivity-

That is what was promised. The Bill has not even come into the Parliament. It has been circulated to us with a covering letter from the Minister but he has not brought it in yet. The advertisement goes on to talk about the State Government in these terms:

We are very concerned that selective discounting, and in particular cut throat discounting, could lead to some retailers not making any profit and subsequently going out of business.

If a retailer goes out of business, it does not help the local customer, the retailer, the employees and South Australia as a whole. The Ministers warned that if the problem was not resolved by the oil companies voluntarily, the Government may have to take administrative or legislative action.

Who made that statement? It was a joint statement by Dean Brown and John Burdett on 16 January this year. What is the result? It is:

Discounting deepened and Government has done absolutely nothing. If governments can break promises to small businessmen then small businessmen are at liberty to break governments.

That is what it is all about, as Senator Georges said. We on this side of the chamber ought to be pleased if we were playing real politics because this Government has to answer for its fuel policy, as we have pointed out here day after day. Senator Walsh, in his questioning of the Minister, could not get answers until today. We have both questioned the Minister today and we cannot get answers. Senator Georges has raised the problems faced by the small petrol resellers. This Government is driving them to the wall because it is kowtowing to the oil companies.

As Senator Georges has said, why should we be worrying? People who buy petrol in the metropolitan areas of Melbourne, Adelaide, Brisbane and Sydney are certainly getting cheaper petrol. What about the poor devils in the country who need petrol to survive? They are paying up to 10c a litre more for petrol in some places, despite the fact that this Government tells us repeatedly that, as a result of is freight subsidy, petrol will be no more than lc or 2c a litre dearer in the country areas than it is in the metropolitan areas. That is a complete falsehood because those who buy petrol in the country know full well that in some country areas the cost is up to 10c a litre more than it is in the metropolitan areas. The Government has to answer for that. It is up to us who represent these people in the States to put a plea for them in this Parliament and not to have the whole thing swept under the carpet because of interjections from honourable senators opposite who say that we are never in our States. That is a complete falsehood. Of course, they often say that. I will say this: When Labor senators are in their States, they are in their offices attending to their business. They are not attending to their private business and neglecting their parliamentary duties as many honourable senators opposite do. That is a fact. I am asking the Government to have a bit of common sense and to give a fair go to the resellers, in South Australia in particular. I have made a plea for them, and Senator Georges has made it for the resellers in Queensland.

Senator PETER BAUME:
New South Wales

– The Committee is considering the Estimates of expenditure in Appropriation Bill (No. 3). The Government has leant over backwards to be fair in the debate. I think anyone listening to this broadcast would be perfectly well aware that the speeches we have been hearing have nothing to do with the Estimates. They are general political speeches. They are denigrations of Ministers. They are repetitious. They are designed to delay the work of the Senate. They are nit-picking in the extreme. They are a series of mini-policy speeches which have nothing to do with the Estimates. The Government has been very careful in the way in which the program has been run this session. So far this session the gag has not been applied to any Bill before the Senate. We think enough is enough. We think what is going on now is a filibuster. I would even suggest that the time has come to get a vote on this matter and to get honourable senators into the chamber. I invite the Australian Labor Party, when I move a motion in a moment, to call for a division, to bring its members into the chamber and to let the people of Australia know many honourable senators are present in the Parliament tonight. The numbers on this side will be adequate. Therefore, in relation to the votes in group A, I move:

That the question be now put. ( Quorum formed).

Question resolved in the affirmative.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The question now is: That the votes in group A be passed without requests.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Declaration of Urgency

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

(8.2 1 )- I declare that this Bill is an urgent Bill and move:

That the Bill be considered an urgent Bill.

Senator Georges:

- Mr Chairman, I raise a point of procedure. Can you explain what the Minister for Social Security is doing at the present time?

The CHAIRMAN:

– The Minister is moving that the Bill be declared an urgent Bill.

Senator Georges:

– Is the Minister referring to the whole of the Bill?

The CHAIRMAN:

– Yes.

Senator Georges:

– Is the Minister moving that the whole of the Estimates be declared urgent?

The CHAIRMAN:

– The Minister’s motion refers to the whole of the Bill.

Senator Walsh:

– By what time will the Bill be passed, Mr Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN:

– We will get to that in time.

Question put. The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Senator C. R. Maunsell)

AYES: 27

NOES: 13

Majority……. 14

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Allotment of Time

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

(8.27)- I move:

That the time allotted for the consideration of the remainder of the Bill be as follows:

For the consideration of group B until 8.40 p.m.; for the consideration of group C until 9 p.m.; for the consideration of group D until 9.20 p.m.; for the consideration of group E until 9.40 p.m.; for the consideration of group F until 9.55 p.m.; for the remainder of the Committee stage until 10 p.m.; and for the remaining stages of the Bill until 10.5 p.m.

And I move:

That the question be now put.

The CHAIRMAN:

-The question is: That the question be now put.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I raise a point of order.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Those of that opinion say aye, against say no. I think the ayes have it.

Opposition senators- The noes have it.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I raise a point of order.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I think the ayes have it.

Opposition senators- The noes have it.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I raise a point -

The CHAIRMAN:

– A division is required. Ring the bells.

The bells being rung-

Senator Wriedt:

- Mr Chairman, an honourable senator is trying to raise a point of order. He is being ignored. I suggest that you allow him to take his point of order.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I call Senator Cavanagh.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I raise as a point of order whether an honourable senator can move two motions concurrently. A motion has been moved for the allotment of time. Surely we should decide that question first. The Minister also moved that the question be now put. Mr Chairman, can you accept two motions at the one time?

The CHAIRMAN:

– It is the practice of the Senate.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Yes, but we should consider what is right and not what is practice.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I can only be guided by the practice and procedures of the Senate.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I would ask you what is right. Mr Chairman, you are above simply slavishly following what somebody else says.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I follow the practice of the Senate and the Standing Orders. They are right by me.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

- Mr Chairman, I take a point of order. The division bells were rung at a time when Senator Cavanagh was on his feet taking a point of order. I ask whether the division bells are able to be rung while debate is going on in the Senate.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I called for the bells to be rung before Senator Cavanagh got to his feet, before I saw Senator Cavanagh.

Question put-

That the question be now put.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Senator C. R. Maunsell)

AYES: 27

NOES: 14

Majority……. 13

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put-

That the motion (Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle’s be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Senator C. R. Maunsell)

AYES: 27

NOES: 14

Majority……. 13

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 2446

QUESTION

GROUP B

Attorney-General’s Department

Proposed expenditure, $589,000.

Department of Industrial Relations

Proposed expenditure, $589,000.

Department of Employment and Youth Affairs

Proposed expenditure, $6,400,000.

Department of Business and Consumer Affairs

Proposed expenditure, $3,371,000

The CHAIRMAN:

– The time having elapsed for the consideration of the estimates in Group B, I put the question:

That the votes in Group B be now passed without requests.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Senator C. R. Maunsell)

AYES: 27

NOES: 14

Majority……. 13

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 2446

QUESTION

GROUP C

Department of Social Security

Proposed expenditure, $5,668,000.

Department of Finance

Proposed expenditure, $65 1 , 000.

Department of Health

Proposed expenditure, $11,1 92,000.

Department of Veterans’ Affairs

Proposed expenditure, $23,490,000.

Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs

Proposed expenditure, $2,40 1,000.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Is it the wish of the Committee that the votes in Group C be taken as a whole?

Senator Cavanagh:

– Yes.

The CHAIRMAN:

– So that all honourable senators are aware of what is happening, I point out that we have until 9 p.m. to discuss Group C.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– After the parliamentary debauchery of the last half hour, I hope we hear no more cant and humbug from the mountebanks who populate the Government benches about this being a House of review. With regard to the Department of Finance, I draw attention to a number of matters entailing expenditure. I refer, in particular, to a letter to the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) dated 11 December 1979 from the Chief Justice of Australia, Sir Garfield Barwick, in which he states:

I circulated to my brother justices for comment your letter to me of 19 November 1979 about a changed basis for the daily travel allowance.

I interpolate that the basis of that change was that people claiming travelling allowance as from that change were required actually to stay overnight before they claimed travelling allowance instead of just claiming overnight allowance for travelling, say, from Sydney to Melbourne, as the Chief Justice had been wont to do. He continued:

However, the amount of the allowance has excited comment. Compared with either hotel or motel accommodation in the capital cities, the allowance is markedly inadequate, particularly when a justice is accompanied by his wife during sittings.

I note for the record that the allowance paid to the Chief Justice is $67 a night, which is $14 more than the adult with dependants weekly unemployment benefit and almost double the single person’s under 18 unemployment benefit.

Senator Peter Baume:

– I raise a point of order. To which line of this appropriation under committee C is Senator Walsh speaking? I ask this so that honourable senators can know and can follow the debate more closely.

Senator Georges:

– I speak to the point of order. The Government has the extreme audacity, after the way in which it has handled these Estimates tonight, to ask for the line to which we speak. The way the Estimates have been handled has been a complete travesty. This is a disgrace to the Government and to the Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! There is no point of order.

Senator Georges:

– It is a complete abrogation of the methods that we have followed in the Parliament.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order, Senator Georges!

Senator Georges:

– Let me finish what I am saying.

The CHAIRMAN:

– What is your point of order?

Senator Georges:

– I am speaking on the point of order that was raised by Senator Baume. Ask him under what Standing Order he raised his point of order. I am speaking to the same one that he raised and which you have permitted.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order!

Senator Keeffe:

– I have a point of order.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order!

Senator Keeffe:

– I claim that Senator Baume is raising this because he is one of the-

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order, Senator Keeffe!

Senator Keeffe:

– He rakes off public money without any problems at all. This in one of the reasons why the Government has closed the debate on every matter tonight. Every member of the National Country Party has been well trained by Holy Joh on how to do all the dishonest things-

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order, Senator Keeffe! You will resume your seat.

Senator Keeffe:

– You have turned this chamber into a travesty.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order!

Senator Keeffe:

– You are doing the most dishonest things I have ever seen done.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! Senator Keeffe, if you defy the Chair I will name you.

Senator Keeffe:

– Shut up!

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! Senator Keeffe, you will will retract that statement. I ask that you withdraw it. Senator Keeffe, I have asked for a withdrawal.

Senator Keeffe:

– What about? Is it because I told you to shut up?

The CHAIRMAN:

– Yes.

Senator Keeffe:

– I withdraw it.

Senator Puplick:

- Mr Chairman, I raise a point of order. I ask that you ask Senator Keeffe to withdraw the expression ‘Holy Joh’, which was ruled as being contrary to parliamentary procedure by President O ‘Byrne and which is listed as such in Odgers’ Australian Senate Practice.

The CHAIRMAN:

-Order! Senator Keeffe, you have heard what Senator Puplick has said.

Senator Keeffe:

– I will withdraw the term only to enable Senator Walsh to speak.

The CHAIRMAN:

- Senator Walsh, we are dealing with group C.

Senator WALSH:

-The Department of Finance has responsibility for the vetting of all government expenditure. The query I would like to raise about the passage from the Chief Justice’s letter, which I have just read, is whether a Chief Justice is entitled, without any limitations, to take his wife at public expense to sittings of the High Court of Australia outside his home town. Apparently the present Chief Justice has been doing that. The other point I wish to raise concerns- to lapse into Fraseries for one sentence- the disinterest of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in maintaining appropriate standards of judicial propriety. I refer to the Prime Minister’s action a fortnight ago whenbefore the charges had even been stated- he declared the Chief Justice to be innocent. That was an extraordinary action except, of course, when one is conscious of the fact that the Prime Minister is extremely sensitive about Chief Justice Barwick because Barwick -

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order, Senator Walsh!

Senator Walsh:

– Concocted the fictional Constitution -

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order, Senator Walsh.

Senator Walsh:

– Of the caretaker government.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! This matter comes within group B, under the Attorney-General’s Department which has already been dealt with. It is not covered in the Department of Finance.

Senator WALSH:

-I submit that the Department of Finance has an overall responsibility to vet all government expenditure, including overnight travelling allowances paid to Chief Justices and others. Of course the Prime Minister is particularly sensitive about anything concerning the Chief Justice because -

Senator Peter Baume:

- Mr Chairman, I raise a point of order. You have already ruled on this matter.

Senator Walsh:

– Of the Chief Justice’s role in the illegitimacy of Mr Malcolm Fraser’s caretaker government.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! As I said earlier, this matter comes under that part of Group B which relates to the vote for the AttorneyGeneral’s Department. The Department of

Finance approves money for the various departments. The Department of Finance has nothing to do with this matter. Senator Walsh, I ask you to address your remarks to the items under group C.

Senator WALSH:

– When did I get an opportunity to address my remarks to anything contained in group B?

The CHAIRMAN:

– That group has been dealt with.

Senator WALSH:

-I still submit that the Department of Finance -

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I have ruled, Senator Walsh.

Senator WALSH:

-I still submit that the Department of Finance has overall responsibility for vetting all government expenditure. Mr Chairman, if you are ruling that that is not so, I cannot proceed with this matter.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order, Senator Walsh! I have ruled that the matter comes under the Attorney-General’s Department.

Senator Walters:

- Mr Chairman -

The CHAIRMAN:

– I call Senator Walters.

Senator Mulvihill:

- Mr Chairman -

The CHAIRMAN:

- Senator Walters has the call.

Senator Mulvihill:

– I do not think so. If you are going to gag debate on matters in which I am interested you are worse than Hitler.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I will call honourable senators from one side of the chamber and then the other. Senator Walters is the Chairman of Estimates Committee C.

Senator Mulvihill:

– But that was null and void. It did not count. I am talking about the Estimates.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I call Senator Walters.

Senator WALTERS:
Tasmania

– I say to Senator Mulvihill that we will share the time that is available. We have six minutes. I will take three minutes and he can have three minutes. During the Estimates Committee C hearings I asked the Health Insurance Commission why its annual report for 1978-79 was so late once again. Following the explanation, I asked why the Commission had not produced an interim report, as recommended in the third report of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations, which dealt with delays in the presentation of annual reports by statutory bodies. The answer I was given was that, without the figures, it was believed that an interim report would be meaningless. Nevertheless, I asked the Commission to consider the Committee’s recommendations. The answer I received a few days ago was, I believe, quite unsatisfactory. Indeed, it was just a reprint of a section of a submission given to that Committee prior to its coming down with recommendations.

The Commission was unable to give me an indication as to when it expected the annual report to come out. If it refuses to give an interim report, as recommended by the Senate Standing Committee, I believe that the Senate must consider taking action to make it mandatory for statutory bodies at least to attempt to account for thenexpenditure of the taxpayers money, instead of taking the laissez-faire attitude which was conveyed by the answer to Estimates Committee C.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I would like briefly to bring two matters to the attention of the Committee. In doing so, I am thinking of the people outside, not the people in here. I wish to ask the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Macphee), through Senator Guilfoyle, about the action taken by the New Zealand Government in placing an inspector of police at our airports allegedly to check on the movements of New Zealand prostitutes and others. Does that mean that we have abdicated our responsibility for immigration control? In effect, women will be accosted by New Zealand representatives. The implication will be that they are prostitutes.

We have asked for a system of identity cardsnot passports- to be instituted. Has our Government abdicated its responsibilities by allowing a New Zealand police inspector to cause embarrassment to Australian and New Zealand women travellers across the Tasman? I think that is a very important matter and I would like an early answer. The other matter concerns the mysterious circumstance in which a former American lawyer for mobsters suddenly got citizenship in Australia. I refer to the fellow Wainwright. I have been waiting eight or nine weeks for a decision on this matter. I do not know whether any prosecutions are pending. Both matters are of concern to people and I believe that it is time that I received an early answer in relation to both matters.

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

(8.59)- The Government is aware that criminals are abusing the trans-Tasman travel arrangement to move anonymously between Australia and New Zealand. In the recent report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs, Mr Justice Williams drew attention to this loophole in connection with international drug movements. The Australian and New Zealand Ministers responsible for immigration discussed this matter at their most recent meeting in Darwin on 17 April. At the direction of the respective Ministers, Australian and New Zealand officials are working jointly on means of preventing the current abuse of the trans-Tasman travel arrangement.

The Government is keenly aware of the advantages to the peoples of Australia and New Zealand of free movement between the two countries and is anxious to ensure that remedial measures preserve as far as practicable these advantages. The Ministers will be meeting again in Wellington in October to discuss officials’ reports and to determine further action. I will seek early information for Senator Mulvihill on the other matter he raised. I had expected him to raise a matter about Assyrian christians. If he directs an early question to me on that matter, I can give him further information.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– Time is slipping away and I have very little opportunity to speak. Let me first express my condemnation of what has happened here tonight. On many occasions, I tried to get the call to bring some sanity to what is happening. The Parliament has discredited itself in the eyes of the public. We are considering legislation for the appropriation of many millions of dollars and only a quarter of an hour is left for us to question this legislation.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The time allowed for consideration of the votes in Group C has expired.

Question put:

That the votes in Group C be now passed without requests.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Senator C. R. Maunsell)

AYES: 27

NOES: 14

Majority……. 13

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 2449

QUESTION

GROUP D

Department of Aboriginal Affairs

Proposed expenditure, $2,3 10,000.

Department of Industry and Commerce

Proposed expenditure, $1,1 63,000.

Department of Transport

Proposed expenditure, $12,250,000.

Department of Productivity

Proposed expenditure, $6,929,000.

Department of Science and the Environment

Proposed expenditure, $4,207,000.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– How long do we have in which to discuss this group?

The CHAIRMAN:

– The Committee has until 9.20 p.m.

Senator Keeffe:

– Why don’t you say it is 15 minutes?

The CHAIRMAN:

– It would be 20 minutes if members of the Opposition had not required a division.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-If only I had a powerful voice I might be heard. I want to ask questions relating to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. I will continue from where I was when I was rudely interrupted on the last occasion. Let me add a word of warning that not only has this Government discredited the Parliament, it has also discredited itself by its action tonight. Possibly this action spells the death of Estimates committees in the future.

Senator Keeffe:

– All Estimates committees.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– All Estimates committees. As Senator Georges has stated today, an assurance has been given that Estimates committees will not supplant the Committee of the Whole and we will still have the right to bring up here questions in relation to the various departments. I have reserved my right to speak on every occasion. The Estimates committee system is seen as a supreme body in this Parliament and the Committee of the Whole is just a subsidiary in which members receive no right, respect or hearing. Not only have we had the curtailment of any debate on the appropriation for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs of $2,3 10,000; we are given 20 minutes in which to discuss and finalise whether the expenditure is correct. Requests could be made to the Government to vary the expenditure as set out in the appropriation. In respect of the Department of Social Security the relevant Minister was in the chamber. For the other appropriations we have had in the chamber to answer questions a Minister who knows nothing about those departments. Whether purposely or not, the Minister who is responsible for those departments, who has the knowledge of those departments, has not seen fit to come into the chamber and be prepared to answer questions about their appropriations. If this is not treating this Senate with contempt I do not know what is.

If we wish to raise issues we can do so at the Estimates committees when the officers of the various departments are present. If we do not receive adequate replies to our questions we then throw the responsibility on to the departmental officers and not on to the Ministers. There is a preservation of and a protection for incompetent Ministers who cannot answer questions. We have seen the greatest exposure of that today. A serious allegation was made that two Ministers differed in the advice which they gave, one contradicting the other. We cannot get replies to our questions because the discussion is gagged and we cannot raise it again.

I have raised the question in relation to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs because I am very worried about its expenditure. Since 1 975 the expenditure to the Department has been curtailed. It has received only a fraction of the expenditure it receive in the years when the Labor Government was in office. When one looks at the appropriations for the departments under the Appropriation (No. 3) Bill one finds that there have been massive increases in the estimates for the year 1979-80 as compared with the estimates for 1978-79 in every department other than the Department of Aboriginal Affairs.

Although the Government has curtailed expenditure in that field, it has increased it elsewhere. The estimated expenditure for Aboriginal affairs in 1979-80 was exactly the same as actual expenditure for 1 978-79. Now, in order to enable the Department to carry on for five months, an additional appropriation of $2,3 10,000 is sought.

I wish to refer to the funding of the Aboriginal Legal Service, which is possibly the most progressive and beneficial of the services provided for Aboriginals. Not only has it protected from fines or gaol terms many innocent Aboriginals who have been charged but also it has tempered somewhat the actions of police, preventing them from charging any Aboriginal that previously they might have charged in the knowledge that they would plead guilty. It has curtailed such action to the extent that today a police officer will be sure to have a pretty good case before he arrests an Aboriginal. Many Aboriginals facing a court now enjoy the same protection as that enjoyed by the white community of Australia, simply because of the very efficient and qualified Legal Service which has been established in every State. Branches of the Service in all States have complained of shortage of funds in the current year to carry on efficiently, stating that they cannot provide to Aboriginals the assistance that they have provided in previous years. Although some adjustments have been made, the Service is still starved of funds. I ask the Minister for Social Security (Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) to consider whether the Senate should request the House of Representatives to review the proposed expenditure for the Aboriginal Legal Service with a view to providing additional funds. I give the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) great credit for his knowledge of Aboriginal matters and possibly an ability to answer questions concerning them.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Where is he tonight?

Senator CAVANAGH:

-That is the point that I am making. Certain questions have been embarrassing.

Senator Teague:

– Which question was embarrassing?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I refer, for instance, to the difference between the answers of Mr Anthony and Mr McLeay to questions concerning energy resources.

Senator Teague:

– What has that to do with the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs?

Senator CAVANAGH:

-The honourable senator asked me which question but my reference was to questions generally. Apparently the student from the high school comes here and seeks to dominate the Parliament although he has no knowledge of what he is talking about. My complaint is that we have been deprived of the benefit of ministerial knowledge on the subject under review because the Minister responsible has absented himself. Lack of chivalry places upon a poor female the obligation to answer difficult questions concerning which the veracity and truthfullness of Ministers has been challenged. Yet we are asked to vote money for the purpose of allowing them to proceed in the contradictory manner in which they have proceeded in the past. I feel sorry that the Minister for Social Security has such a burden on her shoulders this evening. I do not know why her colleagues have placed her in that position. I acknowledge her capabilities and her knowledge of her portfolio. But it is beyond the capacity of any Minister to know the details of another Minister’s portfolio. Senator Guilfoyle has been placed in this position by the leaders of her party who know that she is not conversant with national energy issues and therefore cannot discuss them. The Ministers responsible for the matters have hidden away somewhere in a corner so that they will not have to face the Opposition.

Debate on these Estimates is to be gagged. I think that we have a responsibility to see that taxpayers’ money is spent wisely. But the Opposition, because of* the time limit imposed on this debate, is unable to ask how the money is to be spent, where it is to be spent and why it is to be spent. When we go back to our electorates and we are asked why the money is being spent, we will be unable to give a reply because we will not know. We can get no reply. Do honourable senators think that the Ministry or the Senate will have any credibility if the Committee of the Whole passes a vote of $2m of taxpayers money in this group in 20 minutes? This is money that has been contributed by the community of Australia.

Senator Mason:

– Twenty-three minutes for this group.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-I stand corrected. We are allowed 23 minutes to discuss this group of estimates. I think the Opposition has done its best to co-operate. We knew the program. We knew the Senate was to sit on two Friday nights. We have done what we can. However, the treatment that we have received tonight does not augur well for next week in terms of Opposition co-operation. The Government will get its legislation through by weight of numbers. However, it will have to use very unpleasant and discreditable methods. The Government has broken the arrangement of co-operation and obviously there will be no more co-operation from the Opposition. Senator McLaren might like to take the hint that there is not a quorum in the chamber at the moment. Mr Chairman, I would say that you have brought this situation on yourself. You have discredited yourself and you will pay the price eventually.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– It was unfair that I should ask the Minister for Social Security (Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) the questions I needed to ask concerning the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. I do not have sufficient time to put the questions again. Honourable senators will recall that it involved saving the Government many thousands of dollars. They are questions that I should direct to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney). Let me say that the Government Whip will regret his treatment of the Opposition and the treatment he has meted out to me. I now move:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Georges from asking the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs a series of questions concerning the operations of his Department.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I second the motion.

Question put.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Senator C. R. Maunsell)

AYES: 14

NOES: 27

Majority….. 13

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Question put:

That the votes in Group O be now passed without requests.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Senator C. R. Maunsell)

AYES: 27

NOES: 14

Majority……. 13

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 2452

QUESTION

GROUP E

Department of the Special Trade Representative

Proposed expenditure, $20,000.

Department of Primary Industry

Proposed expenditure, $1,71 6,000.

Department of Home Affairs

Proposed expenditure, $ 1 ,409,000.

Department of the Capital Territory

Proposed expenditure, $3,725,000.

Department of Housing and Construction

Proposed expenditure, $2,456,000.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– In the eight minutes that this House of review has allowed for the consideration of the expenditure of some five departments I want to take up a question arising from the estimates for the Department of Primary Industry in relation to Asia Dairy Industries (Hong Kong) Ltd and, in particular, the series of inconsistent- indeed, contradictory- answers which the Minister for

Primary Industry (Mr Nixon) has given to try to justify his refusal to table the Auditor-General’s two reports on the irregularities recorded in Asia Dairy Industries’ financial affairs. The excuse offered by the Minister last month was that the Auditor-General had advised him that it would be inappropriate to table the reports. The First Assistant Auditor-General of the AuditorGeneral’s Office, Mr Taylor, was questioned about this matter by Senate Estimates Committee A on 2 1 April. He stated that he had read the Hansard report of the Minister’s answers and he knew of no such advice. This prompted the honourable member for Parramatta, Mr John Brown, to ask Mr Nixon in the House of Representatives last Wednesday whether Mr Nixon had noted that his excuse for not tabling the report had been contradicted before a Senate Estimates committee by the Assistant AuditorGeneral and, therefore, what was his current reason for not tabling the report. One or two other matters were raised in Mr John Brown’s question but they are not central to the point I want to take. By way of reply, Mr Nixon said: the Deputy Secretary- I think that is the correct title -

In fact, it was the First Assistant AuditorGeneral but I will excuse him for that- of the Auditor-General’s Department appeared before a Senate committee and in fact said pretty much what the honourable member has stated, that is, that he knew of no advice from the Auditor-General to the Minister in such terms.

Mr Nixon then said:

I regret that I do not have the letter with me, but I understand that since that date the Deputy Secretary has written to the Leader of the Government in the Senate informing him that the Auditor-General had advised the Minister for Primary Industry that a precedent would be created, or words to that effect, and that there was therefore an obligation on me -

I ask honourable senators to note the following words carefully- as Minister not to table the correspondence and the reports that had flowed between the Auditor-General’s office and me . . .

I will leave the rest of the Minister’s answer for the present. I presume that the Minister was referring to a letter to the secretary of Senate Estimates Committee A which referred to a number of questions put to the Committee on 2 1 April, which Senator Carrick summarised as follows:

Is it a fact that when a Minister asks for an investigation of the accounts and records of a particular concern it is the invariable or general rule and practice that it not be tabled? What is the reason for this situation?

In a letter in reply to Senator Carrick ‘s acceptable summary of the questions, the First Assistant Auditor-General stated:

The facts are that the Auditor-General informed the Minister of the general practice or convention associated with the tabling of such reports as outlined above, but no recommendation was made on whether or not the report in question should be tabled.

Honourable senators should mark that statement against the Minister’s assertion. He said:

  1. . there was therefore an obligation on me as Minister not to table the correspondence and the reports that had flowed between the Auditor-General’s office and me . . .

Not only did the Minister for Primary Industry give the House of Representatives completely false information when this question was first raised, when he asserted that the AuditorGeneral had advised him not to table the report, but he also compounded his initial offence by repeating last Wednesday his assertion that the Auditor-General had corrected his previous advice and had said there was an obligation on him not to table the report. That is simply not true. The Minister for Primary Industry has misled the House not once but twice on this same issue. His predecessor will, of course, as a notable Australian remarked the other day, be facing a jury before he faces the electors. The present Minister for Primary Industry, if standards had not slipped entirely into the standards of a banana republic under the supervision of Malcolm Fraser, would have been obliged to resign from the Ministry last month because he deliberately misled Parliament. To give him the benefit of the doubt, he may not have done it deliberately the first time but there can be absolutely no question that he deliberately misled the Parliament when he falsely claimed for the second time that he had received advice from the Auditor-General which he had not received.

Senator Peter Baume:

- Mr Chairman, I rise to a point of order. The honourable senator asserts that a Minister deliberately misled the Parliament. I believe that to make such an assertion is quite outside the Standing Orders and that he should withdraw it unreservedly.

Senator Wriedt:

– I assume, Mr Chairman, that you do not expect Senator Walsh to withdraw that remark.

The CHAIRMAN:

- Senator Walsh will confine his remarks to the Estimates which are before the Chair and will not continue in the vein in which he has been speaking.

Senator WALSH:

– I have finished, Mr Chairman. I will just let the facts speak for themselves. I move:

That so much of Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent further consideration of the votes in Group E.

It is quite absurd that in this so-called House of review we have had seven minutes in which to oversee the additional appropriations for seven departments, involving a total expenditure in excess of $ 10m. The Minister for Primary Industry gave a demonstration of the Goebbels technique when he said:

I have been totally consistent and, as usual, totally accurate and truthful . . .

That is a demonstration of the Goebbels technique- tell a big enough lie and it is likely to be believed. We have also seen a demonstration tonight of parliamentary debauchery. I repeat that I sincerely trust that we will hear no more cant and humbug about this place being a House of review from the mountebanks who populate the Government benches.

The CHAIRMAN:

-Order! As the time has expired for consideration of group E -

Senator McLaren:

– The light has not expired. There is 30 seconds to go.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I am going by the clock. I put the question -

Senator McLaren:

– The time has not expired; the light is still on.

The CHAIRMAN:

-Order! The time has expired. I put the question -

Senator Georges:

– I take a point of order. Senator Walsh moved the suspension of Standing Orders. We should resolve that matter. The Standing Orders should be suspended to allow us to investigate further the Estimates before the Committee. We moved the suspension of Standing Orders for a particular reason. The Government has applied the gag to prevent us from debating fully these Estimates.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! We will put that motion, Senator Georges.

Senator Georges:

- Mr Chairman, are you interrupting me while I am raising my point of order? What is your ruling on the matter?

Senator Cavanagh:

– I want to second the motion.

The CHAIRMAN:

-I am accepting Senator Georges’ proposition. There is no need for a seconder.

Senator Georges:

– Although there is apparently by precedent no need for a seconder, I can assert my right to second the proposition. I can also assert my right to speak to the proposition. I am speaking to the proposition at the present time.

The CHAIRMAN:

– As the time has expired, I am putting Senator Walsh’s motion.

Senator Georges:

– We are speaking to the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders. I would like you, Mr Chairman, to rule clearly on the matter. What is the position?

The CHAIRMAN:

– The position is that the time has expired. I will now put Senator Walsh’s motion.

Senator Georges:

– Surely the suspension of Standing Orders must take precedence.

The CHAIRMAN:

-That is what I am doing.

Senator Georges:

– But I am speaking to it.

The CHAIRMAN:

- Senator Georges cannot speak to it.

Senator Georges:

– Why not?

The CHAIRMAN:

- Senator Georges cannot speak to the motion because the time has expired. I put the question that Senator Walsh’s motion be agreed to.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-I move:

Senator Keeffe:

– I will second the motion because the Chairman does not know the Standing Orders.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I do know the Standing Orders.

Senator Keeffe:

– You sit there like a bank robber with a balaclava over your head. You cannot even read.

The CHAIRMAN:

-I call Senator Keeffe to order.

Senator Keeffe:

– I second the motion to disagree with your ruling.

Senator McLaren:

– The time had not expired, because the light was still on.

The CHAIRMAN:

-The light indicates the time allowed for speeches only, not the time allotted under the declaration of urgency.

Senator GEORGES:

– I have moved that your ruling be disagreed with. I wish to speak to that motion.

Senator Jessop:

– There is a motion before the Chair.

Senator GEORGES:

– Yes. I have moved that the Chairman’s ruling be disagreed with.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I think that the first matter is that it should be resolved immediately, in accordance with the Standing Orders; otherwise it will lie on the table until the next day of sitting. I think it is a matter that should be decided now. I will move accordingly.

The CHAIRMAN:

-There is a motion of dissent from my ruling. I will report to the Senate.

Senator Missen:

- Mr Chairman, I take a point of order. The motion has not been given in writing.

Senator GEORGES:

– I have submitted it. The Chairman may have some difficulty in reading it.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The situation is that I have to report to the Senate.

In the Senate

The CHAIRMAN:

- Mr President, I have to report that there has been a dissent from my ruling.

The PRESIDENT:

– I ask the Chairman of Committees, Senator Maunsell, to indicate to me the circumstances leading to the motion of dissent.

The CHAIRMAN:

- Mr President, the time had expired for the discussions of the Group E estimates, according to the decision made by the Committee of the Whole. Senator Walsh had moved to suspend Standing Orders in order to speak. Senator Georges raised a point of order. I ruled that there was no point of order, that I was giving Senator Walsh the opportunity to move his motion. I said that there was no substance to the point of order of Senator Georges.

Senator Missen:

- Mr President, may I speak?

Senator Georges:

– No, of course you can’t.

The PRESIDENT:

– I call Senator Missen.

Senator Keeffe:

– The Chairman just got up and said he had lost conto of the chamber.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Let us calm down and determine this matter amicably.

Senator Georges:

– Have I not a right? I am the person who moved dissent.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Georges, I will call you in a minute. I call Senator Missen.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– I understand that under the Standing Orders honourable senators are entitled to address you, Mr President, on the subject. I say that the Chairman was very much in order. He was saying the the time had expired. Senator Georges then endeavoured to keep on speaking to the motion. There was no objection; the Chairman rightly held that there was a motion which would be put. But, he said he could not continue-

Senator Keeffe:

- Mr President, I draw your attention to the Standing Orders. Senator Missen has no right-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I have given the call to Senator Missen.

Senator Keeffe:

– It is a point of order.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Keeffe, be seated. I will hear only one speaker at a time.

Senator Keeffe:

– It is not a matter for debate. There are two people involved.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Keeffe, you can raise your point of order in a moment. I am listening to Senator Missen.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

- Mr President, I wish to raise a point of order on what Senator Missen is saying. When the Committee of the Whole was sitting under the chairmanship of Senator Maunsell, Senator Georges moved dissent from the Chairman’s ruling. That matter was reported to you, as President of the Senate, and to the Senate as a whole. When you took the Chair you called upon Senator Maunsell to explain his case. I suggest that, Senator Maunsell having explained his case, it is now up to you to call an Opposition spokesman- namely, Senator Georges- to effect the prosecution before you hear the case in defence of the Chairman.

Senator MISSEN:

-I have not finished what I want to say.

Senator Keeffe:

– You are out of order. Sit down; you can’t speak. The Standing Orders don’t allow you to speak.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator MISSEN:

-I say briefly that an honourable senator is entitled to speak under Standing Order 270. Any honourable senator is entitled to speak under it and to defend the ruling which the Chairman has given. That is the precise tiling-

Senator Keeffe:

– You can’t come into the debate.

Senator MISSEN:

– I do not care what you think, Senator Keeffe. We saw that Senator Georges wanted to continue to speak and to debate the proposition after the time had expired. The Chairman, very properly, said that was out of order. Therefore, the Senate should uphold his ruling.

The PRESIDENT:

– I call Senator Georges.

Senator Keeffe:

- Senator Missen is totally out of order.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I call Senator Georges.

Senator Keeffe:

- Mr President, may I quote the rulings -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Keeffe, do not persist in ignoring my direction to you; be seated.

Senator Keeffe:

– Well, read Standing Order 270 and see what it says.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order, Senator Keeffe.

Senator Georges:

- Mr President may I speak?

The PRESIDENT:

– You have the call, Senator Georges.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-Mr President, I intervene because tempers are becoming frayed. Mr President, you must accept that this situation arose in Committee because of the action of the Government in applying the gag to the consideration of the Estimates. That is really how this situation arose. But let me get to the matter before the Chair, that is, dissent from the ruling of the Chairman. A motion was moved in Committee for the suspension of so much of the Standing Orders as would prevent Senator Walsh proceeding to move an extension of time for further consideration of the Estimates and I seconded the motion. The Chairman intervened and said that the time had expired. The question in my mind was: For what reason had the time expired? Had it expired for debate on the motion for the suspension of the Standing Orders which I had seconded? It may be that I am wrong. Perhaps someone can tell me whether I am wrong. Perhaps you, Mr President, can rule accordingly. Perhaps there can be some debate on the matter. Perhaps we can have a wider understanding of what is before the Senate. Perhaps we can come back to some order in the Senate, order which was brought into disorder by the action of the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick), who having arranged for the Estimates to be considered until 11 o’clock, began to impose the guillotine.

Let us have some understanding on the proposition. I would have thought- many honourable senators are of this opinion- that when an honourable senator moves for so much of the Standing Orders to be suspended to allow him to do a particular thing, it is for the Senate to determine whether it is important enough- a matter of urgency- for the Standing Orders to be suspended. I am saying that it was a matter of urgency. Senator Walsh considered it was a matter of urgency. I seconded his motion because I believed it was a matter of urgency to discuss further the Estimates which involve many millions of dollars. In spite of the Government applying the guillotine, we considered it urgent to bring the Estimates back before the Senate by some means. The suspension of the Standing Orders was a means of doing so. It is my belief and my understanding of the Standing Orders that we should have determined whether the suspension motion ought to have been supported. But for some reason or other the Chairman interjected and said: ‘Time’s up’. Time’s up for what? I would have thought that we were entitled to debate the motion and put reasons before the Senate as to why the Standing Orders should be suspended, and that is what I am putting. I disagreed with the Chairman because he intervened on the motion for the suspension of the Standing Orders which had been moved for a very urgent reason, and that was to bring these very important Estimates back before the Senate.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

- Mr President, I want to stress the importance of the position you are in today. It is not a question of what we might or might not think. It is a question of your making history as to the future operations of the Senate should this sort of question arise again. I think you need the assistance of the fifth edition of the Australian Senate Practice by Odgers and Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice.

My interpretation of Standing Order 270 is that an objection to a decision of the Chairman is to be reported to the President and having been laid before you it is open for senators to address themselves to the question, and the matter having been disposed of the proceedings in Committee shall be resumed at the point at which they were interrupted. I therefore take it, Mr President, that after you have heard honourable senators who want to make a contribution on this matter you then must rule whether the Chairman of Committees was correct in his decision. Mr President, if you rule that the Chairman of Committees’ decision was correct, or if you rule to the contrary, it is open to any honourable senator, if he so desires, to disagree with that ruling. The motion will then be to disagree with that ruling and not that of the Chairman of Committees: He conveys the matter to the President and the President has to decide it.

Having outlined that that is what has to be decided, I point out that whatever you, Mr President, decide on this question- you would be greatly assisted by authority in this matter- will be written into the record as the procedure that this chamber will follow on future occasions when a similar question arises. Mr President, you might even get a mention in the sixth edition of Australian Senate Practice when it comes out. The fact is that there was a declaration of urgency which put a time limit on consideration of each group of Estimates. Consideration of the group then before the Committee had to finish by 9.40 p.m. Prior to 9.40 p.m. Senator Walsh moved that the Standing Orders be suspended to permit a thorough examination of that group. If that motion had been carried it would have superseded the declaration of urgency. Senator Georges was in the process of clarifying the matter when the time of 9.40 p.m. arrived. The Chairman of Committees felt himself compelled to act in accordance with the resolution of the Committee that the vote on that group be put at 9.40 p.m. He did so while there was before the Chair a motion for the suspension of Standing Order to extend the time limit. Debate on whether the time limit should have still applied should have continued. The opinion of the Committee in that regard cannot be known until we vote on Senator Walsh’s motion. That is Senator Georges ‘ grievance.

We have to decide that question to know whether the Committee has the power to apply the previous decision of the Committee. If an honourable senator is in the process of moving a motion, can he be stopped from doing so because of a previous resolution which his motion was seeking to supersede? When the Committee voted to place time restrictions on consideration of group D, it may not have envisaged what was contained in group E. When it came to consider group E there may have been a difference of opinion and a motion may have been moved, to test the feeling of the Committee, for an extension of time to consider that group. I submit in all humility that there should have been a vote on Senator Walsh’s motion to extend the time restrictions placed on the consideration of that group of Estimates.

The PRESIDENT:

– I appreciate honourable senators’ contributions to this matter. I support the Chairman’s ruling that the question for the suspension of Standing Orders had to be put when the time for consideration of group E, within which the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders was moved, had expired. I uphold the ruling given by Senator Maunsell.

In Committee

Question put.

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

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Senator C. R. Maunsell)

AYES: 14

NOES: 28

Majority……. 14

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

The CHAIRMAN:

-Order! As the time has expired for consideration of Group E, Group F and the remainder of the Bill -

Senator Georges:

– What were the times?

The CHAIRMAN:

– The time for consideration of Group E was 9.40 p.m.; for Group F, 9.55 p.m.; and for the remainder of the Bill, 10 p.m.

Senator Georges:

– I now put to you, Mr Chairman, that, as the time i; now past 10 p.m. and the question was not then put, it is now out of order to put the question. The question should have been put at 10 p.m. We were then engaged in other business. You were not able to put the question at 10 p.m. For that reason, I suggest that the original motion for the allotment of time and its force have now expired.

Senator Archer:

– Under what Standing Order are you rising?

Senator Georges:

– I asked the Chairman for his ruling. He told me that 10 p.m. was the time that the question was to be put. He was not able to put it at that time. For that reason the force of the original motion for the allotment of time has expired. Therefore, we should return to the original position and debate the Estimates at the point at which we were when the -

Senator Walters:

– Read your Standing Orders.

Senator Georges:

– It is not a matter of Standing Orders. I have just had the Chairman’s ruling. I am putting -

The CHAIRMAN:

-I did not make a ruling.

Senator Georges:

– You did. I asked you to give the times at which the motion should have been put.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order!

Senator Georges:

– I asked you about the allotment of time.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The time has expired. I now put the question that -

Senator Georges:

– The time expired at 10 p.m.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I do not have to put the question on the second.

Senator Georges:

– The time had expired at 10 p.m.

The CHAIRMAN:

-That is right. Under the procedures, I now have to proceed to put -

Senator Georges:

– For that reason, you were not in a position to put the motion.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order, Senator Georges! There is no point of order.

Senator Knight:

– Don’t make a fool of yourself.

Senator Georges:

– I take strong objection to what the honourable senator has said. If any people have made fools of themselves tonight the Government senators who have imposed the guillotine on the Estimates, which should have been examined line by line, point by point and amount by amount, are the ones.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order, Senator Georges! Please resume your seat. I have ruled that I have to put this question.

Senator Georges:

– I am going to disagree with your ruling. I seek to disagree -

Senator Peter Baume:

- Mr Chairman, I seek your guidance on a point of order.

Senator Georges:

– I have disagreed with the ruling.

Senator Peter Baume:

– What I am about to quote is relevant to Senator Georges’ attempt to move another motion. Standing Order 407 (4) states:

  1. . when the time so specified has been reached, the business, whatsoever its nature be -

I draw your attention, Mr Chairman, to the words ‘ whatsoever its nature be ‘- then before the Senate or Committee, shall be postponed forthwith and the consideration of the Urgent Bill proceeded with, and all steps necessary to enable this to be done shall be taken accordingly.

I submit to you, Mr Chairman, that the words whatsoever its nature be ‘ include motions of dissent such as the one which Senator Georges has attempted to move.

Senator Georges having submitted in writing

Senator Walsh:

– On a point of order, Mr Chairman, I submit that, when Standing Order 407B (4) is taken in conjunction with Standing Order 270, it is beyond the power of the Chairman of Committees to give a ruling endorsing what Senator Baume has put. Senator Georges having lodged in writing, in accordance with Standing Order 270, an objection to your ruling, I submit that the President has to be recalled to the chamber.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I will now report to the President.

In the Senate

The CHAIRMAN:

- Mr President, I have to report that there has been a motion of dissent from my ruling. When the time had expired for all sections of the urgent Bills I ruled that the question on both group E and group F and the remainder of the Bill had to be put immediately. Senator Georges dissented from that ruling and said that I had to put the question on the dot of 10 p.m., or whenever the time expired. I ruled that, because the Bills were urgent Bills, at any time after that, or whenever it was appropriate, it was my duty to put the question on the urgent Bills. Consequently, I ruled in that way.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-The guillotine motion- that disgraceful, reprehensible motion- was moved by the Government earlier in the piece. The purpose of the guillotine was to put the question on these Bills at 10 p.m. The Chairman of Committees failed to do that at 10 p.m. because other business was before the chamber at the time. Nevertheless, 10 p.m. came and went and the motion was not put. It was the Chairman’s duty to do so, and he was prevented from doing so by other business. However, 10 p.m. came and went. For that reason, I believe the procedure is out of order.

Senator Teague:

– Shylock and the pound of flesh.

Senator GEORGES:

-Of course. There may be one Shylock on this side, but there are 27 Shylocks on the other side. You got your pound of flesh earlier in the piece.

Senator Lewis:

– There are 28.

Senator GEORGES:

-No, there are 27. Mr President, I was diverted by an interjection. I should know better, and so should Government senators. My attention has been attracted by one of my colleagues to page 55 of the Standing Orders. I will read the provision slowly.

Senator Archer:

– So that you can use as much time as possible.

Senator GEORGES:

-I do not care about the time. It does not really matter. I can talk about nothing whatever because the Government does not want to discuss millions and millions of dollars worth of expenditure. Standing Order 407b (4) states:

Where any time has been specified for the commencement of any proceedings in connexion with any business under this Standing Order, when the time so specified has been reached, the business, whatsoever its nature be, then before the Senate or Committee, shall be postponed forthwith and the consideration of the Urgent Bill proceeded with, and all steps necessary to enable this to be done shall be taken accordingly.

The Chairman of Committees failed to do that.

Senator Missen:

– It is not the commencement. You are on the wrong one.

Senator GEORGES:

-I am taking a slightly different tack from the one I took previously. Many a brief I have received and many a brief I did not understand. I have not put the matter as well as somebody else will put it, I have no doubt, as part of this debate. However, to return to my original point, since the Government has been so exact and technical about its proceedures tonight, and been arrogant in the application of those procedures, we should stick to the exact letter. The question on the Bills should have been put at 10 p.m. That was not done, and the Chairman was in error. That was through no fault of his own because we were proceeding with other business; but, he not having put the question on the Bills at 10 p.m., surely we should go back and begin the operation all over again. If the Government again wants to apply the gag, by all means let it do so. But I feel that we ought to go back to the line of the Estimates that was being discussed at the time the Minister moved the gag, which the Chairman was unable to impose at 10 p.m. I put that case to you.

Senator Messner:

– Wait until next Wednesday.

Senator GEORGES:

-The honourable senator should wait until next week to see exactly what will happen to the Government as a result of the precedents which have been established tonight.

Senator PUPLICK:
New South Wales

- Senator Georges said that the failure to put the question at 10 p.m. means that the Bill can no longer be considered an urgent Bill or to operate within the framework of the guillotine motion laid down. Page 357 of Odgers’ Australian Senate Practice states:

The Senate’s final consideration of the urgent Bill would be the third reading of the Bill. According to the interpretation there and the precedents cited on pages 357 and 358 - notwithstanding Senator Georges interpretation -the Bill remains an urgent Bill and therefore must be treated as an urgent Bill until it is finally disposed of at its third reading.

Senator McLaren:

- Mr President, I seek clarification of the motion moved by the Minister for Social Security. I was in the chamber when the Minister moved the motion. I did not hear her say that it was an urgent Bill that would be concluded at 10 p.m. this day. No day was mentioned. Mr President, I ask you to look at Hansard before you rule. If my memory serves me correctly, the words ‘this day’ were not mentioned in the motion moved by the Minister.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! There are times in one’s experience when common sense must prevail. The fact is that 10 o’clock was the time at which the debate should have ended.

Senator McLaren:

– Which day?

The PRESIDENT:

– This evening. Because of the circumstances which prevailed it was not possible to conclude it at 10 o’clock precisely. It is showing common sense to say that the Chairman’s decision was correct and I support him in it. I call Senator Maunsell back to the chair.

In Committee

Question put:

That the votes in Group £ and Group F and the remainder of the Bill be passed without requests.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Senator C. R. Maunsell)

AYES: 28

NOES: 13

Majority……. 15

Once a declaration of urgency has been made, a Bill remains an urgent BUI until its final consideration by the Senate.

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The question is: That I report that the Committee has considered the Bill and agreed to the same without requests, but with a resolution; and that I further report that the Committee has agreed to a resolution under Standing Order 407B that the time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill be until 10.5 p.m. this day. Those of that opinion say aye; against say no. I think the ayes have it.

Senator Georges:

– Can’t we debate that?

The CHAIRMAN:

-The time has expired.

Senator Georges:

– But we can debate what you have just said, surely.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I have to report.

Senator Georges:

– You have put a motion which is outside all the other motions.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The motion is agreed to.

Senator Cavanagh:

- Mr Chairman, the question that you asked us to vote on was that you report to the President, and the question had an addendum that we have not previously considered. That you should inform the President of the time limit is something we have not considered. What should be your message to the President? We have had no resolution by the Senate putting a time limit on your message to the President. I humbly submit that we have the right to discuss whether you should add the words that you inform the President of the time limit that the Senate previously imposed.

The CHAIRMAN:

- Senator Cavanagh, I put it that the resolution came with the timing of the gag, and the allotment of time and I -

Opposition senators interjecting-

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order!

Senator Keeffe:

- Mr Chairman, I ask that you have the proceedings altered because the Minister in charge of the House said earlier tonight that no gag was being applied. You have now admitted that there was a gag and I suggest that the record ought to be altered in that way.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order, Senator Keeffe! I am replying to Senator Cavanagh. A resolution was passed when Group A was being decided. This is contained in this resolution that I will present to the President. The question has already been resolved.

Senator Georges:

– He has not put it yet.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The question I am putting is that I report to the Senate.

Question put.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Senator C. R. Maunsell)

AYES: 28

NOES: 13

Majority……. 15

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

In the Senate

The PRESIDENT:

– The Chairman of Committees reports that the Committee has considered the Bill and agreed to the following:

  1. . That the Bill be reported without requests.
  2. That the Committee, having considered the reports of Estimates Committees A and B, recommends that the following matters be referred to the Senate Standing Orders Committee: The modification of the operation of Estimates committees to enable:

    1. Continuing examination of departmental estimates and expenditure from the Advance to the Minister for Finance;
    2. An Estimate committee to seek information from departments other than those for which the Committee has specific responsibility;
    3. Appropriate full time staffing arrangements; and
    4. Consideration of the appropriation for Parliament separately and prior to the sitting of the other Estimates committees.
  3. That under Standing Order 407b the time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill be until 10.5 p.m. this day.
Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

(10.31) -As the time allotted for the consideration of the Bill has expired, I move:

The PRESIDENT:

– The question is: That the motion be agreed to.

Senator Cavanagh:

- Mr President, I raise a point of order. I want to oppose that motion.

Senator Missen:

- Mr President, I raise a point of order.

The PRESIDENT:

– No point of order is required. Senator Cavanagh, you have no right to speak now.

Senator Cavanagh:

– No, but I had the floor until I was rudely interrupted.

The PRESIDENT:

– I must indicate that, the time having expired, I must put the question.

Senator Keeffe:

- Mr President, the third reading is not incorporated in the time that has been allocated. We should be allowed to speak on it.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Keeffe, I must indicate to you that the third reading stage was included in the time allotted.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 2461

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 4) 1979-80

Second Reading

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

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Declaration of Urgency

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

- Mr President -

Senator Georges:

- Mr President, surely you should call a member of the Opposition first. Who was in continuation on the Bill?

Senator Walsh:

- Mr President -

The PRESIDENT:

– When a Minister rises I invariably call the Minister. He has that right.

Senator DURACK:

-I declare that the following Bills are urgent Bills, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1979-80, Diesel Fuel Taxation -

Senator Wriedt:

- Mr President, I raise a point of order. I understand that the Notice Paper states: ‘Appropriation Bill (No. 4) . . Second Reading- Adjourned debate . . . (The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Wriedt).’ I ask you, Mr President, to observe what is on the Notice Paper and that is that presumably I am entitled to be called immediately the legislation is called on. Surely you have to rule in that fashion. I wish to speak to the Bill.

Senator Lewis:

- Mr President, may I speak to the point of order? I say to you, Mr President, that when the Attorney-General was on his feet speaking to this matter Senator Wriedt was not on his feet, prepared to speak. Two Opposition senators were on their feet. They were Senator Georges and Senator Walsh. It was only when Senator Walsh passed his written speech to Senator Wriedt that Senator Wriedt then rose and asked to speak to a point of order. He did not ask to speak to the Bill; he asked to speak to the point of order. I suggest that in the circumstances the Attorney-General has the call.

Senator Georges:

- Mr President, I want to speak to that point of order. Before I was interrupted by the Attorney-General I rose to my feet to point out to you- it would have taken the form of a point of order- that Senator Wriedt had the call. We had the call and we were in continuation. For that reason the call should have come to the honourable senator who was in continuation.

Senator Peter Baume:

– Well done, Ted. Move him over so that we don’t take a point of order.

Senator Georges:

– The honourable senator can take as many points of order as he likes. As it happens, my right foot is in its place. I will be brief. The situation is that Senator Wriedt surely must be in continuation. That is the position. It is quite disorderly of the Minister to try to intrude. After all, he will get his end tonight. He would have got it anyhow. The Government has imposed all sorts of draconian measures upon us. It has caused all sorts of disruptions to next week’s program. Senator Carrick is sitting in his place smiling.

Senator Walsh:

– Dingo Carrick.

Senator Lewis:

- Mr President, he definitely called Senator Carrick ‘dingo Carrick’. I take strong exception to what Senator Walsh said.

The PRESIDENT:

– I did not hear that.

Senator Lewis:

- Senator Walsh said it.

The PRESIDENT:

– I did not hear him.

Senator Lewis:

– Of course he did.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Walsh will withdraw immediately.

Senator Lewis:

– I take strong exception to that.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I ask honourable senators to please be silent. Senator Walsh will withdraw.

Senator Walsh:

– Withdraw? The Minister was in the House all day and he would not front up for his own -

The PRESIDENT:

– That is not the point. Senator Walsh, I have said to you that you must withdraw and not contest my ruling.

Senator Walsh:

– The Notice Paper stated that the Minister in charge was Senator Carrick. He was in the House and he would not front up.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Walsh, will you obey my ruling and be seated immediately? Have you withdrawn?

Senator Walsh:

– Yes, I withdraw, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT:

– You will withdraw without qualification.

Senator Walsh:

- Mr President, I draw attention to the fact that the Minister did not have the fortitude to front up when he was listed -

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Walsh, you cannot speak. You will be seated or I will deal with you very drastically.

Senator Wheeldon:

- Mr President, I have not intervened so far this evening but I wish to speak to the point of order which has been raised regarding the calling of Senator Wriedt on this Bill. The practice of the Senate has been that if a debate on a Bill is adjourned and the Notice Paper shows that an honourable senator- whoever he may be- is in continuation, then that honourable senator is called. Arrangements have been made this evening in order to get the business through in a hurry, to put it in its most temperate terms. Doubtless there have been discussions about how that should have been done. Whatever arrangements may have been made to get the business through, the fact remains that there is a standing practice and that is that. You call whoever is in continuation if he is present in the

Senate. Senator Wriedt is present in the Senate and he has not been called.

Senator Knight:

– He did not seek the call.

Senator Wheeldon:

– I do not need any assistance from Senator Knight.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Knight, you are not in your seat. You cannot speak from that position.

Senator Wheeldon:

– If we were to allow the practice that the Minister will be called, on the precedent of what is being established tonight, namely that the Government wants to close the Senate down, there would be no end to the practices that could arise from that. It could mean that any senator who was in continuation in a debate on a Bill would be unable to continue his remarks because the Minister had risen.

I submit to you, Mr President, that there is no practice of the Minister having priority over a senator who is in continuation. That is all that is before us now. Whatever other arrangements may have been made in relation to the rising of the Senate and however important they may be to the Government, they are not important to the proper conduct of the business of the Senate. We must maintain the practice that the senator in continuation is called and that Ministers have no standing which places them ahead of senators who are listed to speak in continuation.

The PRESIDENT:

– I must point out that the practice is that when the business of the day is called on and a Minister rises to speak he has the call. I refer honourable senators to Standing Order 65 which states:

Any motion connected with the conduct of the business of the Senate may be moved by a Minister of the Crown at any time without Notice.

Senator Wriedt:

- Mr President, I wish to object in the strongest terms to your ruling. What we have seen here tonight has been a travesty of justice. We have seen the numbers used by the Government to suppress absolutely debate in this chamber. As far as we on this side of the chamber are concerned we will not remain in the chamber. The Government can do as it likes. If it wants to use the Hitlerite methods that it has used tonight it can use them on its own.

The PRESIDENT:

– I call the AttorneyGeneral.

Senator Georges:

- Mr President, I wish to speak to your ruling.

The PRESIDENT:

– The Minister has the call, Senator Georges.

Senator DURACK:

– I declare that the Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1979-80 is an urgent Bill and move:

That the Bill be considered an urgent Bill.

Senator Georges:

- Mr President -

The PRESIDENT:

– I have ruled.

Senator Georges:

– I know you have ruled, but I have certain rights.

The PRESIDENT:

– You cannot canvass my ruling.

Senator Georges:

– It is not a matter of canvassing. I could get to the point of disagreeing with your ruling. What happens then?

Senator Walters:

– You have not got a seconder.

Senator Georges:

– Exactly. The honourable senator should not worry about it. That is the point to which the Government has brought us. There are reasons tonight why members of the Opposition have been absent. I think the Government Whip was aware of those reasons.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Georges, you should have raised that matter before now.

Senator Georges:

– I know that, but let me put it to you very clearly that the precedents were established earlier in the piece when there was a breach of faith. The procedures of the Senate are now being disrupted. Opposition senators have taken a view- the Opposition feels strongly about this- and they have moved out of the Senate chamber. If we had not taken that view I would have moved dissent from your ruling, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT:

– You cannot speak any further, Senator Georges. The question is: That Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1979-80 be considered an urgent Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Allotment of Time

Motion (by Senator Durack) agreed to:

That the time allotted for the consideration of the remainder of the Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1979-80 be until 1 1.15 p.m. this day.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator PETER BAUME:
New South Wales

– I wish to take a couple of moments of the Committee’s time to ask some questions in relation to Estimate Committee C, while we rearrange ourselves. One question relates to health and other social service matters. I wish to ask whether any amounts for hospital construction are included in that group of Estimates.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– The answer is yes.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2463

QUESTION

FUEL TAXATION AND WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY LEGISLATION

Declaration of urgency

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I declare that the following Bills are urgent Bills, namely, the Diesel Fuel Taxation (Administration) Amendment Bill 1980 and the Wireless Telegraphy Amendment Bill 1 980, and move:

That the Bills be considered urgent Bills.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Allotment of Time

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I move:

And I move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2463

DIESEL FUEL TAXATION (ADMINISTRATION) AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 25 March, on motion by Senator Scott:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2463

WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Second Reading

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

-I move:

This Bill is a simple proposal for an amendment to the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1905. It is to correct an injustice. The Act was introduced and passed at a time when wireless telegraphy was in its infancy. That system, so much a part of our every day life, was not even in operation in Australia. The new Parliament of the Commonwealth, then only four years from its first sitting, decided to support and, in fact, strengthen the approach proposed by the then Governmentthat is, that like posts and telegraphs, this aspect of the communications system should be a government monopoly.

Accordingly, the Wireless Telegraphy Act contains provisions which were designed to ensure and protect a government monopoly. It contains a total prohibition against the use of radio. It contains a penalty of five years’ imprisonment for the unlawful use of radio. It also contains a provision for the automatic forfeiture of any equipment unlawfully used. Those provisions were, in 1905, seen as appropriate to protect what was then not only intended to be a government monopoly but also as a means by which would-be traitors could provide information to an enemy.

Today the wheel has totally turned. Today sections of the community are required by law to instal and use two-way radio. Fishermen, aircraft operators and others are required to purchase, install, licence and use two-way radios. The Wireless Telegraphy Act is now the basis of a licensing system to control community, in some cases compulsory, use of wireless telegraphy. However, the anachronistic and draconian provisions for heavy penalties and automatic forfeiture now apply to citizens whose only offence is to fail to pay a licence fee upon the due date.

Two-way radios of the type fitted to many fishing boats in Australian waters cost anywhere between $2,000 and $10,000. Yet, if a fisherman forgets, omits or otherwise fails to pay his $25 or $50 licence fee on the due date, he not only is liable to imprisonment for five years but also incurs automatic forfeiture of his radio equipment, the return of which a court is powerless to permit, or direct. Nor is there any power for the Minister to direct, after an offender has been dealt with by the court, that the equipment be returned. The situation is recognised as being both harsh and unconscionable and the result of a classical anachronism.

Therefore, this Bill proposes to amend the Wireless Telegraphy Act to give to the Minister a discretion to direct the return to the owner of otherwise forfeited equipment. The passage of the Bill will not only correct an anomalous situation but also enable a particular injustice to be rectified. Otherwise a fisherman may not only be fined by a court for failure to pay his licence fee upon the due date, suffer the loss of many thousands of dollars of income in the period during which he cannot use his boat- because it is not equipped with the legally required radio equipment- but also suffer the loss by forfeiture of $4,500 worth of radio equipment.

I ask honourable senators to join me in correcting a particular injustice and in providing for the elimination of other potential injustices which will occur unless the anachronism is corrected.

Senator PETER BAUME:
New South Wales

– I wish very briefly to note for the record that this is a private member’s Bill.

Senator Puplick:

– It is only the ninth ever.

Senator PETER BAUME:

-My colleague, Senator Puplick, takes up the point that I wish to place on the public record. Since Federation very few private member’s Bills have been successfully advanced and carried into law. We have reason to believe that Senator Rae’s proposal will meet with the approval of honourable members on both sides in both Houses of the Parliament. If so, it will be but the ninth private member’s Bill to have been carried into law since Federation. It reflects great credit upon our colleague and upon the Parliament that such Bills can be considered and passed into law.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

Senator RAE (Tasmania)- by leaveNotwithstanding that Opposition members are not present I would like to include them in the remarks that I wish to make. I thank honourable senators on both sides of the chamber for their assistance in correcting what I saw as an anomalous situation in which an injustice needed correction. I simply wish to take this opportunity to thank everybody concerned for the opportunity to do so.

page 2464

ADJOURNMENT

The Senate

Motion (by Senator Durack) proposed:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator TEAGUE:
South Australia

– I rise only briefly to make a personal explanation. This evening in the Senate at one stage there were a series of interjections, one of which was made by Senator McLaren, reflecting on me. Because of the relative uproar at the time Hansard may not have recorded the statement but it was heard by some senators, one of whom described it to me as being particularly snaky in intent. I therefore wish to identify this interjection and to deny it. Senator McLaren’s statement was that I had sought pre-selection in the Australian Labor Party and that I, regarding this as an easy ride to Parliament, had then decided on the Liberal Party. Nothing of this statement is true. I have never sought ALP pre-selection nor have I ever sought membership of the Labor Party.

Senator PETER BAUME:
New South Wales

– When the Hansard of today ‘s proceedings is published it will be noted that in the divisions that took place early in the day the names of senators on either side who were paired will appear. However, it will be apparent that there were no pairs in the dozen or so divisions that have taken place this evening. It is necessary to indicate that all pairs are made through the usual channels. The Opposition indicated there would be no pairs for the evening following the declaration of urgent Bills. I thought this should be put on record in case certain senators who were not present tonight wondered why their names did not appear on the list of paired senators.

We did not have a very great program to achieve today. In fact it was a very modest program. The program consisted of two Appropriation Bills and two or three other Bills.

That program has now been achieved. It was our view, having made arrangements through the usual channels, that the program could be achieved. It is worth putting on record that today we debated a matter of public importance which cut into the time of the Senate. Following this we had debate on the suspension of Standing Orders to bring on another matter which also cut into the time available for Government Business. We sought to make progress in respect of Appropriation Bill (No. 3). We sought to leave time for adequate discussion on the various estimates in this legislation. However, seven speakers in a row from the Opposition took their full time. It was apparent to us, when the first group of estimates was being considered, that no effort was made to expedite the business. I must indicate that some senators who do not go home at the weekend, or who are not going home this weekend, had no intention of getting the program through with any expedition. It was quite clear by late this afternoon that we were faced with a policy of attrition. It was for that reason that the Government found it necessary and desirable to act as it did tonight.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2465

PAPER

The following paper was presented, pursuant to statute:

Canberra College of Advanced Education ActStatutes No. 43- Academic Progress Amendment 1980.

Senate adjourned at 10.59 p.m.

page 2466

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Invalid Pensions (Question No. 2558)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 18 March 1980:

  1. How many reviews of invalid pensions have been made classified in terms of the country to which the invalid pensions would have been sent, in each quarter of 1977, 1 978 and 1 979, under the portability provisions of the Social Services Act 1 947.
  2. How many of the above were (a) accepted and (b) rejected in each classification and for each quarter.
Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. and (2) Statistics of the type requested by the honourable senator are not available. However, I am advised that the majority of cases paid through the Geneva office were reviewed at least once between 1977 and October 1979 when a regular annual review was reintroduced. Cases paid through the London office were limited to time of arrival and special reviews until an annual review was re-introduced in January 1979.

West Northam Aged Persons Hostel (Question No. 2654)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 15 April 1980:

Will the Department of Social Security be providing funds in this financial year for the West Northam Aged Persons Hostel, operated by the Town of Northam Council from the $22 5m grant for the aged or disabled announced by the Minister in February 1980.

Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

No. I am advised that there is no current application for assistance under the aged or disabled persons’ accommodation program by the Town of Northam Council.

However, the Council has received almost $4,000 in food and accommodation subsidy for the West Northam Hostel under the Homeless Persons Assistance Act. The Council has made application for a capital grant for roof repairs, additional ablutions, and for various other alterations to the West Northam Hostel under that Act.

Sandalwood (Question No. 2661)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 15 April 1980:

What legislation and regulations deal with the taking and export of sandalwood from Australia.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

Commercially significant stands of sandalwood are found only in Western Australia. The pulling of sandalwood in Western Australia is controlled by the Forests Act and Forests Act Regualtions 1 9 1 8- 1 976 and the Sandalwood Act 1929-1934. Legislation effectively controls production on both Crown and private land.

Export of sandalwood from Australia is controlled by the Commonwealth Government under the Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations of the Customs Act 1901.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 16 May 1980, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1980/19800516_senate_31_s85/>.